Sigh. You really think a guy who spends thousands of dollars to amass an “arsenal” is the sort of individual that might endanger you and yours?
Just so you know, more illegal killings are committed with .22lr than any other caliber in the nation. Congrats on already owning a firearm in the most murderous caliber in the US.
To the OP: I have eleven and counting.
I suggest you invest in a life jacket - you’ll probably need it one day.
You’re probably right; the boat has sprung a couple of leaks lately…
I have one, and just one. My dad got it for me after a home invasion when I was 18 and the only one home. Doubtful that scenario will ever come up again, but I live out in the sticks so it does make me sleep easier when I’m alone.
My Dad was a cop, so I grew up in a home with guns. Two of them, to be precise. His official police department weapon (a Smith and Wesson 357 revolver I believe - this was back in the 70s) and his personal weapon (something with a short barrel). None of his four children own guns - we grew up with the belief that this was a tool that Dad had to have for his work, and if you weren’t in that line of work, you didn’t need one.
Chris Rock had a wonderful line: “If a bullet cost $5000, there’s be no more innocent bystanders”
I just want gun owners to belong to one of the United States’ well-regulated militias - the military reserves, the state militia, the National Guard, etc. Yes, I’ve heard the tortured logic that tries to convert “anyone who wants one” into “a well-regulated militia” and I’m not buying it, nor do I think joining one of these organizations is too much to ask as the cost of gun ownership.
Yeah, because those of us who own guns shouldn’t be able to afford to practice with them and become proficient in their use. Chris Rock’s line is funny, but that’s about it.
I said no on the poll, on the grounds that you have done wrestled mah guns from my cold dead fingers. Well, anyway, cold fingers.
I figure when next I am where you are, we can take the Attackkids out to kill beer cans. You might want to check out the [thread=540450]lockpicking for children[/thread] thread for other fun family ideas.
I also did not [del]dispose of my hot weapons, in the ocean[/del] lose them in a sailboat accident.
It’s true. Go read crime reports sometime. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice website is a good place to start. You will see crime after crime committed with .25, .22 and .32 caliber junk guns. (You’ll also see crime after crime committed by strangulation or stabbing. An astonishing number of murder victims are strangled to death.) You are unlikely to see crimes involving any type of rifle.
The Militia in the United States is any male between the ages of 17 and 45, unless otherwise excepted (as a military officer, etc) – As defined by Federal Law.
This sounds good on the surface - until you realize that it excludes people with physical disabilities. And someone who can’t fight an attacker, or who can’t run away from him, needs a gun even more than the average person, so they would really be screwed by a regulation like this.
Yep. Everything from a .22 to a .50 BMG. 
What, no .17HMR?
Riiiiight. The National Guard and State Militia, both presumably “well regulated” accept every single person, have no training, etc? There is a good reason the founders put in that qualification.
I have never owned a firearm, and do not see myself getting one anytime soon.
Except, by well regulated the framers didn’t mean “regulated” in the sense we use it today.
They meant “well regulated” in the sense that it was used pre-1900.
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
So, well regulated meant “a working militia,” not a “governed” militia. A militia cannot work, because they cannot practice, unless they have firearms to do so with.
Therefore, a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Which is to say, A properly working militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
[Moderator Admonition]This is a poll about the ownership of guns, not another in a long series of 2nd Amendment debates.[/Moderator Admonition]
This
Unclviny
Not debating, I would just like to add that it’s pretty funny that - unless gaffa isn’t telling us everything about her (his?) policeman father - under gaffa’s logic, her own father should never have been allowed to take his issued firearms home.
[Official Moderator Warning]After acknowledging that you were told to stop debating, you insisted on doing it anyway. Infraction.[/Official Moderator Warning]
No, I don’t own a firearm, nor am I the slightest bit interested in owning one.