Friday, January 11, 2013
A Central Question Answered
Here is a question Morgan asked and a lot of libs have asked: Why would anyone not in the military need an assault rifle (like an AR-15)? It's the wrong question, because no inherent right is based on need. It's not that we need a certain weapon (or a tall magazine), it's that we have the right to choose the weapon we want to keep and bear. Shapiro answers it by reference to the prime reason for the Second Amendment, to prevent our government becoming tyrannical. That's a good reason, but there is another.
Does anyone recall the North Hollywood shootout in 1997, when two weightlifter, bank-robbers donned Kevlar vests and were impervious to pistol and shotgun rounds (all the LA police had for a long time)?
If we're limited to handguns and shotguns, then a would be killer in Kevlar is immune to our attempts at self defense using a pistol or shotgun. We would need at least an intermediate round rifle, preferably one with a tall magazine in case we miss.
It seems pretty obvious to me now.
UPDATE: I guess there is anti-armor drill already (double tap to the chest, one to the head) but with a handgun you have to be pretty close and with a shotgun, within 30 yards, I think, to hit someone in the head reliably.