Tweet
The other side has harped on about how nobody needs an "assault rifle" for self defense out of one side of their mouth.
On the other side of their mouth they chatter about how "assault weapons" and other "weapons of war" are the "choice weapons" of criminals.
So, let's take a quick look at what a "reasonable person" would consider an adequate defense arm.
The purpose of a "self defense tool" is that if your life is in peril, that your "self defense tool" must be able to "immediately stop" the threat.
If your "self defense tool" fails to immediately stop your attacker, the end result for you could be killed or maimed.
The above statement is something most people will agree with, you have a few idiots out there that you will never be able to reach.
Now, in order to be effective, your "self defense tool" really needs to be superior to the threat you are facing, few people would choose to bring a knife to a gun fight for example.
If so called "assault weapons" are the guns of choice of criminals and it is our opponents who are making this claim, then common sense would dictate that we need guns that are equal, preferably superior to what bad guys have.
The antis make shrill arguments that our police are "outgunned" by the criminals. Well if the police are outgunned and they can call for a backup SWAT team, then we are "outgunned" because we have a hard enough time getting one police car with 911, much less a SWAT Team.
The core of the second amendment is "self defense". If the state burdens us with laws that restrict our choice of arms so that we have inferior arms when we are in struggles for our lives, then our second amendment rights are "unduly burdened".
This may be a way to deal with the "10 round mag" limit and the so called ban on arms with PC incorrect cosmetic features.
Nicki
On the other side of their mouth they chatter about how "assault weapons" and other "weapons of war" are the "choice weapons" of criminals.
So, let's take a quick look at what a "reasonable person" would consider an adequate defense arm.
The purpose of a "self defense tool" is that if your life is in peril, that your "self defense tool" must be able to "immediately stop" the threat.
If your "self defense tool" fails to immediately stop your attacker, the end result for you could be killed or maimed.
The above statement is something most people will agree with, you have a few idiots out there that you will never be able to reach.
Now, in order to be effective, your "self defense tool" really needs to be superior to the threat you are facing, few people would choose to bring a knife to a gun fight for example.
If so called "assault weapons" are the guns of choice of criminals and it is our opponents who are making this claim, then common sense would dictate that we need guns that are equal, preferably superior to what bad guys have.
The antis make shrill arguments that our police are "outgunned" by the criminals. Well if the police are outgunned and they can call for a backup SWAT team, then we are "outgunned" because we have a hard enough time getting one police car with 911, much less a SWAT Team.
The core of the second amendment is "self defense". If the state burdens us with laws that restrict our choice of arms so that we have inferior arms when we are in struggles for our lives, then our second amendment rights are "unduly burdened".
This may be a way to deal with the "10 round mag" limit and the so called ban on arms with PC incorrect cosmetic features.
Nicki
Comment