Who do you think will win?

[MicroBalrog]

1. The guns are necessary for personal defense and defense of family anyway. Mags don't last forever. I also like guns.

I would assume anybody posting on APS already owns at least a gun or two. After about the fourth gun, buying additional guns will not make you safer - not because guns are bad, but because there's only that many guns you genuinely need for self-defense.

2. If Obama wins, prices will spike overnight.

So you're betting your money on the chance Obama wins?

3. If Obama wins, after the price spike, a ban will come, and you won't ever be able to buy them ever again.

It is not certain that Obama will be able to pass a ban or that he'll try to do so.

It is even less certain that the ban will be permanent. There's no reason for it to be any more permanent than the previous ban, or the demand for filling out paperwork with every ammunition purchase (both of which went away), or the bans on concealed carry of firearms (most of which were replaced by 'right'-to-carry laws), or the first Gun-Free Schools Act (which is dead), or the D.C. gun ban (which is dead).

[Manedwolf]

I would assume anybody posting on APS already owns at least a gun or two. After about the fourth gun, buying additional guns will not make you safer - not because guns are bad, but because there's only that many guns you genuinely need for self-defense.

Wow. That sounds like the Joyce Foundation there.

Four guns, huh? Is that what you would mandate? I have a lot more than four guns. Because I can. And yes, there ARE more instances than four guns would cover, as different guns are better for specific purposes. In addition, they do not last forever. Parts break, peen, and stretch. Even entire receivers stretch after a while, especially with .308 and larger calibers.

[MicroBalrog]

Wow. That sounds like the Joyce Foundation there.

Four guns, huh? Is that what you would mandate?

What does it have to do with mandating?

I support your right to own 145,000,332,111 guns, if you are capable of purchasing that many.

But for practical purpose, if you own 20 guns, the 21st gun is not going to do you much good as far as self-defense goes.

Pistol, back-up pistol, rifle, shotgun. THe fifth gun will not improve your safety by as great a factor as the first gun did, or even the second. At some point you need to admit to yourself that you're buying guns for a hobby, not genuine self-defense need, because your self-defense needs will be filled at this time. Maybe this will come at the 100th gun or the 500th, but I suspect it will come much earlier.

I don't understand how this is somehow an anti-gun statement.

I do not oppose your ownership of any kind of guns and I believe the more people own guns and carry them, the better.

I can however question the wisdom of the decision to buy dozens of guns on the argument that Obama might win the election, and question the self-defense role of dozens of identical rifles without being anti-gun. In the same manner I can criticize a man's purchase of a given weapon without necessarily being anti-gun.

[Manedwolf]

Pistol, back-up pistol, rifle, shotgun

.22 rifle, pistol caliber carbine, short-to-medium-range intermediate caliber rifle, battle rifle, long-range rifle.

Pocket pistol, mid caliber pistol, large caliber pistol, snake gun.

shotgun.

Gee, that's ten. With a lot of additional variations possible. 7.62x39 is a better post-disaster intermediate caliber than 5.56x45 if the bad guys like using cover, but the latter lets you carry more and get quicker followup shots. And so on and so on.

Hence, a number of guns.

[MicroBalrog]

I do not insist on a certain amount of guns, but observe.

Suppose you have no guns.

You are now almost completely defenseless.

You purchase a gun for, say, $1000 dollars.

Now there is a huge difference between owning no guns and owning a gun.

There's less of a difference, defense-wise, be owning two guns and one gun.

Even less of a difference, when you already have two guns and are buying a third. Or fourth. Or tenth.

The law of diminishing returns is going to kick in at some point, and there's no really good self-defense value in going past that point - but there's great hobby value.

My main point, however, stands.

[Regolith]

What does it have to do with mandating?

I support your right to own 145,000,332,111 guns, if you are capable of purchasing that many.

But for practical purpose, if you own 20 guns, the 21st gun is not going to do you much good as far as self-defense goes.

Pistol, back-up pistol, rifle, shotgun. THe fifth gun will not improve your safety by as great a factor as the first gun did, or even the second. At some point you need to admit to yourself that you're buying guns for a hobby, not genuine self-defense need, because your self-defense needs will be filled at this time. Maybe this will come at the 100th gun or the 500th, but I suspect it will come much earlier.

I don't understand how this is somehow an anti-gun statement.

I do not oppose your ownership of any kind of guns and I believe the more people own guns and carry them, the better.

I can however question the wisdom of the decision to buy dozens of guns on the argument that Obama might win the election, and question the self-defense role of dozens of identical rifles without being anti-gun. In the same manner I can criticize a man's purchase of a given weapon without necessarily being anti-gun.

