So, AR-15s have no good purpose?

The left demonizes a rifle, and tries to convince us it has no legitimate purpose?

A Henderson homeowner defended himself against a home invasion Monday morning, shooting an intruder who kicked in his door.

Jonathan Haith said he was sleeping in his home on Thomas Lane at around 9:45 a.m. when he heard a light knock on his backdoor.

He ignored it at first. Then he heard a louder sound.

“I heard the loud bang in the laundry room area,” he said.

Someone kicked in the door. Haith grabbed the AR-15 rifle he keeps under his bed.

“I crouched down, grabbed the firearm and was walking up the hallway,” he said. “As soon as I poked my head around the corner I saw a tall male standing there with a gun.”

Haith said he surprised the intruder.

“He shot first, I shot second,” he said. “He missed and I reckon I connected.”

The fact is AR’s, yes, I own one, have many uses, target shooting, hunting, and yes home defense

By Larry Keane, National Shooting Sports Foundation

An Oklahoma man last week defended himself from home invaders with the same type of rifle that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled Maryland citizens did not have the right to own.

The 23-year-old, Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, man was jarred awake by the sound of what turned out to be three masked men breaking through a glass door of the home owned by his father. The man armed himself with an AR-15. He confronted a criminal trio dressed in black, wearing masks and gloves. He fired in self-defense.

All three were killed. A knife and brass knuckles were recovered by police. The 21-year-old would-be getaway driver turned herself in. Since a person committing a felony in Oklahoma can be charged with felony murder when a death occurs during that crime, she now faces first-degree murder charges.

The incident, as regrettable and unfortunate as it is, shows the wisdom of the 2008 Heller decision in affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms that are in common use. The case provides a real-world counterargument to the faulty logic of the Fourth Circuit’s Kolbe v. Hogan decision.

Had this decision been in effect across the nation, it is possible that the young Oklahoma man would not have had the very rifle he successfully used to save himself from what could have been serious injury or death. For now, the ruling only sustains Maryland’s ban on AR-15s.

This young man faced multiple attackers, who were wearing masks and carrying weapons. What if he had been restricted to a handgun? An AR is easier to be accurate with than a pistol, and have a much higher capacity. The result might have been much different if he had to face his attackers with a handgun, especially if the left had their wish and magazines were limited to 10 rounds, or less.

Despite what the left does, no matter how many lies they spew about “assault rifles” and “weapons of war”. Do not take my word for it, listen to a former SEAL

There are evil people, predators, and no law, restriction, or intrusion on natural rights will deter them. Gun control? Gun-free zones? These only make it harder for good people, not for criminals

2 thoughts on “So, AR-15s have no good purpose?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s