You know Peter, Americans have always wanted to be well armed in defense against a tyranical government. That is really what our Second Amendment was written for. It goes back to King George III. Colonials using those squirrel rifles to knock off British officers wasn't cricket. But having freedom does entail some risks to us all, not just LEOs. Hoodlums and gangsters like firepower, too. And we have all seen just recently in Arizona what mayhem a demented person with a Glock can cause. But the sin is in the user, not the round or the weapon. I'm quite sure that any of my .223 rifles could penetrate the vests most LEOs wear. I have no plans to find out, though. I also have no need of the FN "vest puncher" pistol. But in the event of a complete totalitarian takeover, it would be nice to know that at least some of my fellow peasants could resist the King's knights in their armor with a pistol. You know, peasants were not allowed to own swords, either.
This is exactly my feelings on the topic.
To question the legitimacy of any cartridge or gun because it poses a threat to law enforcement is the same as questioning spoons for making people fat.
Spoons don't make people fat, and bullets designed to penetrate armor are no more dangerous than a BB for those of us that aren't criminals.
Once we buy into the "for the greater good" argument we might as well line up and wait for our turn in the "shower" at the FEMA camp.
I want the most potent equipment to become and remain available to the civilian population because as Vic stated: the Second Amendment is specifically designed to be used as a defense against tyranny. The purpose for the 2nd was brilliant, because the threat of tyranny will never cease to exist...and therefore...the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms should never be infringed.
