« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why I own an AR-15.

Other than the occasional tweet, I have tried to stay out of the gun debate—largely because of Jonah Goldberg’s haunting and compelling statement:

“…I nonetheless resent being dragged into the political maw so quickly after a bunch of little kids were picked off by a madman with a gun.”

But something has changed that obliges me to share a personal story.

Maybe it was Wayne LaPierre’s, “Don’t-Blame-the-Second-Amendment-Blame-the-First-Amendment” speech.  Maybe it was Piers Morgan giving every wack-a-doodle, conspiracy theorist, “gun nut” a few minutes of airtime so that Mr. Morgan could look morally and academically superior (and, by the way, give himself a nice ratings boost).  Or maybe it was Joe Scarborough, who I respect and largely agree with on numerous issues, wondering aloud why reasonable people would ever want to own an “assault” rifle.

Well, I don’t think the First Amendment had anymore or less to do with some psychopath nut job killing small children than the Second Amendment–I don’t believe in selective Constitutionalism.  I can assure you that vast majority of gun owners in America are overwhelmingly rational people, leading very normal lives, and do not believe that anyone should be deported for having opposing views.  So, I’m left with answering the question that I can answer.  Why do I, as an attorney, the husband of a beautiful pharmacist, and the proud father of three precious daughters, own an AR-15?

In 2004, my wife and I moved from metro-Atlanta to her very small hometown in Southwest Georgia with our six-month-old daughter in tow.  Seven months later we were blessed with identical twin daughters.  (Your math is correct-we had three daughters in 13 months).  Shortly after the twins were born, one late afternoon, when the days were getting short and it got dark early, my wife was running errands with her parents, and I was at home with three infants.  I had just gotten off the phone with my wife, when I heard the “beep-beep” that our alarm system makes when someone opens door.  I didn’t think much of it.  The wind might have blown the door open.  It was an old house after all.  I made sure the kids were okay and went to the front of the house.  Our door was open and a vagrant, who I could not tell whether was a man or a woman, was standing in our foyer in tattered clothes, a bag over one shoulder, and holding something in their hand.  Having defended and prosecuted criminal defendants, this person’s gate, demeanor and glazed-over look told me that this person was blitzed out of their mind on something.

Now you may think you know what you would do in that situation.  You don’t.  The only thing I knew for sure was that I had to stay in between this person and the room with my baby girls.  The only thing I could think to say was a semi-polite, “May I help you?”  The response, in an aggravated and slurred shout  was, “I’m here to get my stuff,” as the unwelcome “guest” walked towards me.  I still didn’t know what was in this person’s hand, so with a more angry tone, I threatened, “Get out or I’ll call the cops.”  The response was now a very aggressive, “Nah man, I’m here to get my (expletive) stuff.”

I cannot begin to tell you have quickly my brain started playing out scenarios.  What if I rush this person–they have a weapon—if something happens to me—the babies are unprotected.  If I run to the babies–I’ll lead this person right to them.  Do I go for the phone? No, there’s no time.  What do I say next?  This person is crazy.  That parental adrenalin that I had only read about kicked in and a voice from deep in side of me—one which I had never heard before or since—came out of my throat as I screamed something like (because I can’t remember exactly), “Get out of this house RIGHT NOW.”

By the grace of God, whatever I said or however I said it broke through the drug-riddled haze and stopped this person in her tracks.  SHE (I found out later she was a she) looked at me, told me to go (expletive) off and walked out of my house, as if what had just happened was no big deal.  I called the police and they picked her up lumbering down the middle of the road not 200 feet from my house.  She was a meth addict with a history of violence, burglary and drug possession.  I never did find out what she was carrying.  To be honest, I never really wanted to know.

You don’t easily get over an experience like that.  The “what if’s” are endless: Thank God my wife wasn’t here.  I wish my wife had been here. What if my wife had been here?  What if I had gotten my gun?  It took me way too long to get this drug addict out of my house.  Thank God the babies didn’t cry.  Could I really shoot someone?  What if I had to shoot another human being.  I never want to have to shoot someone.  But what if I had too?  Could I live with it?  To protect my family?  Probably.  Maybe.  I don’t know.

As a hunter, I own guns.  I’ve owned guns since I was twelve.  A deer rifle.  Several shot guns.  A few hand guns.  All in safes.  I have no idea how many rounds my “clips” hold.  But after this experience, these guns seemed, well, insufficient.  Ironically, the idea to buy an AR-15 actually came from a trip to New York two years prior to this incident.  New Yorkers may recall, in the immediate post-9/11 world, there were law enforcement officials walking around the city in full tactical gear with semi-automatic so-called “assault rifles” strapped to their chest.  You could not walk a city block without seeing armed security.  It was very reassuring.  This awesome show of force was such a ferocious deterrent.  These guns looked mean because they were supposed to look mean.  They were in plain sight with the hopes of each and every officer that they would never have to use them.  This display of firepower ensured that it was unlikely that the firepower would every have to be used.

And that is why I bought an AR-15.  I didn’t buy one so I could feel cool.  And I didn’t buy one just so I show it off or feel manly or because I like the fact that I can shoot a bunch of rounds.  I didn’t even buy an AR-15 simply because I could.  I bought an AR-15 with the hopes that the sight of it would scare the crap out of anybody–sober or high.  I bought an AR-15 so I could have the security of a New Yorker while living in a town with a population of roughly 5,000.  I bought an AR-15 so that I wouldn’t have to ask twice for a criminal to get out of my house.  I bought an AR-15 with the hopes that I would never, ever, have to pull the trigger in defense of my family.

