Weapons of War? Then Why Are we Arming the Police with Them?

So I was listening to Francis clarify and continue his comments on how he plans to ban/outlaw AR15s and AK47s since they are “weapons of war.”

“My faith is in this country and in my fellow Americans following the law and listening to people who own AK-47s and AR-15s who acknowledge, who concede, they don’t need it for self-protection,” he said. They don’t need it to hunt. Its real, true purpose and use is on a battlefield." O’Rourke continued.

So if that’s true? Why are police departments armed with them? Are they “at war” with the citizens in their community, are the streets they patrol “battle fields?”

Or is the answer that AR15s are in fact effective weapons for self-defense and we want to arm our officers with them so they can protect and serve in an effective manner that will maximize the protection of life (theirs and the lives of those in the community they protect and serve)?

I would argue that any “weapon of war” not allowed to be held by the citizenry should also not be carried by our local police departments unless they are openly declaring war upon the citizens in their communities, in which case I might suggest they have the Governor of that State call on the National Guard to better serve that purpose as they are actually trained for it (vs police officers being trained to keep the peace).

Complete side note, I find it hilariously ironic that he’s calling for Americans follow gun laws but doesn’t expect the same of our immigration laws.

“Any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law," he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Just some thoughts on the topic I hadn’t seen posted yet (apologies if I missed a thread/post).


He said it would be unconstitutional but previous Supreme Court rulings could allow “common-sense limits to the Second Amendment” concerning more high-powered weapons.

Beto acknowledged that what he is calling for is unconstitutional. What will stop him from making other laws that are unconstitutional and removing the checks and balances that are in the Constitution for this very type of situation? (This is my opinion, not the official opinion of the USCCA.)


quite contrary to Beto’s deliberate misinformation, the gun death rate in Australia has not gone down since the so-called buy back. In addition, the rates of violent crimes -forcible rape, robbery, and home invasion- have skyrocketed in the same period.

The end result of their bans and buy backs has been to render the PEOPLE of Austrailia much less safe than they were before, no matter how much safer the GOVERNMENT might feel.


This man is out for attention. He has though brought out some of his Democratic opponents purposals on this issue.
He and those that are as radical are a danger to our constitutional rights.


Agreed and the other concerning portion of this is that his “radical” rhetoric is beginning to make the other gun grabbers rhetoric look “normal/mainstream.”


I think that’s precisely the plan. I personally think all their proposals are unacceptable.


Since Police are paramilitary, they actually carry M16’s. This was an Obama era decision back when he was “militarizing” LE. The reason for this action was because “bad guys” (cartels, drug runners, human traffickers) were carrying full-auto arms with armor piercing rounds. Most police depts have issued Level III+ body armor. This will stop up to a 5.56 M855 Green Tip. Level IV will stop .30-06.


Then these are great defensive weapons and not “weapons of war” as Francis claims…….

Wounded Knee 1973, Ruby Ridge, 1992, WACO, 1993. Just my opinion.


Definitely - you can see a lot of those numbers in this thread:

The Australian Gun Ban happened in 1996.


Dating myself a bit here but I can remember when the “Saturday Night Special” was the terrible gun of the ages. The anti-gun crowd will always have a demon gun to scream about.


When law enforcement has them they’re called “patrol rifles”

1 Like

Fair enough @KenM but it still begs the question, using Francis’ logic, why would we issue them to our local police/sheriff if their sole purpose it to be used in war?

So either the police/sheriff are at war with the communities they serve in…(which I don’t believe)


These rifles, and the civilian versions thereof, ARE ACTUALLY IN FACT effect defensive weapons as evidenced by issuing them to our local LEOs and as such it’s rational that if they’re good enough for LEO, they’re good enough for the citizenry to protect themselves until local LEO can arrive on scene.

Francis cannot have it both ways.

1 Like

Hey there James, no I’m not agreeing with convicted criminal Robert Francis. I’m pointing out the Kool Aid I’m not drinking of when in the hands of law enforcement it’s good vs in the hands of citizens it’s bad.

The notion and mindset that the public are like children is the problem, in further keeping the perspective that the government must be the only ones with weapons, by driving that the only intent by citizens in having them is to do wrong is absolutely absurd to us, but makes sense to the ignorant.

1 Like

It’s obvious we have allowed the people they are protecting us from to have them so what do we expect from them peashooters?

1 Like

I believe I recently saw a meme on Facebook that said basically, “If the government that has allowed 246 years of armed citizens suddenly wants to confiscate your weapons, there is most likely a reason for you to have them!”

Made sense to me!


Take it one step further… Beto expects US to follow the Law, while HE IGNORES THE CONSTITUTION. That calls US to ENFORCE the 2nd A in EVERY MANNER POSSIBLE. Tyranny is on the prowl again!


When FLA passed “SHALL ISSUE” language there were cries from liberals that the streets would “run red” when it went into affect… So they issued like 600,000 permits, mostly to women… there were a few incidents but the biggest result was that a number of rapists were shot, some fatally. Crime went DOWN and the numbers of assaults on women dropped drastically. Can’t recall the numbers but significantly.

That phrase is very interesting to me. I liken it to another phrase that gets thrown around nowadays- “people of color.” Neither means anything to anyone except the liberals who coined it. This is what annoys me the most about democrats. The blatant hypocrisy… The police are citizens. Badges don’t grant special privileges or rights. So, we cannot own AR15s but the police get all kinds of military weaponry & vehicles?
It’s as if law enforcement is being deliberately separated & elevated above the common folk. With law enforcement being a profession that is funded by taxes, I would think that they would be held to higher standards. Someone is definitely trying to perpetuate the “Us vs Them” dynamic. I wonder why…:thinking:


Since I like in Oklahoma, our laws are a tad more “realistic” than other places. With that said, I have given consideration to adding a LE shotgun mount installed into the front cab of my Chevy Colorado. No, I don’t intend to be the “end all” to some criminal’s life, but if government and LE can carry there, why can’t licensed citizens? As long as it fits within the individual states laws, it should be good to go. I would just take it into the house with me at night!