I think there are 4 key survival concepts that every prepper should work on at all times to place you in the best possible position to survive anything that happens. These are Water, Food, Shelter, and Security. If you have these four bases covered, you will be so much better prepared to survive anything from a flood, hurricane or Global pandemic. We talk about all of these survival concepts on the Prepper Journal, but there is one topic that comes around frequently that generates a substantial amount of debate so I wanted to write an article that focuses on Security.
There are a lot of opinions on firearms as defensive weapons. There are also numerous laws and regulations that govern what you may be able to legally purchase. I believe that all things being equal, the best defensive weapons you can own are firearms and with that I mind I want to discuss what I recommend everyone have if you are considering a firearm as part of your preparedness strategy.
What are the best prepper guns?
A shotgun makes a great first firearm for a prepper.
If you can legally own firearms I believe that there are 5 firearms that make up a well-rounded prepper battery of arms. With these 5 firearms, you will be able to deal with situations that we routinely talk about in a breakdown in society. Even if you never go through any disaster, having these firearms will benefit you in terms of security and firearms generally do not lose value, only appreciate so they are an investment that pays off in multiple ways.
I have listed the weapons below in priority order. If you can only afford one weapon, you should buy the first one on the list and add to your arsenal as your budget/resources allow.
- Shotgun – If you can only have one single weapon for home defense in a collapse scenario, I recommend a shotgun. Shotguns are easy to use, the ammunition is reasonably cheap and they can pull double duty as both defensive weapons and hunting firearms. In terms of price, shotguns are cheaper than pistols (generally) and can be purchased a lot of times without the same background scrutiny that you get with other handguns.
I notice the "paranoid gun nuts" tag. Let me guess--that's because society will never break down, because the U.S. is utterly immune to global pandemics, solar flares wiping out the electrical grid, economic collapse, etc.--right?
ReplyDeleteBeing prepared for emergencies that are likely to happen is one thing, this guy is a fanatic. I'm sure you can relate.
DeleteSocial breakdown (even if we restrict it to social breakdown in the U.S.) is "unlikely to happen"? Well, that's comforting. Here I was thinking that there was at least a 10% chance of a solar flare on a par with the one in 1859 recurring within the next ten years. You ought to tell those paranoid loons at National Geographic to stop with the paranoid fear mongering.
DeleteThe New Madrid Fault is surely not going to let rip with a quake that would catastrophically disrupt society in much of the U.S. for a long time, right, Mikeb?
Man--if I expressed such blithe faith in American immunity to civilization-disrupting catastrophe, I'd expect to be accused of "jingoism"--with some justification.
"Being prepared for emergencies that are likely to happen is one thing, this guy is a fanatic."
DeleteHe seems quite well rounded since he seems to discuss more than just guns. After all, we have but to look at how well things worked for citizens after Katrina and pre and post Ferguson Grand Jury to see the merits of a little preparation.
Owning four guns does not paranoid make. Of course, some newspapers would refer to this collection as an arsenal. I would also add a .22 pistol to conduct inexpensive practice and teaching the rest of the family.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting website Mike, thanks for sharing.
I don't think he limits himself to just these four, do you?
DeleteNo, I think he considers it to be a guide for someone of limited means as a way to prioritize. But if the article is aimed at someone with income limits, then a .22 long arm and handgun holds a definite advantage.
DeleteFor example, a box of 50 rounds of .45ACP full metal jacket runs about $25 up my way. You can buy a box of 300-500 rounds of .22 long rifle for about the same amount. (before the shortage hit)
Its a good start, also keeping in mind that depending on age, attitude, and demeanor, this minimum doesn't take into account properly arming the other members of the family unit.
"and can be purchased a lot of times without the same background scrutiny that you get with other handguns."
ReplyDeleteWhich of course is a total lie. A firearm of any type, with the exception of black powder guns, falls under the same requirements as a hand gun and that my friend is federal law. Clearly the author of this article does not know the laws. Probably never bought or even handled a firearm of any kind. Just another keyboard commando.
