Judge rules California's ban on Assault Weapons UnConstitutional

[Lursa]

This is where I'm getting it.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/guns/why-a-shotgun-is-the-best-option-for-home-defense/
https://www.worth.com/guns-firearms-best-weapon-home-defense-2020/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/need-gun-home-defense-these-5-are-best-planet-148031

Shotguns do not suffer from the dangers of overpenetration the way rifles do and have a more forgiving sight picture. You can easily get a 5 inch spread at 15 feet with a proper choke. Yes buckshot can penetrate drywall, but it won't penetrate the outer walls of your house and continue across the street into your neighbor's house. And suppression is not worth worrying about when your life is in danger. You will not go deaf from the report of a shotgun.

The best home defense firearm is one you can afford and one you can afford to practice with regularly. If you shoot better under stress with a rifle than with a shotgun, more power to you. But if you are an otherwise average-sized adult (man or woman) without sharpshooting skills who is choosing to own one weapon solely for home defense, a .12 gauge loaded with buckshot is the safest, most efficient, and most effective firearm you can choose. Handguns loaded with hollow point ammo are close second. Unless you expect to be fending off an armed hit squad, anything more is overkill. I'm all for your right to use a suppressed semi-auto rifle with frangible ammunition to defend your home, but I wouldn't recommend it as the ideal home defense weapon. It is a fine choice, but it is not the ideal choice.

It all depends on a home situation....kids, close neighbors, etc.

But elevating the handgun with hollow points to the top of the list is the ability to attach a suppressor ("silencer"). Just as much for muzzle flash suppression (supports night vision) as noise suppression. I'm all for scaring the crap out of intruders with the noise tho, if a first shot misses.

 

[natman]

But open carry? and what of the rocket launcher? you saying those nasty lefties are prohibiting this? let me at em, sons of bitches...

But seriously, do you (or any other "righty") agree or disagree that these kinds of weapons should be legal, openly carried? is that or is that not constitutional? why do none of you ever complain about this? what's the NRA's stance? come on, guys do you want to discuss this or don't you? cat got your tongue?

The topic is the constitutionality of so called "assault weapons". I realize that you'd like to divert the topic so you can make the strawman argument "So you want to carry concealed nuclear weapons?", but nobody is falling for it.

 

[Rich2018]

...I'm all for scaring the crap out of intruders with the noise tho, if a first shot misses.

Then wear ear defenders (muffs)

Guns, when fired indoors, are really loud. And no, silencers/suppressors are not to kill the muzzle flash as much as they are to deaden the noise.

 

[Rucker61]

Then wear ear defenders (muffs)

Guns, when fired indoors, are really loud. And no, silencers/suppressors are not to kill the muzzle flash as much as they are to deaden the noise.

I'd rather depend upon having my full hearing if there is an intruder in the house, and silencers don't need batteries.

 

[Rich2018]

I'd rather depend upon having my full hearing if there is an intruder in the house, and silencers don't need batteries.

You won't have it for long if you discharge a firearm indoors.

 

[Lursa]

I'd rather depend upon having my full hearing if there is an intruder in the house, and silencers don't need batteries.

LOL...like I'm going to plan on having the time to put on ear protection! LOLOLOL And in my situation, retaining my night vision gives me a huge advantage in my house.

I've had someone shoot a .45 right next to me indoors at a range, forgot to put on my muffs as I stepped up to the line...and so I'm prepared for that noise...it wont reduce any temp hearing loss but it will reduce my reaction to the noise by far.

And yeah...that's the kind of thing that you only forget "once." ha.

 

[Rucker61]

You won't have it for long if you discharge a firearm indoors.

Hence the use of a suppressor on my home defense firearm of choice.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

not any more. and not if it violates their state constitution IF the weapons they are trying to ban are in common use and NOT unusually dangerous. I cannot think of a weapon being sold today to private citizens that was made in the last 30 years that would fail either test.

We need to stress the original meaning of the description of "dangerous and unusual" and it isn't "unusually dangerous" . . .

