johnelmore
New member
I was just thinking what if the Boston marathon came under a well organized assault by 20 attackers with rifles? Since Boston and the state in general puts so many limits on ownership it is one big soft target. The police do well when faced with one shooter, but lets face it, they fold quickly when faced with a greater force. Tacticool officers in fancy armored suvs are no match for a larger force of organized shooters.
A Manson-like family armed to the gills or a platoon of Al Qaeda could easily take over these cities for days or weeks. This wouldnt be the case in Atlanta where such villains would be up against an army of gun owners. How many people in California or Boston wish they owned a gun during the big manhunts? Were the politicians in these cities during these trying times clamoring for a pistol or demanding protection from the local police?
I am not glad the Boston bombings happened in general but never the less this incident is another good example of why the right to own a gun is important. Sure there may be tragic incidents like Newtown but think of the recent manhunts or even that big hurricane. There is nothing wrong with having something just in case.
A Manson-like family armed to the gills or a platoon of Al Qaeda could easily take over these cities for days or weeks. This wouldnt be the case in Atlanta where such villains would be up against an army of gun owners. How many people in California or Boston wish they owned a gun during the big manhunts? Were the politicians in these cities during these trying times clamoring for a pistol or demanding protection from the local police?
I am not glad the Boston bombings happened in general but never the less this incident is another good example of why the right to own a gun is important. Sure there may be tragic incidents like Newtown but think of the recent manhunts or even that big hurricane. There is nothing wrong with having something just in case.