The problem that ails society is not the FACT that more civilians are choosing to arm themselves as a rational preparation for a possible event, but the fact that many people still go unarmed or that those who are wise enough to not venture out in public naked (unarmed) do so vastly under-equipped in comparison to today's criminal.
Long gone are the days of the lone felon armed with a switchblade, bat, or the occasional .25 ACP. Most criminals come in packs (including up to a dozen members in my experience), and are packing REAL assault rifles, like Ex-Soviet Bloc AK-74s, FAMAS, QBZ-95 and H&K G3 (not the civvie legal toys) and such firepower simply cannot be matched by a common handgun (let alone an unarmed victim). I have even stumbled upon the occasional Pancor Jackhammer and even a sawn-off Barrett M82.
We are losing the arms race, having long ago traded the tried and true .38 cal Model 10s for Beretta 92Fs and Mossberg 500s, and finally for Glock 18s and (c3 permit) SCARs.
It is time for the rest of society to step up to the plate. Those who arm themselves must obtain REAL firepower (at least two pistols in States without open carry) or some form of PDW (Personal Defense Weapon for all you newbies) in States with sensible gun laws. Pistols need a MINIMUM of 15 rounds to be effective and ought to have more stopping power than your average pea-shooter (I'm talking .45 acp .357 sig, 10mm auto, or .44 mag in a IMI Desert Eagle or an AutoMag) If your state doesn't trust you to open carry a SCAR, H&K G3, or an AR15, or bans effective magazines (especially the 7 round limit in the Peoples Republic of New York) then you need to be carrying a MINIMUM of two sidearms of reasonable caliber.
Only when you can outgun your attacker will you cease to be a victim. It is obvious that criminal elements have access to (False) Assault rifles. We are equipped with them to protect you. You should be allowed access to adequate means to defend yourself.
Dey wanna come take our guns then they can come get them themselfes!
See what happens when you vote for more Commies they wanna go and make these stupid "laws" that tell you what you can't do! All laws are illegitamate, cuz they dun be stupid.
Notice that the gun control folks at the hearing never addressed the fine points brought up by Hardy and Johnson. They just kept it all about emotion. Likewise, Mike, you didn’t answer my point about how “assault weapon” legislation can be considered a reasonable restriction. These weapons fire a projectile two or three thousand feet per second, and you are worried about the shape of the grip? These weapons deliver over a thousand foot pounds of energy, yet you find it “reasonable” to throw someone in jail over a hole in a piece of wood? Really?
The problem that ails society is not the FACT that more civilians are choosing to arm themselves as a rational preparation for a possible event, but the fact that many people still go unarmed or that those who are wise enough to not venture out in public naked (unarmed) do so vastly under-equipped in comparison to today's criminal.
ReplyDeleteLong gone are the days of the lone felon armed with a switchblade, bat, or the occasional .25 ACP. Most criminals come in packs (including up to a dozen members in my experience), and are packing REAL assault rifles, like Ex-Soviet Bloc AK-74s, FAMAS, QBZ-95 and H&K G3 (not the civvie legal toys) and such firepower simply cannot be matched by a common handgun (let alone an unarmed victim). I have even stumbled upon the occasional Pancor Jackhammer and even a sawn-off Barrett M82.
We are losing the arms race, having long ago traded the tried and true .38 cal Model 10s for Beretta 92Fs and Mossberg 500s, and finally for Glock 18s and (c3 permit) SCARs.
It is time for the rest of society to step up to the plate. Those who arm themselves must obtain REAL firepower (at least two pistols in States without open carry) or some form of PDW (Personal Defense Weapon for all you newbies) in States with sensible gun laws. Pistols need a MINIMUM of 15 rounds to be effective and ought to have more stopping power than your average pea-shooter (I'm talking .45 acp .357 sig, 10mm auto, or .44 mag in a IMI Desert Eagle or an AutoMag) If your state doesn't trust you to open carry a SCAR, H&K G3, or an AR15, or bans effective magazines (especially the 7 round limit in the Peoples Republic of New York) then you need to be carrying a MINIMUM of two sidearms of reasonable caliber.
Only when you can outgun your attacker will you cease to be a victim. It is obvious that criminal elements have access to (False) Assault rifles. We are equipped with them to protect you. You should be allowed access to adequate means to defend yourself.
Dey wanna come take our guns then they can come get them themselfes!
ReplyDeleteSee what happens when you vote for more Commies they wanna go and make these stupid "laws" that tell you what you can't do! All laws are illegitamate, cuz they dun be stupid.
Now they wanna take our GUNZZZZ! I told ya!
More strawmanning
DeleteThose two are made for each other. Now, if only they'd run away together...
ReplyDeleteNotice that the gun control folks at the hearing never addressed the fine points brought up by Hardy and Johnson. They just kept it all about emotion. Likewise, Mike, you didn’t answer my point about how “assault weapon” legislation can be considered a reasonable restriction. These weapons fire a projectile two or three thousand feet per second, and you are worried about the shape of the grip? These weapons deliver over a thousand foot pounds of energy, yet you find it “reasonable” to throw someone in jail over a hole in a piece of wood? Really?
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2013/02/sen-dick-durbin-compares-professors-2nd.html
Is that all you noticed? How about the way the Police Chief of Milwaukee made ole Lindsey sound like an idiot? I thought that was pretty cool.
DeleteYeah, you and I saw that differently.
DeleteStill, is it safe to say that your side has no answer to the technical and legal arguments against these bans?