Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LordofHats wrote:
Obama doesn't want to ban guns.

Obama, and many Liberals want to directly make it illegal to own weapons they feel should only be in the military calling them "assault weapons". i.e. Semi-automatic rifles, handguns, shotguns.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx

Bullet point 3 is pretty cut and dry...we are also left in the dark on how this will be implemented. Forced mass disarming of the public? and by whom? Hell, we are left in the dark how any of them will be implemented, trust the government I guess.

And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).

On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?

 LordofHats wrote:
And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).

2nd Amendment.

It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.

Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.

It doesn't say "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".

The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you

 LordofHats wrote:
The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you

I expect they do.

 LordofHats wrote:
And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).

On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?

And how did California's laws work out?

 LordofHats wrote:
The Supreme Court of the United States of America disagrees with you

Honest question, has SCOTUS upheld magazine capacity limits?

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).

On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?

And how did California's laws work out?

Amazing how the places that infringe the most have the most problems with violence, isn't it?

To quote Heller (namely Scalia)

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The second amendment is no different from the First in this regard. The Bill of Rights is not a Bill of absolute Rights, and never has been nor intended to be.

 Alex C wrote:


2nd Amendment.

It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.

Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.

It doesn't say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".

At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?

 LordofHats wrote:
And where in the Constitution (or in precedent law), does it say the government can't pass a ban on specific weapons and restrict magazine size? Many states already have laws banning 'assault weapons' and restricting magazine size (CA, MY, NJ are three I know).

On top of that, how about all those other bullet points? We're really going to boil down the guy's proposal to a really laxidasical and selective interpretation of a single point of an 11 point plan?

All those states that banned those guns have done so with the assumption that it was the will of the people. Making stricter laws will do what? Nothing! Precedent law has nothing to do with anything in the Bill of Rights. I also never stated I wasn't for some increase in background checking I think it is a good idea, however I am against this ban and restriction. I am also for armed police officers in every school too serve and protect children from mass murders, however that is another matter.

Here is someone more qualified than me explaining how our government should work. It is something that resent Presidents and Congress and the majority of U.S. citizens keep forgetting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlgTwp93E48

 Frazzled wrote:
And how did California's laws work out?

Not well from what I hear

But then again, it's hard to really judge effectiveness of any given state gun laws because it's so easy for guns to go from one state into another. State level gun controls are largely ineffective so long as all states are required to respect the laws of other states, which is why a more comprehensive (and preferably not regulated by ATF, please not ATF they're so bad at what they do) Federal level law is the only practical route to go for those of us who would like more strict gun laws.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Alex C wrote:


2nd Amendment.

It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.

Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.

It doesn't say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".

At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?

WTF do folks 'need' 50+ inch TV screens or cars capable of doing twice the highest posted speed limit?

And there is no 'right' for those things. 'Rights' are not based on 'need'.

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Alex C wrote:


2nd Amendment.

It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.

Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.

It doesn't say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".

At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?

I do not require a reason, or have to justify a "need", but I will indulge...

An AR15 is a firearm that many are familiar with (especially ex-military), is proven reliable and is one of the most effective means of protecting yourself and your family against those who may seek to do you harm.

The typical 5.56mm cartridge used in defensive rifles also penetrates less interior barriers than many typical shotgun loads marketed for home defense, leading to less likelyhood of shooting theough walls and hitting things you don't want to hit.

I don't use an AR15 for home defense myself, but why wouldn't someone want to use one of the best tools for the job?

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Alex C wrote:


2nd Amendment.

It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.

Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.

It doesn't say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".

At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?

Well, depending on the rifle/shotgun being talked about, there isn't too much difference between them- besides an AR-15 being used for a hunting rifle, lots of different "hunting rifles" and shotguns are semi-automatic. Compared to a bolt action rifle, something like an AR-15 is much better at protecting your home.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?

