Seems to me, a well regulated Militia needs assault weapons and not muzzle loaders.

No, it's not.

They are harder to control, pump shotguns can't be used if one of your arms are injured, too light loads won't stop an attacker, heavier loads blow right through walls and overpenetrate, they are not easily reloaded under stress and carry less ammo, they cannot be used by smaller stature people like my wife as effectively.

It's better than a handgun because it's easier to aim under stress, but it's in no way superior to an ar15 in any way for home defense.

 

You can cycle a pump with an injured arm, however we are in complete agreement about an AR. I personally use a folding stock AK with an AK 74 flash suppressor as my personal go to weapon at home.

 

With training yeah, but your average "buy a shotgun and throw it in the closet" owner would be at a loss how to do that.

Finger rolling reloads are pretty quick too, but again I doubt people like the person I was responding to knows how to do that.

I like the lighter fragmenting type varmint rounds for the AR better than the heavier 762 round...overpenetration is something I worry about.

 

Point taken. The 20 gauge is often overlooked especially with a good quality semi-auto. It's too bad they don't make a Remington Versamax Tactical in 20.

 

the exact number is unknown. But they do indeed happen, as has been pointed out to you.

The true ignorance demonstrated is the obsessive focus on the part of yourself and others relating to deaths attributed to firearms, as if the method utilized was more important than the fact that the life of another has been ended.

There are less than half a million machine guns in existence in the united states, that can legally be owned by private citizens.

However there are three hundred to five hundred million firearms in private circulation that not classified as machine guns, with forty one thousand more being added daily. At the lowest estimate the number of non-machine guns that would need to be registered is more than six hundred times greater than the number of machine guns. That is it amount that is simply too great to be properly cataloged in anything resembling a realistic manner.

The nation of Canada proved that it could not keep track of every rifle and shotgun that was in private ownership, despite their registration being mandatory, and they did not have even ten percent of the number of firearms to contend with.

Beyond such, firearms registration would ultimately do nothing whatsoever. It would not prevent a crime from being committed, nor would it keep the criminal element from acquiring firearms. Nor can criminal individuals be punished for failing to register whatever firearms they possess.

Pray tell exactly what are your credentials that make you qualified to determine such? What experience authorizes you to determine that only the shotgun is an appropriate firearm for matters of self and home defense, and than the carbine is completely unacceptable for such uses?

 

A simple internet search will prove that a lot of " experts" believe the best weapon for home defense is a pump shotgun. We are talking average person here not the person who can and does practice very regularly with their handgun. I have my own range and can do defense with any gun but my wife who doesn't really like guns is better off with a shotgun. Now that said i should also specify that I am talking in home defense not property intruders.

 

And that same internet search will show other experts picking an AR or a handgun for home defense, and defending those reasons with opinion. If overpenetration is a concern, you can find studies that indicate that large size shotgun shot and even JHP handgun rounds show a tendency to overpenetrate drywall. The 55 gr 5.56 surprisingly shows less of that tendency, and fragmenting varmint type rounds even less.

I'm a "internet expert", and my recommendations for home defense firearms are, in order:

1. The gun you own.
2. The gun you have at hand.
3. The gun you are comfortable/proficient with
4. And that best gun is XXXXX.

 

And there are those who believe the best weapon for home defense is a semi-automatic carbine. Ultimately which expert is correct in the matter, when the one who is citing them to defend their own standpoint, is completely incapable of breaking down their opinions in a coherent manner?

Handguns are not relevant when the talk is about rifles.

How so? Why is the shotgun the best option for her? What are its properties that make it a superior choice?

And there has been no evidence presented to actually show that a rifle carbine is unsuitable for use in a home defense scenario. So far it has been nothing more than your claim about how the use of a rifle is simply not intelligent, and how believing anything else is moronic.

 

For the 1st gun, in 1992, there was no background check. For the other two, it took <10 minutes.
Assault rifles and "assault weapons" are not the same thing.

 

Certainly

Your implied argument: they have stronger gun laws; the stronger gun laws must explain the lower gun deaths.
This is post hoc fallacy.
You are either ignorant of this, or you dishonestly made the argument anyway.
Thus, a fallacious appeal to ignorance/dishonesty

The right to keep and bear arms is not subject to someone's arbitrary standard of need.
Thus, regardless of any "need" for an 'assault weapon', the right to keep and bear one is protected by the Constitution.
You are either ignorant of this, or you dishonestly made the argument anyway.
Thus, a fallacious appeal to ignorance/dishonesty.

