|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Home Defense Firearms: A Long Gun Rebuttal
Submitted by:
Bruce W. Krafft
Website: http://www.freelibertywriters.com/
|
There
are no comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
"Reader Sean Counihan has a bone to pick with Nick Leghorn’s recent piece on home defense and rifles:"
"First off, I would like to qualify that I am not an expert in this arena by any stretch of the imagination. I served in the US Army as a combat engineer; I do have experience with both rifles and pistols in an offensive function. Mr Leghorn suggests a hierarchy of home defense weapons as such: 1.) Pistol, I assume he is referencing a modern high capacity pistol in a defensive caliber (9mm or greater). 2.) Shotgun, again modern pump or auto. I would assume 12 gauge loaded with #4 buck or greater or slug. 3.) rifle. I offer a different opinion and simple hierarchy: 1.) long gun. 2.) pistol if long gun is not available . . ." ... |
No
Comments found for this Newslink
|
|
QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|