Senator Lindsey Graham explains why he needs an AR-15 civilian rifle...

[Blues Man]

The odds of me breaking down are extremely low because I take excellent care of my cars
The odds of my house burning down are extremely low as well

I don't carry because I am I'm afraid I'm going to get shot and killed I carry because I know from experience that there are violent people in the world and those people do not necessarily need a gun to inflict great harm on innocent people.

You condemned people for being concerned over something that has a very low chance of happening. You are doing the same.

They simply want to address that extremely low risk differently than you.

I just said I am not concerned about being murdered by a person with a gun.
You do realize that you can be the victim of a violent crime that does not involve a gun don't you?

Committed crimes in the U.S. in 2017, by type of crime | Statista

The chance of being the victim of a crime is far greater than the chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.

I have been the victim of a violent crime. When i was 18 I was jumped by 3 thugs and wound up in the hospital with cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a severe concussion and a lacerated spleen that had to be removed.

There was no gun involved. And I obviously wasn't murdered.

So no I don't worry that I will be murdered by a person using a gun but I know that people without guns can still commit violent crimes

So you are concerned. Those you condemn are concerned. You can argue their response to that concern but it's hypocritical to condemn them for being concerned.

I'm not condemning anyone

I am saying that these people who say the only reason they want more gun laws is they are afraid of being murdered by a person with a gun are focusing on the least likely of scenarios

I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.

They make no mention of other violent crimes that are committed in far greater frequency and seem to think violent crimes that don't involve guns and murder don't exist.

I support gun ownership not because I think I am going to get murdered by a person with a gun but because I know there may be a time where I need to protect myself from being the victim of a crime. And the time I needed a to carry a concealed weapon to prevent such a crime I wasn't old enough to get a CCW permit or buy a handgun.

You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.

I never said anything about more guns.

I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.

I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.

A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm

 

[Blues Man]

Never in history did a homeowner need quick changing 100 round mags after a natural disaster, but that never stops Repubtards from inventing strawmen!!!

Fixed 15 round mags reloading 1 at a time is all anyone ever needed!

Lol
Someone else’s firearm ownership is none of your fucking business you fucking cowardly piece of shit

Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children

And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?

Too damned many

So you can't answer the question

 

[pknopp]

You condemned people for being concerned over something that has a very low chance of happening. You are doing the same.

They simply want to address that extremely low risk differently than you.

I just said I am not concerned about being murdered by a person with a gun.
You do realize that you can be the victim of a violent crime that does not involve a gun don't you?

Committed crimes in the U.S. in 2017, by type of crime | Statista

The chance of being the victim of a crime is far greater than the chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.

I have been the victim of a violent crime. When i was 18 I was jumped by 3 thugs and wound up in the hospital with cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a severe concussion and a lacerated spleen that had to be removed.

There was no gun involved. And I obviously wasn't murdered.

So no I don't worry that I will be murdered by a person using a gun but I know that people without guns can still commit violent crimes

So you are concerned. Those you condemn are concerned. You can argue their response to that concern but it's hypocritical to condemn them for being concerned.

I'm not condemning anyone

I am saying that these people who say the only reason they want more gun laws is they are afraid of being murdered by a person with a gun are focusing on the least likely of scenarios

I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.

They make no mention of other violent crimes that are committed in far greater frequency and seem to think violent crimes that don't involve guns and murder don't exist.

I support gun ownership not because I think I am going to get murdered by a person with a gun but because I know there may be a time where I need to protect myself from being the victim of a crime. And the time I needed a to carry a concealed weapon to prevent such a crime I wasn't old enough to get a CCW permit or buy a handgun.

You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.

I never said anything about more guns.

I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.

I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.

It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.

A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm

Low risk.

 

[Blues Man]

I just said I am not concerned about being murdered by a person with a gun.
You do realize that you can be the victim of a violent crime that does not involve a gun don't you?

Committed crimes in the U.S. in 2017, by type of crime | Statista

The chance of being the victim of a crime is far greater than the chance of being murdered by a person with a gun.

I have been the victim of a violent crime. When i was 18 I was jumped by 3 thugs and wound up in the hospital with cracked ribs, a fractured eye orbital, a severe concussion and a lacerated spleen that had to be removed.

There was no gun involved. And I obviously wasn't murdered.

So no I don't worry that I will be murdered by a person using a gun but I know that people without guns can still commit violent crimes

So you are concerned. Those you condemn are concerned. You can argue their response to that concern but it's hypocritical to condemn them for being concerned.

I'm not condemning anyone

I am saying that these people who say the only reason they want more gun laws is they are afraid of being murdered by a person with a gun are focusing on the least likely of scenarios

I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.

They make no mention of other violent crimes that are committed in far greater frequency and seem to think violent crimes that don't involve guns and murder don't exist.

I support gun ownership not because I think I am going to get murdered by a person with a gun but because I know there may be a time where I need to protect myself from being the victim of a crime. And the time I needed a to carry a concealed weapon to prevent such a crime I wasn't old enough to get a CCW permit or buy a handgun.

You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.

I never said anything about more guns.

I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.

I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.

It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.

A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm

Low risk.

Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually

 

[Nosmo King]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

 

[pknopp]

So you are concerned. Those you condemn are concerned. You can argue their response to that concern but it's hypocritical to condemn them for being concerned.

I'm not condemning anyone

I am saying that these people who say the only reason they want more gun laws is they are afraid of being murdered by a person with a gun are focusing on the least likely of scenarios

I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.

They make no mention of other violent crimes that are committed in far greater frequency and seem to think violent crimes that don't involve guns and murder don't exist.

