Lindsey Graham on Firearms for Self-Defense — US Senate Jan 30, 2013

| January 31 2013
David Leeper

At a Jan 30 Senate Hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham presented a compelling case for self-defense using firearms that have commonly available magazines of 10-19 rounds or more, such as the widely owned Glock 19 semi-automatic 9mm handgun with its 15-round magazine (photo below).

Graham wisely and appropriately spoke from the perspective of a woman attempting to defend her children and herself from would-be home-invader attackers.

Graham supported his scenarios with a legal point from the Supreme Court Heller case where the Court ruled that a weapon’s use must be judged by its legitimate uses as well as its criminal applications.  A woman protecting her small children from a home invader is certainly one such application.  So is a 15-year-old boy defending himself and his 12-year-old sister from two home invaders.

At this hearing, as usual, posturing old-bull Senators read, haltingly, their formal prepared statements. They were long on emotion, short on logic, and mostly silent on legitimate defensive uses for firearms.  Graham’s remarks were colloquial, incisive, and delivered in his familiar, calm, “country-lawyer” style that so often makes mincemeat of his opponents whether at a hearing or during TV news interviews.  I admire that style.

In the video below (just over 9 minutes long) Graham’s comments and questions for witnesses are well worth hearing.


I watched Graham as he spoke yesterday.  I was so impressed with his logic and presentation, I sent email to commend him.  His down to earth common sense approach and his defense of "reasonableness" cannot be assailed.  In the past, Graham too often had a GOP lite take on issues, but in the last several months, I find Graham more in tune with my way of thinking, and I am pleasantly surprised.  Such a contrast to our own Johnny McCain, whose opinion is usually "on the other side of the aisle" from mine.

WesternFreePress moderator

 @sleepergirl The GOP can weather a lot, but it seems to me that if they cave on the gun issue, even a little bit, it could be disastrous for them. Unequivocal and uniform support for gun rights may be a sine qua non for the party's survival.