Why Does a Gun Owner Need More Than One Round of Ammo?

Isn't it funny. Whenever the Left attacks the rights of the American people, the press uses the words "compromise." Likewise, if ever a Conservative seeks compromise on an issue, the press labels the effort as an attack.

Despite what the pundits claim, the press does not have the magic ability to see the intentions of the players in a political wrangle. A person who is on the attack can easily feign the image of compromise. Likewise, a person willing to compromise is likely to begin a debate with a clearly stated position.

A group that begins a debate by demanding compromise before stating a position is clearly up to no good.


The Obama Administration is beginning the legislative season with a well orchestrated campaign to frame their position as a demand for compromise.

If we had been taught logic in school, we would know that one does not begin a debate with compromise. One begins a debate by stating positions. Beginning a debate with a demand for compromise is a bully technique. That the press frames the starting position of gun control advocates as "compromise" is base propaganda.


Anyway, the gun control forces are beginning their attack on gun rights with the question:  "Why do people seeking to defend themselves need guns with multiple rounds?"

The obvious reason is that people who are seeking to defend are defending themselves and are not necessarily seeking to kill their attacker. I would rather the attacker runs away than deal with the trauma of having shot someone.

If I were defending myself with a gun, I would fire multiple warning shots before ever considering actually aiming the gun at another human being.

Don't you see? If your goal is to make people run away, you need more fire power than if your goal is to kill them.

Personally, I prefer non-lethal weapons like the Taser. The problem with the Taser is that you have to actually aim at and hit the person who is threatening your family. A loud gun does a better job of scaring people away. BTW: If I were charged with defending an elementary school, I would actually want the teachers trained to use tasers.

The Second Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia." Such a militia is a group of volunteers seeking to defend a local community from groups attacking the community.


Now, think of a group of people protecting your community. You will want them to have sufficient fire power to keep your community from being a target of attack.

The unfortunate condition of man is that people seeking to defend themselves must hold a stronger position than those who are attacking. A bank spends far more defending the bank than the robber seeking to rob it.

Which brings us back to the current shrill debate. The fact that the debate is beginning with claims that those starting the debate are just seeking compromise leads me to believe that this is not a legitimate debate at all.

I fear that the whole purpose of this currently political show is to associate the right with Sandy Hook.

Alinsky taught his followers how to gain power over a community by creating division and stoking animosities.

Sadly, the Alinsky techniques work. The right is likely to burn itself out on the gun control issue while ignoring the more important issue of defending health freedom.