This is another instance of Scalia screwing the pooch and not really getting down to the fine point, Heller is written like it is dumbed down and Scalia's lack of clarity and sloppy writing has really held up the full enforcement of the RKBA (see the 4th in Kolbe v Hogan taking Scalia's "M-16's and the like" to justify banning semi-autos) . . .

Scalia doesn't even cite the cleanest explanation of the term "dangerous and unusual" in his list of sources, the case that the Miller Court drew its reasoning from for how to treat the sawed-off shotgun. That description, "dangerous and unusual", isn't a definition applied at the beginning of the analysis / determination of a type of arm's level of 2nd Amendment protection, it is what remains after the that arm fails the protection criteria.

Miller held that if the arm CAN NOT BE SHOWN to be of a type that constitutes the ordinary [usual] military equipment and/or a type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens and/or a type in common use by the citizens for lawful purpose, then it could be deemed "dangerous and unusual" and the government's claim to be afforded a power to restrict the citizen's possession and use of that type of arm, could be granted.

Aymette v State (1840): explains when a legislature can exercise a power to restrict a type of arm's possession and use (emphasis in original):

• “The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence.”

The reasonable assumption seems to be all arms are potentially dangerous "to the peace and safety of the citizens", but a power only exists to prohibit arms that are NOT USUAL in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense (again, Miller says "ordinary military equipment").

Of course in these enlightened times the legal fact of what “unusual” really means -- not usual in civilized warfare / not usual military equipment -- has been scrubbed and sanitized and made anew.

This is to allow ’style’ to supplant ‘type’ as the definition and descriptor of “unusual”.

This allows phasing out an assessment of a type of arm's usefulness as a war-fighting tool, to now looking at how much a gun's appearance deviates from how a 'good gun' looks, and that has become the new standard to justify banning them.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

How is it unconstitutional, if assault-type weapons are banned, you can still get other guns

Banning some guns is not infringing your ability to guy a gun....take sa look round a typical gun store, there are still hundreds of guns you could still buy.

Heller addressed this reasoning:

"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."​

​

Just like there are reasons why a handgun would be preferable in defense in some situations, there are reasons why a long gun would be preferred in self defense, especially with the standard sized magazine of a modern rifle.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Heller was not a bipartisan ruling. Same goes for McDonald v Chicago. These are right wing interpretations.

I assure you, as the nation drifts further to the left, gun policy will eventually change.

Heller wasn't bipartisan??? Yes, the Scalia majority affirmed the "individual right" and the majority was held by one vote, 5-4 . . . But that disagreement was for sustaining the laws being challenged, not the fundamental question of whether the 2nd Amendment secures an individual or "collective" right.

You apparently do not know that BOTH Heller dissents acknowledge that the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is INDIVIDUAL and that determination is consistent with Supreme Court precedent and all opinions issued that day (so actually, the "score" for the individual right is not 5-4, it's 9-0.

Justice Breyer says in his Heller dissent (which the other 3 leftist Justices concur):

"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:​

​

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). . . . "​

Justice Stevens says in the opening of his Heller dissent (which the other 3 leftist Justices concur):

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. . . ."​

Of course Stevens and Breyer each go on snipe hunts looking for reasons to sustain the laws and avoid the unavoidable determinations forced by acknowledging the individual right . . .

So, the first thing you need to reconcile is what you think the Court has said, with what the Court has actually said.

The individual right is the correct "interpretation" as Breyer says, "based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes".

It's not a well written sentence. If that were not true, we wouldn't be debating 250 years later.

That statement is only evidence of how the foundational principles have been scrubbed from the consciousness of Americans. If you were operating under the understanding that the right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment, you would not be examining words upon which the right in no manner depends.

For 218 years there was no individual guarantee of the right to bear arms, only since Wash DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, has it come to pass.

How does the Supreme Court case that first spoke to the 2nd Amendment and the right to arms, United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), fit into your position?

