• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ar15 is meant for Home Defense

MaggieD said:
In the matter of self-defense in one's home, not much beats a shotgun.
Click to expand...

true, if you live alone or you and your husband or wife are always in the same room and can barricade yourself behind cover if their is a home invasion, IF you have small children or an invalid parent, and you have to actually GO TO THEM after your home has been invaded, a shotgun IS NOT your best choice
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid because it assumes that the more arms you have, the less trustworthy you are

do you believe the same thing about books?
Click to expand...

Wow funny you should mention that. I guess a library of magazines is really pointless, anyway. Authors who write columns for shock value and cultural appeal don't suit my taste. Having more than a single book generally leads people out of their middle-aged mindsets and into a world where guns aren't necessary. Who is going to stick up your home for two books and an inkwell? :shock:

No, I don't believe the same thing about books because books, unlike gun ownership, impart knowledge of things other than firearms.

Notice how nowhere in my post was trust mentioned. Arms proliferation is different from being irresponsible or untrustworthy. Nuclear arms proliferation should help you bridge that mental gap. Gotta make it extra large print for easy reading.

Individual rights apply to individuals.

There is no law which bans the sale of books due to their intellectual content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_States
 
Celebrity said:
Wow funny you should mention that. I guess a library of magazines is really pointless, anyway. Authors who write columns for shock value and cultural appeal don't suit my taste. Having more than a single book generally leads people out of their middle-aged mindsets and into a world where guns aren't necessary. Who is going to stick up your home for two books and an inkwell? :shock:

No, I don't believe the same thing about books because books, unlike gun ownership, impart knowledge of things other than firearms.

Notice how nowhere in my post was trust mentioned. Arms proliferation is different from being irresponsible or untrustworthy. Nuclear arms proliferation should help you bridge that mental gap. Gotta make it extra large print for easy reading.

Individual rights apply to individuals.

There is no law which bans the sale of books due to their intellectual content.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_censorship_in_the_United_States
Click to expand...

I have lots of firearms. I have won city/county level or higher competitions in at least a DOZEN recognized shooting disciplines

I teach people how to shoot, One of my students was just named as first alternate on one of our olympic shooting sports teams. another athlete I worked with was on the 96 team as a shotgun shooter. My roommate on the national Junior team was the silver medalist as a rifle shooter in the 04 games. I was responsible for making sure people in my DOJ component would pass qualifications if they needed to be deputized to carry firearms.

So I have lots of firearms-several for each shooting sport I compete in. Dozens of handguns that students may wish to use for home or self defense. I need lots of firearms to be able to competently teach people. How does the second amendment prohibition on government action somehow diminish based on how many firearms someone owns?
 
blackjack50 said:
Is .223 the Best Home Defense Caliber? - Guns & Ammo

So with all the discussion about the evils of the ar15 and its baby seeking Bullets, I felt compelled to introduce this topic. The idea that this rifle is unsuitable for the public is hogwash for one simple reason: it is an excellent home defense gun. The caliber is perfect for those who are seeking to reduce over penetration. It is also superb for those who aren't great pistol or shotgun shooters.
Click to expand...

The AR15 was originally designed for the army, not for home defense: ArmaLite / Colt AR-15 - Select-Fire Automatic Rifle - History, Specs and Pictures - Military, Security and Civilian Guns
 
TurtleDude said:
I have lots of firearms. I have won city/county level or higher competitions in at least a DOZEN recognized shooting disciplines

I teach people how to shoot, One of my students was just named as first alternate on one of our olympic shooting sports teams. another athlete I worked with was on the 96 team as a shotgun shooter. My roommate on the national Junior team was the silver medalist as a rifle shooter in the 04 games. I was responsible for making sure people in my DOJ component would pass qualifications if they needed to be deputized to carry firearms.

So I have lots of firearms-several for each shooting sport I compete in. Dozens of handguns that students may wish to use for home or self defense. I need lots of firearms to be able to competently teach people. How does the second amendment prohibition on government action somehow diminish based on how many firearms someone owns?
Click to expand...

Congratulations, I hope you win a blue ribbon in target practice again this year. The second amendment does not diminish in that respect, however one does not need that many guns for home defense.
 