You really think he's a keyboard commando? I thought he sounded pretty knowledgeable. It's interesting that you're the only one who picked up on his fakery.
Delete"Which of course is a total lie. A firearm of any type, with the exception of black powder guns, falls under the same requirements as a hand gun and that my friend is federal law. "
DeleteGunsmoke is correct that with the exception of the minimum age requirement for handguns, the laws are no different for shotguns and pistols.
However, the author is likely referring to state laws which often create more hoops to jump through. For example, in Minnesota, you have to get a permit to purchase from your Sheriff's Dept to buy a handgun or military style semi-automatic rifle.
In my case, I get to utilize the "carry permit loophole" since your carry permit is also the equivalent of a purchase permit.
I call it as I see it Mike. He even tries to connect the shotgun as a pistol in this statement. Words mean things, even how they are used. Omissions change the meaning of a statement as well, like the statement you picked up on from me, omit one word and what one means to say is completely off.
DeleteI am not against being prepared for any catastrophic event, especially for certain locations or regions. Example being in a location known for earthquakes or power outages or flooding as a few examples. Even being prepared for economic disasters is a well suggested idea.
Being armed is in and of itself being prepared. But I don't believe a keyboard commando should be an authority as to how or what someone should have as armaments. Way too many variables are involved. Again the persons capabilities, locations and possible natural/man made events really dictate what arms may be needed or warranted.
I read all the time in these prepper blogs of individuals who have, for example, 30 different guns tens of thousands or even hundreds thousands of rounds of rounds stored up and at the same time have this "bugout bag" to run off on foot with. WHY??? Just to give up the rest of your armaments to looters? If you want to own all that stuff, one is certainly free to do so. So be it, more power to them. But I wouldn't leave it, I would stay with it if that what I was prepping for.
One only needs to look to himself or herself for what should be needed to be prepared, and not just guns.
I am pro gun Mike, VERY PRO GUN. But to me and like anything else, be honest with yourself. If you like collecting all different kinds of guns, even modern ones or only modern ones and lots and lots of ammo (like me) have fun, but that doesn't necessarily make you prepared for everything. Or anything.
Oh and SS is right. I didn't consider state restrictions, only the federal aspect of it. The age restrictions isn't that important to me, tho it is a federal law.
DeleteSorry SS, living in a free state for so long makes me forget about some of the more restrictive states. I will give him credit if that is what he was talking about, but he needs to be more clear about it.
You're still the only one who thinks this guy is a fraud.
DeleteYour right Mike, I do. The only reason I do is because there isn't one single "professional" that's going to cover every situation for every single person. Even a blanket suggestion for five guns to me is very ill advised. That's my opinion, for what its worth, but like I said I call it as I see it.
DeleteI do have 30 guns, 29 of them may not be suitable to another person, 29 of them may be suitable for someone else altogether. Too many variables without knowing more about a specific person in a specific place facing a specific threat. I would NEVER tell another person even a generic suggestion of what to get in this litigious society, and they hurt or kill themselves or someone else by accident that will ultimately come back on my head. No way.
Like I said, I have 30, but I went thru more than 50 before I settled on the 30 I have now because a lot of those I thought would work for me didn't work the way I thought they would. And the is also the ammo, several different kinds for each gun and caliber to consider. What do you intend to do with your guns? There are hunting rounds, lots of different kinds for one gun and caliber. There are practice/plinking rounds that really have no other use. There are self defense rounds, again lots of different types and you defense gun may not like all of them so you have to choose what is going to run flawlessly in a gun that your life may depend on.
All of this, for me anyway, was VERY expensive venture from buying the guns and ammo testing in each one to find what worked for me. Not all of them did and ended up trading it back in for something else. It has taken quite a bit of time and lots of dollars and several years in time to get what is good for me for hunting, competition and defense carry. I do enjoy the gun sport/hobby and like any other hobby, one can spend lots of time and money into it if you get really serious about your hobby.