Cruikshank recognizes the right of two Freemen, former slaves then citizens, to possess and carry arms for self defense, in public, from white oppressors in a state and at a time that the state had no militia (it being disbanded by the governor, on the orders of Congress).

Cruikshank shows without any possible dispute that SCOTUS recognizes the 2nd Amendment securing an individual right, independent of any militia association.

This must be so, these were two black men who, even if Louisiana had a militia, they could not enroll (see Militia Act of 1792).

 

[Willie Orwontee]

"Assault Weapon" is a nonsensical leftist term without meaning because it literally can mean anything you want it to mean depending on your agenda. The term was invented by anti-American leftist filth in the media during the 1990s. There was no such thing as an "Assault Weapon" prior to 1994. "Assault Weapon" is pure leftist propaganda, nothing else.

In gun control agit-prop, the employment of the term "assault weapon", goes back a few more years.

It is now and always was, a contrived, engineered term meant to capitalize on the ignorance of guns, especially by dumb, eager to be led liberals . . . And the anti-gun left that coined the term isn't embarrassed to tells us that:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."​

​

Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America (1988)​

Firearms Policy Project of the Violence Policy Center​

 

[Willie Orwontee]

So by that analysis a flame thrower or rocket launcher is constitutional, would you advocate people have unrestricted rights to buy, own and carry these kinds of weapons?

Here's an honest (but extremely hyperbolic) analysis of US v Miller by a federal Circuit court 3 years after Miller was handed down. See, if Miller was enforced the 2nd Amendment situation would have been and would be now, much different.

Of course this court just could not accept or enforce, what Miller really held . . . So this court went for hyperbole and used that o dismiss and ignore the Supreme Court and then reconstitute the racist, discriminatory "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This decision's holding perverted and polluted 2nd Amendment jurisprudence in the lower federal courts for 66 years, until Heller invalidated the collective right theory. This is what is coming, this is the flood that is behind the rickety dam you leftists have built, and that is going to be breached and washed away. You thought Heller was "bad", well, get your galoshes on!

• "At any rate the rule of the Miller case, if intended to be comprehensive and complete would seem to be already outdated, in spite of the fact that it was formulated only three and a half years ago, because of the well known fact that in the so called 'Commando Units' some sort of military use seems to have been found for almost any modern lethal weapon. In view of this, if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, . . . " -- Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)

 

[Glitch]

You mean a bit like "bear arms" as used in the 2nd amendment can mean anything you want it to mean depending on your rightist agenda?

If you are incapable of comprehending the meaning of "bear arms" I suggest you buy a dictionary. Bother words have had well defined meanings for multiple centuries and those meanings have not changed. Get a clue.

Why is a left leaning political position "anti American"? there's no such thing as anti-American, this is a term invented by right wing propaganda.

Americans support the defining principles of this nation and are pro-life, pro-liberty, and pro-pursuit of happiness. When your abject hatred of the nation makes you anti-life, anti-liberty, and anti-pursuit of happiness then you have become an anti-American. Like all leftist filth.

 

[Glitch]

We need to stress the original meaning of the description of "dangerous and unusual" and it isn't "unusually dangerous" . . .

This is another instance of Scalia screwing the pooch and not really getting down to the fine point, Heller is written like it is dumbed down and Scalia's lack of clarity and sloppy writing has really held up the full enforcement of the RKBA (see the 4th in Kolbe v Hogan taking Scalia's "M-16's and the like" to justify banning semi-autos) . . .

Scalia doesn't even cite the cleanest explanation of the term "dangerous and unusual" in his list of sources, the case that the Miller Court drew its reasoning from for how to treat the sawed-off shotgun. That description, "dangerous and unusual", isn't a definition applied at the beginning of the analysis / determination of a type of arm's level of 2nd Amendment protection, it is what remains after the that arm fails the protection criteria.