Celebrity said:
Congratulations, I hope you win a blue ribbon in target practice again this year. The second amendment does not diminish in that respect, however one does not need that many guns for home defense.
Click to expand...

and the second amendment doesn't say that the only reason why I can own a firearm is self defense. You just don't seem to understand that the second amendment is not about what I can do (or something I can "use up") but rather what the government CANNOT DO and that doesn't change based on how many firearms I own or have owned
 
Celebrity said:
Tell me more about how anyone would use more arms than can be physically born in order to bear arms.
Click to expand...
They might use guns for different purposes, and have a different gun for each individual purpose.


Celebrity said:
There is a limit to how many weapons you should have.
Click to expand...
Is there any particular reason for having such a limit?

If there isn't a good reason for a gun law, then the Second Amendment forbids it.
 
blackjack50 said:
Is .223 the Best Home Defense Caliber? - Guns & Ammo

So with all the discussion about the evils of the ar15 and its baby seeking Bullets, I felt compelled to introduce this topic. The idea that this rifle is unsuitable for the public is hogwash for one simple reason: it is an excellent home defense gun. The caliber is perfect for those who are seeking to reduce over penetration. It is also superb for those who aren't great pistol or shotgun shooters.
Click to expand...
An AR makes an excellent home defense weapon, it has higher capacity, small and maneuverable, can have accessories such as a flashlight attached and the round does not penetrate as much as 12g Buck or many handgun loads. So yes the .223/5.56mm makes an excellent choice for home defense, and good for varmints of any sort.
 
jimbo said:
Being a good weapon for the military does not necessarily make it wrong for civilian uses. Including self defense.
Click to expand...

true-look at the following weapons

Winchester 97-the fearsome "trench broom" of WWI-popular police riot gun and home defense shotgun. Same with the hammerless WINCHESTER Model 12-the grand daddy of pump shotguns-used to win dozens of major trap and skeet championships, carried by Hunters for decades and a trusted home defense weapon

The Famous Colt 1911-US military sidearm from 1913 or so for about 70 years-Col Bill McMillan won an Olympic gold medal back when there was a centerfire event about 50 years ago with a Harold Johnson customized 1911. Hundreds of major championships have been won with this pistol-a pistol that many experts including Jeff Cooper- consider the finest defensive handgun available.

The MAUSER 98-German standard issue battle rifle in both World Wars-the action is the basis of most of the most popular big game rifles in the world

Remington 870 Pump shotgun-probably surpassed the Winchester Model 12 in terms of popularity over the last 50 years. Commonly used in Vietnam by those "walking point" on US Army and Marine patrols in the jungle. probably the most popular hunting shotgun in the USA

along with the MOSSBERG 500 which was bought in large numbers by the US military and is commonly used for deer hunting, turkey hunting and trap shooting in the USA

BTW for most of our history-the most popular CIVILIAN firearms were superior to the standard military issue rifles. example, Custer had single shot springfield while the native Americans and many US citizens had far faster firing Lever action winchesters. Our soldiers in WWI and the start of WWII had bolt action springfields while semi auto remingtons were available to civilians. and while the army continued to use the 7 shot 1911 45 pistol until it was replaced by the Beretta M9 in the 1980s, we civilians were packing 13 shot Browning HP semi autos or 15 shot SW Model 59s or the 18 shot STEYR pistols.
 
jimbo said:
Being a good weapon for the military does not necessarily make it wrong for civilian uses. Including self defense.
Click to expand...

I said that it was designed for the military, which makes a lie out of the OP. The Clot .45 auto was of military design as well, and I have one. I do not however have 15 or even 1 30 round clip for it.
 
Toggle Almendro said:
The military version was full auto. The AR-15 is semi-auto-only.
Click to expand...

For the public - yeah. But the San Berandino terrorists modified theirs into full auto. If they hadn't had access to ARs, it might probably never have happened.
 
TurtleDude said:
and the second amendment doesn't say that the only reason why I can own a firearm is self defense. You just don't seem to understand that the second amendment is not about what I can do (or something I can "use up") but rather what the government CANNOT DO and that doesn't change based on how many firearms I own or have owned
Click to expand...

Yeah, the second amendment isn't about what you can do. I get that. So what does that have to do with self defense? Well you're I guess you're just on your own. :ws

In order to defend their home, some homeowners use a weapon. Using an excessive amount of weaponry will not help you achieve your goal of guarding your home, in most cases it will just burden you with maintenance like any other property.

