0
rushmc

DHS says AR15 sporting rifle (and 30 round magazines) suitable for home defense

Recommended Posts

Quote

Thanks for noticing your obvious mistake.

I would say their safety is equally important, and harder to ensure than yours or mine.


They are more exposed to crime and danger, and so they have a higher threshold to meet in order to remain safe.


Much like the Navy needs Aircraft carriers to defend itself. While the Navy's safety is no less important than yours, you don't really need an aircraft carrier to ensure yours.


ETA: and a rigging ticket! So I know you didn't miss that mistake, you made it intentionally. That is not the way to encourage constructive discussion.

We could have discussed it just as easily with a truthful thread title. Lets be genuine plz.



I was hardly less than genuine

But
I know it does not work with those like you who parse phrases anyway so what the hell

OTH
I see you feel the right to pick who needs to be safe and who doesnt

Glad the Constitution is between you and my guns
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

:[

I didn't parse phrases.

I also didn't say one had more of a right to safety than the other.....in fact I said the exact opposite.

You might be being genuine, just not accurate. I may have misspoke.



I will take this as an apology for now


By this I am giving you the benefit of the doubt


this time

but dont mistake this

My life and personal safety are as important as any government fuck head

as is yours

and only you and I can take that as far as it can go
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0

The PDF's on the right

3rd one down

Section 3.1


And actually, the whole link is about AR rifle in 5.56 for home defense

Good enough for them but not us?



I might be reading this differently to you, however personal defense for an LEO =! home defense.
As I read it, this is for guys on duty? If the DHS is buying 7000 of these purely for their officers to take home and use for defending their home then I stand corrected. Seems unlikely though. Especially when you read the rest of the criteria for the weapon.



Their words

Not mine

Home defense



Nope.
The DHS does not once mention "home defense"

The author of the article does.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to.



Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy.



Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly?


Nope...what does that have to do with wanting to or needing to?

You evaded that one question and didn't address the others.



Sorry- missed this question in the thread myself!
Quote

I missed this the first time. I'm going to jump in with Pops. What did I do when I was a cop that I don't do now? I've apparently forgotten.



Err - put yourself intentionally in harms way?
I didn't evade anything. You asked for an example of something a regular guy doesn't want to or need to be able to do and I gave you one.

Why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? No reason at all, but there are levels of this, starting with window locks, and ending up with nuclear deterrent. Where we differ is where the line is drawn as to what is and isn't appropriate.

And how do you define "need" that covers all situations
You can't - which is why this RFP isn't talking about home defense. Its not designed for that. Its talking about personal defense for LEO's

The original point here (that has got lost in the fud), is that the thread title is complete bullshit, the DHS never said anything of the sort. I appreciate you guys are trying to confuse that to make your own point, but fundamentally you are wrong.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to.



Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy.



Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly?


Nope...what does that have to do with wanting to or needing to?

You evaded that one question and didn't address the others.



Sorry- missed this question in the thread myself!
Quote

I missed this the first time. I'm going to jump in with Pops. What did I do when I was a cop that I don't do now? I've apparently forgotten.



Err - put yourself intentionally in harms way?
I didn't evade anything. You asked for an example of something a regular guy doesn't want to or need to be able to do and I gave you one.

Why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? No reason at all, but there are levels of this, starting with window locks, and ending up with nuclear deterrent. Where we differ is where the line is drawn as to what is and isn't appropriate.

And how do you define "need" that covers all situations
You can't - which is why this RFP isn't talking about home defense. Its not designed for that. Its talking about personal defense for LEO's

The original point here (that has got lost in the fud), is that the thread title is complete bullshit, the DHS never said anything of the sort. I appreciate you guys are trying to confuse that to make your own point, but fundamentally you are wrong.



WRONG

It is talking about Personal defense

Does not matter for who

My person is worth defending

You think that its not I guess

NOT once in the RFP does it call an AR platform rifle an assault weapon. It does call it a sporting rifle however

And those they are picking have select fire choices

Sorry
An AR IS a good choice for personal or home defense (especially in rural areas around cities)

Not a debatable point

Limiting it is a farse

And I think I agree with kallend a bit on this

The AR or assault weapon ban is a barganing chip (shamefully).

The feds want a data base
That is the end game

To stop it, you dont start

And before the idiots write new law, they should enforce existing law and see if any of that works


Now, you can go back to drawing some silly line around need

Me, I am going to keep fighting for my rights

Against those like you
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case you missed it, the following is the title of the RFP

Quote

Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation



Also of note

The RFP stated select fire will semi-auto and auto

No burst selection
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In case you missed it, the following is the title of the RFP

Quote

Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation



Also of note

The RFP stated select fire will semi-auto and auto

No burst selection


So you admit home defense is not mentioned. Glad we got that cleared up. :D:D

Nice try at back tracking though
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

In case you missed it, the following is the title of the RFP

Quote

Personal Defense Weapons Solicitation



Also of note

The RFP stated select fire will semi-auto and auto

No burst selection


So you admit home defense is not mentioned. Glad we got that cleared up. :D:D

Nice try at back tracking though


If you would read back you would not need to play the ass

So you still want to take my personal defense weapon?

Firgures
Conservative dont like guns
They do not buy one

Liberals dont like guns
They done want anyone to have guns

If a conservative is a vegitarian
They dont eat meat

If a lib is a vegitarian
They do not want anyone to eat meat



And the pattern continues


BTW

Persona defense does not include defense of ones home?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


WRONG

It is talking about Personal defense


Now we are getting somewhere. Well done on re-reading the original rfp and finally understanding that your thread title is incorrect.


