Marion Morrison
Diamond Member
- Feb 10, 2017
- 59,298
- 16,842
- 2,190
- Banned
- #61
The majority of proposed firearms restrictions are directed at military-type weapons, which typically are semi-auto and capable of accommodating high-capacity magazines -- e.g., M-14, AR-15, AK-47, etc. These weapons are far more suitable for defensive purpose than are those which are limited to five round capacity and are single-shot, bolt operated -- which the restriction proponents are pushing for. These people believe the only legitimate purpose the ordinary civilian has for owning firearms is hunting. Briefly stated, the type of firearms often referred to as "assault weapons" are defensive as well as aggressive but are plainly other than recreational.That doesn't say anything about "effectively defensive firearms." I'm curious which firearms you consider defensive vs. offensive, and why.
I don't agree with all gun restrictions myself, but I'm not sure what to think in the context of defensive firearms.
I don't know your thoughts on the potential need for high-capacity, semi-auto firearms, but while I am not a tin-hat militia-man expecting a visit from Russian paratroopers I am acutely aware of what presently is going on in Europe and it has me worried. What the officials refer to as a "migration" I regard as a passive invasion by potentially hostile forces, and there is good reason for that impression. I'll make my point by simply stating that where military-grade weapons are concerned it is better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.
What do you think?
It's better to have it and not need it.