denton
Member
There was a case a few years ago of a 70 year old woman whose home was invaded by two men. She ran down the hall to her bedroom, to retrieve her 38 Special. As she passed the study, she noticed her husband's 44 Magnum lying on the table with a full speed loader nearby. She scooped up the gun, loaded it, and faced her intruders. The first made a lunge for her, and she put three rounds into his center of mass. The second started to draw a knife, and said, "Now, bitch, you're going to die." Mistaking his submissive and contrite statement for a threat against her life, she put the remaining three rounds into his chest. Both were DRT.
So let me be clear. If you're talking about restricting firearms, making them less available, you're talking about restricting that 70 year old woman's right and ability to defend herself.
That's a weighty responsibility, yet you seem very eager to accept it.
Our Founders knew the risks and the benefits of giving us the ability to defend ourselves. They chose to give us the Second Amendment. If you want to argue that that's bad policy, you're a little over 200 years late to the meeting where it was decided.
So let me be clear. If you're talking about restricting firearms, making them less available, you're talking about restricting that 70 year old woman's right and ability to defend herself.
That's a weighty responsibility, yet you seem very eager to accept it.
Our Founders knew the risks and the benefits of giving us the ability to defend ourselves. They chose to give us the Second Amendment. If you want to argue that that's bad policy, you're a little over 200 years late to the meeting where it was decided.