Quote


Does not matter for who


If you say so,although the RFP is for LEO's specifically - unless they are buying you one as well?


Quote


My person is worth defending

You think that its not I guess


Not true at all. I have no problems with you having guns, and I am sure you are a nice guy and are worth defending!

Quote


NOT once in the RFP does it call an AR platform rifle an assault weapon. It does call it a sporting rifle however


No debate here

Quote


And those they are picking have select fire choices


No debate here

Quote


Sorry
An AR IS a good choice for personal or home defense (especially in rural areas around cities)

Not a debatable point


Everything is debatable - I am sure there are many people who feel a pistol they can carry at all times is a better weapon than an AR where that isn't so practical, but each to their own! I have carried military rifles on exercise in the UK, and when you can't put them down AT ALL for hours/days they very swiftly become a pain in the arse! If you think an AR makes more sense I have no problem with that,
I am genuinely interested here however in your opinion - for home defense, surely the best weapon is the one you have to hand - which in most cases is surely far more practically a pistol?

Quote


Limiting it is a farse


Yeah - possibly, comes back to where you draw the line - but far more importantly

Quote


And I think I agree with kallend a bit on this

The AR or assault weapon ban is a barganing chip (shamefully).


Agreed. I think its a bargaining chip, and its shameful that they need it in order to get some sensible legislation through to close the "private sale loophole" normally misleadingly called the "gun show loophole". Doesn't matter what its called, you know what I mean.

Quote

The feds want a data base
That is the end game

To stop it, you dont start


I'm in two minds here, you may be right, however I have, and I suspect you have zero proof of this other than some conspiracy theories.

Quote

And before the idiots write new law, they should enforce existing law and see if any of that works


I don't disagree - still think that loophole needs closing and this is a good thing. I thought your post about how its done with a pre-check was a great idea.


Quote


Now, you can go back to drawing some silly line around need

Me, I am going to keep fighting for my rights

Against those like you



You'll be fighting shadows then - I like guns! Been watching hickok45's videos recently - that guy makes me laugh- I reckon he's doing the vids purely to land some ammo sponsorship to sustain his habit - and fair play to him!
(Just as an aside, I was once lucky enough to get a few shots with an L115A3 - that was a beautiful rifle but I nearly choked when I found out how much they were worth)
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fair enough on your reply's

However

No where in the RFP did I see that these personal defense weapons were for LEO's

There are being ordered by Dept of Homeland Defense though
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing

I have no problem with back ground checks for private sales

It happens here in Iowa regularly now

But only if it a criminal offense to keep the record of the check once completed

The Feds wanting a data base is the reason

That can NOT be allowed to happen
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Fair enough on your reply's

However

No where in the RFP did I see that these personal defense weapons were for LEO's

There are being ordered by Dept of Homeland Defense though



Yeah -fair point. As you say, its kind of implicit

Solicitation Number: HSCEMS-12-R-00011
Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Office: Immigration & Customs Enforcement
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to.



Such as? And why in the world would anyone not want to improve their chances? And how do you define "need" that covers all situations. That's just crazy.



Ok - so you wear kevlar regularly?


Nope...what does that have to do with wanting to or needing to?

You evaded that one question and didn't address the others.



Sorry- missed this question in the thread myself!
Quote

I missed this the first time. I'm going to jump in with Pops. What did I do when I was a cop that I don't do now? I've apparently forgotten.



Err - put yourself intentionally in harms way?
I didn't evade anything. You asked for an example of something a regular guy doesn't want to or need to be able to do and I gave you one...



I know a couple of civilians who wear kevlar on a daily basis.

One is a cab driver. The other is a jewlery shop owner.

Both have been robbed at gunpoint.
Both have decided that the hassle and discomfort of wearing body armor are worth the protection it gives.

And while I wouldn't consider what the cab driver does as "intentionally putting himself into harms way," he does go to somewhat sketchy areas and pick up somewhat questionable people.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?



Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid.
Dom


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?



Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid.



Owning "a" weapon might be.

Owning every type of weapon is not.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?



Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid.



Owning "a" weapon might be.

Owning every type of weapon is not.



Where in the Constitution does it say that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?



Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid.



Owning "a" weapon might be.

Owning every type of weapon is not.



Where in the Constitution does it say that?



"keep and bear arms"

not "keep and bear all arms"

Which is why SCOTUS has upheld other restrictions of the 2nd amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?



Owning a weapon is a constitutional right. A drivers license is not. It is a privilege that we enjoy and can be taken away for a number of reasons. So I cant see the comparison being valid.



Owning "a" weapon might be.

Owning every type of weapon is not.



Where in the Constitution does it say that?



"keep and bear arms"

not "keep and bear all arms"

Which is why SCOTUS has upheld other restrictions of the 2nd amendment.



Where does it say "only keep and bear the arms the government says you can keep and bear"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't state any/all or any variation thereof.

That's why SCOTUS has ruled that other types of restrictions may be placed on the 2nd amendment.

Such as automatic weapons restrictions.

You don't have to agree with my reading of the Constitution. That's why we have a SCOTUS.

You don't have to agree with SCOTUS.

But they don't give a shit.


ETA: You will notice nowhere in the 2nd amendment does it mention felons being excluded from firearm possession or the mentally ill. But those people have had their rights restricted. SCOTUS has said you can also have yours restricted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0