Special Citizens

DHS buys 7000 full-auto assault rifles, calls them ‘personal defense weapons
Click to expand...

I'm not a conspiracy dude either so I did some thinking. There are approx 50,000 fed LEO of one sort or other. Knowing how things break and wear out, buying 7000 replacement or spars doesn't seem to bother me.

Same with the ammo, 20 mil rounds per year, or whatever.

Again you have 50K fed LEO, including the Coast Guard. Most, including the Coast guard are required to qualify 4 times a year.

Thats ruffly 1600 rounds per person per year...............Heck I shoot a heck of a lot more then that.

When I was in LE we took our patrol cars home. I was EOD and carried what I needed in emergencies in my patrol car. I also carried a sniper rifle.

So "I took my stuff home".....................yeap, and I got called out quite a bit. Sure cuts down on the response time if I didn't have to run by the station to pick up my gear.

I believe in the 2nd Amendment as much as anybody, WITHOUT RESTRCTINS.

I just don't believe in conspiracy theories.
 
kraigwy, it doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to say, "Hey, wait, why are these 'personal defense weapons' if used by a DHS agent, but 'assault weapons' if owned by Joe Citizen?"

I don't worry about numbers of rifles, ammo, etc bought by the feds (other than out of sheer budgetary concerns), but I do worry about the Orwellian double-speak in play.
 
A big part of the anti-gun mentality has been the "Police or Military Only" mantra, or, what I like to call the "Statist" attitude-the idea that those in government are a superior caste to us mere mortals-helots, perhaps. I have never been an LEO nor a government employee, I do know the Army I served in 1967-1971 did a very poor job of firearms training and regarding such training as an intrusion that could be easily dealt with via the old M-1 Pencil
and small arms were seen as an annoyance and a PITB, the firearms aficionado was derided as a "nut".
 
I am former law enforcement, now retired. That being said I still believe that all citizens, law enforcement or not, are entitled by the Constitution to own and possess the same types of firearms. No one group of citizens is entitled to more "rights" than any other.
 
"Hey, wait, why are these 'personal defense weapons'
Click to expand...

Samatics.............

Call it what you want. I was issued a service revolver, I was issued uniforms, I was issued a car. They were my personal items............as long as I was with APD.

(With the exception of my duty revolver, the Department gave it to me when I retired).

Same as when I was in the Army, I had my issued rifles & pistols, they were mine...............as long as I was in the Army.

When I was in the National Guard, shooting for the Rifle and Pistol Teams, I was issued my personal M14, my personal 1911, and personal 22 pistol. I took them home, kept them in my house............but they weren't mine.

My son works for DHS, (Federal Protective Service), he is the head firearms instructor for his office. He's got an M4 he carries in his Govt. SUV. He also carries quite a bit of ammo. But he also is their Bomb Guy, so he has his bomb equipment. It's his "personal stuff", takes it home, the works.

But is it really his, per his departments policy no one but DHS personal or bandits can ride in the car. Not even his retired LE daddy.

I'm a firm believer in "personal weapons" for military and LEOs. I've seen too many military units issue guns, first come first serve, when you hit the arms room. Never got the same weapon twice. Never knew your zero, never knew the feel of the trigger.

Same with civilian shooters, you'd never draw a different gun every time you went to a match, or took a different gun every time you stepped out of the house carrying.
 
I've carried one badge or another for a shade over thirty years. I have consistently advocated against any law that treats one class of citizen any differently from another. That includes laws that create stiffer penalties for the assault or killing of any 'special' class of citizen, including police officers. Why? Because I believe 'equal protection under the law' means just what it says.

If you're talking about NFA weapons, individual officers are subject the same hoop-jump as everyone else. Last year I acquired some 14" 870's for the Department (Surprise-our new Caprice PPV's have a much lower headliner!) and I had to submit forms repeatedly and wait, wait, WAIT before the Department could pick them up.

So , we can't just run out and buy full autos or saw the barrels off our shotguns on a whim.
 
One might encounter a threat in his or her life time and should be able to defend themselves if they do. However, How many posting here with the exception of military or police officers have been sent to situations where violence was occurring involving firearms on a regular basis?.

