Why are so many civilian police departments armed with them? Clearly they believe that they are not strictly useful "on the battlefield." When the Democrats start calling for taking them away from civilian police, we'll talk.

Problem, on here you do not reach the right audience. And if you do not think the police are being armed for a battle with Americans, not just criminals you haven't been paying attention.

That's the point. Dangers that call for weapons like the AR-15 are not exclusive to literal battlefields, but also to civilian contexts such as those faced by the US police. We who are not the police live in that same civilian world with those same civilian dangers, thus the Democrat argument is nonsense. "The battlefield" can be anywhere.

Their response is going to be the North Hollywood bank robbery which laid the groundwork for individual police arming themselves like a military

------------------------------------

At 9:17 AM, Larry Phillips, Jr. and Emil Matasareanu entered and robbed the North Hollywood Bank of America branch. Phillips and Matasareanu were confronted by LAPD officers when they exited the bank and a shootout between the officers and robbers ensued. The two robbers attempted to flee the scene, Phillips on foot and Matasareanu in their getaway vehicle, while continuing to engage the officers. The shootout continued onto a residential street adjacent to the bank until Phillips was mortally wounded, including a self-inflicted gunshot wound; Matasareanu was killed by officers three blocks away. Phillips and Matasareanu are believed to have robbed at least two other banks using virtually identical methods by taking control of the entire bank and firing illegally-modified automatic weapons chambered with intermediate cartridges for control and entry past 'bullet-proof' security doors, and are possible suspects in two armored vehicle robberies.

Standard issue sidearms carried by most local patrol officers at the time were 9 mm pistols or .38 Special revolvers; some patrol cars also were equipped with a 12-gauge shotgun. Phillips and Mătăsăreanu carried illegally-modified fully automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1s (an AK-47 variant), a Bushmaster XM15 Dissipator, and a HK-91 rifle with high capacity drum magazines as well as a Beretta 92FS pistol. The bank robbers wore heavy plate mostly homemade body armor which successfully protected them from handgun rounds and shotgun pellets fired by the responding patrolmen. A police SWAT team eventually arrived bearing sufficient firepower, and they commandeered an armored truck to evacuate the wounded. Several officers also appropriated AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. The incident sparked debate on the need for patrol officers to upgrade their firepower in preparation for similar situations in the future

Not sure why you folks aren't getting the point, i.e., the civilian/battlefield dichotomy isn't a valid argument for outlawing AR-15s. It's the same type of argument the left uses against high cap mags in handguns, which disregards the fact that when three or four armed home invaders pick your home, at that moment your home is "the battlefield," and your granddaddy's Model 10 (or Joe Biden's double barrel shotgun) might not be up to the task.

Coyotes hate my AR's and are now lobbying for an AR ban. Foxs and Bobcats are now thinking about joining them in their cause.

There ISN'T a valid argument for outlawing AR-15s....

Unless "the audience" has ever found themselves in a bad situation like civil unrest or a natural disaster, where there were serious doubts about their, or their loved ones survival, most won't be capable of understanding the value & security of an accurate high capacity weapon...

NO. We will not even talk then....

I have been seeing a lot of so-called interviews with Eugene Stoners family and they stated he would have been against civilian ownership of AR15's.
Stoner died in 1997 so well before 2001 and the war on terror
since then. Love how they put words in a dead man mouth and I wonder if the Stoner family would give back all the money from patent royalties over the years. Doubtful.

Also saw an interview with L.James Sullivan a co designer of the AR, he had no problem with civilian ownership.

The primary purpose of 2A is to allow citizens to defend themselves against their government which is the reason this administration is so focused on diminishing it: they want to fundamentally change America into something else. That being, a tyranny real American's will not accept or tolerate.

Liberals are just picking at the egg shell.

Once they get a nail under it, they can peel the whole boiled egg.

It ain't the AR15.

They want them all.

We'll talk, and explain the reasons cops and non-cops need ARs in a civilian context for the same reasons. Talk doesn't mean compromise. The first hurdle to even that, however, is for your opponent to be consistent in their views. Till then, there's no point in talking, even to explain their errors.

Good luck getting a liberal to listen to anything with common sense and reasoning...

If you do, it would be the first time.

If and when they start taking any weapon of any sort from civilians, the time for talking will have passed.

Truth!