Follow me on the Twitter: @PatrickMillsaps

COMMENTS

  • WmCraig

    Best case I have heard made for the AR-15.

    The sight alone of a frightening enough weapon to ensure the maximum probability that the weapon would never have to be used.

    Personally I am more if a pump action shotgun discouragement kind of guy, but you answered any question I had along those lines.

    WmCraig

    • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

      The beauty of the pump shotgun is that the perp doesn’t even have to see it–just hear the ratchet of the pump: CHACHUNK!

  • abeldred

    Whether its an AR 15, a semi auto handgun or any other number of legal weapons, it is your right and mine as Americans to own a gun and be prepared to defend our homes and families. However, the Founders in their wisdom, knew the arrogance of humans, and put the 2nd amendment in as a protection against tyranny. They all understood that we the people must maintain a citizen militia of sorts in the event the government ever turned their armies on us. And while the home defense and hunting aspects of gun ownership certainly are there, I am convinced that the second amendment has always been about protecting us from our own government.

  • kipling

    I have used an AR-15 for hunting varmints and predators like prairie-dogs, feral hogs, and coyote. They are very effective.

    I use a pump shotgun for home defense. No one really knows what they will do until the time comes, but I decided in my mind several years ago that if I had to protect my family I would shoot. Colonel Jerry Cooper taught that many of those decisions had to be resolved prior to the incident because in the heat of the moment it was too late.

    • WmCraig

      I have been robbed at Gunpoint twice. It clears the mind.

      • kipling

        My first thought is that I would never go near Gunpoint again as it sounds like a rough place.

        Seriously, I imagine it does although in my experience it actually produced a flood of sensations – the last of which was that I was being shot at. Training and mental preparation can work wonders – and here I don’t mean armchair quarterbacking. If the decisions are made and the scenario gamed, then it can make those flash moments more manageable.

        As to robbery, a lot can depend on the circumstances, surroundings, etc. Preparations for home defense are a little easier as you control the surroundings and can game various scenarios.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          Patient: “Doc, I broke my arm in 3 places.”
          Doc: “You need to avoid dangerous neighborhoods.”

    • igotacomment

      “no one really knows” …. Well, I REALLY KNOW!

  • Rich

    I understand the rationale but it seems a bit disjointed – the deterrent factor which made you feel safe in NY is due to it being openly on display in the hands of police officers with an obvious deterrent factor to any would-be mischief makers.

    However having an AR-15 locked away somewhere safe (presumably it’s not on display to the general public or easily accessible due to your young children) has zero deterrent factor to the general public and practically speaking unless you are going to greet every stranger knocking at your door with a rifle pointed at their face then your rationale seems to be far more compelling for carrying a concealed or open-carry handgun vs having a semi-automatic rifle in the closet.

    Not criticising, just an alternative perspective. :-)

    • classicalconservatism

      Exactly. If a long gun is easily accessible – loaded and ready to go – it’s a significant hazard in a household with kids. If it’s not easily accessible it has minimal deterrant value and minimal in-home self-defence value.

      • PowerToThePeople

        You have no clue as to what you are talking about. It is absolutely surprising to me that no mod has yet caught onto your trolling.

        Come break into my house Jimbo, and I will show you just how affective my semi auto rifles are. Maybe you will be unlucky enough to catch me in the shower where one of my AR-15s hangs.

        • classicalconservatism

          I’m not the troll here. OP was writing about safety for his kids. You think an AR-15 hanging in the shower is safe for kids in your house?

          • PowerToThePeople

            I have many rooms in my home, all have guns of varying types, all powerful though and all loaded ready to be used. I have practiced this for over 40 years through my kids years, grandkids, and great grandkids. I have never had a child touch my guns, have never had an accident, and each and every kid of mine does the same now in their own homes. I taught my kids to shoot from an early age, taught them gun safety and what will happen if you play with guns, every kid I had had their first .22 rifle by 10, and by 16 had numerous weapons. I have hunted with all my children and all of their children except two. If I live long enough to see my great grandchildren get to the right age, they too will receive their first gun from me and hit the hunting areas. This is the key to gun safety and home safety, not your misinformed nonsense.

            So to summarize, yes, the weapon in my shower, under my sinks, in the holsters in the couches, hanging from the side of my beds, in the entertainment centers, etc is quite safe, makes my home safe, but are very very dangerous to those who chose to invite themselves into my home.

  • classicalconservatism

    I support your constitutional rights. But, statistically, your daughters who will now soon be teens are in significantly more danger of experiencing gun violence based on your having these guns (multiple rifles, “several” shotguns, plus “a few” handguns) around your home than if your home was gun-free. And, an AR-15 is definitely not the ideal weapon for short-range in-home defence and not necessarily the most intimidating weapon either (it’s not coincidental that police officers carry handguns). Not to mention that the experience that scared you into it was a spaced out druggie woman holding “something” in her hand… not exactly the stuff of Straw Dogs in my book but whatever.

    • kipling

      Yes, mere possession of a gun often leads to gun violence. That is why we need to disarm the police and the military. If only Chicago would outlaw guns then their risk of gun violence would go down.

