Shooting back is reasonable

Makes sense.

What cracks me up is when people try to libsplain to me that an AR 15 is designed for offensive purposes only.

Firstly, an AR 15 is not the M16/M4 platform used by the military, so it's not a military weapon. Secondly, any good military weapon would be designed both for good defense and offense. It's basic common sense. Anything good for killing someone is also good at killing the guy trying to kill someone.

And finally, no far leftie has EVER given me a good reason as to why a bad person doing something bad with a gun is a reason that a normal person should not be allowed to own one. We don't take cars away from everyone or install breathalyzers because a few get drunk and drive anyways. We figure out how to prevent drunks from getting vehicles and let normal people live their lives.

Rant over, sorry.

You are missing one big important thing. The right to bear arms was recognized in the constitution so that the people would be equally armed compared to the government.

I'm trying to build a bulletproof (oh yeah) argument that doesn't even need the Constitution, since it being in the 2nd Amendment evidently means nothing to the gun-grabbers these days. I do agree that the reason it was included is important, but to the modern leftist the government needs to be more powerful than the citizenry, and thus that argument simply won't work.

Don't ever apologize for a rant like that. You speak the truth.

Liberals just can't understand that taking guns away from good people does not make bad people good.

No surprise the communists hate the wise Dalai Lama.

Seal of Approval - 4z05qo.jpg (click to show) Upvoted!