[ithaca_deerslayer]

My own my mother, on a Christmas phone call, asks my opinion of assault weapons. After explaining to her that there is no such thing and that they just look like army guns, and describing the difference between automatic army guns versus semi-automatic civilian guns. . .

She asks, "Why do you need one of these so-called assault weapons anyway?!"

My final convincing response to her was, "Why do the police need them?" To defend themselves from bad guys, she said. "Well, that's the same reason I need them." Oh, that's true, she said, as if a light bulb had gone on.

Yup, I continued, the same bad guys the police face are the same bad guys any civilian might need to fight off. Whatever the police need for defense, I need too.

Please feel free to pass this on: If the police need "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, we need them too

Edited to add:
Obvioulsly it should be undertood the context is in when the bad guys come looking for us, and not about us civilians going out looking for bad guys

[BodymoreMurderland]

Many police departments do not issue or allow rifles.

[Rabbi]

I dont disagree, but it is an argument with a lot of holes in it.

Do you need handcuffs? Do you need the ability to pull people over? Do you need to wear body armor all day? Do you need the legal obligation to act in all crimes you see? ...and a bunch of other things.

Lets be honest, the Police, Doctors, Dentists, Locksmiths...and a lot of other professions do things you cant and probably shouldnt.

Again, I agree with you but poeple on all sides focus on the guns. When was the last time you wore body armor all day long? When was the last time you went to a driving skills class? When was the last time you went to a class to learn how to deescalate violent situations with your words? (Point being here, again, people tend to focus on the guns when there is so much far more likely that they neglect)

[Patchman]

Strangly enough, most agencies for large urban areas/inner cities only issue handguns to their patrol cops. And as you know, patrol is who are the first ones to come upon unknown, unstable situations.

If a gun is available to the public, LE should be allowed to have it.

[FullClip]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

................Do you need handcuffs? ....................

Only if she's in an especially "naughty" mood!!








Sorry...couldn't help myself...

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

I dont disagree, but it is an argument with a lot of holes in it.

Do you need the ability to pull people over?

Obvioulsly it should be undertood the context is in when the bad guys come looking for us, and not about us civilians going out looking for bad guys

[Rabbi]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

Obvioulsly it should be undertood the context is in when the bad guys come looking for us, and not about us civilians going out looking for bad guys

People who argue against your points dont care about *your* contest. They just look at your words.

Again, so this doesnt become about me, I agree with you but the argument is still fairly poor. It is a soundbite at best.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

My own my mother, on a Christmas phone call, asks my opinion of assault weapons. After explaining to her that there is no such thing and that they just look like army guns, and describing the difference between automatic army guns versus semi-automatic civilian guns. . .

She asks, "Why do you need one of these so-called assault weapons anyway?!"

My final convincing response to her was, "Why do the police need them?" To defend themselves from bad guys, she said. "Well, that's the same reason I need them." Oh, that's true, she said, as if a light bulb had gone on.

Yup, I continued, the same bad guys the police face are the same bad guys any civilian might need to fight off. Whatever the police need for defense, I need too.

Please feel free to pass this on: If the police need "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines, we need them too

Edited to add:
Obvioulsly it should be undertood the context is in when the bad guys come looking for us, and not about us civilians going out looking for bad guys

I think your title should say, "If the Military Needs it, I need it." That was the original intent of the 2A anyway.

The Police aren't the problem. Makes for a nice strawman, I guess. But, I think LEOs are tired on being every ignorant person's strawman.

[shotgunred]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

Again, I agree with you but poeple on all sides focus on the guns. When was the last time you wore body armor all day long? When was the last time you went to a driving skills class? When was the last time you went to a class to learn how to deescalate violent situations with your words? (Point being here, again, people tend to focus on the guns when there is so much far more likely that they neglect)

When was the last time you wore body armor all day long?
never but then again statistically most cops never get shot at or have to shoot there guns in their careers. So you don't need it either.

When was the last time you went to a driving skills
class?
Last week

When was the last time you went to a class to learn how to deescalate violent situations with your words?

October.

[ScottieG59]

The big difference between the armed civilian and police has to do with a duty to respond. Police have an obligation to intervene while others simply defend themselves and others, if they wish.

Non-police are not normally expected to seek out trouble and rush in.

Though I have owned so-called assault style rifles, I have not employed them as defensive weapons as a civilian. If I knew I were going to need to go into combat, the rifle is the weapon if choice. I do not maintain that level of readiness and for conscience sake, I do not even carry a service sized handgun.

I have many larger magazines, such as the 33 round Glock 18 ones. They are my just-in-case tools and never even do range time. The most common use I have with some larger magazines is range time, and even then, not too much. I lose less time reloading the magazines.

I am a bit old school with firearms. I aim and try to make each shot count. If I were using a smaller magazine, I would still be very effective. The only situation in which I would come up short would be a large group rushing my position. The large magazines might help some but landmines and a machine gun would be better.

If I am very limited in weapon capacity, I might just learn to carry a couple of the same handguns. One would be left side and the other right. The New York reload might come back.

[Baba Louie]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

I dont disagree, but it is an argument with a lot of holes in it.

Do you need handcuffs? Do you need the ability to pull people over? Do you need to wear body armor all day? Do you need the legal obligation to act in all crimes you see? ...and a bunch of other things.

Lets be honest, the Police, Doctors, Dentists, Locksmiths...and a lot of other professions do things you cant and probably shouldnt.

Again, I agree with you but poeple on all sides focus on the guns. When was the last time you wore body armor all day long? When was the last time you went to a driving skills class? When was the last time you went to a class to learn how to deescalate violent situations with your words? (Point being here, again, people tend to focus on the guns when there is so much far more likely that they neglect)

Valid points all Rabbi.