Scalia botched Heller by adding his own criteria instead of interpreting the US Constitution as it was written. He wanted to spare the States from 230 years of laws that violate the Second Amendment by adding criteria he should not have. Such as those "in common use at the time" or "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

There is no such criteria in the US Constitution. Furthermore, if we applied Scalia's nonsensical criteria the left could ban all shotguns tomorrow. Since every shotgun used by the military prior to 1972 was manufactured for civilian use, but "employed in a military capacity."

Scalia's manufactured criteria is the biggest flaw of the Heller decision.

With regard to the Miller decision, understanding what was happening to the Supreme Court at that time is also important. After the Supreme Court killed 11 out of the 15 New Deal programs that FDR coveted in 1936, FDR began replacing the Supreme Court. Any Supreme Court justice that did not agree with FDR was replaced, whether they wanted to be or not. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices. Which means that between 1937 and 1943 the Supreme Court was under considerable duress by a fascist leftist President and none of their decisions during that period can be trusted.

 

[Rucker61]

Scalia botched Heller by adding his own criteria instead of interpreting the US Constitution as it was written. He wanted to spare the States from 230 years of laws that violate the Second Amendment by adding criteria he should not have. Such as those "in common use at the time" or "weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."

There is no such criteria in the US Constitution. Furthermore, if we applied Scalia's nonsensical criteria the left could ban all shotguns tomorrow. Since every shotgun used by the military prior to 1972 was manufactured for civilian use, but "employed in a military capacity."

Scalia's manufactured criteria is the biggest flaw of the Heller decision.

TD has an interesting perspective on this.

With regard to the Miller decision, understanding what was happening to the Supreme Court at that time is also important. After the Supreme Court killed 11 out of the 15 New Deal programs that FDR coveted in 1936, FDR began replacing the Supreme Court. Any Supreme Court justice that did not agree with FDR was replaced, whether they wanted to be or not. Between 1937 and 1943 FDR replaced all nine Supreme Court justices. Which means that between 1937 and 1943 the Supreme Court was under considerable duress by a fascist leftist President and none of their decisions during that period can be trusted.

You mean like Korematsu v. United States, Hirabayashi v. United States, Yasui v. United States, and Wickard v. Filburn?

 

[natman]

We need to stress the original meaning of the description of "dangerous and unusual" and it isn't "unusually dangerous" . . .

This is another instance of Scalia screwing the pooch and not really getting down to the fine point, Heller is written like it is dumbed down and Scalia's lack of clarity and sloppy writing has really held up the full enforcement of the RKBA (see the 4th in Kolbe v Hogan taking Scalia's "M-16's and the like" to justify banning semi-autos) . . .

Thanks for your enlightening posts.

As far as the Fourth Circuit Court's interpretation of Heller in Kolbe v Hogan, let's see what they concluded:

Continuing on, the Heller Court specified that “weapons that are most useful in military service —M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned” without infringement upon the Second Amendment right. Kolbe v Hogan page 35.

The problem is that Heller specified no such thing. The Fourth misquoted and distorted the M16 quote almost beyond recognition and ignored repeated explanations in Heller of what weapons were covered.

Let's see the original quote from Heller:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. DC v Heller Page 55

It's crystal clear to an observer with a grain of objectivity that the phrase that the Fourth decided was the conclusion of Heller has been lifted completely out of context. It appears in a speculative "If - Then" sentence that Scalia refutes in the very next sentence. They also go to great lengths to diminsh the Grand Canyou sized legal differences between a military M16 in order to squeeze a semiauto AR-15 into the phrase "M16s and the like". Then they ignore the repeated instances of the Heller test of "commonly used for lawful purposes" that is what Heller ACTUALLY uses to describe what is protected by the Second Amendment.

While Heller may have room for improvement, there's no way anything can stand up to the level of dishonesty the Fourth CC used to justify their opinion in Kolbe v Hogan.

 

[Rucker61]

Thanks for your enlightening posts.

As far as the Fourth Circuit Court's interpretation of Heller in Kolbe v Hogan, let's see what they concluded:

Continuing on, the Heller Court specified that “weapons that are most useful in military service —M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned” without infringement upon the Second Amendment right. Kolbe v Hogan page 35.

