Quasimodo wrote:
? Not at all. I was saying that one does not need military weapons to defend oneself.
The AR-15 is not a military weapon, but a sport version of the M-16, and is a single shot, semi-automatic rifle. The Beretta 9mm and M-1911 .45 semi-automatic and many similar weapons are also used or have been used by the military. I have two Japanese bolt action rifles in my shed that my Father picked up on a beach somewhere in the South Seas, which fire a single shot and must have another round placed in the chamber manually before another round can be fired. These are military weapons.
This is all nothing but a semantic game, and the only game the Left has ever been able to play with this, as with so many other issues, once they realize they have no rational, evidence-based arguments to bring to the table.
Are you saying that all weapons should be legal?
No. Have I ever made that argument?
An RPG might be an effective weapon to repel a mob breaking into your house, but you would destroy your house using it.
No, it wouldn't. A rocket assisted anti-armour projectile or missile is a shaped charge weapon intended to penetrate heavy armor and inject molten metal and shrapnel into an enclosed space. It would be all but useless against a group of men rampaging through my house. Providing one of them would stand perfectly still, I might be able to hit him, its true.
Land mines in your hallway would slow them down, too (you just need to remember where you put them). Flamethrowers? Rocket launchers to deter bad guys attacking your house in helicopters?
Let me know when you're done being silly and wish to have an intellectually serious discussion of this issue.