03-31-2017, 10:55 PM
(03-31-2017, 10:42 PM)GMDino Wrote: I guess. I suppose the choice of weapon in this case didn't raise many eyebrows given it actually WAS used for self defense.
I have zero idea what those are. I guess there can be a discussion about what you "need" versus what will "work" versus what you "want", but, again, in this case it was actually used for self defense so I don't see the problem.
You, not surprisingly, miss the point. The anti-2A crowd would prohibit this young man from owning the weapon he used to defend himself in this scenario. The claim that such fire arms serve no legitimate civilian purpose is a common trope among these types. The fact that you, personally, don't see a problem with this incident is irrelevant. The fact that many are actively attempting to ban such firearms is.
(03-31-2017, 10:49 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Most likely fortunate for the occupant that he had a weapon capable of taking down multiple armed intruders quickly as opposed to the type of weapon many think he should be allowed to have.
I'm going to guess he didn't have a ten round magazine either. Yes, it's supposition but I think it's a logical one.
