A long gun may not be the first choice for an affluent citizen who can afford several guns, but what about a lower-income household which can afford only one or two guns per family member? Are they to be denied the ability to defend themselves because they can’t afford hand guns?
Or is the 2nd Amendment just for the affluent?
No.
Texans are the best sort of responsible Americans; with the Yankees moving in against them in the “Jade Helm” operation they need their guns now more than ever, even the three-year olds.
I think it’s pretty clear that Barack Obama or some other freedom-hating libtard snuck into that kid’s room and shot him in cold blood hoping to stir up anti-gun sentiment.
A handgun should be carried in a holster; for long guns maybe a gun-scabbard?
I have a gun scabbard and I never use it. It doesn’t work well with any gun that has a magazine or optics or a front grip or pretty much any long gun other than a simple shotgun with no accessories.
Is there another type of gun scabbard that I am not aware of that would work well with these sort of set ups?
You can get a reliable handgun for under $200 these days.
Hi Point (in various calibers)
All sorts of guns in .380
A lot of the Brazilian stuff
All sorts of used handguns
The 2nd Amendment is applied per person as they can afford it. Buy an inexpensive, used handgun. If you can’t afford that, then defend yourself with a baseball bat and knife.
Each person buys the car s/he can afford, or else they ride the bus. Or they buy a bicycle, or a good pair of walking shoes.
This is how life works.
“If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed by the court.” I know we need food stamp restrictions (no albacore tuna, milk only in gallon containers, et cetera et cetera) but perhaps handguns should be added to the list of acceptable food stamp purchases.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(And just for the record: I am NOT one of you crazed single-issue gun-nut cowards. Most of my posts in this thread are intended as sarcastic. I say this because you gun nuts are so divorced from rational thought, you probably think my worst sarcasm is sincere agreement.)
An image search for tactical rifle scabbards shows various designs for carrying AR-type weapons.
Hunh, I alwys thought those were some sort of rifle case.
I still think you are better off with a cheap handgun rather than a scabbard for your rifle.
No argument there, although if someone insists on carrying a long gun, that ought to be the way.
If that’s what it takes to help you feel courageous. :rolleyes:
You can always be counted on to bring the angry-stupid, can’t you? I agree with the idea that guns and their place in society needs discussed and tweaked. I also believe that truculent morons like you, actually especially you, from the anti side and open carry of long guns morons from the pro side ( they are our version of you) can safely be ignored if we want a discussion that goes anywhere.
Hope you got through today without any murderous fits of rage.
Gun debates inevitably come down to a war of opposing statistics and studies. I’d say that it’s still controversial, unless you’re claiming that all the studies showing guns increase murder are true and all the studies that show no effect or a negative effect are lies; in which case I’d like to hear it from someone more reputable than you.
How about a couple of your favorite links, then?
If saying that makes you feel better, go ahead. :rolleyes: The facts remain, irrespective of who shows them to you.
No, I’m not going to (again) dig up cites; you’re not worth it.
And the only “facts” you’ve presented is that someone somewhere claims to have shown that gun ownership increases murder rates.
Let’s try a hypothetical test. No facts here, just common sense. Everyone may not agree to the answer but I know what mine would be.
Two separate homeowners are in identical yet separate situations. Sleeping in his upstairs bedroom late at night, the homeowner hears glass break, muffled voices, and movement. Peering downstairs, the homeowner sees two criminals who are armed with knives and baseball bats. They see the homeowner and aggressively rush towards him. In the few seconds that have transpired so far, the homeowner realizes they are nobody he knows.
Homeowner X has a flashlight and a phone in his hand and can dial 9-1-1 in less than 1 second.
Homeowner Y has a flashlight in his hand, and a handgun tucked in his belt behind him (the bands of his underwear and shorts he sleeps in). He is trained and comfortable in his use of firearms and tactical situations.
Which homeowner has the better chance at defending his life, and the lives of the rest of his family including an attractive 16-yo daughter asleep upstairs? Not to mention his gorgeous wife?
Remember: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
Look out! He’s got a bumper sticker!
Careful, the study did not say murder. Homicide can be unintentional, such as negligent discharge that results in another parties death.
Ooohh, burn! :rolleyes:
IOW you don’t have any. We already know.
That’s what doing something called “analysis” to things called “facts” organized as “data” leads to. It’s called “fighting ignorance”, as you may have heard.
What you have is silly taunts most eight year olds would be ashamed of. Perhaps the company you choose to keep, delusional psychotics and pedophiles with anger issues as well as your fellow fetishists, helps to keep you at that level.