Lunatic left-wing mobs targeting Tucker Carlson reveals exactly WHY we need rapid-fire guns for self-defense
by: JD Heyes
NaturalNews.com
Monday, August 12, 2019
In the wake of a pair of mass shootings earlier this month, Democrats and Left-wing anti-gun groups are once again attacking the Second Amendment as well as all firearms owners as they level familiar arguments and drop the same old, tired authoritarian “solutions.”
In particular, after reports noted that the Dayton, Ohio shooter used a 100-round magazine drum to carry out his attack, Leftists blasted the fact that Americans can buy such components and called anew dramatic limitations on the number of bullets magazines should contain.
“Anti-gun activists, the kind of people who have probably never fired a gun and have never actually studied gunfights to any degree, have been railing all about how you don’t need 100 rounds for self-defense,” Bearing Arms noted in an assessment of the new rush of anti-gun criticism.
But one GOP lawmaker, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, blew apart that argument in a tweet last week.
“Some have asked, ‘who needs 100 rounds?’ If 6 brave, trained, and alert police officers with professionally maintained weapons fired 58 rounds to subdue the Dayton shooter, I’d say my wife deserves at least that many chances to protect herself and my kids when I’m not home,” he wrote.
Some have asked, “who needs 100 rounds?”
If 6 brave, trained, and alert police officers with professionally maintained weapons fired 58 rounds to subdue the Dayton shooter,
I’d say my wife deserves at least that many chances to protect herself and my kids when I’m not home.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) August 7, 2019
It’s hard to argue with that point. And while others have made other arguments on behalf of such magazines, the fact is no one knows how many rounds they’re going to need in a legitimate gunfight until it’s over.
While in Afghanistan on patrol, I routinely carried 80 rounds of ammunition with me. I would have carried more, but between my helmet, body armor, and other gear, that was about the maximum amount I could carry and still be nimble enough to react to a threat. I couldn’t ever imagine an order from on high that would have limited the amount of ammunition a soldier could carry; that just wouldn’t make any sense.
So why should anyone in the civilian world think they are qualified to make that determination? How do they know how many rounds someone is going to ‘need’ when a self-defense situation arises?
Why don’t we stop tripling down on failed gun policies?
Yes, a stone killer having access to a lot of rounds of ammunition makes him much more lethal, potentially. But while the Dayton shooter had a 100-round magazine in his AR-15 rifle, he didn’t kill 100 people. Not even close.
The Rest…HERE