But let's be honest, ithaca deerslayer did not say he was all about Command Presence, arresting or de-escalating drunken domestic disputes, Walter Mitty Coppering, doing a root canal, etc.; simply defense of self should the need arise.

And who here would not love to take a class or two in enhanced driving skills, use of force or de-escalation of violent situations? (my Walter Mitty Copper hat is showing I know )

I learned years ago to never ever challenge a small female 40ish Copper teaching Use of Force in a Citizens Police Academy here in Las Vegas; to wit: see if 3 guys could try, try mind you, to cuff her up. 3 against 1. (we didn't stand a chance) Holy shiznit, did she turn the tables after evading a group of three men for 4 minutes, then BLAM, down, cuffed and stuffed went the biggest of the group in about half a nano-second. (and he had been holding the cuffs) Do not want to play ball with the big boys ... ever. That day that Lady Cop was the biggest, baddest and fastest I ever saw (I still want to learn that thumb twist submission move tho)

[Berto]

Police seek to encounter criminals. Criminals seek to encounter civilians.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by Berto

Police seek to encounter criminals. Criminals seek to encounter civilians.

AND that has jack all to do with the 2A. The 2A was to make the citizenry a military. There was no standing army until the War of 1811, and that was a controversial move. So, once again, the OP tititle should be, "If the Miltiary Has it, I need it."

[FireForged]

I think the whole point that RED was making is that joe citizen could quite possibly face the very same criminal that the police feel a AR15 is needed to defend against. Sure, there is a whole lot greater risk when someone faces criminals for a living but the point is still valid. Most people feel a strong obligation to defend themselves which was the singular point.

[Geeorge]

More unecessary drama

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by FireForged

I think the whole point that RED was making is that joe citizen could quite possibly face the very same criminal that the police feel a AR15 is needed to defend against. Sure, there is a whole lot greater risk when someone faces criminals for a living but the point is still valid. Most people feel a strong obligation to defend themselves which was the singular point.

But, in my opinion the AR-15 should have the fun button, not a ban on the fun button, otherwise the who intent of the 2A is moot.

The AR-15 is a Military Weapon adopted by LEOs and civilians alike.

So, the OP, missed the point entirely.

[HalfHazzard]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

People who argue against your points dont care about *your* contest. They just look at your words.

Again, so this doesnt become about me, I agree with you but the argument is still fairly poor. It is a soundbite at best.

Do you have a better universal one? I struggle to come up with "a need". Outside of "during the L.A. riots" or "Our founders wanted us to have guns close to equivalent of the government" (which some obviously doubt), I can't think of a better one.

[robin303]

"When was the last time you wore body armor all day long?"

Used to wear it everyday plus all the other gear I wore and over 100 deg. Talking about a sweaty mess. And I wasn't even a cop.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by Rabbi

.. Do you need handcuffs? ..

If the situation ever came to pass (against all odds) that I needed handcuffs I would not have them...

I do however have about 10 of those monster 24-inch plastic cable-ties...

[RMTactical]

Originally Posted by BodymoreMurderland

Many police departments do not issue or allow rifles.

Yes they do.

[BodymoreMurderland]

Originally Posted by RMTactical

Yes they do.

No many departments don't including the 8th largest police dept. in the country which I work for.

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by robin303

"When was the last time you wore body armor all day long?"

Used to wear it everyday plus all the other gear I wore and over 100 deg. Talking about a sweaty mess. And I wasn't even a cop.

I wore one for five years humping the brush. That was before they gave you cool T-shirts that didn't stick to your skin. You would pull out the vest a little bit and give yourself a steam bath for your face. When I would come home and drop the duty best, pul of the shirt, then the dump the vest, my wife would laugh at me like a dog with its head stuck in a bag when I would try to peal off that drenched T-shirt.

So, body armor is not fun or glamorous. But, it is helpful when people run from danger and you run to it.

[ithaca_deerslayer]

Originally Posted by Kingarthurhk

But, in my opinion the AR-15 should have the fun button, not a ban on the fun button, otherwise the who intent of the 2A is moot.

The AR-15 is a Military Weapon adopted by LEOs and civilians alike.

So, the OP, missed the point entirely.

Well, the point was I was talking to my mom.

Did you hear about the murderer who used a Bushmaster .223 to kill 2 firefighters and wound 2 more, while he burned down 7 houses in Webster NY the day before Christmas? I have relatives in that town.

So I'm pretty sure my mom was't going to be much impressed with being able to wage war. But the police, they don't wage war. The police aren't out there spraying bullets murdering people. They just have guns to defend themselves. And guess what, mom, the police have "assault weapons." If they need them against the bad guys, then so do I.

[RMTactical]

Originally Posted by BodymoreMurderland

No many departments don't including the 8th largest police dept. in the country which I work for.

Not one officer has a rifle? I find that hard to believe. No SWAT team?

[Kingarthurhk]

Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer

Well, the point was I was talking to my mom.

Did you hear about the murderer who used a Bushmaster .223 to kill 2 firefighters and wound 2 more, while he burned down 7 houses in Webster NY the day before Christmas? I have relatives in that town.

So I'm pretty sure my mom was't going to be much impressed with being able to wage war. But the police, they don't wage war. The police aren't out there spraying bullets murdering people. They just have guns to defend themselves. And guess what, mom, the police have "assault weapons." If they need them against the bad guys, then so do I.

Sounds like he wanted an LA Riot, but no one would join him.

If the Police just defended themselves, they would stay at the station or at home and not respond to calls.

That is as silly as saying that the Military in in Afghanistan are only protecting themselves and not engaging in warfare.

Very, very, silly.