"Too many guns"????

[Bill of Rights]

I saw an editorial a couple days ago that some idiot wrote to a "'cago" paper about how terrible it was that someone had 600 guns in his home. That's a lot, yes, but I can't say that it's "too many", for if we say it is, then we've agreed with the anti-rights folks that there is such a thing.

What do I mean? I'll explain by example. A man saw a rather comely young lady and approached her, making small talk. After a bit, he asked her if she'd consent to *ahem* "let him in the back door" for a million dollars.

"A million dollars? Sure!"

"How about for 20 bucks?"

"Certainly not! What kind of girl do you think I am?"

The man replied, "We've already established that, now we're just quibbling about price."

Once we establish that 600 guns is "too many", we've agreed that such a concept is indeed possible. Then the question becomes, "How many is too many?"
300?
150?
75?
25?
10?
5?
If we believe Mayor Daley, or any number of anti-rights people, the answer is that one is too many... and at that point, the quibbling is done, and all that's left is for us to "open the back door".

Here's the story link:
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=62676&src=

Blessings,
M

[Lady Di]

St. Michael,

Your analogies never cease to amaze me! :lol:

I do agree with your argument whole-heartedly. Do you know if there is a ban against owning an arsenal of guns in Indiana? How many guns makes for an arsenal anyway?

[VegasGeorge]

I have no problem with someone owning as many guns as he or she wants. After all, it only takes one gun to commit a crime, so how do more guns increase the risk? A nut with one gun is just as dangerous as a nut with 600 guns, and a responsible citizen is safe regardless of how many guns are owned.

I do have some concern about the sheeple. They are so easily stampeded. I know that publicity about people owning large collections of firearms makes them nervous. But, I doubt if anything can be done about that. I do hope that people with large collections are particularly careful about keeping them secure. Obviously, their homes will be targeted if the bad guys know about the collection, and the publicity following a theft would be very damaging.

[Bill of Rights]

Lady Di,

"Arsenal" like "assault weapon", is a newspaper term for "something we don't like or approve of". To my knowledge, not only is there no legal definition in Indiana for this, there is no law against having as many guns as you want. That would, however, be courtroom law. The "court of public opinion" is more easily swayed, much as George said about "stampeding the sheeple". I spoke with my sister (who for a multitude of reasons, does not like guns at all) a little while ago, and she mentioned a man who lives near her who is a gun dealer. He lives in a manned, gated community, his house windows all have bars, and the windows are made of "bulletproof glass" (Lexan, I'd imagine). These are his precautions, which are, to my way of thinking, excessive. That said, however, I cannot claim that I would not do likewise if I wanted to ensure that my inventory remained mine.

Blessings,
M

[CA CCWInstructor]

During the Clinton Days, Mr. Schumler wanted a arsenal tax. That would be 5 guns or 500 rounds.

I have more guns than I need. But not as many as I want. 600 is a small number.

[canynracer]

I agree..who cares how many you have....can you have "too many" matchbox cars? alot of guns are worth alot of money...consider it "investing" :D

[Raccoon]

Why can't the left just leave us alone? We might save their butts when the time comes. And everyone else's too.

[Bill of Rights]

Why can't the left just leave us alone? We might save their butts when the time comes. And everyone else's too.

Or maybe we won't.

I'd like to see people like Hitlery and Chuckie-boy facing an armed enemy without their host of bodyguards. The left can't leave us alone, Raccoon, because they're afraid that we just might win and keep America alive and in the spirit our Founders envisioned. This is an unacceptable proposition to the left.

It is said that no one is completely useless-they can always serve as a bad example. I would say that the Left are not completely useless, either-When the *Schumer* hits the fan, they can serve as human-shaped shields. Hell, all of us together could take cover behind Rosie O'Donnell.

كافر and proud of it!

Blessings,
M

[canynracer]

Why can't the left just leave us alone? We might save their butts when the time comes. And everyone else's too.

Or maybe we won't.

I'd like to see people like Hitlery and Chuckie-boy facing an armed enemy without their host of bodyguards.

you think their bodyguards are armed??? if so, that is just hipocritical :roll:

[VegasGeorge]

you think their bodyguards are armed??? if so, that is just hipocritical :roll:

Ha, ha, ha, ha! Thank you. I needed a good laugh this morning. :lol:

[junglebob]

Canynracer, You think anti-gun politicians don't have armed body guards. Come on! Diane Fienstein used to have and may still have a California CCW permit, Ted Kennedy has armed guards, anti-gun Illinois Governor Blagojevich has armed Illinois State Troopers guarding his house, even some Chicago alderman get police protection, and I've heard that Chicago Mayor Richard Dailey carries a .38 in an ankle holster as well as having armed guards. They only want us ordinary peasants to be without protection, they are the "annointed" and deserve special protection.