Where do you come up with this nonsense? You are bouncing all over the board here (it's not difficult to address individual points like I did, it makes the debate much more cogent) so I'll start with this: Six year olds buying guns? In what world? And yes, Ar15 platform semi-autos have replaced shotguns in many police departments, especially out west: https://www.policeone.com/police-pr...-Selecting-a-patrol-rifle-A-systems-approach/ You might watch the occasional cop show on TV and figure yourself an expert? This is the hyperbole liberals/progressives/socialists use when they deny wanting to disarm Americans. And re hunting pigs; the 2A has as much to do with hunting as it does with golf. This is another fallacy leftists attempt to weave into the conversation. You brought up cell phones being regulated. So? Is the right to possess cell phones in the constitution? Yet more leftist chattering. And you are perfectly making my point, btw; since terrorists might use a cell phone to explode an IED, should all cell phones be banned? Of course not. So when a nutjob or criminal (who would be off the streets if not for left wingers) uses a gun, how is this different? Other than the possession of firearms is protected by the 2a, while cell phones are not? Do you see how foolish your reasoning has became? I agree that various court rulings have impacted the 2A, one of the most recent being the Heller decision where SCOTUS ruled individuals do have a right to possess firearms. Leftists hate this ruling, why?
Here's why an AR would arguably make a better home defense weapon than the shotgun. 1. Shorter barrel. Without all the paperwork and waiting period you can get a 16 inch barrel on a rifle over an 18 inch barrel on a shotgun. And if you know anything about fighting in close quarters, the shorter, the better. 2. More ammo. Even LEOs miss more times than they hit in a high stress situation and with the possibility of multiple attackers you want as much ammo you can carry. A shotgun would hold at most 9 rounds and by then you'll negate point 1. The only ones that solve that problem are bulpups and siagas and they have drawbacks. 3. Ease of use. Most of the time when you buy a shotgun it's pump action. And despite popular belief they are hard to work especially under duress. You can short stroke it, you can forget to pump the action altogether, you can forget a lot of things and make it not work. With an AR all you have to do is flip the safety off. Now there are semi shotguns but to my understanding, a quality semi is heavier than a pump and that's something to consider especially at close quarters. Not to mention that an AR is more "one size fits all" than shotguns. You can adjust the stock to your liking or switch it out for a caliber you favor. Anyone can pick up an AR and adjust it to their needs and be accurate. Shotguns tend to be made for the big guys. 4. Low recoil. ARs have much lower recoil but still have the knockdown power than the shotgun. If you want lower recoil on a shotgun then you either half to have reduced buckshot, birdshot which is ill advised, or switch to 20 gauge and you have a limited amount of customizability. If you're concern about over penetrating with a rifle then neither a shotgun nor pistol is going to solve that while at the same time be affective. All defensive rounds will penetrate walls but ARs in .223/5.56 will penetrate less than pistols. 5. Parts and accessories. You can put just about anything on the AR except for the kitchen sink. Shotguns have a limited supply.
AR in.223 is acceptable if you live on a large, very large, lot......maybe. That's it. Otherwise, it is way down the list. A shot gun in 20 ga has very acceptable recoil and offers much more variety of ammo to accommodate the local. Distance in homes is immaterial. Pistols and recovers are better still and much easier to handle inside the home. Revolvers offer the best combination of ammunition choices and function. They are the easiest to operate in a surprise situation and the most fool proof to train on. One size fits all. High cap autos are fine but ARs are way over rated. Look at any legit gun mag and standard side arms and shot guns are preferred in the vast majority of articles. Take your pick. Self defense in public areas, ARs are totally useless. Bottom line, you are better off arguing it as a hunting weapon then a practical self defense for citizens.
"In the past decade or so, police officers on the beat began carrying AR-15 platform .223 semi-auto rifles. As a result, this type of rifle became popular with many Americans." Let's look at one statement. This is absolutely false when you try to make one area with large land mass which you now have settle on, as a place that is representative of police forces in general. Beat officers can be in cars or in the open and in both cases, they are "patrol car carried" weapons and accesable but not for public display. They are not the first common weapon of choice but a backup, like a shot gun still IS in many parts of the country. You may find in some areas, carrying a weapon of this type is preferable by some police, but you are wrong to say these weapons have replaced shot guns. They are an adjunct to fill a different roll. Tell me where the entire force, including state police, have replaced their shot guns with these weapons. They are for a specific task. They do better in some, shot guns are better in others. Some are trying to make the AR15 as a "common weapon" to use as an argument that it is good for self defense. You can barely make a case for it for home defense, and then only if you have lots of land is it practical. You are right about one thing. They are popular with many Americans, but, for them, It is nothing more then a toy in preparation for a Hitler take over by the most fearful. Personally, in semi auto .223 , I don't care who has one as it's just a glorified semi auto hunting rifle that's good only for pigs and plinking. But for anyother purpose outside of law enforcement, it's way down on the list of weapons civilians have a real need for.
