>>101375545It slightly depends on the home, but generally the only advantage it'd bring is the capacity. You hit someone with buckshot and they're down. A pistol can have decent capacity; you don't need 30 shots for a home invader, and in many areas the additional penetrating power of a rifle can risk a shot penetrating outside your house/apartment and causing an innocent casualty.
And frankly, you fight the home invader if you can't escape.
>>101375613The Founders intended a lot of things. That didn't always work out.
You aren't winning a fight against the military based on armed civilians. You'd only win if significant portions of the military join you. You'd need enough Air Force defectors so that they can't bomb you into submission. You'd also need to have enough infantry to disrupt their supply lines.
Part of this is because, guess what, people in the military have discipline, training, organization, and a hierarchy. Traditionally they don't do well against guerilla warfare, true, but that's because of a rightful reluctance to murder civilians openly and en masse. That isn't true of civil war.
Frankly, given the political atmosphere, you'd get people with firearms siding with the government. Trump could probably endorse killing dem evul libruls and a fair bit of his firearm loving base wouldn't care.
>>101375739Response:
I didn't consider cost, but when I considered hunting in the area I was in had fairly cheap bolt action by my standards. What would you consider a realistic price range? I admit that I have nothing against a low capacity semi auto hunting rifle.
For home defense, I still disagree. Pistols carry sufficient stopping power for those purposes and have a fair capacity. Frankly, I don't rate your odds well if you miss with 10 rounds or more against an armed invader.
By the way; come on. I've owned and fired a shotgun. Please don't give me that nonsense about spread, I even mentioned I owned a shotgun for wildlife issues.