The problem is that Heller specified no such thing. The Fourth misquoted and distorted the M16 quote almost beyond recognition and ignored repeated explanations in Heller of what weapons were covered.

Let's see the original quote from Heller:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. DC v Heller Page 55

It's crystal clear to an observer with a grain of objectivity that the phrase that the Fourth decided was the conclusion of Heller has been lifted completely out of context. It appears in a speculative "If - Then" sentence that Scalia refutes in the very next sentence. They also go to great lengths to diminsh the Grand Canyou sized legal differences between a military M16 in order to squeeze a semiauto AR-15 into the phrase "M16s and the like". Then they ignore the repeated instances of the Heller test of "commonly used for lawful purposes" that is what Heller ACTUALLY uses to describe what is protected by the Second Amendment.

While Heller may have room for improvement, there's no way anything can stand up to the level of dishonesty the Fourth CC used to justify their opinion in Kolbe v Hogan.

Regarding the state and local bans, it's interesting how the federal courts all had different reasons for upholding the bans:
In Shew v Malloy, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals noted that AR-15s and 30 round magazines could be presumed to be protected by the Second, but made it a strict vs intermediate scrutiny issue.

In Kolbe v Hogan, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals orginally kicked back the Maryland ban for review under strict scrutiny, but the liberals on the court realized the Pandora's Box that would open and reviewed the case en banc. Their reasoning for upholding the ban is that AR-15s were "weapons of war" "most useful to a military", which seems to ignore the facts that semiautomatic AR-15s haven't been used in war and that the military owns zero while civilians own 20 million. The decision also ignores US v Miller, which affirmed that weapons useful to a militia are protected by the Second Amendment.

In Friedman v Highland Park, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals came up with "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces th6e perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit.”

There's nothing like consistency, and the courts have shown nothing like consistency.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Heller addressed this reasoning:

"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."​

​

Just like there are reasons why a handgun would be preferable in defense in some situations, there are reasons why a long gun would be preferred in self defense, especially with the standard sized magazine of a modern rifle.

Its good to see Heller addressing the Richs in the world to destroy their arguments.

 

[braindrain]

Unless I'm mistaken these weapons can deliver a bullet with an energy of 1,300 ft-lbs and velocity of over 3,000 ft/sec.

Contrast that with a 357 Mag that delivers around 540 ft-lbs and perhaps 1,200 ft/sec.

The AR-15 is not something you need for home defense, its insane, something from the movies, Scarface or something.

Thank you continuing to prove you have no real knowledge on this topic and your opinion should be ignored.

But tell us if ARs are so less effective then pistols when meeting an armed assailant in a house why do the police swat teams and military all use M4s or AR15s for house clearing.

 

[braindrain]

What was characterized as "bearable arms" at the time the 2nd amendment was ratified, 1791?

It did not include a host of current weapon designs, the term "arms" used in the 2nd amendment must be understood in the context of the time, the term meant something tangible at that point in time, it does not mean any kind of weapon you want it to mean.



Yawn...

Does the same apply to the first amendment. Do you feel you should not have freedom of speech while using your cell phone or you computer.

Let me guess. That's different.

 

[braindrain]

How so?

Most importantly it is much much easier to use quickly and effectively especially in a high stress environment.

Why do you think the military, swat teams and even regular LE all prefer to use M4s/ARs over pistols when ever possible.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes they ***ARE*** both widely sold
And correct, they're not designed to kill game, but rather people

You must have an odd definition of "widely sold," if you think that applies to those firearms. At best, they represent a rare niche in firearm sales. Perhaps less so with respect to the the 1911, but the ones people are buying today are not your grandaddy's WW2 1911. They are intended for the same purposes as pretty much every other handgun sold to civilians: Target shooting and self-defense.

But congratulations on abandoning your "great majority" claim.

Source ?

You first.