Then following such logic, the AR-15 should be classified as unacceptable for police-related use in an urban environment, correct?
Then prove that this is the case. Show us which police precincts have not phased out shotguns in favor of AR-15s for duty weapons. Explain how and why this is the case. The concept of need has no basis in this discussion, as there is no basis of need found in the constitution. What exactly do people need, that they cannot live without? Should anything and everything that they do not need not be available to them because it provides no justified, constructive benefit to their existence?
Then how come police don't use that? Why do police use the AR? With the right ammo ARs penetrate LESS than pistols. Plus you still have the issue of low ammo. You mean like these? http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/5/26/the-ar-for-home-defense-one-experts-opinion/ http://www.gundigest.com/tactical-gear/ar-15-ideal-home-defense-guns http://www.recoilweb.com/ar-vs-shotgun-for-home-defense-again-2-of-2-39203.html My links says otherwise.
Then again you are wrong, I have carried an AR, in public areas, with nobody the wiser too..... A shotgun will make you deaf, an AR in .300 Blackout Subsonic Ammo will make less noise even before you add a suppressor...... You have no idea what self defense is.....
Ha ha . Now you're comparing an offensive weapon with back up and other weapons and firing from cover with; waking up half asleep in the middle of the night half asleep with your loved ones in the adjacent room. You obviously weren't a cop...unless you were the one sleeping after go gorging a donut.
So, you as a cop are speaking for everyone in America ? I am sorry you have trouble reading my actual reply with respect to the .223, I don't even have to defend my positon. Just read references if you dare. If you find one individual out of ten who recommends this weapon in .223 as a better home defense gun over these more obvious ones, let's see them. There are VERY few cops who would ever agree with civilians having this gun for home defense. I always couched my opinion on the 223 caliber. Did you get that ? So you're reply is out of line.
Prove you are not wrong ? Because you can't answer my assertion, you're working backwards. That is a sure sign you are wrong. You are one who is waiting for the next Hitler assault and have way too much free time on your hands. Let me repeat...I don't care what your fears are and what you have for home defense if it's legal and I don't live next door. I don't want my neighbor's waking up from a sound sleep and blazing away with an AR15 from a 30 round clip. . Sorry that little word, "need" has your fruit of the looms inside out. I would deal with it and move on.
Are you still providing us your cop show expertise? AR15s or Rugar Mini 14s (both use .223 caliber rounds) are carried by may police departments, often in urban environments. Some also continue to carry shotguns, but many agencies have designated these for less than lethal rounds so there is not a tragic mistake made. Are you aware of what I'm talking about? Has this topic been covered on your cop shows? Here is info about the California Highway Patrol, since you seemed obsessed with state police agencies for some reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Highway_Patrol#Duty_weapons In the Las Angels basin and San Francisco Bay Area, most beat officers carry a .223 rifle in their car. And let's get back to Heller: Why are liberals/progressives/socialists so strident in their opposition to this SCOTUS decision? Why are you avoiding answering this question?
We are glad that you clarified instead of insinuating that AR15 have replaced the shotguns and they were Carried by all cops on the beat. They are patrol car carried. You like to throw a few facts out there just to pretend you know something more then I. You said nothing to prove anything wrong in my statements. Your original quote. " I agree that various court rulings have impacted the 2A, one of the most recent being the Heller decision where SCOTUS ruled individuals do have a right to possess firearms. " First, you miss quote the ruling. This is your interpretation but you are incomplete, which again puts us in doubt to your willingness to debate these issues honestly. I seldom hear any acknowledged that firearms are regulated federally and by state and the every ruling by the Supreme Court on this issue has stipulated in the ruling that the bill of rights are not absolute and they can be subject to regulation. This part is again reaffirmed in the Heller case. In reality, only Qualified individuals have the right to have a handgun in the city in question and that was specifically addressed in this case by Scalia in the majority ruling. As a matter of fact, both the "preamble" to the ruling and the ruling itself took pains to make this point. Heller was allowed to keep handgun in his home if, like any other carried handgun, he was licensed to have that particular weapon. To be specific, the ruling allowed the handgun , ONLY if it were licensed according to the existing city law. The ruling specifically referred to the owner Heller being "qualified" too and the gun being licensed as a prerequisite for this individual to have the right to have a handgun in the home. It said nothing about a general right to bear firearms anywhere including the home, unlicensed. The ruling made no reference to relaxing that regulation and stipulated that as a prerequisite to being allowed in agreement with both Heller and his attorneys. So, all individuals DO NOT have the right to firearms in the home by the ruling. Qualified and licensed individuals in this city had the right to license a handgun in the home. This is in complete agreement with previous rulings. The city of Chicago over stepped their bounds, IMO, by refusing to licence Heller to have an operable handgun in the home even with a license. It was wrong. . This was banning a handgun or keeping it locked and inoperable. I see nothing wrong with the ruling. Federal laws ALL qualify firearm ownership rights and some states go a little father in their qualifications, like Illinois. This state requires purchase permits for weapons and ammunition as well. That has not been challenged by Heller and nether has the citie's licensing procedure. It said nothing about any other type of weapon as from memory, I believe the ruling stipulated that handguns were common for self defense in the home. So, under this context, this "liberal" has no problem with the ruling whatsoever. I have a problem with banning firearms in general, but I have no problem regulating them federally. If you don't see the distinction, that's your problem.
