Do you own an AR-15? Then you know the fun that can be had from them. Whether using them for varmint hunting or for shooting bottles and Tannerite in the hills, AR-15s can be a lot of fun.
The left likes to pretend that the Second Amendment is a sporting consideration and that those who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights are obliged to justify why they want certain weapons. Those seeking to disarm Americans will throw around questions meant to distract for the real issue. They will ask, “Why do you need an AR-15 to hunt deer?”
As if the Second Amendment protects our right to own deer rifles…
They insist that rifles like the AK-47 and the AR-15 are only suitable for mass slaughter. In reality, these rifles are highly practical for a number of reasons.
They are fun to shoot for target practice, they are great for hunting small animals and, let us never forget, they are the most-effective weapon for home or self-defense when confronted by a much larger force.
As Ferguson burned as a result of liberal race-baiting, some stores survived because the owners sat perched with these “man-killers,” telegraphing that the owners could defend their stores or homes from rioters and looters.
In that scenario, would you want a double-barrel shotgun? Or an effective sporting rifle like an AR-15?
Democrat New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen cannot or will not accept the usefulness of these weapons. In typical liberal fashion, Sen. Shaheen lashed-out emotionally at those who stand in the left’s way of enacting civilian disarmament.
Shaheen favors banning rifles like the AR-15, an ironic position that comes from a woman who is supposed to represent a state with the motto “live free or die.”
On Monday, Shaheen blasted those who buy the rifle and claimed that those who purchase AR-15s are doing so to “do bad things.”
On Mitchell in the Morning on Monday, Shaheen stated, (emphasis added)
“Well, I think people need to have their voices heard, and what I’ve heard from people in New Hampshire is they think there’s reasonable legislation that we can pass including things like looking at the types of weapons that so easy for people to get.”
“The fact is, the AR-15, the gun that (Omar) Mateen used, that’s a weapon of war; it’s advertised as being able do technologically advances in killing people that previous weapons have been unable to do and somebody who is buying that kind of a weapon isn’t buying it for target shooting,” she said. “They’re not buying it to go out and hunt deer. You don’t need an AK-47 or an AR-15 to hunt deer. They’re buying it to do bad things and we need to recognize that and address it.”
Shaheen is like so many liberal legislators who feel compelled to speak on a subject about which she clearly knows nothing.
The vast, vast majority of Americans who own one of the millions of AR-15s in America routinely shoot paper targets, bottles and various other targets. Some use it for hunting.
Even if we were to accept that the rifle is ill-suited for target practice or hunting, we would stil be left with one purely inescapable fact: the government doesn’t get to decide whether we are allowed to retain our constitutional rights based on our justifications.
Nobody asks the New York Times to explain why they should be allowed to offer a scathing editorial. Our rights are not contingent upon offering justifications. They’re our rights, not privileges.
Oh, on a side note: and the rifle used by Omar Mateen was not even an AR-15. So, even the most basic of assumptions present within Shaheen’s argument are erroneous.