I support gun ownership not because I think I am going to get murdered by a person with a gun but because I know there may be a time where I need to protect myself from being the victim of a crime. And the time I needed a to carry a concealed weapon to prevent such a crime I wasn't old enough to get a CCW permit or buy a handgun.

You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.

I never said anything about more guns.

I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.

I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.

It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.

A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm

Low risk.

Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually

Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.

 

[Blues Man]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

 

[Blues Man]

I'm not condemning anyone

I am saying that these people who say the only reason they want more gun laws is they are afraid of being murdered by a person with a gun are focusing on the least likely of scenarios

I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.

They make no mention of other violent crimes that are committed in far greater frequency and seem to think violent crimes that don't involve guns and murder don't exist.

I support gun ownership not because I think I am going to get murdered by a person with a gun but because I know there may be a time where I need to protect myself from being the victim of a crime. And the time I needed a to carry a concealed weapon to prevent such a crime I wasn't old enough to get a CCW permit or buy a handgun.

You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.

I never said anything about more guns.

I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.

I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.

It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.

A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm

Low risk.

Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually

Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.

Most people also realize that a person who happens to own guns is not responsible for crimes committed by someone else.

Should I hold all you people who own bicycles responsible for the guy fractured my eye orbital and left a permanent scar because he had a bike chain wrapped around his fist, or should i hold everyone who happens to own steel toed boots responsible for my cracked ribs and lacerated spleen because the thugs who assaulted me were wearing steel toed boots?

 

[pknopp]

I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.

You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.

I never said anything about more guns.

I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.

I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.

It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.

A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm

Low risk.

Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually

Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.

Most people also realize that a person who happens to own guns is not responsible for crimes committed by someone else.

No they are not.

Should I hold all you people who own bicycles responsible for the guy fractured my eye orbital and left a permanent scar because he had a bike chain wrapped around his fist, or should i hold everyone who happens to own steel toed boots responsible for my cracked ribs and lacerated spleen because the thugs who assaulted me were wearing steel toed boots?

I never argued to hold you accountable for anything but your hypocrisy.

 

[Blues Man]

I never said anything about more guns.

I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.

I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.

It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.

A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm

Low risk.

Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually

Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.

Most people also realize that a person who happens to own guns is not responsible for crimes committed by someone else.

No they are not.

Should I hold all you people who own bicycles responsible for the guy fractured my eye orbital and left a permanent scar because he had a bike chain wrapped around his fist, or should i hold everyone who happens to own steel toed boots responsible for my cracked ribs and lacerated spleen because the thugs who assaulted me were wearing steel toed boots?

I never argued to hold you accountable for anything but your hypocrisy.

So being prepared for something that happens millions of times a year is hypocritical

But being afraid of something that happens thousands of times less frequently is reasonable

 

[Rustic]

Legal firearm ownership is the most personal of rights, it is no one else’s business and certainly none of the federal governments business...

End of story

 

[pknopp]

It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.

Low risk.

Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually

Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.

Most people also realize that a person who happens to own guns is not responsible for crimes committed by someone else.

No they are not.

Should I hold all you people who own bicycles responsible for the guy fractured my eye orbital and left a permanent scar because he had a bike chain wrapped around his fist, or should i hold everyone who happens to own steel toed boots responsible for my cracked ribs and lacerated spleen because the thugs who assaulted me were wearing steel toed boots?

I never argued to hold you accountable for anything but your hypocrisy.

So being prepared for something that happens millions of times a year is hypocritical

But being afraid of something that happens thousands of times less frequently is reasonable

You see a risk, others see a risk. Both are very low risks.

We have BOTH sides wanting to arm schools with me arguing I would prefer schools not look like a prison setting. That it's all a overreaction. A natural overreaction for some granted, but one all the same.

 

[pknopp]

Legal firearm ownership is the most personal of rights, it is no one else’s business and certainly none of the federal governments business...

End of story

Can't argue with this.

 

[Blues Man]

Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually

Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.

Most people also realize that a person who happens to own guns is not responsible for crimes committed by someone else.

No they are not.

Should I hold all you people who own bicycles responsible for the guy fractured my eye orbital and left a permanent scar because he had a bike chain wrapped around his fist, or should i hold everyone who happens to own steel toed boots responsible for my cracked ribs and lacerated spleen because the thugs who assaulted me were wearing steel toed boots?

I never argued to hold you accountable for anything but your hypocrisy.

So being prepared for something that happens millions of times a year is hypocritical

But being afraid of something that happens thousands of times less frequently is reasonable

You see a risk, others see a risk. Both are very low risks.

We have BOTH sides wanting to arm schools with me arguing I would prefer schools not look like a prison setting. That it's all a overreaction. A natural overreaction for some granted, but one all the same.

I don't see any risk of being murdered by a person with a gun because a 99.997% of not getting murdered by a person with a gun is s good as 100% in my book
I have a much much higher chance of being the victim of a crime than I do getting murdered by a person with a gun so whose concern is more reasonable?

And don't forget I'm not calling for the restriction of anyone's rights

 

[Nosmo King]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.

 

[Blues Man]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

 

[Nosmo King]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

 

[pknopp]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

"Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.

Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.

 

[hadit]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

They have the right, need doesn't have to be demonstrated.

 

[Blues Man]

Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:



Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.


“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”



That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...

The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...

Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.

Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!

What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those

what if a person used one of these instead?

Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.

SO what?

MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon

Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?

The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!

No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.

So you think all Ar 15s come with a 100 round magazine?

I believe the standard mag size was usually 20 or 30 rounds

Hand guns have very real limitations when it comes to distance and accuracy. If you are protecting your property form a group of people a rifle is the better choice as it allows you to address that threat from a greater distance.

And the fact that one of the most popular rifles in the country is used in crimes more than the least popular rifle shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. The most popular car in the country is involved in more accidents and grt stolen more often than the least popular car as well