Replies

"Friend, one for every two is more than enough."

First of all, with an attitude like that, you are no real American's "friend"...

~~~~~~~~~

Every serious citizen should have at hand:

A "main carry/defense piece" (handgun)
An easily-concealed "backup piece" (handgun)
A shotgun -- suitable for both home defense and hunting
At least two hunting rifles -- one for small game, and one for deer-sized game
And every rural resident should own a good combat rifle -- capable of defending every square inch of his land that is visible from his home.
And, of course, every family should have at least one each target-quality smallbore handgun and rifle for training -- in particular, training the next generation of Americans in proper firearms handling and skills.

After that, they should be free to begin "collecting" firearms -- just because they enjoy owning them -- and because the Second Amendment says that our right to do so "shall not be infringed".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Friend", if you choose to be a non-owner, don't come whining to the rest of us for protection when the need arises...

TXnMA, you need to check your own tagline. You are telling lies about me.

Lets start from the top. “Friend, one for every two is more than enough.”, is met with the response “First of all, with an attitude like that, you are no real American’s “friend””

Why is that? What attitude? I am arguing numbers, not rights, or constitutional matters. The point of my argument, which is quite clear, is that if there is one gun for every second person, that means most people are going to be armed, because approx half the population will not be able to have or use guns, for the reasons outlined. Why is that so hard to understand? It’s not illogical.

Then what is it with this list of armaments? Do you expect me to be cowed into thinking that I have neglected my duties as a citizen if I cannot put a tick on everything there? And by the way, you missed off Bazooka, claymore mine, armoured personel carrier and small tactical nuclear device.

“After that, they should be free to begin “collecting” firearms — just because they enjoy owning them — and because the Second Amendment says that our right to do so “shall not be infringed”.”

Why do you feel the need to bolster your argument with this passage? I haven’t said anything denying any of this. In fact I support all of it. Do you think that by stating it, while I havent, that it will invalidate anything else I say, by some process of pseudo-conservative blame osmosis?

“”Friend”, if you choose to be a non-owner, don’t come whining to the rest of us for protection when the need arises...”

And again. Have I told you I am a non-owner? Is there anything in my statement that says I am?

You know what, the suspicion arises that you have been so sensitised by the anti-gun lobby and their arguments that anything, anything at all, that even remotely sounds like it, no matter how distant, is immediately pounced upon.

I tell you the truth, “friend”. With hair-trigger reactions like this I’m not sure I’d let YOU near a gun.

Every serious citizen should have at hand:

* At least two hunting rifles -- one for small game, and one for deer-sized game

Nitpick: Not all serious citizens hunt. In fact, the vast majority of gunowners in the Unites States are not hunters. Other than that, I would agree with your list.