Clickbait about clickbait. How meta is that? But again, these posts serve an important purpose. Not only are they entertaining (if we do say so ourselves), they also stimulate debate and discussion. In other words, they’re raw meat for TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia, as well as educating charter members. So here they are . . .
1. Caliber wars!
The general consensus amongst caliber warriors: shot placement is the critical variable for any defensive firearm (and hunting and target shooting come to think of it). After that all hell breaks loose.
I wouldn’t carry a .22 caliber pistol for self-defense! Yeah? How’d you like to get shot by a .22? I won’t shoot anything that doesn’t being with a four. Hello? It’s easier to place a modern 9mm JHP than a snappy-ass .40 S&W round or a .45. And you get more of ’em!
Tell you what: let’s all shoot 10mm and be done with it. Unless you prefer .357. And if you’re going that way, .357 SIG is better for shooting through auto glass (great for crowded bars). And let’s not even get started on AR and shotgun calibers for home defense, hunting, long range shooting and bragging rights. Or should we?
To tell you the truth in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being as you can buy a handgun chambered in .44 Magnum, once considered the most powerful handgun in the world, a gun that would blow your head clean off, you’ve gotta ask yourself one question: do I want a larger caliber? Well, do ya, punk?
2. The 1911 for Self-Defense!
I own three 1911’s: a Cabot, Wilson Combat and some weird-ass custom thing built on a Clark Custom Colt that had a bent barrel. I carry the Cabot and the Wilson and constantly SMH at WTF I was thinking with the Colt. They’re tiring to carry on my hip, but not as tiring as defending my decision to carry John Moses Browning’s meisterwerk.
There are gun owners who’d carry nothing but a 1911 (which doesn’t include me). They can explain their decision in both practical and emotional terms (don’t get me started). And then there are those who’d rather carry a hammer- or striker-fired mouse gun than any 1911. Or a hammer. Or a box of matches (to strike). And never the Twain shall meet.
In fact, I’ll let Mr. Clemens have the last word from his book Roughing It. I submit this pre-1911 passage to remind gentle readers that a 1911 remains a whole lot better than what came before it. FWIW.
I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson’s seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homeopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault–you could not hit anything with it.
3. The Second Amendment!
“A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.” Who has the right to food? A well-balanced breakfast or the people?
Wait. Isn’t breakfast the most important meal of the day? And doesn’t a militia eat breakfast? Or at least run on its stomach?
Regardless of their dietary habits, the left will never surrender their belief that there’s no such thing as an individual right to keep and bear arms. And even if there is — sorry “was” (the Constitution being a living document and all) such a right — there are some individuals who shouldn’t have guns.
Like . . . all individuals! Except the police. And the military. And the bodyguards protecting celebrities and politicians who campaign for civilian disarmament in all its loathsome forms.
But definitely not crazy folks, like, say, the 30 – 40 million Americans taking the edge of life in a statist society with anti-depressants. Or NRA members, OFWGs who are so paranoid about people taking their guns away that someone should take their guns away.
Good luck with that. [/sarc] Meanwhile, these three debates will rage until the planet gets so damn hot all the guns in the world melt. You heard it here first.