"I however do not understand the need to own an assault rifle for private use..."
Truth be told, in this post I am venting because I find this to be very frustrating .
I read this article thinking "oh, this will be interesting". The author, who is apparently a law enforcement officer who won't identify himself says the following after professing his support of the second amendment.
Check out the article here Ask a cop: Why the anonymity? | ksl.com
I however do not understand the need to own an assault rifle for private use, with ammunition that will penetrate body armor. I have met exactly zero criminals who have possessed and have been wearing body armor. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but I have to wonder why someone would purchase ammunition or a weapon for that purpose. Do you need an AR-15 with 30-round clips to defend your house? From what? Terrorists? If you live in the country, then you can maybe justify it. But in an urban environment, I say no.
I gotta tell you, I don't' think there is anything that bothers me more than when law enforcement officers use their position of authority or credibility to spew their opinions on firearms laws. Yes, they are indeed entitled to their opinions and I wouldn't take that away from them. But in a public forum where they are looked up to and respected they SHOULD NOT use that position to give there opinions on the laws. Why? They are not lawyers, they are not elected politicians, they are not a member of some higher class that deserves the right to own firearms.
Let me say this, I am very grateful for law enforcement officers and for the job they do. I support them 100%. But I do not like it when the ignorance of some concerning the second amendment or state and federal firearms laws hurts gun owners.
I could him the same thing "Why do you need 30 rounds, who are you defending yourself against? A terrorist?" Maybe he could tell me how many terrorists Utah Law Enforcement officers have had to shoot in the past century. He mention's armor piercing rounds as to imply that its wrong that civilians should own such ammunition. He needs to pull his head out and realize that his soft Kevlar body armor isn't going to protect anyone from a even the most basic center fire rifle rounds. He decides to demonize an AR because it has 30 of those little rounds that can punch right through soft Kevlar.
I'd be willing to bet this guy carries either an AR or 12 gauge with slugs in his patrol car that will both work wonders against soft body armor. Why does he insist that he have a monopoly of force?
Thanks for listening