As liberals have so callously exploited the recent school shooting tragedy to further their mission to disarm Americans, one of their most frequent arguments is, “Who needs ten bullets to shoot Bambi, or a burglar in your bedroom for that matter?” Well, in the case of Bambi, they’re a little closer on target, so to speak. As hunters know, if you miss with the first shot, you’ll be lucky to get off a second before Bambi is long gone. But that may very well not be the case with the burglar in your bedroom.
In the recent 911-recorded home invasion in Georgia, a housewife defending home and children, emptied her five-round .38 revolver into a determined intruder at near point-blank range; it didn’t even drop him. Though wounded repeatedly, he was able to flee the scene where he was later captured. What if he had chosen to press his attack rather than run? She was out of ammunition and therefore helpless, as were her small children. For those of you unfamiliar with firearms, a .38 revolver is very serious weapon and in most instances five close-up hits should prove sufficient to down your usual criminal thug. However, in this case, they weren’t and that is precisely the point of this writing. Who among our government leaders possesses the prescience to make this call for all the rest of us? Who calls the shots?
Military annals are replete with accounts of combatants, both our own and enemy, sustaining unbelievable wounds from multiple hits and yet still remaining lethally capable of continuing to kill. If you want to better understand just how much a determined human can withstand without succumbing, read this Medal of Honor citation for my former Army roommate. Count how many times he was wounded and then consider that otherwise, Charley was a very ordinary guy. Likewise, law enforcement agencies all across the country have horror stories about violent criminals displaying superhuman abilities to withstand multiple gunshot wounds or taserings before being subdued or killed.
So the conundrum is just how many rounds of ammunition are enough to stop a criminal intent on doing harm to you or your loved ones or even just another innocent stranger you choose to defend? What if that perp is high on drugs, such as the notorious bath salts which turn their abusers into berserk, would-be cannibals? Is Dianne Feinstein, all-wise and all-knowingly correct when she pronounces definitively that ten rounds are all anyone ever needs? I wonder how comfortable Senator Feinstein would be with just ten rounds if she had someone like this madman battering down her door screaming, “I’m a eat you!” It took several cops, pepper spray, and six taserings to physically overpower this salts-fueled psychopath. Are you certain that ten bullets be sufficient to stop him if he were coming through your door, Senator? Are you so confident in your knowledge that you’d bet your life on it? Or the possibility of having your face chewed off? What if there were two drug-crazed thugs battering down your door, Senator? Suppose they each were armed with handguns with fifteen or seventeen round magazines (they’re outlaws after all, who live outside your silly laws) and you have only ten rounds, Senator? Does your senatorial diktat now seem so certain, even to your own, highly self-esteemed, senatorial person?
You see, Senator, it’s the very real potential for scenarios like the above to occur that have the rest of us out here wondering:
Just why should you and your liberal cronies get to call the shots?
Crossposted at American Thinker.