      • WmCraig

        Perfect

      • sliverlining

        kipling,
        do you have a TV show I can watch? I like to sit in my Nerf-Chair and chat online with “friends” about stuff I have heard about. Your TV show would be a perfect backdrop to this “activity”.
        When Chicago becomes as safe as Morton Grove, I will go outside among, dare I say it . . . the human race.

        Good post.

        • kipling

          Thanks, no TV show as of yet but I will keep you posted. : )

          Although I will say that I probably have a face made for radio. Unfortunately, I also have a voice made for silent pictures.

      • rustyoldgarand

        There is a reason the military keeps their weapons in virtually impregrable arms rooms when not training or deployed, and a reason why basic training soldiers no longer sleep with their rifles, and are thoroughly checked for “loose” brass and ammunition going to and from the range. “Mere possession” does not often lead to violence, but it does lead to more lethal violence when the person in possession has a freak out.

        • kipling

          I am from the old school of thought where familiarity with firearms brings respect for what the firearm can do. I keep my firearms secured but my kids have seen me clean them and I have taken my older kids to the range. One of the major problems that I see is that unfamiliarity with firearms leads to contempt and that contempt leads to accidents. Many people get their knowledge of firearms from the movies and video games – and therefore have a totally unrealistic view on how to handle them and what to expect.

          • sliverlining

            Agreed. I had fairly casual “training” from my dad a long time ago as a kid. It was a good basis for that familiarity you mentioned. Basic stuff and respect not contempt. It seems contempt for anything is just the notion that you know it all. Whatever it may be about.

          • rustyoldgarand

            Yeah…I struggle with this issue, because to me “gun control” is controlling your weapon, but I also understand that it is impossible to impose military rules on the possession and use of civilian firearms. The world would be a better place if only people who have received some sort of training were allowed to so much as touch a gun, but how do we make that reality? I don’t know.

            I don’t know how to prevent incidents like Sandy Hook, where a psychopath stole a normal person’s weapons and used them for evil…short of taking away all weapons, and that’s obviously not the solution. Maybe stricter laws about how weapons are stored and kept and stricter penalties for gun owners whose weapons are involved in accidents, fall into the wrong hands, etc.?

            But I really don’t know. The big problem is that most people who go on a rampage are not criminals beforehand and/or use someone else’s guns, and even if all assault-style firearms are banned, a madman with a couple of pistols can do a lot of damage. None of the gun control proposals that I’ve heard actually address the real problem.

      • danilaw

        Snark aside, I think it’s a very dangerous position to harp too much on the fact that cities with anti-gun laws still have lots of gun crime.

        There are no borders around cities. There are no borders around states.

        Going on about how anti-gun legislation doesn’t work in a particular city or state just encourages anti-gun forces to press for nation-wide bans.

        An analogy: imagine how successful a ban on weed would be in Georgia if it was legal in Florida.

        Bloomberg and his ilk are already making this sort of argument to get nation-wide bans.

        • kipling

          Guns laws only impact law abiding citizens who obey them. All Chicago has accomplished is to make helpless victims of the good citizens of Chicago because clearly the criminal element kept their guns.

          Your same logic on borders applies to the nation as a whole. Apparently we cannot keep drugs and illegal immigrants from crossing the national border, what makes you think we can keep guns.

    • rannan3

      No, you’re wrong. A concerned father such as this would have a plan.
      His weapon would be secured. His kids will be taught and not be the
      victims of gun violence from his gun. Having a ‘gun free’ home is NOT
      protection, it is avoidance.

      WHY do SWAT teams use such weapons ??
      BECAUSE they prepare to deal with ANY and ALL emergencies.
      ANY and ALL firepower from perpetrators.

      That’s the point you’re missing — but this father isn’t.

      • classicalconservatism

        I hope and pray that you are right. The original poster’s casual comments about his various weapons did not give me comfort that they would be secured and his household safer. And again an awkward weapon like AR-15: is it going to be loaded and ready to go at all times? If so it’s a danger by definition. If not how is it helping? A concerned father is not a SWAT team, and actions can have unintended and perverse consequences. And I highly doubt that most SWAT team members choose to have AR-15s for in-home self-defence.

    • jiminga

      Please provide a link to support your “statistics”, because the FBI reports certainly don’t support them. BTW, police carry handguns because they are frequently in and out of their cars and a rifle as a primary weapon would be just plain silly….but the AR15 is in the trunk and the shotgun is in the front seat holder.

      I respect your opinion, but it has no basis in fact.

      • classicalconservatism

        See above to streiff. And see post above by rustyoldgarand for more color similar to my POV on why AR-15 isn’t the optimal answer for home defence.

    • sliverlining

      You obviously believe these statements. Sorry to hear that. Watch less propaganda or reality TV which isn’t close to reality.

      You can’t learn to swim without getting wet.

    • streiff

      actually that is untrue anyway you cut it.

      Friends and family in a home with firearms are less likely to be killed by people they know than those living without firearms.

      The long discredited data point you are referring to includes the statistical anomaly that if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them it counts as a death/injury in a home with firearms. If someone breaks into my house and stabs me to death it doesn’t count. YMMV as to which outcome you’d prefer.

      • classicalconservatism

        It is not untrue. There are many studies, here is one link: http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx . I used the term “experiencing gun violence” which include accidental shootings and suicide. If you have data to contrary that indicates guns in household reduces overall incidence of gun violence for members of that household I’d love to see it.

