Step by step response.....
It's time to address a common contradiction in the gun control debate: the argument that rifles are too dangerous to be available to the public, but at the same time, they wouldn't be useful for individuals to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. This makes zero sense.
* "Rifles are too dangerous to be available to the public".... Because the "public" can and does USE THEM TO SHOOT INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
Yes, they MIGHT be useful for individuals to defend themselves against a tyrannical government - but define "useful". I would like an "army's" chances against an individual's.
Here's the deal: if rifles are as dangerous as some people claim, then it only makes sense that they would be effective tools for self-defense. I mean, when you're facing a violent threat, you need a weapon that can actually stop that threat, right? And a rifle, with its longer range and greater firepower, fits the bill perfectly.
* "IF"? No "IF". Yes, rifles ARE as dangerous as MOST people claim. The "violent threat" shit is laughable.
Let me know how some schmuck named Bubba who has a "rifle" is going to stop a sub, warship, tank, helicopter, fighter jet, etc.
On the other hand, if rifles are truly useless for self-defense, then it suggests that they're not as dangerous as some would like to believe. After all, if a rifle couldn't be used to defend oneself, it wouldn't be a significant threat to public safety.
* Who has said rifles are truly useless for "self-defense"? "Self defense" against who/what? Against another individual? No, not useless. Against an army that has much greater means to take out a person with a "riffle", yes - pretty much useless.
So what's the truth? Are rifles too dangerous to be allowed in civilian hands, or are they too ineffective for self-defense? The answer is neither. Rifles, like any other weapon, can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but they can also be valuable tools for personal protection.
* Yes, the truth is rifles are too dangerous to be allowed in civilian hands. Yes, they can be too ineffective for self defense - or they can be 100% effective for self defense. All depends on the circumstances. The answer is both.
Amazing that I read through all that to get to the last sentence.... "Rifles, like any other weapon, can be dangerous in the wrong hands, but they can also be valuable tools for personal protection".
BINGO!!!! So why did they use all those words to say something everyone should agree about?
). Some free thinker, this randy.