Try some talcum in your shorts.
It’s OK, I completely understand you. By not answering, you’re all answering loud and clear. 
You are not doing anything to dispel that notion with this asinine series of posts - or this pathetically transparent excuse.
You brought up this topic by entering the thread and challenging a post Kable made.
Subsequently, rather than forthrightly participating in the conversation, you have made a series of increasingly vague and misleading statements which you have refused to clarify, apparently so that you can spend your time pouncing on people who misinterpret them instead of actually having to put forth or defend a coherent position.
You’re a waste of everyone’s time.
Would you like to rephrase that so it doesn’t violate the rules of this forum?
Excuse me.
Your posts have been a waste of everyone’s time.
The first step in assessing and improving your home/personal security is to get expert advice. He/she will tell you the things you don’t know. Next, a good consultant will give you viable options.
I am not against people having a gun,but there are so many cases where other family members have killed one or more of their own family(just think of how protected Mrs lanza was from outsiders) and what good haivng an assult weapon did for her, because of her having so many guns ,she, her son, and 26 other innocent people are dead. I would say the guns didn’t help her safety at all.
I would rather have a good alarm system installed in my home, I woke one night several years ago, heard someone trying to get in…called the police in the dark, the people went into the garage(ours is attached) when they saw the police car they ran,leaving their car out front of our house. we were not robbed, no one was hurt. My husband has guns,but he hasn’t used one in over 50 years. No ammunition is in our house. But there is nothing like an alarm system, and a well planned way to deter crime! My opinion, but it works for me. Now the alarm systems work even if one drives or comes into your drive.
A woman relative (who lives out east) had a motion sensor light in her back ally where she kept her car. she came home one evening and a man stuck a gun to her neck, she moved to the light area and screamed, the man ran away, she was lucky, but she also kept a sensible mind. Of course she did move later to a more secure building.
[QUOTE=monavis]
I am not against people having a gun,but there are so many cases where other family members have killed one or more of their own family(just think of how protected Mrs lanza was from outsiders) and what good haivng an assult weapon did for her, because of her having so many guns ,she, her son, and 26 other innocent people are dead. I would say the guns didn’t help her safety at all.
[/QUOTE]
What good did having safety belts and air bags do to the people killed in head on collisions with some drunk asshole who shouldn’t have been driving. Why have alcohol when there are ‘so many cases where other family members have killed one or more of their family’ under the influence?? Shouldn’t society DO SOMETHING™ about that as well??
BTW, the only weapon could have been considered an ‘assult weapon’(sic) was the rifle this guy had, and he left that one in the car. He basically did all of this with two standard 9mm pistols.
As I understand it he did use the rifle on almost all of his victims; the initial reports that the rifle was found in his car turned out to be false.
You’re not allowed to insult other posters in this forum, and calling posts asinine and pathetic isn’t encouraged either. This is a formal warning not to do this again.
Agreed, I thank the OP for the clarification
I also consider myself an exceptionally safe firearms owner, and I can back up my claim with facts…
I’ve been a firearms owner for 35 years, owned a large number of firearms in all the common action types, and in that time, have NEVER had a negligent discharge, nor accidental either
Basically, I follow Jeff Cooper’s “four rules” as an ironclad set of rules;
1; all guns are always loaded (treat every gun as if it’s loaded, even if it isn’t)
2; never point the gun at anything you are unwilling to destroy (keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction)
3; keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire ("keep your Booger hook off the bang switch)
4; know your target, and what lies beyond (be sure of your backstop)
Just for fun, watch an action movie, tv show, or anything with gunplay and see how many times these rules are violated…
Whenever i pick up one of my firearms, i make sure to clear it, make sure it’s unloaded, also, whenever I set a firearm down after handling, even if its for just a second, the moment my hand leaves the firearm I make sure to clear it again the next time I pick it up, even if the weapon is unloaded, and I’m in a room with no ammunition and no way to load it, I still treat it like its loaded and re clear it
I own quite a few guns, including so-called assault weapons. Even have a .50 BMG rifle. And lots of ammo.