        • PowerToThePeople

          That is your proof? God you are a loser.

          • classicalconservatism

            PowerToThePeople, there’s lots of data out there. http://skeptikai.com/2012/07/30/does-owning-a-gun-increase-or-decrease-safety-science-answers/ is another survey of research. If you disagree, how about you cite some different data rather than engage in name-calling? Again I’m not anti-gun and certainly not anti constitutional rights, but the question is whether adding the AR-15 was helping OP increase safety of his children.

          • PowerToThePeople

            It is not yours to decide no more than it is my right to decide how you chose to live. You have no right to decide what a person thinks protects what it theirs.

            And as far as the studies, get out of here. As explained to you by Streiff and others, those studies are not valid studies/use questionable baselines/add bad data such as victim shooting intruder or being shot by intruder but does not add a knife attack, suicide which is absurd as a person who wants to die will die or make the attempt and owning a gun or not owning a gun has nothing to do with that/ and so on. The so called conclusions these absurd studies come up with is tainted and completely inaccurate.

    • igotacomment

      ” … an AR-15 is … not necessarily the most intimidating weapon either (it’s not coincidental that police officers carry handguns)”
      I think the police carry sidearms for convenience, ie, size of weapon. They have larger, more formitable weapons available also. And, I think, if you ask any police officer who’d they rather face, someone with a handgun or an AR-15, probably they’d rather face a handgun. I don’t know what your experiences are. I only speak from my experience as a former US Army Special Forces combat experienced guy.

      • classicalconservatism

        The question isn’t about what they’d rather face. The question is what a police officer would want to keep in their family home and have ready to use for self defence purposes. I doubt many of them would say AR-15. But admittedly I haven’t done any surveys…

        • PowerToThePeople

          Actually there troll, most cops have assault rifles in their homes and most love them.

          • classicalconservatism

            None of the officers I know personally have them in their homes, but of course that’s just anecdotal evidence. But if you have any data that indicates a majority of police officers own AR-15 style rifles I’d love to see it, it would surprise me especially given the mathematical challenges of the # of law enforcement officers in US (nearly 1M) vs. # of AR-15 style rifles (4M)… I suppose it’s possible that 15% of AR-15 style rifles are in the hands of police officers but it seems highly doubtful.

          • PowerToThePeople

            Then you know few officers or all the ones you know are not the norm. Police officers take their weapons home as required by the vast majority if not all precincts. Most officers are now equipped with not only the side arm, shotgun, but assault rifle as well. Most carry personal secondary weapons as well. When they arrive home, these weapons are not left in their vehicles, they are taken into the home. This fact alone shows you are wrong on your comments not too mention the fact that cops, most cops, are prolific purchasers of guns. You are really way out in left field on this one.

    • Melody Warbington

      That is liberal bull, but a good bit of statistics are full of phony numbers. From the time we were kids, my dad routinely showed my mom, my two sisters and me how to use the shotgun that sat on the top shelf of our bookcase with explicit instructions on safety. He also kept a gun in his truck. Before that, my grandparents had guns in their house. My parents each had 10 siblings. Some of them had large families. Most, if not all, are gun owners. And not a single instance of “gun violence” in any of their homes.

      Not only that, but when I was in high school, most of the boys (some girls) went hunting in the mornings and came to school with guns in their vehicles. Not a single incident of gun violence.

      As for my own experience, I became a gun owner after a rapist started attacking women in the lot where many of us parked for work. Thankfully, I never had to use it. Another time, before cell phones were available, I was driving back home to Atlanta after visiting family in TN on a Sunday night. Didn’t know the gas gauge was busted, and I ran out of gas on the interstate. I had no choice but to get in the car with a man who stopped to help. Even though my gut told he he was a good guy (and he was), I put my gun in my pocket and kept my finger on the trigger.

      For every story of alleged gun violence, there are a dozen or more about gun owners who can relate a time when at minimum, their weapon made them feel safer, and at most, they used them to protect themselves and/or their families.

      Just last week, a woman in Georgia shot an intruder who found her hiding in the crawl space of her attic with her 9 year old twins. She had called her husband and grabbed her gun, and when the intruder came after her, her husband calmly told her to shoot him, and then to shoot him again. If that 911 call doesn’t convince the pansies in our country that a gun is the great equalizer for a woman being threatened, I don’t know what will. Have a listen.

      http://foxnewsinsider.com/2013/01/10/listen-911-call-released-after-georgia-mother-shoots-home-intruder/

  • freemanja1991

    My Dad was a federal agent, and I was taught at a young age how to use our AR-15 in case someone tried to kidnap me or my sister. My sister was home alone during an attempted burglary, during the middle of a trial of a meth dealer/murderer. At first investigators thought he was hired to kidnap her by the criminal. I was also taught not to use all the rounds since there might be more then one criminal trying to kid nap one of us. There are reasons for defense weapons having multi round clips, like a nervous ten year old trying to defend themselves from multiple attackers, which thank god I never had to do.

  • bgmacaw

    When I lived in that part of Georgia it wasn’t too long after the Alday murders. Since I lived out in the country on a farm, I was always armed. I didn’t own an AR-15 but I did have my shotgun and/or handgun within easy reach.