I was Military for 6 yrs and LEO for 32 yrs and carried what weapon's were issued to me. During my career as a LEO when in uniform division I carried revolvers, pistols and a Shotgun in my vehicle .During that time was a SWAT member for 10 years and had use of heavier fire power if needed. I was Detective Lieutenant for the last 18 yrs and carried a snub nose revolver or a 9 mm sig.

With that said, I never felt like because I was a Police officer I was any better than anyone else, However, will have to say there were many times I sure would have liked to have been better armed.

Now retired, and in my middle seventy's I Still carry a sidearm and have some rifles and shotguns.
 
Last edited:
I like cops; a lot of my friends and some of my relatives are cops. I am in favor of "officer safety."

But I am also in favor of my own personal safety, and even more in favor of my family's safety.

So my preference would be to keep LEOSA, but expand it to regular law-abiding citizens.

Meanwhile, kraigwy, it isn't "semantics" when an agency under the administration that is trying to ban "assault weapons" for the rest of us calls them "personal defense weapons" when speaking about agents having them. That's double-speak, and deliberately done.

If a 5.56mm carbine with a 30rd box magazine is an ideal "personal defense weapon" for an agent, why is it massive overkill for a homeowner?

Please note that I am very much in favor of officers having patrol rifles, and I clearly see the need for them.

I also see that my wife shoots a carbine much better than she shoots a handgun, and where we live, out in the sticks, a carbine may have more applications.

Even in a more urban setting, better accuracy and ease of use, plus higher muzzle energy mean LESS rounds are likely to miss the target and go who knows where.

So, it is NOT semantics. That personal defense weapon, with its many merits as such for DHS personnel, is a "personal defense weapon" at my place, too.
 
MLeake:

I think you misunderstood me. No where have I ever indicated the private citizen has no use for a AR or such type weapon.

Anyone who's read many of my post have seen me indicate otherwise.

First, being a history nut I've read many of the thoughts of our founders on the 2nd A. Seldom did they mention hunting or self defense. The mention the need for checks and balances, meaning an armed citizenry should be a check on the government. At the time period the Constitution was written the people were armed with the same weapons as the military, muskets or rifles (citizens more then the military when it comes to rifles).

I have also stressed over the years that the main reason I like the AR system is for competition. Since the ARs took over from the M14/M1A and M1 Garands in high power rifle (which was my main sport), more women and juniors have gotten in volved and successfully compete against us old guys, and we need women and juniors to keep our sport alive.

As too defense, I know every situation is different. But its my opinion that the pistol/revolver is a much better SD platform, mainly because its available. Not saying a AR type rifle wont work, it will, and quite well, but its the availability of the firearm. Not many of us set around with a rifle in our lap at home encase some bandit crashed through the door, but we have (or should have) a means to protect our selves handy in case someone does crash in. Its easier to pull your revolver from your pocket then to run to the next room and grab your rifle.

Not many of us take our rifles to the ATM late at night, or have one ready when we stop at a red light in case a car jacker appears.

Even in LE I hardly ever took a shotgun or rifle on a call. They seem to always be in the way. Yes I carried a Sniper Rifle, but only dug it out when I got a call, calling for the rifle.

The pistol/revolver leaves one hand free for the flash light, door knob, ticket book, or any of the other hundreds of things we need a free hand for.

We never know when a self defense situation may occur but we have to be ready. Sure, if I knew, the rifle would be my second choice, since I'm not a "first responder" I don't have to respond, so my first choice would to be somewhere else.

No sir, the rifle is not always handy, my revolver is always in my pocket.

Most of my guns are locked in a gun safe, but yes I do keep a rifle handy. Its a bolt gun I keep available, not so much for self defense but to protect my critters from other critters that want to eat them. There has been a mountain lion hanging around most of the winter and I'd rather he not eat my horses.

But NO, I'm not against the private person from having any gun he chooses, that's ANY TYPE GUN. Even full auto if he has the means to afford the ammo for such.

Notice I didn't say citizen, I don't think the right of self protection and having any gun you choose should be limited to citizens.

I believe "Shell Not Infringe" means just that.
 
