ugh. I get so sick of that crap. I really hate the “Why do you need (anything I don’t like)?” question. Be honest. That’s your real question.
I own 3 rifles. Two are custom built for competition. I’m having 2 more built. I have always owned guns. I have never pointed one at a person. I have never had an accidental discharge.
I won’t go into the “I need it for self-defense” argument. I do think it is a valid reason to own a gun, but a rifle that weighs 16.5 pounds and has an overall length of 50 inches is hardly concealable. The black and red marble pattern stock and the polished stainless barrel is hardly tactical. It’s a single-shot bolt-action. Not exactly the hot ticket for taking into a clock tower.
I find it ironic that some people think I shouldn’t own it because none of us can be trusted with guns. At the same time, a ban makes perfect sense, because…all gun owners can be trusted to turn 'em over.
Pull your heads out of your asses folks. We will never legislate a utopia…no matter whose version of utopia we’re talking about.
Hey, whatever you do in your own home is non of my concern. You can keep a tank in there if you want. (That would only bother me if you had lil’ kids running about, but hey, the neglect is on you).
The problem I have is when politicians want people to be able to conceal sub-machineguns anywhere they want. I don’t see why anyone needs to carry around with them anything more than a cheap pistol.
I forget the BBC production (Rumpole?) but a priceless line grew from a guest commenting on some possessions. Later the homeowners expressed disgust over the vulgarity of “noticing things.”
Which pretty well sums up why Martha Stewart revolts me.
People are not their possessions and no one has to defend or explain what they own or don’t own. Everybody owns things they don’t “need”. Electronic gizmos, a zillion books, pewter dragons, swords, guns, a rusting '57 MG up on blocks, old comic books, great-uncle Claude’s pince nez…
It’s stuff.
The person behind the stuff is the only legitimate interest: their expertise, passion, etc. Noticing your rifles and merrily projecting political–or whatever–views before noticing YOU is trashy behavior. Harsh but true. Their opinion counts for diddly squat though maybe they’re educable if you want to hassle with 'em IF they’ll shut their mouths long enough to learn something.
FWIW, one of my cousins is a gun nut. He’s the funniest, kindest, most grounded guy who happens to love firearms. He has zero interest in killing or hunting; he just loves guns. (He’s also a skilled amateur gunsmith with a particular passion for antique muzzle-loaders, which rip your shoulder joint right outta the socket after you manage to hoist the things.) I don’t share his passion but he’s given me a glimpse of it, y’know?
You owe NO explanations or justifications, Long D.. It may be tempting to play analogies–“about that yuppie gas guzzler you’re driving, while chatting on your cell phone” but that’s usually futile.
Sorry you’re having the hassle. It’s wrong on a lot of levels.
Thanks for a great argument for gun ownership that doesn’t make me look like a nut. I have two pistols and three rifles of various sorts.
Unlike you, I have pointed a pistol at a person and used it in self defense. BUT, that still doesn’t make people relize that I just like guns. I think that they are cool, and when I am at the gun range with a Desert Eagle 50 cal, and an AR-15 Assult Rifle (pre-ban) firing off them I feel good. Its a safe, and healthy release for stress and anger.
I do have them for home defense as well. They stay in my locked gun cabinet and are never taken out unless they are going to be cleaned or taken to the gun range. I am very glad that they are there as well. I also have a Glock 19 that I use with my conceled carry license. I carry it everywhere that will allow it, and it has never been seen nor pulled out. BUT, it is there. If something were to happen around me, I would much rather have it than not.
In the end though, there are people out there who make the gun owners of America look like big ole’ nut jobs. I like the second ammendment, and will fight to keep it, but some of these crazies out there even scare me. A final word: They do NOT represent me.
Listen, as has been described by a couple of people in this thread, including the OP, nothing you’ve described would give me cause for concern if I lived in your neighhborhood.
You want to own five rifles. Fine by me. Really, it’s none of my business. I’ll trust that you know how to store them safely and keep them away from kids.
But, the problem is, not everyone is as conscientious as you. And there are some nut jobs, careless dimwits and others prone to violence out there that shouldn’t be around anything more dangerous than a squirt gun.
So, how do we protect those Second Amendment Rights — and believe me, as someone who makes his living by way of the First Amendment, I take the Bill or Rights seriously — while also maintaining a reasonable level of safety for individuals and the community?
Can we agree on some reasonable limits that allow you to keep and bear firearms, while limiting access to those who shouldn’t own them, nor even be near them?
I’m not asking that every gun be confiscated. It isn’t realistic, nor is it necessary. But why must the NRA and other gun owners fight sensible restrictions and requirements that will have little effect on their ability to keep and use that which is reasonable?
What’s reasonable? Let’s begin the debate and figure that out. Rifles for hunting, practice shooting and self-defense — resonable. Automatic weapons that can mow down a score of schoolchildren in seconds — unreasonable. Licensing similar to the driver’s license that nearly everybody carries — reasonable.
I don’t buy the slippery slope arguments that any restriction will lead to the eventual confiscation and outlawing of firearms. It won’t. Limitatations and restrictions are attempts to balance concerns so that you can keep your firearms. Accept them and I guarentee you’ll hear fewer questions about why you need to own 5 rifles.
Just an observation on my part, but the ‘it’s for the children’ tactic in a discussion is really lame. Of course automatic weapons are capable of mowing down many things, and perhaps because of this they are a cause for someones concern, but depicting children as the automatic targets is nothing more than fear mongering and it’s getting old.
Not to mention that, of all the weapons that have been used to “mow down school childeren”, I don’t think there’s ever been an automatic weapon among them…
Great! We’re in agreement! No automatic weapons (without an obscene amount of paperwork and a thorough investigation).
Luckily for your side, automatic weapons have been illegal since about 1937 give or take a year and this is the system that’s been in place since then. You not only win, you’ve won for about 6 decades!!!
So since you’ve gotten what you wanted, you’ll be joining the NRA to stop cretins like HCI and the new SAFE from grabbing legitimate hunting and self defense weapons?
Fenris
PS, Badtz I believe one (1) automatic weapon has been used in a crime since 193x, and that, by a policeman gone bad, but I can’t find the source either.
When you say that automatic weapons are illegal and have been for years, do you mean for private ownership, or what?
I’ve just recently gotten into target shooting and I also just got a license to carry concealed. Before I owned a pistol of my own, I went up to a place in NH, where you could rent weapons from the range, amongst which were AK-47’s and M-5’s(?), both of which I shot. (Extremely cool, the first couple times, and then just an expensive waste of ammo)
So what’s the deal? I have a list of weapons that are restricted to anyone without a Class A license to carry concealed, and though I don’t have it with me, I thought it included some small autos?