    I also had a pit bull mix who was effective in scaring unwanted people away with his barking although he was really a coward and softie at heart. A good sized family dog can scare away a thief. While they probably won’t attack unless they’ve been through extensive training (that may not be best to do for a family dog anyway), the intimidation factor works in your favor here as well.

  • checkmate2012

    Your story is very compelling and it’d be great if you could fax it to Biden and to Wayne LaPierre in prep for his meeting. I know that the so-called task force included victims of gun violence, but did it include any people that saved their lives and/or families since they had a gun to protect themselves at the right time? Doubtful.

    To me, this task force is a farce and just another masquerade since they already know their objective and don’t care what stake-holders think.

    • davesinsanantonio

      Nor, do they really care about facts. They will cherry pick those who testify and limit them to the ones who will say what they want to hear. And, if somehow someone with a different story to tell were to make it in front of them, that person would be cut off and sent away, or shamed and demonized on the spot. Their agenda is not truth, security, helping the victims, helping the perps, or anything but taking away all of our guns, knives, pitchforks and torches! They know why we have guns, and they intend to remove them so that the can continue to destroy our liberties. And, they will if we let them!!!

  • garret5

    Since the SA is a Right, intrinsically since it actually spells out that it is a Right as well as being in the Bill of Rights, it is not for you to have to explain why you own an AR-15. It is your right. Those who wish to remove your right to own it, should reasonably have the burden to explain why you shouldn’t have it.

    So far, they’ve come up with “you don’t need it”. It’s really not up to them to decide what you need. We should hold them accountable.

    If we start challenging them to explain that they’re in fact against the SA and that they propose an amendment to the Constitution to repeal it, I think the debate will become a lot more clear to people. There are those who think the First Amendment shouldn’t exist, such as nazis and other totalitarians. We need to be firm with our leaders that laws are to be enforced and if they are not going to be enforced, be it restrictions on criminals, government or others, the law needs to come off the books. Even if it is a repeal of one of our 10 Rights. No American in his or her right mind will ever allow for any right to be repealed. As long as we can’t frame that debate, the gun grabbers will continue under the guise of “reasonable gun control” and as long as we allow them to continue to do this we will always have to fight them on their turf. It’s a losing battle because they can keep relentlessly doing it and they only need to proverbially be “lucky once” while we have to be “lucky all the time”.

  • rannan3

    Having and showing that kind of firepower should deter even multiple ‘bad guys.’
    And let’s face it — if you have that weapon, I would think you would have a clear
    plan for when and how to access it, ie, you would be PREPARED.
    AND isn’t that the goal of most gun owners — being prepared for emergencies ??

  • timcooper62

    You do not need to justify the ownership of an AR-15. Its no one’s business but yours.

  • jiminga

    There’s an old saying….”you use your handgun to fight your way to your shotgun”. A quality pump shotgun is by far the best home defense weapon because it lessens the need for accurate sighting when the adrenaline is flowing and doesn’t over-penetrate walls, doors, etc. Having said that, we own a 12 ga pump as well as his and hers handguns and his and hers AR 15′s, all of which we practice with on a regular basis. while all of our guns have a practical purpose (self defense) we also really enjoy our range visits. Shooting an AR 15 is lots of fun. It’s accurate at 100 to 200 yards, it doesn’t have a big recoil, it’s simple to shoot and maintain, and the ammo cost is fairly reasonable if you shop around. For the benefit of those that will label us a “gun nuts”, we have small grandchildren and all our long guns are in a gun safe. But the handguns are readily available.

    Visiting the range is no different than skiing. A rifle is just like a pair of skis…a tool for enjoyment. But in a dangerous circumstance I would much rather have a rifle or handgun than a ski.

  • sliverlining

    I love my AR-15. My group goes out for a weekend of targets and camaraderie once a year. One year we estimated that we shot off about 11,000 rounds. That was with 7 or 8 guys not rushing anything. Lots of “muffs off” time to talk, reloading, trading with each other, etc.
    It’s at a public range in a fairly remote area so we have the place to ourselves for the majority of the time. People come in to play or sight in and usually join in with the “guys with all that great hardware” as one man said to his son one time.
    We offer suggestions on safety when other folks are obvious novices and other tips. It’s all very cordial and probably among the safest of places on Earth for that weekend.
    I’ve never heard in all those trips anyone talking about killing anybody as anything but a terrible act that they never want in their lives.

    If that is a group that needs lecturing by an anti-gunner who has never even been to a range much less held a gun of some sort, then I guess I have totally missed the point of government and just laws. If picking out a small period of time “while the iron is hot” is what it takes to fight an amendment in a 200 year old document, then maybe it’s a perverted version of kicking a dog while he’s down.

    Nobody ever said that using tools of any kind is safe when misused. Sure you can use a screwdriver as a chisel or for that matter a stabbing weapon. Put down a list of tools or machines (really just more tools) and figure out how many ways to mess up with them compared to the proper use of those same tools. The lists will be at least equally long or actually longer on the misuse side.

    So trot out the bawling masses at just the “right time”. Cooler heads aren’t as easily swayed by the propaganda.

    Sliverlining

  • Jim_Riggs

    I feel safer with my shotgun.

