On Thursday, CNN hosted a panel of Trump voters, made up of people who are pro-guns and people who opposed gun control. The debate quickly turned contentious after Scott Pappalardo, a gun owner who destroyed his AR-15 rifle after the Parkland school shooting, told a female gun owner she didn’t need an AR-15 for home protection.
“The AR-15 should not be used as a home protection weapon,” Pappalardo said.
That led Carrie Lightfoot, a pro-gun Trump voter, to ask, “Why?”
“Because,” Pappalardo began.
“Do you know what a fabulous gun that is for women?” Lightfoot pressed.
“It’s a fabulous gun. So is a shotgun,” he said.
She responded by saying that a shotgun is “much harder to handle.”
Lightfood also took up an impassioned defense of the Second Amendment.
“This is a constitutionally protected right–this is not a government legislated privilege, such as driving a car.”
CNN host Alisyn Camerota then asked her if she thought “the forefathers meant the AR-15” when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
“I think they meant our protection against a tyrannical government and for our self protection,” she said. “Of course they don’t know what the guns are. But–you can’t start messing with our constitutionally protected rights.”
I wonder, did our founding fathers know what the Internet, television or radio were when they protected free speech?
The anti argument is based on emotion or feeling. The pro argument is reasoned and principled.
A home defense weapon should be whatever the person is most experienced with and most comfortable using. Just like everything else in life, it’s up to each individual to decide.
We do not have politicians sitting behind a desk telling us what brand of car to buy, or what brand of cereal to eat, or what store to shop at for shoes.
Why do we need them to tell us what type of weapon we should use to defend our families?
Do you agree?
Share this article, and comment what’s your preferred method of home defense?
Natalie D. is an American conservative writer who writes for Supreme Insider, Conservative US, and Right Journalism! Natalie has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot,” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do,” drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right. As a passionate journalist, she works relentlessly to uncover the corruption happening in Washington. She is a “constitutional conservative”.