I’m not a “liberal” by any means, but after independently thinking through guns and ammunition, I tend to agree with the liberal “side.” The right to bear arms and load up on explosive or armor-piercing ammunition is not necessary for private individuals. In this age, I find a lack of threats to justify personal assault rifles, armor-piercing bullets, incendiary bullets or bullets with depleted uranium for an explosive impact.

Back in 1791 when the Second Amendment was drafted, there were legitimate threats close to home: We had the Native Americans, the British and the French along all of our borders. Today it’s a bit different. You can argue for the need to protect your private person, but until a British battalion tries to steal your jewelry, such an argument excludes .50-caliber rounds and ammunition designed to pierce concrete walls.

Besides, if the British ever did try to take your rings, you might want to consider letting the U.S. military handle them. We have that now, an excellent, well-trained, well-armed army. They have all the armor-piercing, explosive, incendiary and frangible bullets they need to deal with the British. I don’t see much need to carry a .50-caliber rifle through the streets of Ames, Iowa. After all, isn’t that why we went into Iraq, to keep our streets safe?

I’m sure that any federal marshal would agree that the forms of armament available need restrictions. Hollowed bullets and armor-piercing bullets seem to have little use except in combat settings. You can’t eat a deer that’s been gruesomely scattered across the woodland floor or thrown into the canopy. I’d prefer to keep such destructive power in the hands of officers and experts rather than turn such dangerous ammunitions against them.

Maybe the term “armor-piercing” bullet needs more qualification. Take this as a separate issue from assault rifles, .50-caliber bullets or explosive bullets. I defend that those are combat-oriented and a danger to have in the hands of average citizens who are untrained to use them and have no adequate reason to carry them. Some bullets, however, have legitimate purposes for citizens. For example, I would never want to ban hunting rifles or sports rifles. Coming from Minnesota and being immersed in a hunting family, I understand the use of a rifle to feed your family and enjoy the wild.

Hunting rifles may be armor-piercing, but are they designed with a “hardened penetrator built into a copper or cupronickel shell” that seems to be the composition of specific armor-piercing shells? I think we’re intelligent enough to parse the term and ban parts we see fit while allowing for others. We can keep armor-piercing bullets such as ammunition used to hunt or shoot for sport, while banning others. The key is to look at the issue critically and ask what’s the purpose of the bullet.

It’s true, we need to define our terms of use. Bans on armor-piercing bullets, if we decide to make them, need to be maneuvered so that we don’t eliminate all arms. I want safer streets, I want safer gun holders, but I also want the right to hunt and shoot for sport. New questions must be raised, what type of armor does the term “armor-piercing bullet” apply to? If it’s a basic nylon vest, we may eliminate most arms. How are specific armor-piercing bullets designed differently from ammunition for a hunting rifle? Generally, what is the purpose for this specific type of ammunition? We can decide these questions.

No issue is so simple that we can make conclusions solely based on what we think we know. When it comes to armor-piercing bullets, let’s hear the whole argument out and take it one by one. There may be some armor-piercing bullets we don’t want to do away with. Simply because most bullets pierce nylon vests is no reason to illegalize them all. Lucky it doesn’t have to be one or the other. I think we can ban armor-piercing bullets, but keep our hunting, too.