People who stockpile weapons for the purpose of selling them are called arms dealers. Instead of guarding their home with an AR-15, they buy two AR-15's, or more. As far as individual rights go, this is futile. You can wield two AR-15's for the purpose of "self defense." You're going to accomplish double the firepower and walk away from a mess. That is why two guns is two too many. I am not justifying this with legal rulings because this is not a court of law. This is not a legal forum.

The second amendment says nothing about home defense, because there is nothing in the bill of rights about how a firearm should be used in the home. That's up to you to figure out, because self defense is a personal issue. If you want to treat it like a carnival, more power to you. The use of a weapon in your home has less to do with the second amendment and more to do with self defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

Read it and weep.

Then read it again, because you might have missed something the first time 'round.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
 
jet57 said:
I said that it was designed for the military, which makes a lie out of the OP. The Clot .45 auto was of military design as well, and I have one. I do not however have 15 or even 1 30 round clip for it.
Click to expand...

well duh, if you don't own a certain firearm, it would be silly to own magazines for it. I am not aware of 15 round magazines made for the AR 15 and its a 30 round magazine not clip. Several rifles that function EXACTLY the same as the AR 15-the RUGER Mini 14, the MICROTECH copy of the STEYR AUG and other similar firearms were not originally military designs or marketed to the military so that characteristic has absolutely no relevance in terms of what civilians should be able to own.
 
Celebrity said:
Yeah, the second amendment isn't about what you can do. I get that. So what does that have to do with self defense? Well you're I guess you're just on your own. :ws

In order to defend their home, some homeowners use a weapon. Using an excessive amount of weaponry will not help you achieve your goal of guarding your home, in most cases it will just burden you with maintenance like any other property.

People who stockpile weapons for the purpose of selling them are called arms dealers. Instead of guarding their home with an AR-15, they buy two AR-15's, or more. As far as individual rights go, this is futile. You can wield two AR-15's for the purpose of "self defense." You're going to accomplish double the firepower and walk away from a mess. That is why two guns is two too many. I am not justifying this with legal rulings because this is not a court of law. This is not a legal forum.

The second amendment says nothing about home defense, because there is nothing in the bill of rights about how a firearm should be used in the home. That's up to you to figure out, because self defense is a personal issue. If you want to treat it like a carnival, more power to you. The use of a weapon in your home has less to do with the second amendment and more to do with self defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)

Read it and weep.

Then read it again, because you might have missed something the first time 'round.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States)
Click to expand...

you are digging a hole of idiocy that gets deeper and deeper. the second amendment is about my right to keep a firearm for any lawful purpose and a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon.. which means interfere with. You are now changing the issue from someone owning lots of weapons to someone stocking them for the purposes of re-sale or bartering . so you have changed the argument because your first argument was specious--that being that there should be some sort of limit on how many guns I could OWN versus my ability to sell weapons as a dealer which is not relevant to this discussion. why do I need to read Wiki when

1) I have lectured ABA accredited law school student bodies and members of state bar associations on the second amendment

2) I constantly discuss these issues with some of the leading experts on the second amendment including perhaps the pre-eminent Constitutional law professor in the USA

3) I was trial counsel for both state and federal law enforcement officers in cases involving "use of force" claims where we asserted Self defense as a defense

4) I shot someone in self defense and got an education into the law of self defense that even lawyers with 20 years of experience don't get

so tell me, what do you bring to the table that even remotely suggests you have anything to add to what I already know on this issue--

(and I realize you haven't been here long enough to really understand how much I do know on this subject but you will learn)
 
BrewerBob said:
Really interesting article.



A shotgun certainly has its advantages but my concern is if you live in a house with other people. If the assailant ends up between you and a loved one, the spread could hurt them.
Click to expand...

You might be surprised how tight a group a shotgun has at close range. Then there is the rifle slug for the shot gun. The ultimate put them down round. Hits like a sledgehammer.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You might be surprised how tight a group a shotgun has at close range. Then there is the rifle slug for the shot gun. The ultimate put them down round. Hits like a sledgehammer.
Click to expand...

