He so profoundly misses the point he’s not even wrong!

(Apologies to Wolfgang Pauli)

Obviously, those of us who know better can’t take these idiots seriously. But it’s sad, because there are lots of other idiots who DO take them seriously.

In Texas, I had the pleasure of hunting deer with a 16″ AR in 5.56. Over two years, I took 6 does. Normal capacity magazine (30 rounds) loaded with 60 grain soft points. Each deer was taken with a single, carefully “calculated” shot.

What’s the word again for people who bloviate without knowing their subject matter? I think it came up on “Of Arms and the Law.”

The real Berks County Media is the Reading Eagle Company

“I’m not real sure what type of hunting requires a handgun. And I’m pretty sure there are more effective ways for personal protection other than keeping a handgun around.

In the event of a home invasion, for example, by the time the individual gets to that “locked” handgun, they could already be dead.

So the handgun is not exactly the best option in personal protection. Not to mention the fact that the same gun intended to protect could actually be used against the victim.”

Oh my, where do I start here?

First, although handguns aren’t a requisite for hunting, there are some handguns that CAN be used for such – my guess is that the writer has likely never seen a Thompson/Center Arms Contender before.

Second, the writer claims to be “pretty sure” that there are more effective means than handguns for self-defense purposes, but doesn’t bother to elaborate any further than that. If this is so true, then I guess only imbeciles like me place any credence in the old adage about the folly of bringing just a knife to a gunfight.

Third, the writer seems to be under the false notion that everybody who keeps guns at home for defensive purposes has them locked away and unloaded or something, thereby making said guns useless if a home invasion were to occur. While that may have been what the law required gun owners in Washington, DC, to do before the Heller decision, it’s never been so just about anywhere else in America as far as I know. It’s certainly not the case in my house – my gun would be at the ready, locked and loaded, and with the safety OFF from the very first moment I started to hear my door being bashed in and my dogs barking at the intrusion.

Fourth, the writer reiterates that a gun “is not exactly the best option in personal protection,” and then regurgitates that same old line about a gun being more likely to be turned against its owner that I’ve been hearing from the gun-hater crowd for the last 30-some years. Again, the writer fails to mention what options are better than the gun in self-defense situations, and there are simply countless numbers of real-life stories to rebut the whole notion about the greater likelihood of the average violent criminal disarming his gun-wielding victim, and then using the gun on said victim. These anti-gunner people must have thought that most violent criminals all have had gun-disarming skills like Jackie Chan was showing us in those “Rush Hour” movies to come up with that canard.

This is the type of drivel I expect from hack editorials in NJ’s papers.

Now, I can’t speak for everyone, but when I’m shooting with my semi-automatic guns, I usually take between 6 and 10 seconds to prepare the shot, squeeze the trigger, and carry through. That sounds pretty carefully calculated to me, no?

Besides, if illiterate peasants can make full-auto AK-47s, what makes anyone think that an auto mechanic with a meth addiction and internet access isn’t going to make Stens and AKs in exchange for a discount on his drugs?

Is there some kind of sidewalk sale that the NRA is having and I don’t know about?

If single shot rifles/shotguns are all that’s available, isn’t it inevitable that the same cretins who have no respect for life will just use that means to take away life?

I’ll answer my own question: no, they won’t use single shot long guns, they’ll use the handguns that they obtained illegally in the first place and illegally didn’t hand over to the grabbers.

If you can’t get people to “start snitching,” it’s absurd to imply that they’d comply with confiscation.