A 30-06 can pierce armor. .223 can pierce armor. 7.62 can pierce armor. It depends on what the standard for "armor" is. Depends on the range from target. Depends on bullet type (FMJ vs SP/HP).
None of those are called "armor piercing" by people with a clue, but politicians and judges aren't known for having a clue about this stuff, particularly when they have mothers against guns or the brady campaign or whatever other group calling press conferences in front of dead kids or police officers homes and staging protests on the capital steps.
You don't see the need for instant background checks? Do you mean this as "the background check should take as along as the government wants it to, instant is too fast" or "we don't need a background check"?
And your contention that no president has signed a law confiscating guns misses the point entirely. If the law that's proposed and signed prevents you or me from buying a gun that was lawfully owned and purchased yesterday, that's just as bad. If a new law prevents any new sales of a gun because it shoots a bullet .05" larger in diameter than another legal round, how is that "common sense"? If the new law prevents the manufacture and sale of a gun that doesn't incorporate some theoretical, unproven, unavailable technology, thus creating a virtual ban on new guns, how is that "common sense"? Sure, your neighbor has his still, but he can't sell it to you anymore, you can't buy one from the gun shop anymore, you may not be able to inherit your father's, etc. DC handgun ban, Illinois handgun ban, NJ handgun ban, NYC virtual handgun ban and laws prohibiting transport of any gun through it, "Assault Weapons Ban", New Orleans Katrina gun confiscation, overly subjective, highly restrictive handgun permitting regimes in NY state and others, "safe" storage regulations preventing easy ready-to-use accessibility, and the list goes on. All or most of these these are considered "reasonable" and "common sense" by many people, including President-Elect Obama and his VP Biden based on their histories.
You seem to be willing to ignore the mountain of evidence of liberal Democrat intent on severely limiting gun ownership, hunting and shooting sports, and even home self defense (much less self-defense while out and about) through ever increasing permit fees, dealer fees, dealer regulations and laws, gun range zoning and property taxing, distance from schools laws, distance from homes for discharge regs, time limited renewable permit schemes, caliber limit laws, semi-auto limitations and ban proposals, gun registration schemes, broader and broader ballistics cartridge case database schemes, gun and ammo specific excise taxes from anywhere up to 150% and more, and on and on. Just because rational people have been successful in fending off many such attempts in past years is no reason to not fear and work against such efforts in the upcoming administrations, federal and state. Hell, the same liberal forces have been working for decades to get UN level treaties in place with US acceptance and participation to ban all small arms ownership and sales!
Maybe Obama will come down on the side of gun owners, but there is nothing at all in his past to suggest that he's a friend of you or me or anyone interested in owning and using guns for any purpose from hunting to home defense to collection. Democrat control of congress, under the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, and many others does much to increase the chances of many non-"common sense" gun laws being passed. We're literally at the mercy of a handful of "blue dog" democrats. Maybe you're comfortable with that, I'm not.
And for the love of God, please stop with the flame thrower and nuclear weapon thing. Gun control laws have nothing to do with these two weapons. Please lets talk about something within reach of people and this legislative effort. 50BMG rifles? .50 cal handguns? .600 cal rifles? .50 cal muzzleloaders? Slug shotgun rounds? Frangible ammo? Armor piercing ammo? If you're in favor of an "assault weapons" ban, what should be included? Semi auto AR-15, AK, SKS rifles, .308 cal AR frame rifles, semi-auto shotguns? Bayonet lugs? Pistol grips on rifles or shotguns? 10 round mags vs 5, 6, 12 or 15 or 16 or 20 or 30, etc? 12" barrel vs 14" vs 16" vs 20" vs 24"? A muzzle break? Detatchable mag vs build in?
And why outlaw any of these? How often are they actually used in a crime? Has a crime wave, much less an mild increase, with these weapons swept the nation since the 1994 law lapsed? Those who do use them in a crime, how likely are they to be dissuaded by a law from acquiring them and large cap mags or other banned items? Is it worth limiting the freedom and purchase/ownership/sporting/hunting/self-defense rights of millions of people for the dubious potential for a very small reduction in crimes where such weapons are used (already a vanishingly small number) and for which the perp is going to be dissuaded by such laws? Where's the common sense in that?
There are laws and regs I do support being enacted, but they are only a very small sliver of what it proposed and supported by anti-gun politicians and lobbyists, a group in which I include both Obama and Biden and conrgessional leadership. I do not trust these people to hit upon "common sense" and stop, they will keep right on going so long as people don't oppose them or aren't paying attention.
Lastly, in so far as the NRA ibeing funded and supported in part by gun manufacturers and thus represent their agenda to some extent, I'm completely fine with that. Gun makers want to sell their wares. I want to buy them and I want them to be able to sell. Our interests are sympatico on just about everything. And I'm fine with them negotiating from a place of maximized freedom, if they started from their and my common sense endgame then they would get rolled by the opposition.