I have reported from Ferguson and Malheur both, and in each instance I think the government overreached.
You're wrong and here's why:
Let's assume though that you're talking home invasion, mugging, massacre.
Then you could pop the dude.
In any other case it's silly.
Anyone who's been to war will tell you you get jumpy.
Foreign or domestic.
Home invasion, your kids are in that place. You may or may not live across a wall from someone, but statistically speaking you don't have the clearance my home does, in the woods.
Most people live where people walk by.
You'd take a pistol.
OK, so let's assume dude breaks in: how likely is it a firearm? Maybe a knife? Maybe nothing, a cat burglar?
Shotgun. Ain't nobody in the world doesn't know the sound from movies. You can pack shells with crazy shit. One shot, done. 'Cause you're at home, remember, you're probably within 20 feet if you can aim.
This is where I suspect I probably agree with most gun owners in a lot of ways, but for maybe interesting reasons.
I think that when the Constitution was written, we didn't have a modern police state. I think the police state was what it was for. And I think it's too late.
To the extent they were creating an ad hoc standing army, it was also understood most men would muster.
We should have damn well armed ourselves against law enforcement decades ago, when we developed a system of law enforcement that was precisely what the second amendment was designed for.
And now there's no way to defend ourselves, militarily, without actually declaring open rebellion.
We know most mass murders - and there are an unforgivable, numbing amount - will involve an AR or similar.
We know the *harm* they cause.
I just know this weapon ain't what we need to do that. Unless you mean to storm the damn Bastille.
My oldest has ten still.
Then there's college. So I've an interest in it beyond myself.