Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is “Why does anyone need an AR-15?” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:

Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.

“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”

That’s a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn’t offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

“Because I (expletive deleted) want to.”

That’s really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn’t harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

“Where do you keep yours?”

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.

Anti-gun liberals pretend they’re most concerned about the AR-15, but that’s a mere distraction. They need a starting point for throwing the Constitution down a slippery slope.

For example, another favorite phrase of theirs in the current “debate” is “military-style weapons.”

Let’s set aside the fact that the phrase can be applied to military weapons that aren’t firearms too (“Is that a knife you’re carrying, sir?”) and focus just on the wording and what their endgame is with only guns.

Sidearms are military weapons too. The phrase “military-style weapons” then immediately becomes a catchall for going after pistols as well.

That wording, by the way, evolved as a vaguer — and therefore more ultimately dangerous — component of their argument against the AR-15.

They can pretend all they want that it’s only about the AR-15, but we’ve known for years that it is about all of the guns. For most of those years, we have been told that we’re paranoid.

Well, we’re not.

If anyone asks me in the near future why I need an AR-15 I have a new answer for them:

“There might be a hurricane at Lindsey Graham’s house.”

Then I will just walk away while they try to figure that out.

___

Stephen Kruiser is the author of “Don’t Let the Hippies Shower” and “Straight Outta Feelings: Political Zen in the Age of Outrage,” both of which address serious subjects in a humorous way. Monday through Friday he edits PJ Media’s “Morning Briefing.”