Previous Post
Next Post

I can  understand that. Deadly things, assault rifles. Of course, that’s the whole point, right? That’s why the military have them. Is it OK for the troops to have assault rifles? So when you say, “Nobody needs an assault rifle,” you mean no civilians. Civilians don’t need that kind of firepower. We should keep the big guns for the troops. Are you against people owning guns to defend themselves, generally? No? So what should they use . . .

Handguns. Got ya. Huh. Do you know how hard it is to shoot someone with a handgun? See that cash register over there? What’s that, about twelve feet? Most people would miss. Seriously. In a crisis? Fuhgeddaboudit . . .

You ever hear stories about criminals who got shot like ten times by the police and kept coming? True, it doesn’t happen all the time. But it does happen. And cops know how to shoot. Bet they could hit that cash register from here. Probably take the money first. Kidding. Oh, you’re from Rhode Island too . . .

Like I said, handguns are way over-rated.

Hey, you know what makes a really good home defense gun? A shotgun. Ever seen a shotgun blast? Oh man. You load up one of those with double-ought buck and shoot someone from that distance and you’re pretty much done. Well they are. That cash register wouldn’t stand a chance. You’ll go deaf for about a week, but I reckon it’s the business. You OK with shotguns?

Wait; do you hunt? Neither do I. It’s not my style. But if you let people use a shotgun for hunting, how you gonna stop them using it for home defense? They may not need to, but what if they want to? Are you going to say “you can only use your shotgun for hunting?” True. True. They are definitely not the same as assault rifles.

You know anything about rifles? You got bolt action rifles. Big bolt you pull back between shots like this. Semi-automatics. They hold a bunch of bullets. You shoot, squeeze, shoot, squeeze. Should we force hunters to use bolt guns? ‘Cause you could call all semi-automatic rifles “assault rifles.” Not just the ones that look like military weapons. They work pretty much the same way.

Anyway anyway, hear me out. What if a bear’s coming at you? What are the odds right? For us, nil. But let’s say you’re a hunter and you’ve got this big ass bear coming straight for you. You want to face down that bad boy with a handgun? I don’t think so. You’d want a rifle, something that could fire off a bunch of shots at a long distance so you can get the hell out of there. Something that fires some big ass bullets, too.

It’s gotta be a semi. You are NOT going to be pulling the bolt back and feeding in cartridges one at a time with an angry bear running towards you. Bang bang bang bang bang. Die Gentle Ben! Die! Kidding again. But not really. It’s probably the best way to make sure you kill Bambi too. Like I said I don’t hunt.

But if it works for Bambi, it’s gotta work for bad guys. You’re much more likely to stop a bad guy with a rifle than a handgun. That’s why the Army uses them. If they weren’t better, they wouldn’t use them. They’d all have handguns instead. OK, you got a few issues with bullets going through walls and stuff like that, but you see where I’m going with this? You might not need an assault rifle, but you might.

There was this nutty homeowner down in New York, I think it was. Pissed of a gang of bikers at like 3am. The whole gang shows up at his door. I don’t know about you, but I would not want to face down those guys with a handgun. The cops are coming. Meanwhile, he brings out an AK-47. That’s an assault rifle, right? Jerk fires it into the ground. Dumb move. Should have stayed in the house. But it worked.

Sure I’ve got an assault rifle. But it’s not my go-to gun. I’ve got a handgun and a shotgun. It’s not like I’ll ever need them. I do NOT want to shoot anyone. But you know, just in case.

Hey, you know why people like assault rifles? They don’t kick so bad, they’re accurate and reliable and they don’t cost too much. I mean, if they didn’t like them, they wouldn’t buy them, right?

No one needs an assault rifle for home defense. I got that. You want them to use a weapon that might be less effective. Roger that. But who gets to decide the difference between what someone needs and what they want?

I don’t want to be rude or anything, but don’t you think the decision about what weapons are best for home defense should be left to people who know about these things?

No, not the government. Definitely not the government. You’re a football coach. You want the government coming in and changing the rules? And that’s football. I know you think it’s a matter of life and death, but for me, home defense is slightly more important. And I’m not 100 percent thrilled with the idea of the government telling me what guns I can use to defend myself and my family.

Look at Massachusetts and California. They got like this long list of guns you can and cannot buy. Sure, they got their reasons. Safety stuff, mostly. But they’re all handguns. Big deal, right? They’re all about the same.

You know what some of the best gunmakers do? They say “fuck it.” We’re not going to modify our guns to satisfy some government guy. It’s not worth it. Literally. There’s not enough money in it. The gun I use to defend my family? You can’t buy it in Massachusetts. Too many bullets. The AG says “No one needs a gun that holds that many bullets. I’m not going to put it on the list.” That’s what happens when you let the government decide.

Let’s leave it like this. You don’t think anybody needs an assault rifle. Some people disagree and they might—I said might—be right. You know; for them. Just for them. In some cases, some people might genuinely need an assault rifle. They may not be totally insane. Fair enough?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Not a doubt in my mind that I need all of my assault rifles, in fact I need my bolt,pump,lever, single shot and pistols to. It's called the "Bill of Rights" not the "bill of needs".

  2. This is why I don't call them anti-gun, I call these type of people gun elitists.
    This type of person thinks police and military are special and should have guns but us little peons should not. We aren't special enough to own certain tools.

  3. I'll bet people who live along our border with Mexico know why a civilian needs an assault rifle. How would you like to face an AK47 armed drug dealer wtih a snub nose 38?

  4. Can't hit a target at twelve feet? This isn't the way to support civilian gun ownership. Cops might miss at twelve feet but no gun owner I know would miss at 20 feet let alone twelve feet. If someone is so untrained that they miss with a handgun at twelve feet they are certainly not going to understand that a rifle bullet will go through their target, even if they can hit their target with it, and travel further at lethal velocity. Sometimes I'm amazed at how people try to defend armed citizens. If you don't trust an armed citizen, that is your problem. I trust all armed citizens until they give me a reason not to.

    • The reason civilians won’t miss a target at 20′ when a cop can’t hit it at 12′ is because the civilian target isn’t shooting back!

      However, most cops (been there, done that) ARE amatures when it comes to guns. Yes, they carry them, but most never fired one before becoming a cop. And law enforcement training isn’t exactly the best out there, though I did have some that was excellent. Most any reputable private firearms academy can give a civilian better training than the run-of-the-mill police academy.
      It’s simply a matter of the amount of time and the level of attention available to a civilian at such training that is generally not available at a police academy. That and a bit more “check your ego at the door.”

  5. If the founding fathers had any idea of the kind of weaponry that was going to exist, they would have made a note about regulating it. Personally, I couldn’t give a fuck if your whole world falls apart, which it is if the gun shit doesn’t get handled some way: so I don’t care if you have guns or not. Just accept that fact. Admit that you value your little guns more than you value your society and the people in it. Human violence has stayed the same since the beginning, but our capacity for committing violence keeps getting perfected, through our technology. Eventually these two paths are going to meet in one horrifying trajectory. The “guns” of the next century will be capable of destroying more than a small crowd of people. In the not too distant future all it will take is one pissed off asswipe to kill a terrifying amount of individuals. But no, fuck regulating this shit, right? In the future they will be speaking of their right to bear personal nuclear warheads just like you people are speaking of your right to bear assault rifles. But hey, it’s your world, fuck it up if you feel like it. It’s a good show for me, good entertainment. I’ll just kick back here with my bottle of vicodin and watch the human circus go round and round for a little whole longer. Cheers.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here