[mvruckman]

People! They just don't change. They're not "in trouble" until they're "in trouble". They should have been armed to the teeth back after 911. That's what most of us did. Even in the run up to this election, most of the better EBR producers were having trouble keeping up with production. Now, it's insane. They're flying off of shelves as fast as people can buy them up. But now everybody who isn't already "suitably armed" thinks they need to be. What for? If they were good with being unarmed (or under armed) up until now, what's the difference? What's the big deal? :-)

I tell you the truth though...people should ask themselves something before they purchase the weapons. They should decide NOW just how much trouble they're willing to go through to keep them. If there's a round-up, I just don't think there are that many out there that are going to give the local SRT a "run for its money" so to speak. So, if the nutless and gutless masses all rush out to purchase weaponry, what's the sense if they're just going to hand them over when "pressed"?

We inventoried ammo this evening. :-) My helper "petered" out before we were completely done, so we'll finish later.

OH...chk your SMTP addy bro so you don't think some psycho popped out of the ether at you. :-)

[Marauder]

what's the sense if they're just going to hand them over when "pressed"?

I agree; a good hidey-hole is a must.

And I was armed on 9-11. In fact, I found a used Remington 870 for about $100; it turned out the barrel was bent, but trimming it to 18" solved that, plus adding a mag extension so that it carries 6 rounds of buckshot makes me feel secure.

As I explained to my friend the city cop: It aint a game gun, unless terrorists are protected.