Target shooting? Check. Personal defense against violent criminals? Check. But my primary reason for owning them is defense against a tyranny. If our country ever gets to the point where the Constitution is suspended, and the government (or an outside force) is systematically abridging the natural rights of citizens, I want the best tools at my disposal for protecting my family and community. Right now, the best tools I can legally acquire include semi-auto ARs and semi-auto 7.62X51 rifles. And acquire them, I do.
In what possible way could this be true? This is one of the most blatantly false statements I’ve ever seen on SD.
Knowing who owns guns and how many guns a person owns does absolutely nothing to add to our safety. If someone commits a crime with a gun they legally own, registration has not prevented the crime. If someone commits a crime with a gun they are not permitted to own… congratulations! You have still accomplished nothing!
The anti-gun crowd is using mass shootings as an impetus for further gun controls, but in these cases there is absolutely no question as to who owned and/or acquired the guns.
You do realize, that, should that unlikely tyranny come to pass, you and your family will liquidated by vastly superior firepower moments after you discharge your cherished weapons? Tyranny is notoriously disrespectful of individual rights or the loss of innocent children. You may be right, but you and your family will be dead because of your Red Dawn fantasy.
You do realize that Red Dawn was about the Soviet/Cuban invasion of the US, not a fight against a tyrannical US government, right? 
(And yes, I’m mocking you here, for again using obviously inflammatory language, not because I actually believe you don’t know what the theme of the movie was)
Basically, leaving out the ridiculous ‘Red Dawn fantasy’ bit, you are assuming that the majority of Americans would go along with the tyranny and simply allow it to happen, while the gun owners would be isolated and easily overcome. Sure, that could be the case, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be. There are hundreds of millions of guns in the US and 10’s of millions of gun owners. This gets handwaved away generally in these discussions, but the reality is that 10’s of millions of people, even armed with only a pistol each are going to be a formidable force by any measure, if they are really, really pissed off. One has but to look at places like Iraq or Afghanistan to see how even a relatively small percentage of the population being both armed and pissed can wreak havoc on even the most advanced and powerful military coalition in the history of mankind. Why would it be any different in the US…a CONTINENT sized nation with a truly staggering number of arms and varied terrain, plus a terrorists wet dream wrt every day compounds and components in profusion just laying about for someone to mix up or build into little packages of death. And this all assumes the US military would be in lock step about terrorizing and subduing the civilians, which seems highly unlikely to me.
Yeah, on my own list of reasons to ‘need a gun’ (ironically, I don’t have that need and don’t actually own one), defense against tyranny is pretty far down the list, but it’s a valid reason, and one that the FF’s basically thought was valid when they wrote up the Second.
Registration will help track and control the flow of guns, which mean fewer will end up where they don’t belong. Not too complicated to grasp. If you legally own a weapon, you would be happy to know that more weapons are tracked and fewer are circulating illegally – so fewer criminals would have access.
So, it is your claim that ordinary citizens are powerless in the face of a modern military?
How do you reconcile that with the US experience in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the experience of the Syrian and (former) Libyan governments, to name just a few? I cannot imagine you are not familiar with everything that has happened in the past decade in the Middle East.
You may not be the kind of person who would start or participate in a revolution. History has proven that many ordinary citizens across the world are not like you, even in the face of much greater odds.
If one guy decides to start a revolution, sure, the government will quickly take care of him regardless of how many guns he has. If a large fraction of the population starts a revolution, on the other hand, and many of them have guns to share…
Because the US action in those countries is not representative of tyranny. If true tyranny reared its ugly head here, there would be no moral compuction against the wholesale slaughter of anyone who opposed them. Such tyranny would make you wish you were facing the relatively benign tactics used by the US in Afghanistan.
This is what is called a “hand-waving” argument. You have not explained how or why this will occur, merely asserted that it will and that it is not complicated.
And on that point, the word tyranny has been so over-used by the gun lobby as to render it meaningless, and it is an insult to those in the world have been the victims of true tyranny.