You can argue about the usefulness of AR's all day long, but that's not the point. Of course they're useful. They want to disarm America and AR's are the canary in the coal mine for gun owners.

whenever there is a mass shooting people lose their minds

and its become a vicious circle. AR-15 is now synonymous with mass shootings and so if some whacko wants to shoot up a place, that's going to be gun of choice

but there is no correlation in banning a specific type of gun and eliminating mass shootings.

Seldom if ever, does someone intent on executing a mass shooting go to the scene with a single weapon, nor do they arrive with just the standard capacity of the weapon.

If the AR-15 is banned, we'll just have mass shootings of people using semi-auto handguns with hi cap magazines, they'll bring 5 of them to site with 20 clips.

This is why I'm lost on the logic.

They aren't trying to prevent mass shootings, they're trying to prevent the effectiveness of a mass killer.

People are given a survey that asks - do you agree that we should take steps to prevent terrorists from buying guns and the solution they derive from this is not to identify terrorists but to place more obstacles in the way for every person to purchase a gun - yet we know this guy was interviewed by the FBI twice. His co-workers knew he was a violent minded nutjob - and its gun background checks that are going to save us from him?

This is simple, unless you simply deny the 2nd amendment is valid. The right to keep and bear ARMS - not any specific arms - shall not be infringed. That's it. Clear.

Apparently its not clear because they have 'infringed' the hell out of it...

Agreed. But my point is that the left hasn't even passed the hurdle of having a logically consistent position. For those of us who stand on our rights, this is not an issue. For the rest of America, or at least those on the fence, (who have the power to deny us our rightful liberties through the political process), it is. Thus the need also to demonstrate the defect in their usefulness argument.

What about the Paris terrorist attack? In France, military style firearms are completely prohibited to the general public, yet these folks had AK-47s. Disarming the civilian population is senseless since terrorists will be supplied with whatever personal arms they need. This is a Muslim Terrorism issue, not a gun control issue.

Yep, to you and me. There are folks on the fence, though, who aren't libertarian on this issue, and who don't have any interest in owning such firearms. These folks don't much care about the libertarian argument. These folks need to hear why the utilitarian arguments of the left also are false.

I'm afraid debating the usefulness of any given arm in and of itself is a losing battle. Would you like them to be debating the usefulness of a Remington 760, or A Winchester 71, or a Colt Python? You'll lose them all with that approach.

It's about defending ourselves from tyrannical govt. That's the argument that will win, when enough people see it.

Exactly,and that time seems to fast approaching. Look around the world every country were these people have managed to get their way is now or is fast becoming a third world [bleep].

There isn't much need for discussing this with the left for they are comfortable with their ignorance. Couple of minor (?) points nonetheless.

1) The phrase "shall not be infringed" is perhaps the strongest legal language found in the Constitution. The verbiage brooks no obstruction or manipulation. One either believes in the Constitution or not. Many have taken an oath to uphold and defend the document and it is arguable that failure to do so is grounds for impeachment if the party works for the people as a civilian official, and courts marshal if in the military.

2) If one is familiar with writings of the Founders, notably Jefferson and Adams, awareness of their mindset is such that any reader would know the 2d Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, shooting sports, law enforcement or being part of the "militia". It's purpose in the Constitution is solely and to purposefully allow The People to resist and repulse tyranny.

It is my line in the sand. Unlike recent Presidents, I'm serious about lines in the sand and I suspect there are millions more with similar sentiments.

Phuoc 'em. With malice and forethought.

D

"WE ?"

Don't you DARE presume to speak for me, or my peers, you interminably mouthy, and incredibly screwed up POS.

Black market AKs are pretty cheap.

The country was founded because civilian owned weapons enabled the defeat of Tyrant King George. The second amendment gives the citizens the right to keep and bear roughly the same weapons as that used by modern infantrymen. This allows citizens to protect their liberty from future tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Obama and Hillary.

They don't want to accept that...."a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state",.... means a citizenry with the necessary arms and equipment to overthrow a out of control government.

As for the North Hollywood bank robbery fiasco....one old geezer with his well worn deer rifle could have solved that issue quickly!! Those perps walked around like they were just taking a quiet stroll down 5th Avenue!

ONE...well aimed shot...at the end!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9fnVtz_lc

Depends on the definition of battlefield and who the enemy is.