Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page

NOTE! This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or any other living person besides the one who posted them. Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion Policy, but there's a bad apple in every bunch, and we have no control over bigots and other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com

The Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:

CA: New BANNED "Assault" Rifles for Police Department Submitted by: Anonymous	There are 20 comments on this story Post Comments \| Read Comments
When the guns are for the police, they are merely called "rifles," but if these same guns had been confiscated by police, they'd be called "assault weapons." 17 of them, at $500 apiece -- and yes, the AR-15 is classified as "an assault weapon" in California's list of banned guns: CAAG.State.CA.US/firearms/regs/aw.htm

Comment by: Wildwest@KeepAndBearArms.com (11/17/2001)

It's funny how Police and government need to arm themselves better at this point in time. And we have a hard time owning a gun.

Comment by: fluffy@hit.net (11/17/2001)

Too bad California citizens don't have the same right to own a "semi-automatic rifle" that shoots one round with one pull of the trigger. If Diane Feinstine was concerned about her people in California instead of only consolidating power in herself, she would allow California citizens the same right to defend themself.

Comment by: nochains@keepandbeararms.com (11/17/2001)

The more the American police go toward militarization and the military diverts toward urban control should arise concern in us all.

Comment by: gunwacko@keepandbeararms.com (11/18/2001)

So Colt decided to make whatever profit they could by selling 17 AR-15s to a police force in CA at $500 a pop? That's $8500, minus their cost plus overhead... in order to supply guns that have been criminalized for law abiding residents to own? This stinks. I'd have been willing to donate the amount of profit from at least one of those AR-15 sales to Colt for NOT selling them to a California police force. I'd have GIVEN them that money if someone there had had a spine and told California to stick it, until such time as they repeal that stupid law.

Remind me not to buy a Colt again.

Comment by: clay@keepandbeararms.com (11/18/2001)

I call mine an "anti-assault" rifle.
It keeps me from being assaulted

Comment by: Colt_Anaconda1@keepandbeararms (11/18/2001)

TIME TO GET GRAY DAVIS & DIANNE FEINSTEIN & BARBARA BOXER & ALL THE ANTI-GUN POLITICIANS OUT OF OFFICE.TAKE ACTION & WRITE TO PRESIDENT BUSH NOW

Comment by: free@freeindividual.com (11/18/2001)

"Unintended Consequences"

'nuff said!

Comment by: jacklaura1@prodigy.net (11/18/2001)

The best way to combat Finestein and Boxer is to not vote for them. Gray Davis is going going gone anyway.

Comment by: thewettman@keepandbeararms.com (11/18/2001)

Well, they R assault rifles, I have to agree with Clay, it keeps me from being assualted! Thanx Clay.
As a Policeman, I support the 2nd Amendment. Remeber guys, Police dont make the rules, register to vote, let your voice be heard.

Comment by: skypod@keepandbeararms.com (11/18/2001)

No, it isn't the police officers' faults that they are treated as above the law by the lawmakers. Vote the lawmakers OUT.

Comment by: larmobur@keepandbeararms.com (11/18/2001)

Lets add these to the 200 M-16's the LAPD owns, do they have enough firepower?

Comment by: raggedwarrior@keepandbeararms. (11/18/2001)

To wettman: "police don't make the rules" Real policeMEN don't enforce unjust rules!! Remember that the Nazis were not allowed use "just following orders" as an excuse. Obey your oath of office and defend the Constitution. But you are correct in saying that we need to change (drastically) those who are denying us our rights, second amendment and all the rest.

Comment by: dalenick@keepandbeararms.com (11/18/2001)

SURE! It's OK for the cops to have weapons to defend themselves but in Kalifornia, commie capitol of the United States, civilians cannot defend themselves.

Is this one of the weapons on Kalifornia's banned gun list? If it is there should be charges brought upon the government and the police for allowing banned guns on the streets.

Comment by: clubsoda22@hotmail.com (11/18/2001)

Let's see how it would look if the media was trying to get the rifles banned:

"a considerable step up in shooting accuracy, distance and weapon control"
-Semi-Automatic Sniper Weapon!

"The AR-15 is not a machine gun. One squeeze of the trigger delivers one round."
-These assault weapons can fire as fast as an assailant can pull the trigger!

"The rifle delivers a .223 caliber (or5.56mm) round"
-The assault weapons fire the military 5.56 armor piercing cop killer bullet!

Comment by: clubsoda22@hotmail.com (11/18/2001)

Part 2 of prior post:

"There is a spring device that takes up a lot of recoil, so this rifle does not have the kick found in the use of a shotgun or such"
-Can mow down droves of school children with little discomfort to the crazed shooter!

"Each AR-15 costs about $500."
-Inexpensive Saturday Night Special assault weapons!

Comment by: pmann@cojk.com (11/19/2001)

"Neither of these weapons [handgun/shotgun] offers the range or accuracy that the AR-15 rifle does, said officer Robert Leonardich."

I'm probably being unfair (and a bit naive) here, but I always thought that shooting others at long range wasn't a major police concern. But then again, I've never understood why police need camo uniforms, armored vehicles and various Ninja gadgets either.

Comment by: cjhughes@keepandbeararms.com (11/19/2001)

The weapons will give officers a considerable step up in shooting accuracy, distance and weapon control. ... Neither [handguns nor shotguns] offers the range or accuracy that the AR-15 rifle does, said officer Robert Leonardich.

Comment by: cjhughes@keepandbeararms.com (11/19/2001)

Compare and Contrast:

12275.5. The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in Section 12276 based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings.

Comment by: bstaurovsky@snet.net (11/19/2001)

It's time that "WE THE PEOPLE" show "OUR" government that "WE THE PEOPLE"
"ARE" the government and the people that
"WE" put in office "SHALL AND WILL" uphold the Constitution of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, and if they don't want to then let's send them to Afhganistan and bomb them with the Taliban, for they are nothing but terrorists too!

Comment by: UKcitizen (9/13/2004)

Here in the UK nobody walks around like Osama Bin Laden draped in bullet belts and brandishing AK-47's and our murder rate is much lower than in the US. Public gun ownership doesn't make you safer, it just means you're more likely to be murdered by some rambo wannabe. Grow up and find some other toys to play with.