Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules
#11
(02-24-2017, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Any person knowledgeable about firearms will tell you that what is commonly mislabeled an "assault weapon" absolutely has a legitimate self defense civilian purpose.  Hand guns are not the ideal means of self defense and are only useful in that they are more easily portable and concealed.  

I disagree. I've grown up with firearms in my life, been an NRA certified instructor and taught courses for the BSA. The best home defense weapon is a large caliber handgun or a shotgun. Out of the home, a handgun serves the purpose better. Self-defense situations outside of the home are often in close quarters where the "assault weapons" that would not qualify as pistols would be unwieldy, and since the vast majority of self-defense situations are over within 5-6 shots (actually 2-3, but expanding to 5-6 would increase the percentage) from the last data I saw from the NRA, a high capacity handgun would also be unnecessary.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR





Messages In This Thread
RE: ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules - Belsnickel - 02-24-2017, 12:11 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)