With extra guns, you can outfit other people who weren't able to arm themselves. And if they're identical, that means there's a common caliber and manual of arms as well as the ability to cannibalize parts in order to fix malfunctions.  This could be a good thing in a SHTF situation.

[taurusowner]

Outfitting others would not be self defense.

Manedwolf:  MicroBalrog is not saying anything about how many guns one should be allowed to own.  You're reading what isn't there.  He IS saying that one guy cannot carry and use 10 guns in a self defense situation.  That's it.  If you own a 1 pistol, 1 rifle, and 1 shotgun, you are pretty reasonably equipped for self-defense.  That pretty much the max that you can reasonable carry and use in a fight.  Now lets say you own 30 pistol, 30 rifles, and 30 shotguns.  You gonna carry all 90 guns to a fight?  No, you'll probably bring 2 maybe 3.  That's MicroBalrog's point.  Any more guns that you can carry and use in a fight are not useful in said fight.  Pretty simple.  He's not saying you should not own more

[Manedwolf]

Yes, but I am more worried about what I might have to use in a fight in ten or twenty years, when one or more of the ones I have have worn out. Or if one breaks when I really need it, it would be bad if it were the only one of its type and/or caliber. Why do you think I have at least two rifles of each caliber? That would be it. If an AWB II is passed, you cannot have another. Ever. If a part that is considered the actual gun breaks, that's it. So if someone has their one AR, and five years from now, post ban, a bad round cracks the lower, game over. They can never have an AR again. And if there's a disaster in ten years, they have no AR. See the point, now?

The same with magazines. They wear out. Springs fail, feedlips are dinged. If they're banned, you cannot get any more.

[charby]

I would assume anybody posting on APS already owns at least a gun or two. After about the fourth gun, buying additional guns will not make you safer - not because guns are bad, but because there's only that many guns you genuinely need for self-defense.

WTF?

So you are saving we should limit clothing purchases also? I guess one only needs two pairs of clothes, one to wear and one to wash then rotate.

I am also an avid hunter, I can't even fathom how many different firearms I hunt with. Each game in chase can take a different type of firearm depending upon the species and game laws. You can't legally shoot a duck with a handgun, you have to use a plugged shotgun with steel shot to hunt them legally. In my state you can only gun hunt deer with a shotgun shooting slugs, a muzzleloader or a pistol (.357 magnum and larger w 4" barrel)

Seriously why the hell would you want to limit how many firearms that a person can own? I have at least 6 different handguns I carry for protection depending upon clothing and weather.

-C

[taurusowner]

Are any of you even reading MicroBalrogs post???  Please tell me where he says he wants actual limits on anything.  Go ahead, quote his posts and bold the parts where he says there should be limits and laws on quantity. 

ALL HE SAID WAS THERE IS A POINT WHEN MORE DOES MEAN MORE USEFULNESS.  THAT'S IT.

[Viking]

I'd say that keeping a lot of guns at home is rather prudent actually, to make sure you've covered as many calibers as possible. No telling what you will be able to find, trade or scrounge in a SHTF scenario. You'd feel rather silly if you came upon a stash of 10mm ammo, and all you've got is a .357 SIG pistol...
 Also, they do fill different niches. Sometimes the best gun for the job at hand might be a .22 rifle with a can. Other times, it might be something that can reliably reach out and touch someone at a respectable distance. And sometimes you might find yourself needing something small, but with a fairly large amount of ouch-factor to carry around for protection. A shotgun for home defense. And then everything in between that.

Personally, I'd look into buying machinery, as well as raw material to feed into it. After all, it's easier to build an SMG than a semi-automatic EBR .

[Manedwolf]

Are any of you even reading MicroBalrogs post???  Please tell me where he says he wants actual limits on anything.  Go ahead, quote his posts and bold the parts where he says there should be limits and laws on quantity. 

ALL HE SAID WAS THERE IS A POINT WHEN MORE DOES MEAN MORE USEFULNESS.  THAT'S IT.

When "more" means the gun that fits your winter attire, fall attire, and summer attire, your casual attire and formalwear and level of threat you might run into...which can be different guns.

When "more" means replacements for the rifles that wear out after you are no longer allowed to buy those rifles anywhere.

[AZRedhawk44]

In regards to gunz there is only one word of use:  MOAR!  Followed by 11!!!11!!oneoneonetwobackspaceone!!!

I am bracing for an Obama win by slim margins.  I will hold out hope for minimal damage, hopefully piece together one more AR between November and February, and get another dozen or so mags for AR's and M14's.

I will help teach at 2 Appleseeds in that time as well, whether McCain or Obama wins, and pray for a return to sanity by American voters in 2010.

