You're not in the business of engaging in armed confrontation. You don't need to be equipped as if you're in the business of pro-actively engaging in armed confrontation.
That's your opinion and I certainly hope you don't think we should be legislated out of having the ability to own a weapon that you've defined as "offensive only." What, in your infinite knowledge and ability to tell what everyone in here will and wont need during their lifetime, makes a firearm "offensive only?"
That's not my "opinion" . . . unless you're on the PAYROLL for law enforcement or the military, you're not "
in the business of engaging in armed confrontation."
You' may be preoccupied, fixated or otherwise obssessed with engaging in armed
confrontation, but it's not your job.
And there's nothing in the construction of my statement which would infer some sort of distinction between "offfensive" and "defensive" arms, and some sort of concomitant ban on an entire class of firearms.
I have a small cannon at the house; it's "offensive." It's not the "Bill of Needs" it's the Bill of Rights.
But I just don't see much utility in carrying on one's person more than one firearm. The police and military pretty much agree with me on that one too. The backup should be a long-gun, unless you're Walter Mitty and being chased by Zombies.
Let's not patronize my "infinite knowledge and ability." You're just going to piss me off.