It sounds like a universal agreement, mostly. I would say that the biggest issue after this is what to do about it. I makes sense for the police to not want to be outgunned by the bad guy. It also makes sense for the average citizen to have that same request. This 2A fight is not going to end with this current struggle. The anti's have an attack plan in place, throw as much mud against wall as possible. Do we even have a plan other than reactionary???
 
delarosadavid said:
Do we even have a plan other than reactionary???
Click to expand...
Yes. We call, we write, we donate and we vote. On The High Road, I've seen members put up their proposed communications with their congressfolks, and I try to help them write more effective letters. The NRA has some 4 million members, and I don't think they represent even 10% of the legal gun owners out there, according to the estimates I've seen.
 
Notice I didn't say citizen, I don't think the right of self protection and having any gun you choose should be limited to citizens
Click to expand...

That's a gray area for me. Our constitution doesn't strictly apply to visitors. They are not part of "the people" (Yes I realize Heller said individual right) They are not part of the militia, they are not draftable, their home jurisdiction does NOT report to the NICS check. I believe someone who is not a citizen, naturalized or otherwise, has a PRIVILEGE to own a gun as well as any other "rights" extended to them as privileges.
 
Officers should always be ahead of the bad guy when it comes to protection so they should have superior firearms at work
Click to expand...

While I agree the police should have appropriate arms I think since they are servants of the public they should be compelled to be highly proficient with the arms they bear. They should be shooting at least monthly and it should be a high enough number of sessions to meet some sort of standardized training requirement... Cant shoot then you don't get to be a possessor of whatever weapon as a public servant.

In my view states and counties should be liable if it can be reasonably shown that their officers are so un-proficient with weapons as to be a menace to the public due to inaccuracy. I wouldn't hold the individuals liable but rather those who should be funding the training.

Of course in my view military style weapons and military weapons (small arms) are all protected under the 2A and should not be the sole domain of law enforcement and the military and the handful of people with pre 86 weapons.
 
kraigwy, I understand that you are not in favor of creating elites, and that you are in favor of the general citizenry being allowed to own any grade of small arm.

We are not in disagreement over that.

My sole point of contention was that by writing off the DHS "personal defense weapon" as mere semantics, it's easy to overlook that those semantics were almost certainly deliberately chosen, by a hypocritical administration that has a serious double standard.
 
I makes sense for the police to not want to be outgunned by the bad guy.
Click to expand...
Here's the kicker: they aren't outgunned. Criminals favor cheap, concealable handguns and shotguns. The few semiauto rifles that are "used" in crimes are usually guns that were confiscated as part of a search.

Despite the propaganda, the police are not engaging in urban warfare, and they do outgun the bad guys. I'm fine with that.

But I'm not a bad guy, nor should I be treated as one without the benefit of due process. Until that time, there's no reason I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself with the same tools the police do.
 
Beg to differ with you Tom, but stolen AK clones are indeed being used in banger shootings and a good friend of mine got his squad car shot full of holes by a bank robber with an AR15. There are several cases where dead-enders have used AK's against officers on car stops, too.

Do I advocate regulating them? Not on your life. But those guns in the hands of criminals are definitely a part of the landscape, for us.
 
Despite the propaganda, the police are not engaging in urban warfare, and they do outgun the bad guys.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more and I get sick of the constant drivel we hear about the police being at a great disadvantage while doing their job. This is a complete load of crap.
 
Beg to differ with you Tom, but stolen AK clones are indeed being used in banger shootings and a good friend of mine got his squad car shot full of holes by a bank robber with an AR15.
Click to expand...
Ah, look at Sarge, catching a Staff member at an overbroad statement! That's going in my list...[scribble, scribble, frowny face] ;)

It does happen. That's why I'm glad the shotgun has been augmented by the M4 in the patrol car.

Even if such incidents were an everyday occurrence, they should highlight the necessity for civilians to have such implements at their disposal as well.

(I am the model of rhetorical sloppiness tonight, aren't I?)
 
Didn't we just have a great example of an ex-cop with a gun - Dorner. Now there's one poster child.

How about another.

Why do we need assault weapons - Charles Whitmen. I've often wondered if anyone had any idea on the number of civilians who showed up that day and started firing on the tower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top