WTF - I said: "...weird that you think the M-1911 was designed for suppressive fire"

And you just said (of the M1 and M-1911):

Did you see that word "or" in there? That's not from a foreign language. It means that one or the other of the options listed could apply. Look it up. Also, I was referring to the M1 and the 1911 collectively and listed those options in juxtoposition to your claim that the way to stop the enemy from shooting you is by killing them (which is the entire subject of this pointless discussion to begin with). Learn something about context.

You're right about one thing (like a stopped clock), though. The 1911 is not terribly useful for suppressing fire in most battlefield situations, although it's better than nothing. But it's also not that great for killing or wounding the enemy either. That's why soldiers carry rifles.

And also (about the M1 & M-1911):

(stopping enemy soldiers from shooting back is called suppressive fire Btw)

Wounding them or killing them also tends to stop them from shooting back. Funny how you whine about contradictions, when you literally just switched from "killing them" to "suppressive fire" as the way to stop the enemy from shooting back.

....when it's so manifest that you contradict yourself in adjacent lines.

Only in your imagination, but you're pretty good at it. So projection maybe?

I don't care about your weird opinion, please quote a source that suggests that the M1 and M-1911 were NOT designed to kill.

This coming from the guy who cited no sources for the claim that they are, or provided any rationale that it's even relevant to the original topic.

 

[braindrain]

It's a functional home defense weapon, but that it is ideal is debatable. Not only do rifles, like handguns, require precise aim, rifles are also far more prone to overpenetration than handguns. Most firearms authorities recommend the shotgun as the ideal home defense weapon, as it suffers from neither of these weaknesses.

You may want to do a bit more research. As long as you are not shooting FMJ most 556 rounds penetrate less the handgun rounds in most building types.

And I would love to see your evidence that most self defense authorities recommend shotguns.

Why do you think swat teams and military units that specialize in CQB don't primarily use shotguns.

 

[braindrain]

This is where I'm getting it.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/guns/why-a-shotgun-is-the-best-option-for-home-defense/
https://www.worth.com/guns-firearms-best-weapon-home-defense-2020/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/need-gun-home-defense-these-5-are-best-planet-148031

Shotguns do not suffer from the dangers of overpenetration the way rifles do and have a more forgiving sight picture. You can easily get a 5 inch spread at 15 feet with a proper choke. Yes buckshot can penetrate drywall, but it won't penetrate the outer walls of your house and continue across the street into your neighbor's house. And suppression is not worth worrying about when your life is in danger. You will not go deaf from the report of a shotgun.

The best home defense firearm is one you can afford and one you can afford to practice with regularly. If you shoot better under stress with a rifle than with a shotgun, more power to you. But if you are an otherwise average-sized adult (man or woman) without sharpshooting skills who is choosing to own one weapon solely for home defense, a .12 gauge loaded with buckshot is the safest, most efficient, and most effective firearm you can choose. Handguns loaded with hollow point ammo are close second. Unless you expect to be fending off an armed hit squad, anything more is overkill. I'm all for your right to use a suppressed semi-auto rifle with frangible ammunition to defend your home, but I wouldn't recommend it as the ideal home defense weapon. It is a fine choice, but it is not the ideal choice.

Sorry but i don't put that much weight behind your opinion. And for every example of some one claiming the shotgun is best for home defense I can find one for an AR.

 

[TurtleDude]

Heller addressed this reasoning:

"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid."​

​

Just like there are reasons why a handgun would be preferable in defense in some situations, there are reasons why a long gun would be preferred in self defense, especially with the standard sized magazine of a modern rifle.

the bannerrhoids often say that since you can buy other firearms than an "assault weapon" your second amendment rights remain if the government bans the weapons most likely to cause bed wetting by the bannerrhoids. This specious bullshit fails for two main reasons

1) the second amendment is not about what you CAN do but rather what the government cannot do

2) the creation of other weapons does not suddenly empower the government to ban weapons that would be "legal" but for other weapons in existence.

3) that is why a One a month gun limit is clearly unconstitutional. that you have bought a gun in say the last 20 days does not somehow empower the the government to do something it did not have the power to do before you bought the firearm