IF you can barricade yourself behind cover-like a gun safe or a bed, and guard the entrance to the room while waiting for the police to arrive-there is no doubt that a semi auto shotgun-loaded even with birdshot-is the most effective weapons to prevent someone from breaching that safe area
 
I personally think a rifle has been a great home defense weapon for hundreds of years. If I could only have one weapon for home defense it would be a rifle and the AR is not a bad choice among rifles.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are digging a hole of idiocy that gets deeper and deeper. the second amendment is about my right to keep a firearm for any lawful purpose and a right that the federal government cannot infringe upon.. which means interfere with. You are now changing the issue from someone owning lots of weapons to someone stocking them for the purposes of re-sale or bartering . so you have changed the argument because your first argument was specious--that being that there should be some sort of limit on how many guns I could OWN versus my ability to sell weapons as a dealer which is not relevant to this discussion. why do I need to read Wiki when

1) I have lectured ABA accredited law school student bodies and members of state bar associations on the second amendment

2) I constantly discuss these issues with some of the leading experts on the second amendment including perhaps the pre-eminent Constitutional law professor in the USA

3) I was trial counsel for both state and federal law enforcement officers in cases involving "use of force" claims where we asserted Self defense as a defense

4) I shot someone in self defense and got an education into the law of self defense that even lawyers with 20 years of experience don't get

so tell me, what do you bring to the table that even remotely suggests you have anything to add to what I already know on this issue--

(and I realize you haven't been here long enough to really understand how much I do know on this subject but you will learn)
Click to expand...

My argument that the castle doctrine is more closely related to home defense than the second amendment has remained unchanged throughout this thread. If you read my posts, you will notice that I have repeatedly acknowledged the second amendment. I suspect you have taken a wrong turn if you think that is what this thread is about.

I did mention the second amendment in passing, as it related to gun ownership. This thread is not about gun ownership, it is about the use of a particular gun in self defense. What's more is, you do not need a gun for self defense. Gun owners do not need more than one gun because the buying and selling of guns is not self defense.

Maybe you should read Wiki because your ignorance has led you to make yourself a fool in this thread. I realize that you are interested in sharing knowledge about guns. I am discussing the topic of this thread within a forum on "gun control." Your right to keep a firearm for any purpose does not justify derailing the thread. I have not drawn any false conclusion about self defense yet you are intentionally steering the discussion away from self defense into a pointless discussion about the merits of the law. Yes, I think you should read that Wiki, maybe you'd learn something.

Retreating into your shell does not mean that I'm digging a hole. That's not me being unfurnished by intelligence, if you won't read the article.
 
Celebrity said:
My argument that the castle doctrine is more closely related to home defense than the second amendment has remained unchanged throughout this thread. If you read my posts, you will notice that I have repeatedly acknowledged the second amendment. I suspect you have taken a wrong turn if you think that is what this thread is about.

I did mention the second amendment in passing, as it related to gun ownership. This thread is not about gun ownership, it is about the use of a particular gun in self defense. What's more is, you do not need a gun for self defense. Gun owners do not need more than one gun because the buying and selling of guns is not self defense.

Maybe you should read Wiki because your ignorance has led you to make yourself a fool in this thread. I realize that you are interested in sharing knowledge about guns. I am discussing the topic of this thread within a forum on "gun control." Your right to keep a firearm for any purpose does not justify derailing the thread. I have not drawn any false conclusion about self defense yet you are intentionally steering the discussion away from self defense into a pointless discussion about the merits of the law. Yes, I think you should read that Wiki, maybe you'd learn something.

Retreating into your shell does not mean that I'm digging a hole. That's not me being unfurnished by intelligence, if you won't read the article.
Click to expand...

you don't know what you are talking about. you might well need more than one gun for home defense depending on the scenario. Its very different when you live alone than when you have a child you might have to go and retrieve. why don't you edify me as to your expertise in home defense? when is a handgun the best choice?
 
Celebrity said:
My argument that the castle doctrine is more closely related to home defense than the second amendment has remained unchanged throughout this thread. If you read my posts, you will notice that I have repeatedly acknowledged the second amendment. I suspect you have taken a wrong turn if you think that is what this thread is about.
Click to expand...

the castle doctrine is related to home defense just as the 2nd amendment is related to home defense as well.

I did mention the second amendment in passing, as it related to gun ownership. This thread is not about gun ownership, it is about the use of a particular gun in self defense. What's more is, you do not need a gun for self defense. Gun owners do not need more than one gun because the buying and selling of guns is not self defense.
Click to expand...

this is your opinion but that is simply all it is your opinion. it isn't based on anything factual. what a person needs for self defense is based on that person.
not your opinion so this argument is irrelevant.