 

Yes... because registration of a firearm prevents its use in crime.

 

In virtually every setting, an M4-style AR is better suited for home defense than a shotgun, especially if chambered in 40S&W/10mm/45ACP.

 

It is apropos that the message is on a picture of a parent and a baby (and a firearm):

Just because people are able to reproduce, doesn't mean they are responsible enough to be parents.

Arguably, the problem has never been guns and bullets, but rather testicles and ovaries being made available to people unable or unwilling to train their kids to be responsible enough to own a gun.

 

I certainly am not a tyrant as I want to see armed citizens united in their quest to defeat government suppression such as that done by white cops against innocent blacks and other minorities.

By contrast, certain forum right wingers object to this:








My only objection to that photo is that they are not carrying bazookas and atop of Sherman tanks. If right wingers were not so prejudiced and inconsistent in their ideas, they would readily agree with me.

 

Is it legal for these people to own/possess a firearm?
Is brandishing a firearm legal where they are?
Is the answer to both a "yes"? Are you SURE?
If so, then I have no issue with it whatsoever.

What were you saying about being prejudiced in your ideas?

 

A quick perusal shows that none of the gun owners pictured have their fingers in the trigger guard, which is a flipping miracle for a group that size. Well played, ladies and gents.

Why would "right wingers" object to either?

 

I have yet to find right wingers who say that the solution to police repression of minorities lies in having large bands of fully armed Black Panthers and similar groups. The fact that they fail to approve of this solution is proof of their lack of principle.



I would love to see about 20,000 groups of people like that band above with Sherman tanks, bazookas, and high powered rifles. Then, the next time a while cop represses minorities, the band will engage in the type of street justice that will solve the problem once and for all. After all, this is what the 2d Amendment is all about. Agree?

 

Have you found so-called "right wingers" who say that the solution to corruption and abuse carried out by police officers is an armed response for the purpose of killing police officers? If so then demonstrate where it has been shown, and who has advocated for such.

 

Wait a minute - first, who said anything about 'killing'? Second, right wingers routinely applaud the actions of Tea Party types and Bundy crazies who arm themselves against government agents so as to avoid paying taxes. They say 2d Amendment rights trump government repression. Therefore, these same right wingers should say the same thing when it comes to police repression.

Why can't you right wingers be consistent in your ideas?

 

Has that solution been proposed on a national level? Is this the best solution to solve the problem of police repression of minorities?

No,the 2nd Amendment isn't about street justice. Are you having fun with your ridiculous arguments?

- - - Updated - - -

Why are you accusing me of being a right winger and supporting the actions of the Bundy's?

 

The 2d Amendment is about stopping government repression. Police are part of the government. Therefore, this part of the Constitution can be used to protect the citizenry from police crimes. Right wingers have no problem with using that argument to stop tax collection as in the Bundy matter or in stopping taxation in the form of the ACA so they should have no problem with this as well.

This is not "street justice" as you claim but about Constitutional rights and their illegal suppression by the government.

Dunno if you in particular support the crazed Bundy's and did not accuse you of doing so. However, if you wish to do it that is your right to have any opinion you wish.



So sad, but not unusual, to see forum right wingers suddenly abandon the 2d Amendment when it doesn't suit them. But, once again, it proves their lack of principle.

 

we've got them for good reason and we're also not giving them up (for good reason). The Europeans are finding OUT why its bad idea to give up your guns. The muz are taking over without a fight.

 

Didn't you write this: "I would love to see about 20,000 groups of people like that band above with Sherman tanks, bazookas, and high powered rifles. Then, the next time a while cop represses minorities, the band will engage in the type of street justice that will solve the problem once and for all."

What about when it's black cops doing the suppression?

"Black officers account for a little more than 10 percent of all fatal police shootings. Of those they kill, though, 78 percent were black."

https://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white

 

Why are you discussing an armed presence of minorities as being a solution to police officers acting in a manner that supposedly represses minorities? What is the purpose of this armed presence in such instances?

Not everyone who disagrees with whatever nonsense is being presented, is politically aligned with right wing conservative republicans.

That matter aside, you are the one attempting to claim that you are not advocating vigilante street justice, when your exact words included street justice. Why can you not be consistent in what you present?

 

Emphasis on "justice" and constitutional rights.