Yes, I have hunted for 48 years.
One shot, one kill.
No need for more than a couple of rifles and a shotgun.
Generally,no need for pistols in the hunting field.
I don’t think this discussion is about hunting.
I was out at the range yesterday and went through 100 .45 and many 9mm.
If you think one or two boxes is all that is needed, you obviously are not a shooter.
And I dont think this thread is about people holding up stores at gunpoint.
“I don’t think this discussion is about hunting.”
It’s about being prepared.
Get a clue.
The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
Very perceptive. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting either.
No need for more than a couple of rifles and a shotgun.
________________
Ok first you said no need for more than ONE gun, now it’s up to 2 rifles and a shotgun, that’s 3.
Unless you're an adequate shot.
I've done a significant amount of large game hunting with a pistol, successfully, and never felt I was underequipped.
Admittedly, quail are tough, though.
<grin>
Those that don't understand the stocking up on firearms don't seem to recall the prices on ARs and such back when the Clintons were befouling the White House.
I was never worried about Y2K. Not in the least. This is different. Unlike Y2K, anarchy and social disorder is a genuine risk this time around in consequence of the government’s horribly misguided economic policies. Hungry unemployed people can go primal very fast. Maybe there’s only a five to ten percent chance of the worst case scenario unfolding, but even at a five to ten percent chance it would be wise to prepare. People who have lived through social disorder tend to choose close-in protection over long-range sniping.