    • igotacomment

      I feel safer with my personal carry .45 until I can get to my shotgun …

  • sgtjoe

    As a Marine Viet Nam vet, I have unique skills to defend myself and my home. That skill set was aquired by training, practice, and in combat. Most people do not have such skills. I’ve thought out, and reacted to, my response to a home invasion. I have spoken of this with my wife, and our children when they lived at home. Just like a fire drill, we prepared for home invasions. There are several small things a person can do, and it takes no training. 1) Always lock your doors and install a home alarm system; 2) If you have a car with an alarm system and a remote set of keys, keep them with you, on a night stand when in bed, in your pocket at other times (this has a secondary gain, you never have to go looking for them); 3) Lock your bedroom door at night and the bathroom door when you are in there; 4) Keep your cell phone close, with 911 on speed-dial; 5) Have emergency exits prepared and practice using them, same as for a fire drill; 6) If feasible, and if you are so disposed, have a dog for a pet. Additionally, if you are physically able, take a self-defense course and buy a shotgun (if you fear hurting someone you love, use birdshot, not many people will charge you after a shot gun is fired at them).

  • sgtjoe

    I was in NYC during 9/11, and witnessed the World Trade Center attack and collapse from my office window. I continued to work there until retirement in 2006. I was actually quite disturbed by police officers and military personnel patroling the streets, train and bus stations and airports with automatic rifles and combat gear. It reminded me of the third world and communist countries I had visited, where freedom was very visibly absent. It was a clear reminder why an armed citizenry is of paramount importance to a citizenry maintaining its freedom. Personally, I did not feel protected by the show of force, I felt threatened, especially after the Patriot Act of October 2001 gave un-Constitutional dictatorship powers to the government bureacrats and law “enforcement” agencies.

  • rustyoldgarand

    So let me get this straight…a bum wandered into your house and now you need an AR-15? Civilians are amusing sometimes. I understand your desire to protect your family, but the AR-15 is simply the wrong weapon for you. Home defense is a close-range affair unless you’re living out in the country, and the AR-15 (and really all .556 weapons, which simply lack stopping power) is not well-suited to close range fighting if you’re not trained for it, and even then, it is less than ideal. Get yourself a shotgun.

    • sliverlining

      If I stuck my Ruger MarkII .22 in a burglar’s face (at about 6 feet away), you’re saying there’s no stopping power? Stopping power in the sense that the bad guy stops whatever he’s doing is one thing. Stopping power as you are referring to is pretty much stop his life immediately.
      I agree with you based on your stopping power assessment but, still, at 6 ft even a .22 in the face certainly has persuasive qualities (especially by about rounds 4 through 6).
      AR-15 is, you’re also right, not a great “hallway gun”. It’s too long and harder to acquire a target with a single projectile. The shortest legal shotgun with heavy buckshot is best.
      A friend of mine is a Colt 45 match shooter. Excellent shot. He got a shotgun after an encounter proved to be so nerve-wracking he shook too much at the range he was at to help a neighbor scare off some menacing idiot. That turned out ok but he learned a lot about himself and situations. This is also something these talking heads know less than me about. And I consider myself very teachable. I just wish they were.
      Sliverlining

      • rustyoldgarand

        If we’re talking about mere intimidation, damn near any firearm will do the job. But if you happen to get into a shootout, don’t bring a .22. Your friend’s experience with nerves is a common one the first time one draws a weapon “for real”. It takes a good deal of training to react correctly the first time, and that’s just not a realistic expectation for most civilians. Shotguns are much more foolproof, and are more intimidating, as well. The M-16/4 series and AR-15 knockoffs are designed for medium to long range precision, and are excellent standoff weapons for this reason. At short ranges, aiming is much easier, but portability and/or immediate stopping power become much more critical, which is why you want either a medium caliber pistol (high calibers are often useless for civilians because the recoil is so strong it freaks them out after the first shot) or a shotgun. I personally own a Sig SP2002 .40, which is the only civilian weapon I use, and the only one I feel I need for home defense.

        The advantage of a shotgun is that it is (in my opinion) harder to do something truly stupid with a shottie than it is with a pistol, simply because of the size of the weapon and the respect that untrained people show them. Pistols feel almost like a toy, which has obvious drawbacks.

        • sliverlining

          I get what you’re saying. Hopefully that shows.

          My viewpoint as a civilian is not mainstream probably. If I felt there was enough cause to draw the weapon in the first place, I am ready and, I believe, going to employ deadly force. Intimidation of some a-hole that’s obviously in the wrong place is not my mission. Hurting him very badly to save my household is much closer to my mission by that time.

          He will be intimidated instantly or have a severe hearing problem.
          This pretty much goes for any weapon really. My home defense is a .357 wheel gun. No jams, no springs, not a brass spitter.

          I have more war stories about the .40 vs 9mm from a sheriff deputy acquaintance. He makes a lot of sense too. I have to get a .40 to supplement my 9mm : )

          • rustyoldgarand

            Well, that’s a good philosophy. One should never point a weapon if one is not ready to use it. Revolvers are great, reliable weapons for home defense, and a .357 round will get the job done in most cases. The 9mm…not so much. I have never had to use my M-9 in a firefight, thank god, but I can tell you nobody in the army has much confidence in the two pound Italian noisemaker.

      • kipling

        I have a 45 for home defense but I prefer the shotgun. The 45 goes through too many walls for my taste and, like your friend said, the situation can make you a little less than accurate. I worry about who else (family and friends) who might be behind those walls. A shotgun will go through a wall as well but will loose velocity and force faster due to the spread.

