Top Menu

Episode 209: Good Guys With Guns Don’t Stop Bad Guys…Or Do They?

Topic: Good Guys With Guns Don't Stop Bad Guys…Or Do They?

Today's episode features quite the dichotomy of news stories. On the one hand, you have Dianne Feinstein claiming some silliness about how good guys don't stop bad guys, yet we have a perfect example in the media just today as a BREAKING NEWS story of a shooting at a high school in Maryland earlier this morning was stopped by a “good guy with a gun.” Plus a double-barreled AR-15?? Good or not good? 

Press PLAY above to indulge in this incredible content!

WANNA SUBMIT A TOPIC OR COMMENT?

  • Shoot us a message here at the Concealed Carry Podcast by emailing us at: [email protected]

Sponsor Messages

Andrew Branca-Law of Self Defense – CASE OF THE WEEK

News Stories

 

JUSTIFIED SAVES

Thanks for Listening!

Thanks so much for joining us this week. Have some feedback you’d like to share? Leave a note in the comment section below. If you enjoyed the podcast the biggest compliment you could give us would be to subscribe to future episodes via a podcast app on your phone or via iTunes. You can find past podcast episodes by clicking here.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to Episode 209: Good Guys With Guns Don’t Stop Bad Guys…Or Do They?

  1. Dave D March 24, 2018 at 8:42 pm #

    I am a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter, a Concealed Carry Permit holder and firmly believe in the right to defend my loved ones and myself if needed. However the mere thought of a double barreled AR-15 with a “bump-trigger” is absolute absurdity to the nth degree. How can anything like that be considered a reasonable defense weapon. Just because it has a projectile that comes out of it, does not mean it is supported by our forefathers intention of protection.
    I’m sorry, but you have lost a listener.

    Dave D.

    • Riley Bowman March 25, 2018 at 1:12 am #

      Dave, it’s too bad that just because our opinion on one gun (which I’m not even sure you fully understand what my opinion of the Gilboa double-barreled AR is) doesn’t jive with your personal view of the 2nd Amendment, that you feel you can no longer listen to the podcast. Do you think you’ll agree with us on all things all the time? Why listen? Is it just for personal validation then to hear the exact same ideas and opinions that you already have yourself? If so, that’s a pretty poor reason to listen. My hope is that you MIGHT be educated, entertained, and perhaps even hear something now and then that is different than your own viewpoint. Because when we listen to other’s viewpoints, even when we disagree, we still learn and benefit. We often will learn things about our own points of view that even strengthens them. Occasionally we might change our mind! And that’s okay, because in the end I would hope that we are always trying to understand the truth of the world we live in.

      A couple of things:

      First of all, I think the Gilboa double-barreled AR is dumb. I mean on the surface I might say it’s cool. But that’s all it is. At the end of the day, it’s a stupid idea. It’s a PR stunt. Kind of like the guys that made a double-barreled 1911 .45 ACP a few years ago. Kinda cool, but mostly just dumb. A novelty. An attempt to get attention.

      Secondly, it doesn’t have a “bump-trigger.” I’m not sure where you got that from. It has two triggers, side-by-side. I’m sure (as I commented in the episode) that a person could apply some technique to fire it very rapidly. But that doesn’t make it a “bump-trigger.” Heck, there are things I can do (without mechanical assistance) where I can rapidly fire my standard AR-15s even like a fully automatic.

      Third, do I feel a novelty gun like this should be protected by the Second Amendment? Yes, I do. Even though the gun is dumb, I still think it should be protected. Why? Because give me a good reason why not.

      Fourth, oh wait, you kind of did give me a reason, and your premise as to WHY it shouldn’t be protected by the 2A is flawed. You state that the gun is not a reasonable defense weapon, and that thus the Founding Fathers couldn’t possibly have intended for it to be protected. The 2A is a very complex and special statement of rights. The reason for these rights are quite varied. Is it about personal protection or defense? Absolutely! Is it about hunting? Sure! Is it about ENJOYING a right? Yes, I believe in that, too. So if a person feels that they need this gun to extract some sort of personal satisfaction or enjoyment, then I think that is okay as well.

      By the way, when the Second Amendment was written, it was completely legal for citizens to own cannons, the most powerful weapons in the world at that time. In fact, it was completely normal. Many of the early cannons used for defense in the Revolutionary War came from privately-owning individuals. This was the norm then. The Founding Fathers seem to have been okay with it. You see, “intent” is a difficult thing to assign.

      The only thing I can possibly see a person arguing against this gun on is that it is “too dangerous.” Also a flawed argument I believe, but more importantly I don’t think you’ll see this weapon used on the streets anytime soon. First of all, there will be a very limited quantity made, and they are very expensive for a gun. Out of reach for most common criminals and high school shooters. So I do not believe there’s any reason why a person should be concerned about the public’s safety because of this gun.

      Finally, mostly because I’m just curious, are you okay with AR-15s of any type? Or do you also classify those in that “not in line with our founding fathers’ intent” category? What about shotguns? Also a firearm type that didn’t exactly exist at that time. What about any sort of semi-automatic? Revolvers? I mean, where do you draw the line?

      I’m sorry to see you go as a listener because I truly care about wanting the podcast to have value for EVERY listener. But if it’s a decision you feel you must make, then so be it. I hope down the road you can have a more open mind to other opinions you may encounter. Or at least, be more willing to engage in a conversation as opposed to writing a comment on some forum or page somewhere and then walking away. I would have been very appreciative if you had first written us and expressed your ideas and started a conversation with us. But you chose to say goodbye. Good luck to you in your future endeavors!

Leave a Reply