"Are you still providing us your cop show expertise?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Highway_Patrol#Duty_weapons Did you read your own reference for California police weapons ( which is only California and not a blanket statement) Weaponry includes both the Assault Style rifle and a Shotgun. It does not replace the shotgun with the rifle as you claimed. Guess my knowledge is more then "your cop show" expertise. Your's must be from Netflix. You have still yet to show anything I have said, incorrect. You throw a lot of mud, but it sticks only to yours truly.
Btw, to be clear. "Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64."
I see I hit a nerve there mentioning your expertise on police matters must come from watching cop shows. And quite a clever rejoinder on you part. Why do leftists want to overturn Heller? Probably because it provided for an individual's right to possess a firearm: "The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right." https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php Sure, Scalia confirmed that indiviual states and cities could impose specific regulations, but it was the first time a court ruled that an individual had a right, under the 2A, to possess a firearm. Here, I'll let one of the anti-gun nut groups explain it to you: "In considering the meaning of the Second Amendment for the first time in 70 years, the Court examined whether the Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, or only protects firearm possession connected to service in a state militia. In a radical departure from its previous interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court held that the Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, and struck down the handgun possession ban as well as the safe storage law (which had no exception for self-defense). http://smartgunlaws.org/understanding-district-of-columbia-v-heller/ Hmm, seemed to leave that part out, didntcha? This is why you wingers went nuts and want to "rehear" Heller if another leftist judge is appointed to SCOTUS. Right?
That doesn't sound like much of a right. I can pay cash for a gun from a private party and openly carry it on my property without any documentation or conceal it in my car. With my License To Carry, I can carry my gun in a holster just about anywhere in the state of Texas. Heller's rights suck in DC, just like everybody else's.
"Why do leftists want to overturn Heller? Probably because it provided for an individual's right to possess a firearm:" If you think you know and answer, why ask the question ? Again, you provide the wrong answer. Heler does not provide " any" individual's right to carry a hand gun ( you forget this part too) in the home. It provides a qualified individual the right to obtain a licensed firearm, which had to be renewed each year. Heller was as a what ? A special cop already who already qualified to carry a hand gun. He wanted one in the home he did not have to make inoperable. Your " lefty liberals" would like nothing more then this to be the gold standard For a federal law across the nation. Ie. Qualified individuals only, could have a hand gun in their own home only if they obtained a license. Why would any lefty in their right mind not want that as a federal law right " out of the box". Btw, let's get one thing straight about your distain for liberals. I can make this unqualified statement with confidence. The majority of scientists who have developed your heart medicines, polymers for your Glocks, safety devices for cars, your cell phones and production techniques for manufacturing are highly educated liberals. Check the politics of those who worked on the Manhattan project. You couildn' even find the "millions of years" old oil in the ground without liberal sponsored science. So, liberal ideas have been saving your astoroid every minute of every day for thousands of years. Yes, my conservative friends. Liberals do not think the earth is just 6000 years old. This iis the same idea that that keeps you conservatives so backwards, they contribute so little to science, you would still be dying early of diseases and cowering in fear without " the liberal science community " deal , with it. It's you guys who are the strange and generally backwards and poorly informed bunch.
According to pew Polls Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.
If you believe your interests are not being served by bought-and-paid-for corrupt representatives, then it is up to you to change that. If you vote for Hillary this time, then you're just voting for more of that which you lament.
And what in the wide wide world of sports does this have to do with leftists hating the Heller decision, cops carrying AR15s in their cars, the 2A being protected just as much as the 1A in the Bill or Rights and everything else we've been discussing? And why do you despise the Heller decision?
Show me where I said I disagreed with the Heller decision...quote it ! It has everything to do with your constant side bar remarks about lefty liberals and constantly insinuating we all think alike and know little about anything. We actually know the second amendment, have guns and don't see anything wrong with the Heller decision. You classify all liberals as banners. That as is unthinking as classifying us as not knowing the difference between regulating and banning. I know the difference. Chicago tried to ban handguns from qualified people. I always believed qualified people should have access to handguns. Most lefties feel the same way because we believe in science....behavioral science. LIBERAL REP. Dianne Feinstein has a Carry Permit and carries. . You guys make dillusional remarks about lefties. Science is the key to understanding all that is successful, including proper gun regulation.