        Any gun can frighten some attackers away. The problem is the guy who is determined to do harm and commit violence. The situation is worse if the guy is on drugs and not fully aware of the situation. Then you need takedown power. One of the reasons the U.S. Army went from the .38 to the .45 was the Moro (Muslim) tribesmen of the Philippines. Some of these guys – intent on dying for the cause – would get high on drugs, tie tourniquets around their limbs to stop the bleeding in case they were wounded, and then charge American patrols and sentries. The .38 simply did not have the takedown power. Now, you probably will not run into a guy with tourniquets ready but you may very well encounter someone on drugs.

  • joehatfield37

    Mossberg Model 500. It’s a 12-gage shotgun which can hold 8 rounds of the standard 2.75″ length shells in a tube magazine.

    • anonymouscitizen

      IMHO any 12-ga with double 00 buck shot is great for home defense.

    • Jack_Savage

      Check out the 500 Cruiser. As soon as I can find one I am getting it.

      • Russ Martin

        http://www.impactguns.com/mossberg-50440-500sp-12-18-cb-6sh-syn-50440-015813504409.aspx

  • ocdc01

    I own an AR-15 because I like to shoot – plain and simple. Some people golf, some play tennis, and some scrapbook – I like to shoot. As far as Joe Scarborough asked, that’s why I own an AR-15.

  • mackd

    Something I posted on another site:

    Let me go on a short gun rant. They want to ban large capacity magazines. Many on the left say; “There’s no reason to have them”. Let me explain something. Handguns are a close DEFENSE weapon, not very effective even at that (look at the stats regarding percentage of deaths/stops caused by handguns alone). If you want to PROTECT someone or something from multiple attackers, you had better have a rifle and a lot of bullets. Got a riot in your town or a major calamity? (earthquake, flood, hurricane) and gangs roving the streets looking for food and water, don’t count on a 6 round .38 to keep them away. Remember the pictures of the Korean store owner on the top of his store with an AK-47 and his son in the front door with an AR-15? They splashed across the news for half a day then disappeared, they didn’t meet the Progressive agenda. BTW that store was NOT burned out or damaged in any way during the riots, unlike many neighboring stores.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    This was excellent. I linked it in my post that’s going up in a bit. Thanks for the excellent work.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    I’d like to own an “assault rifle”; like almost everyone else in this country, I don’t. The actual “assault rifle”, one with automatic or selective fire capability, has been strictly controlled since 1934. You only find them in the hands of a Class III dealer, or someone who has paid an extra $200 fee, and waited months for government approval to purchase one.
    The only place you see malefactors blasting away indiscriminately is on TV or at the movies. Perhaps that’s where the libs become terrified by the idea that our streets are running red due to misnamed “assault weapons”.
    The actual number of crimes committed with such weapons in the last seventy years is miniscule

  • Russ Martin

    I own an AR-15 because I was properly trained to care for and shoot one (actually an M-16) as an infantryman in the Army, and I am confident in my ability to employ it accurately, effectively, and safely.

    I own an AR-15 because contrary to popular belief, they are an excellent weapon to use for hunting. It is my preferred rifle to dispatch feral hogs, coyotes, foxes, raccoons and other predators on our property.

    I own an AR-15 (with several 30-round magazines) because I enjoy competition shooting and the AR-15 is an outstanding weapon to use in carbine and three-gun competitions. If you enjoy shooting and you’ve never fired one, I recommend it. They are quite fun to shoot.

    I own an AR-15 because it is MY responsibility to protect my family and my property. I cannot, in good conscience, abdicate this responsibility in the hope that local law enforcement will be there when I need them. I own several firearms (all properly secured), each designed with specific uses. My AR-15 is an important part of this collection.

    I own an AR-15 because it is my right to do so.

    I own an AR-15 because they are a pretty good investment these days!

    I own an AR-15 because I love my country, but fear my government. And I can no longer discount the possibility that some day, someone might actually come to my door to confiscate my firearms and property.

    • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks

      Replace “Army Infantryman” with “Air Force Desk Pilot” and this is pretty much me as well.

    • JimAustinTexas

      You also own an AR-15 because it’s your right to decide how you choose to exercise that right.

      Great comment Russ!

  • anonymouser

    Ever consider something less lethal than a gun? I have a big dog that keeps unwanted people away from my house. I guarantee you would not have even needed to approach the front door to take care of this as the dog would have already scared the peepee out of that vagrant.

    I too have been around guns since before I was twelve and I have three beautiful kids and a wonderful wife who all rely on my protection. But there is no need to own an AR-15. PERIOD. You don’t need to show or display your superiority to other human beings by whipping out a $1500.00 gun. OH, you are a big man, you can buy a gun.

    Not to mention when you deem it necessary to use it on that vagrant standing at your front door and you squeeze that trigger and fire a 5 millimeter chunk of metal through your perpetrator and head on it’s way to an unknown target such as your neighbors house or your wife pulling up in the driveway.

    Just shows how much of a scared wimp you really are when you have to own a military grade weapon to deal with the human race.

    • Jack_Savage

      First of all, I have killed two dogs that threatened me. They went down surprisingly easy, with one shot. So much for your big dog.
      Second, the human race is not the issue here. People who come into your house to rob, rape and murder you are. I prefer a shotgun for home defense, but it’s really none of our damn business what the OP prefers now, is it?
      There is no NEED to own two homes. There is no NEED to own a sub zero fidge. There is no NEED to own a BMW 7 series. But for right now, we live in a free country, so again, your opinion on what I NEED in terms of firearms means nothing. Nothing. And the fact that you think the only reason to own an AR-15 is to show superiority to other human beings says much more about you than anyone else.