[MicroBalrog]

So you are saving we should limit clothing purchases also? I guess one only needs two pairs of clothes, one to wear and one to wash then rotate.

I SAID NOTHING OF THE KIND.

Obviously I want everybody to own as many guns as they possibly can.

But I do not think it wise to make purchases you would have not otherwise made out of the sheer fear of Obama who may, and the notion that the gun laws he may or may not pass would be necessarily permanent.

All those guys who bought expensive pre-ban rifles in 1995? They're screwed now.

[Manedwolf]

All those guys who bought expensive pre-ban rifles in 1995? They're screwed now.

They are? That's funny. A Daewoo or a Norinco is worth more now than it was preban, because they ARE STILL BANNED FROM IMPORT FOREVER.

There's a lot you don't know.

[MicroBalrog]

They are? That's funny. A Daewoo or a Norinco is worth more now than it was preban, because they ARE STILL BANNED FROM IMPORT FOREVER.

So your wealth is now in rifles which can lose 50% of their value if a President is elected who decides to cancel that particular EO?

And there's nothing wrong that you see with that?

[Manedwolf]

So your wealth is now in rifles which can lose 50% of their value if a President is elected who decides to cancel that particular EO?

And there's nothing wrong that you see with that?

I think the likelihood of that is...uh...let's see. Nonexistent.

Were you aware that investors who don't even shoot have purchased machine guns as appreciating investments?

[Werewolf]

But for practical purpose, if you own 20 guns, the 21st gun is not going to do you much good as far as self-defense goes.

For practical purposes anything much over 1 Shotgun, 1 pistol, and 1 rifle is more than one can handle in any defense or offensive situation. Which is why of the 30 or so guns I own if it ever comes to it I will be doling out 20 or so of them to family, friends and deserving neighbors.

Those extra guns will not go to waste.

[MicroBalrog]

I think the likelihood of that is...uh...let's see. Nonexistent.

Were you aware that investors who don't even shoot have purchased machine guns as appreciating investments?

Yes. So now you have rich people (who are more influential than most), with fortunes invested into gun control. Yay?

Mind, they'll be screwed horridly when it's over.

[Werewolf]

I think the likelihood of that is...uh...let's see. Nonexistent.

Were you aware that investors who don't even shoot have purchased machine guns as appreciating investments?

I agree with MW about 90% of the time but not on this one.

The Pres and the Congress can make our guns worthless overnight. Heck, didn't CA do it to some guns a while back and no one blinked an eye?

I've never been afraid of my government in my entire 56 years of life but I genuinely fear what the combination of an Obama presidency and a congress solidly controlled by democrats along with a Supreme Court with a couple of Obama justices on it could - NO - will do to the United States of America.

That combination, IMO, will take away our guns. It's not an if but a when. 80 Million gun owners not withstanding - most will rollover and turn them in,  those that don't will become instant felons, those that resist will be destroyed by agents of the state and deemed terrorists by the media.

[Manedwolf]

Yes. So now you have rich people (who are more influential than most), with fortunes invested into gun control. Yay?

Mind, they'll be screwed horridly when it's over.

Machine guns are not going to be legal again outside of strange Paulian fantasies fueled by watching Red Dawn while drunk or something. Ever. That ship has sailed. 1986 or older, registered, with an ATF proctological exam before purchase. That is it.

If you meant those investors might be ordered to turn them in and lose their investments, that is a definite possibility. They're "dangerous" and all.

[MicroBalrog]

Machine guns are not going to be legal again outside of strange Paulian fantasies fueled by watching Red Dawn while drunk or something. Ever.

One: "There's as much chance of repealing the 18th Amendment as there is for a humming bird to fly to Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail."

There was a time before these laws. There will be a time after.

Two: Do you even think it's moral to have money invested in gun control. Do you want to be like those collectors that have so much money thrown into $5,000 Stens that they don't want to get the ban dropped?

[Sergeant Bob]

What a dumb argument. Everyone just go watch Red Dawn and get your Hooah!s out of your system.
All this keyboard commando crap of preparing for a civil war is comical. There ain't gonna be no war.
You can talk "Molon Labe" and "From my cold, dead hands" all you want, but in the end, that's all it is. Talk.

[TommyGunn]

Sgt. Bob, I dearly hope your right.   I used to believe the same as you.
I'm not entirely persuaded you're wrong, OTOH I do NOT see a pleasant future ahead for this country.

[MicroBalrog]

What a dumb argument. Everyone just go watch Red Dawn and get your Hooah!s out of your system.
All this keyboard commando crap of preparing for a civil war is comical. There ain't gonna be no war.
You can talk "Molon Labe" and "From my cold, dead hands" all you want, but in the end, that's all it is. Talk.

Who said anything about a civil war?