Maybe you should read Wiki because your ignorance has led you to make yourself a fool in this thread. I realize that you are interested in sharing knowledge about guns. I am discussing the topic of this thread within a forum on "gun control." Your right to keep a firearm for any purpose does not justify derailing the thread. I have not drawn any false conclusion about self defense yet you are intentionally steering the discussion away from self defense into a pointless discussion about the merits of the law. Yes, I think you should read that Wiki, maybe you'd learn something.
Click to expand...
you should probably watch who you call ignorant. He knows more about this stuff than most people do. your wiki articles have nothing to do with
anything.

Retreating into your shell does not mean that I'm digging a hole. That's not me being unfurnished by intelligence, if you won't read the article.
Click to expand...

why should he read a wiki article that pretty much doesn't do anything?
an AR is a perfectly acceptable rifle for home defense or any defense.

just as it is good for any kind of target practice or hunting trip.
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't know what you are talking about. you might well need more than one gun for home defense depending on the scenario. Its very different when you live alone than when you have a child you might have to go and retrieve. why don't you edify me as to your expertise in home defense? when is a handgun the best choice?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to play into anyone's sick fantasy, but I'm sure with your expertise this is a teachable moment to you. Where children are, in my opinion guns should not be involved. You would do just as well to retrieve the child while a woman uses a handgun in self defense. The best choice would involve calling a police officer, so that an officer of the law can exercise their duty to protect you and your family. By all means, self defense is an option. When it comes to firearms, I think it's best to own no more than one.

By the way, don't think I didn't notice your flip on the second amendment. It's ok if you wanna dance around the issue, but just know that bringing a gun into the matter doesn't excuse you from being proved wrong. It seems your use of self defense is a personal right when this is convenient, and a matter of limiting oversight where that is convenient. Strictly speaking, the castle defense grants you the right to use force. The second amendment does not speak about the use of force, though it would be useful in showing that you could own a gun which is capable of dispensing deadly justice. I'm not saying you should have to prove that for the purpose of this discussion. Abiding peaceably with a standard tool should be reflected upon with knowledge of how one may conduct oneself at home.
 
ludin said:
the castle doctrine is related to home defense just as the 2nd amendment is related to home defense as well.
Click to expand...

No, they come from different jurisprudence.

Brice Harper: Castle doctrine laws in Montana and elsewhere are encouraging rather than deterring violence.

you should probably watch who you call ignorant. He knows more about this stuff than most people do. your wiki articles have nothing to do with
anything.
Click to expand...

The problem ludin, is that you endorse infinite wisdom in lieu of sensibility. You're just flaming here. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the castle doctrine is relevant. :doh
 
Celebrity said:
I'm not going to play into anyone's sick fantasy, but I'm sure with your expertise this is a teachable moment to you. Where children are, in my opinion guns should not be involved. You would do just as well to retrieve the child while a woman uses a handgun in self defense. The best choice would involve calling a police officer, so that an officer of the law can exercise their duty to protect you and your family. By all means, self defense is an option. When it comes to firearms, I think it's best to own no more than one.

By the way, don't think I didn't notice your flip on the second amendment. It's ok if you wanna dance around the issue, but just know that bringing a gun into the matter doesn't excuse you from being proved wrong. It seems your use of self defense is a personal right when this is convenient, and a matter of limiting oversight where that is convenient. Strictly speaking, the castle defense grants you the right to use force. The second amendment does not speak about the use of force, though it would be useful in showing that you could own a gun which is capable of dispensing deadly justice. I'm not saying you should have to prove that for the purpose of this discussion. Abiding peaceably with a standard tool should be reflected upon with knowledge of how one may conduct oneself at home.
Click to expand...

ok so you are clueless about home defense. You are dismissed as being ignorant of this topic and when you claim you should only own one gun-well that's like saying you ought to play 18 holes of golf with one club. I am not going to bother with this sort of nonsense anymore-rather I am merely going to shred future silliness I expect to see from you on this topic.

if someone is in your home seeking to kill those in it-you best be armed when you try to retrieve a child. The PROPER response is the father take a handgun, retrieve the child while the mother barricade a safe room with preferably a shotgun. You see the father might have to carry the child and that makes the handgun the best choice.

BTW a police officer has no duty to protect and serve any specific individual. Look it up-the Supreme court has so ruled. and given the average response time of most PDs in urban areas, you are pinning your hopes on a pipe dream
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom