re: Mass shooting reported in Texas; multiple deaths reported

quote:

---

I own an AR and 4 out of 5 of my friends do too

---

You only have 5 friends?

quote:

---

I'd rather have a shotgun for home defense.

---

And that's great for you. Some people would rather have a baseball bat. Some people would rather have a revolver. Some people would rather have a semi auto pistol.

The point is, when others start deciding which form of defense law abiding citizens should or shouldn't have access to, those citizens should push back. And they shouldn't let left wing liberal crazies that shoot up churches have the satisfaction of knowing that they had part in taking guns away from law abiding citizens.

quote:

---

to say that it’s a gun used for protection is just ridiculous.

---

There are about 25 reasons it is a better option than a shotgun or pistol for protection. I understand you are upset about all this, but to deny that is just irrational.

ETA

quote:

---

I'd rather have a shotgun for home defense.

---

pick a setting?
My AR is suppressed, not as loud indoors and probably wont suffer the same disorientation after firing.
My AR has a 30rd magazine, I will not have to reload as quickly in a pressure situation
My AR has a shorter barrel and is easier to manipulate inside hallways and doors within the home.

Let me guess, the shotgun has that racking sound thats scary, so thats the draw?

No tube extension will get me anywhere close to 30 rounds. Still slow to reload.

And fwiw I'm not even comparing it to an AR15

Wow, the sticky is already gone.

quote:

---

AR and 4 out of 5 of my friends do too, but to say that it’s a gun used for protection is just ridiculous.

---

That’s really not the point though.

It’s an argument I wish people would stop making. Not because I agree/disagree with the statement, but because it shifts the debate away from the original intent of the 2A. And believe me, the original intent argument isn’t one anti-gun people want to be having - the original intent was to have the people protected from their government. To do so the people have to be as well armed (or at least have the capability to be as well armed) as their government.

The founding father had just fought a bloody war against a tyrannical government - their own government nonetheless. They knew that in order to prevent that from occurring again they would need to assure the new government couldn’t use undue force against its people. But, that same new government would need to be able to defend itself against other governments. So how did they reconcile this? They decided to equally arm the government and the people.

This is supposed to be a system of checks and balances not unlike those of Congress-President-Supreme Court. The government should always “fear” the actions of its people: should a government abuse its power, the power it derives from the people, then the people should be able to defy with equal force. This could be an invasion by the government or simply an unjust intrusion onto personal property. (I’m not advocating that we take up arms every time congress does something we don’t like, but the threat should be there. Congress should weigh every decision it makes against the will of the people - and an equal armed people are much better represented than a populous of unarmed sheep.)

Furthermore, because the government is supposed to be limited in its role, the people are in turn supposed to be empowered to carry out personal defense of their persons and their property. The founders never intended the government to be the “nanny” of our lives; we aren’t supposed to run to government for every little problem that arrises. This works on all levels including a community’s choice to self-authoritate.

Lastly, because of the wording and the very nature of the 2A, it shouldn’t matter if a weapon is “useful,” or “necessary,” or any other qualifier you wish to attach. It is simply whether or not I wish to own it. If I “want” to own a gun that can fire x rounds per minute, or looks like a gun from a movie, or just because it looks like fun, then I should be allowed to because it isn’t prohibited by the Constitution and I haven’t had my rights to own such removed by due process. Someone else’s “dislike” of my property is not justification for inhibiting my rights.

quote:

---

Here come the gun experts and their clips

---

I always love hearing this

Dude logged off

Guess that happens when you have no idea what your talking about and start blasting people

quote:

---

Guess that happens when you have no idea what your talking about and start blasting people

---

Given an hour, I am not sure you could have worded this any poorer.

Slapahoe wins the internet for today with his 2A post.

quote:

---

I always love hearing this

---

Got a 70 round en bloc for my M1 Garand...