Our government was formed to escape tyranny. Many after its formation came here to escape tyranny and social injustices of their homelands. Now let me say this, I do not believe it would ever happen, but should our government ever go rogue and take away the right of the people to self govern. Those of us who want to, should have the right to be armed so as to be able to challenge our own military. That's just my opinion, but it is an opinion of most who own such a weapons.

Out of curiosity does UK self govern or are you given rights decreed by your government? I honestly don't know I never cared to look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CptJake wrote:
'Rights' are not based on 'need'.

Absolutely 100% correct

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Alex C wrote:


2nd Amendment.

It restricts the government from infringing in our right to bear arms. If you ban certain types of arms, you're infringing on our right to bear them.

Current laws banning certain types of arms are unconstitutional.

It doesn't say, "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except certain types that the government thinks we shouldn't own".

At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?

Irrelevant to the Second Amendment.

I definitely would object to the characterization of most AR-15 owners as primarily desiring to be able to resist the US military enforcing tyranny.

 Sinful Hero wrote:


Well, depending on the rifle/shotgun being talked about, there isn't too much difference between them- besides an AR-15 being used for a hunting rifle, lots of different "hunting rifles" and shotguns are semi-automatic. Compared to a bolt action rifle, something like an AR-15 is much better at protecting your home.

Recoil on the AR is a lot less than most 'hunting rifles' and a lot less than a 12 gauge. And most have a flash suppressor (contrary to popular belief, these do not hide the flash from anyone BUT the firer). Both these mean the AR is more easily used, especially in low light stress shooting conditions (which most home defense will be).

 Ouze wrote:
I definitely would object to the characterization of most AR-15 owners as primarily desiring to be able to resist the US military enforcing tyranny.

May be a stretch, I'll admit. Based on ex-military and people from local rifle/gun clubs; that I know, it seems to be a repeating belief. I also should have generally stated semi-automatic rifles of all types.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And how did California's laws work out?

Not well from what I hear

But then again, it's hard to really judge effectiveness of any given state gun laws because it's so easy for guns to go from one state into another. State level gun controls are largely ineffective so long as all states are required to respect the laws of other states, which is why a more comprehensive (and preferably not regulated by ATF, please not ATF they're so bad at what they do) Federal level law is the only practical route to go for those of us who would like more strict gun laws.

Already are. These are a straw purchase, illegal under federal law. Not only did they break state law on the type of firearms, but they broke federal law on the straw purchase (I assume state law as well).

 CptJake wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:


Well, depending on the rifle/shotgun being talked about, there isn't too much difference between them- besides an AR-15 being used for a hunting rifle, lots of different "hunting rifles" and shotguns are semi-automatic. Compared to a bolt action rifle, something like an AR-15 is much better at protecting your home.

Recoil on the AR is a lot less than most 'hunting rifles' and a lot less than a 12 gauge. And most have a flash suppressor (contrary to popular belief, these do not hide the flash from anyone BUT the firer). Both these mean the AR is more easily used, especially in low light stress shooting conditions (which most home defense will be).

True. There's also the fact that most hunting rifle calibers are going to have even greater penetration than an .223 AR15. I wouldn't want to be firing my .30-06 7400 or my Garand in the house, the bullet likely wouldn't stop until it hit a tree in the neighbor's yard. Although buttstroking somebody with the Garand would be pretty sweet and the stock would handle it fine, unlike an AR.

Unless you live alone, a shotgun is a better home-defense weapon than any handgun or rifle. Pellets have a significantly-reduced risk of passing through intervening walls (which, let's face it, in most modern houses are drywall and insulation) than even a 9mm pistol round. In recent years, we've seen a number of innocents injured and/or killed when bullets (regardless of who fired them) passed through the walls of their houses and struck them.

There's also the intimidation factor of the sound of the rack of the slide. That's something that pretty much everyone on the planet knows the sound of, and knows that it heralds that violence is about to arrive.

Thats urban myth. Any sort of slide being pulled will do that. So will shouting "I have a gun."

