Obama is not proposing to ban hunting ammunition. And he did not, as claimed in an NRA TV spot featuring a Virginia hunter named Karl Rusch, vote to "ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition." What Obama voted for was a measure to ban "armor-piercing" ammunition, which the measure's sponsor has said repeatedly would not cover hunting ammunition.
So, apparently, banning cop-killer bullets that aren't used in hunting is a bad thing now. I'm glad the NRA and Mr. Rusch cleared that up.
It falls on deaf ears. They think that limiting the right to own a grenade launcher is the same as limiting the right to own a deer rifle.
Kennedy's proposed amendment is significantly different than the previous armor-piercing laws.
Previous laws required a "content standard", in that they banned or restricted ammunition with a significant amount of steel, titanium, or other hardened metal core.
Kennedy's amendment (the one Obama supports) would ban any ammunition that has more penetrating capability than "standard" ammunition of the same caliber. Unfortunately, the definition of "standard" is left wide open, and could easily be defined as whatever the politicians want it to be.
However, here is a fun little factoid for you, since you are fear-mongering with the "cop-killer bullets" meme - four (if not more) of the most-common hunting rifle calibers in America can ALL penetrate Type I, II-A, II, and III-A body armor. And few police departments equip their officers with anything more significant than that, due to weight, cost, and heat problems.
So, please, tell me again how banning ammunition that can penetrate any armor would not ban hunnting ammunition?