    • PowerToThePeople

      What tripe lefty, but tell you what, when you are able to save the lives of your family by singing hippie songs and hoping the mutt scares the person off (If I was intent on getting in I would simply club or shoot the mutt then look for you) I will sell my 2 AR-15s.

      By the way numnut, I have no clue what you think you are, but I was a man long before I bought my first gun, now I am simply a man capable of self defense no matter the threat. You are just a fool with their head stuck up their ass.

    • garret5

      You’re exercising your right to choose to not have a firearm. Good for you! That doesn’t mean you have a right to demand that others follow your example. I personally prefer a firearm to that of a pet. It requires very little maintenance, except cleaning. It requires no food, no love, no walks.

      I’ll stick to my guns on this one. Pun intended.

  • danilaw

    “I bought an AR-15 so that I wouldn’t have to ask twice for a criminal to get out of my house.”

    I support your right to own a semi-automatic rifle for home defense.

    However, I also note that by not having that rifle in hand, and having in fact “asked twice” you avoided having to actually escalate the situation.

    Had you had the rifle and chosen to use if instead of asking twice, you might well have shot a woman who, while high on drugs or possibly retarded, had wandered into the wrong house thinking it was her own. If the thing in her hand was not a weapon – you didn’t seem to identify it – then your life may have been put through hell if you were persecuted by local DAs for shooting an unarmed mentally retarded bag lady?

    That said, I am sure you have thought these things over, and I admire your honesty for having presented the situation in a way that leaves you open to us commentators ‘second guessing”. We weren’t there, you were.

    My point is not that a semi-auto is a bad thing for home defense (though a shotgun may be better, as there is there is less chance of it going through a plasterboard wall and taking out a neighbor’s kid by mistake) but rather that sometimes it is a good thing to be able to ASK TWICE. Not everyone who is confused is a drugged out criminal: could be a recent immigrant (or illegal) who doesn’t understand english, drank too much, and got the wrong house. Could be a good kid who just took too much weed or booze. Could be a mentally retarded (sorry “challenged”) person who is harmless.

    By all means have that gun in hand when you ask the questions, but unless your opponent is clearly threatening or you can CLEARLY see they are armed, take the time to ask that second question, don’t shoot just because you have a bigger rifle. You may be the one going to jail.

  • Viet71

    I’ve got a .22 Long Rifle and a 12-guage pump for self-defense. Never use them.

    If I needed to be real serious about protecting myself, I’d add an AR-15-type carbine. The sort of weapon in semi-auto I sometimes carried in Viet Nam. Very good weapon at any distance because of the over-stabilized round, which tumbles on impact. Easy to use, easy to handle.

  • Viet71

    To all those who worry about a .223 round penetrating walls and causing uninteded injuries or damage: You’ve got the .223 round confused with the AK-47 (7.62 mm) round. The .223 round tumbles upon hitting a leaf in the jungle. The AK round plows straight ahead.

    As an individual, you don’t want to be hit by either. If I had my choice, I’d take the AK round. NVA soldiers preferred the M-16 to the AK-47; and some GIs preferred the AK.

    The AK was easier to maintain and had tremendous hitting power. The M-16, with its tight tolerances, was harder to maintain. But when a .223 round hit you, because of its tumbling effect, it was going to have an explosive effect within the body.

    Thanks to Eugene Stoner.

    • danilaw

      There are lots of .223 rounds and lots of AR-15 or M16 derived weapons, many of them with different barrels and different round weights than those used in Vietnam. The gun and cartridge have been tinkered with continually for decades now. Sure, “deflected by a leaf” may happen, especially at certain ranges and with certain cartridges, but…

      ….. it will still go somewhere. A full metal jacket M16 round will penetrate up to a quarter inch of steel plate (the semi-AP rounds used by the military even more). So don’t count on that leaf! It might make you miss the guy you’re aiming for, but that’s not the problem.

      A study done by the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice showed that an AR-15 firing 55-gr Federal FMJ rounds (for example) would go through *four* well-spaced wall boards and still have enough energy to travel a further 100 yards down range. Other rounds had better or worse performance – for example, 69-grain hollowpoint penetrated only one wallboard and began tumbling – but it did go through the wall and someone could still get pretty badly messed up if they were standing on the other side.

      PS: When you say AK-47 (7.62mm) remember to qualify that it’s the Russian 7.62mm SHORT round: the 7.62×39, not the much heavier and more powerful 7.62x51mm that we know and love as the .308 Winchester, – as used in the M14, FN-FAL, and numerous hunting rifles. The Soviet round has no more than half the energy, which is why a lot of people shot by AK-47s and similar guns tend to survive, even after multiple hits (from military FMJ).

      • Viet71

        Thx.

  • strickler

    The point of the 2nd is not home defense from criminals, sport, or hunting. Just like the 1st’s purpose being to protect all speach but mostly political speach, the 2nd’s purpose is to protect freedom generally but most importantly political freedom, ie freedom from a tyranical government.

    So i ask this question: What arm (gun?) and what size magazine would you want in order to protect yourself from tyranny?