Having said that, shotguns are excellent and I have that set up in one location. The other location has an emergency box in a safe spot with a pistol that all members have shot (and all have appropriated from me-hey thats mine!) with a lot of ammo in the view they can literally hold up there and blast away through the wall if needed until the police arrive. Note both these setups are done not with a houseburglar but an aggressive stalker in mind due to personal situation.

The slide on a 9mm pistol isn't as loud and doesn't carry as far as that of a 12 gauge, especially if the door's closed, which is a potential issue depending on the size and layout of one's residence. It also tends to sound like any other metallic bits rattling around (which, situationally, might be just as good). The charging handle on a '16 is damned near silent in comparison.

The problem with shouting is that, if the intruder has violent intent, it gives away your position. The acoustic profile of the human voice is more-easily identified and located (since, being a speaking species, our ears are designed to tune in to such) than the relatively-alien machine sound of a shotgun slide. This also goes back to the "shooting through the walls" bit. If the intruder is armed and has intent, shouting gives them a direction in which to put rounds downrange, especially considering the actual time it takes to say "I have a gun" (or a similar number of syllables).

Best to rack the slide and relocate, IMO. Position so the target (again, assuming intent to harm) is forced to bracket themselves in a hallway or a doorframe, a shotgun is hell on wheels in such a scenario.

Drywall isn't going to really stop shotgun pellets. Not enough to prevent injury to anyone directly behind the wall. Sure the studs will stop them but the majority of any interior wall is going to be just drywall and nothing else between it.

The problem with shouting is that, if the intruder has violent intent, it gives away your position.

So does racking a shotgun. You want it on record that you alerted the badguy you were armed and the reason whereby you just put 17 warning shots into him center mass.

A better idea is just flip the safety off.

Of course being that its me, its a the simple matter of putting a little powder into the pan. "Hold on! I'm deathly afraid! I'm armed, well in a minute I'm armed and oh damn I dropped the flint, screw it FIX BAYONETS!!!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Drywall isn't going to really stop shotgun pellets. Not enough to prevent injury to anyone directly behind the wall. Sure the studs will stop them but the majority of any interior wall is going to be just drywall and nothing else between it.

exactly. Thats why I want it.

 Psienesis wrote:
Unless you live alone, a shotgun is a better home-defense weapon than any handgun or rifle. Pellets have a significantly-reduced risk of passing through intervening walls (which, let's face it, in most modern houses are drywall and insulation) than even a 9mm pistol round. In recent years, we've seen a number of innocents injured and/or killed when bullets (regardless of who fired them) passed through the walls of their houses and struck them.

There's also the intimidation factor of the sound of the rack of the slide. That's something that pretty much everyone on the planet knows the sound of, and knows that it heralds that violence is about to arrive.

If you want to use a shotgun for home defense just keep it loaded with the safety on. Racking the slide to get a criminal's attention is silly. All it means is until you racked the slide you were holding an empty gun. There's no point in holding an empty gun on somebody you may have to shoot. Either have a shell chambered already or rack it when you pick it up, waiting to chamber a shell isn't a good idea.

Indeed. Relying on intimidation is a terrible idea. If you really need to pull a gun, have it loaded.

Not that he claimed to be relying on it, but I wouldn't factor it in to the equation at all.

Chambered and safe, or "cruiser ready", but when it's time to level it at the intruder it needs to be ready to go.

 LordofHats wrote:
I'm not sure how praising a country not stricken with a 500% increase in spree shooters

500% increase in spree shooters? What definition of spree shooter, and where are you pulling that % increase stat?

 angelofvengeance wrote:
At most, a shotgun or a hunting rifle would suffice for home defense. Why on earth would you need stuff like an AR-15 etc?

What are you basing your claim on that a hunting rifle or shotgun is sufficient for home defense?
Explain what you mean by a hunting rifle, and how does that differ from an AR15?
Would you consider this a hunting rifle?



Are you aware that the ammunition available for the AR15 will deform more upon hitting barriers than many other types of ammunition, thus making it safer for home defense as there is less risk of over penetration?