I’ve had several conversations with people who believe they’re offering some sort of compromise when they say they don’t have a problem with people owning handguns or shotguns, but nobody should have an “assault weapon“. That is because those people limit the scope of the Second Amendment to home defense and self protection. And for those purposes those weapons will do the job.

What they fail to understand or accept is the scope of the Second Amendment is so much brighter than that. To protect yourself, your family and your property in the event of a natural disaster or a breakdown in social order would require an AR type rifle in order to effectively meet multiple threats.

And they completely ignore the very basis of the Second Amendment to preserve liberty because they see that as so incredibly unlikely that it would never happen therefore no one has a need to stand against our very government if necessary to resist tyranny. To them the likelihood of that approaches impossible making the need to be armed with those type of weapons unnecessary. And to those who say that the citizens of this country could not stand up against government forces do not understand the power of an armed citizenry and the tactics required to do so.

Quite frankly, I believe the Second Amendment permits me to own any equipment that a typical infantrymen could be equipped with to include a select fire rifle, body armor and night vision. And the current interpretation of the second amendment is an infringement on my right to keep and bear arms. So I have already compromised as much as I am willing to. 

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.