Well Piers, this is why I NEED an AR-15…….

Posted: March 28, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

I would love to sit across the desk from this well dressed British Git.  I would love for him to use his aristocratic British tone to whine  “why do you neeeeeeeeeed and AR 15 that holds 30 rounds”  This is what I would say, provided he would not try to talk over me as he does every other guest.

“Well Piers, first of all it is the bill of RIGHTS not the bill of NEEDS, and in America one can own a $85,000 car or drink a $7 coffee which none of us NEED but we can have without having to explain ourselves to anyone.  I think your question is more why an AR-15 instead of a double-barreled shotgun like Vice President Biden espouses.   First let me give you the Constitutional answer, then I will give you the practical answer.

When Drafting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights our Founding Fathers were crafting a document that would by its very design limit the power of government while empowering the citizens to keep watch over their own liberty.   They recalled that it was the citizen soldier with privately owned firearms that forged our nation and viewed a standing army as a tool of oppression.  With this in mind they created the Second Amendment to protect the ability of the Citizenry to be able to take up arms against a standing army should it ever become necessary.  In the Late 1700’s there was no difference between a “military” and a “Civilian” arm.  There were long arms, pistols and swords.  The idea that a citizen could only own one type of arm and the military could have another would never have occurred to them.  There are about 2.2million Men and Women in the United States military and between 60 and 100 million lawful gun owners in the United States, which is why we are still free. So IF you were an American Citizen and the day came where you and your neighbors had to take up arms against invading troops which would you rather have to protect your family with, an AR-15 with four 30 round magazines or a double barreled shotgun?  But of course you do not believe that would even happen so lets talk practical.

Police in the U.S. carry guns.  They do this to protect themselves first and foremost.  A lot of study, testing and research goes into the selection of police equipment.  Currently, most uniform patrol officers carry at least a semi automatic pistol with a standard capacity magazine of 15-17  rounds, plus two additional 15-17 round magazines on their belts.  If this is the national standard for a police officer’s personal protection, why is this not the ideal standard for my personal protection?  Additionally, the police in jurisdictions in my area have an AR-15 in their cruiser and usually a shotgun as well.  WHY?  Because each of those weapons plays a different role in different self defense situations.  Since I have no idea what situation I could find myself in, it stands to reason that I should look to the Police for direction as to what firearms make the most sense.

Absent the proper licensing and tax stamps and other red tape  required to own a fully automatic machine gun, Semi Automatic rifles and pistols are EXACTLY the kind of weapons you would want to fight against an invading army, and these are EXACTLY the arms protected by the Second Amendment.  If you were an impartial journalist and not an entertainer you would be asking the real question which is why are these ideal self defense weapons EXACTLY the ones Diane Feinstein and company trying to ban?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s