So with all that said, do you really think I will even give a suggestion to someone else about what he or she should have? NO FRIGGEN WAY!!
I am not a prepper, but I do remain prepared for bad weather, power outages, and water supply contamination problems that are common for my area. Everyone should be ready for such an event common to their area. Guns are the last thing on my mind if an event happens. But I have them anyway even tho I have used extra food and water when the roads closed due to bad weather, generators when power went out due to drunk drivers hitting poles, ice taking down the power lines and tornados just ripping everything away. And broke water mains contaminating the water supply. Not once, not even a thought about dragging out any gun for defense as we shared our resources with those that needed it, and they shared with us.
So, am I a prepper?
Even I have a flashlight. Does that make me a prepper?
DeleteSure! Your prepared for darkness right? Mike, not making fun of your question at all but it is one step in preparation for a single problem that you may encounter. Now, think of what else you may or already have encountered maybe more than once that you didn't have the means to deal with.
DeleteBatteries for your flashlight? Garden hose? Portable heater with fuel? The list is as you need things and these are the things that you have to ask yourself of. No one else that doesn't know you or
where you are can tell you what you should have.
That's just silly. By that definition we're all preppers. But, actually the word is reserved for those of the extreme variety. Isn't that right?
DeleteThat's the way I look at the word, yes. I know its somewhat of an erroneous term, or word used. But I see it only applied to people who prep for extreme circumstances usually of a single problem. The way I see it a prepared person is not a prepper but someone who is reasonably considering ANY potential problem that may be common or possible where they live or travel and be ready for unexpected but not unforeseen problems.
DeleteYou said you have a flashlight, why. Because you know your lights are working now, why would you want one? It IS because you know those lights go out at the most inopportune time, breaker thrown, fuse blown, switch broken, light bulb blew or a power outage for any number of reasons. Or maybe you need to scratch around in the grass in the dark for the keys you just dropped somewhere. Are you a prepper? No, just prepared.
If you have 30 flashlights of all different kinds, 500 batteries for some, rechargeable cells for the rest, spare bulbs and so on and your fanatically driven to focus on flashlights and really nothing else or little else, are you a prepper? You bet! It may mean your totally and completely afraid of the dark, 24/7. But by all means, buy them, stock up on them, its a free country. And if the lights go out in your neighborhood, you can help your friends and neighbors see.
I have flashlights too, LOTS of them. Big ones, small ones, ones that flash like a strobe light, different colored ones, led lights, krypton lights, halogen lights and so on. How many do I have? I really don't know. I have them still in the original boxes or plastic package never opened. Fancy ones, simple ones and on and on. The thing is I never bought a SINGLE one. My family and friends always get them for me at Christmas and birthdays. Their memories must be short and cant remember if I have a flashlight. I even re-gift them. I have a couple that I may use from time to time and if they break, no biggie, I have LOTS more. Does that make me a prepper? Nope! They are gifts and I would rather give them all to someone else (sometimes I do) or when someone wants to borrow one, I tell them sure, keep it, my favor (they must not have one).
When you stock up on items that you will need everyday, even a few things that you feel you may need sometime for the unforeseen but not unexpected circumstances that occur, your not a prepper but prepared.
When you prepare for something to the point of being a fanatic about it, yeah, your are a prepper!
The pro gun crowd laughed when Biden said a shot gun was a good home defense weapon.
ReplyDeleteMost people can't squeeze the price of a decent gun out of their budget, so modern self defense is out of the question. They settle for having a baseball bat next to their bed.
The laughter wasn't at the notion of a shotgun being good for defense--many of us have them for that ourselves. The derision, not laughter, was because of his advice about firing into the air or through a door without being sure of the target.
DeleteAs for the price issue, it's all a matter of priorities. A decent gun can be had for not all that much if one looks, and plenty of people with limited means get them. They just may have to decide to cut back somewhere else in the budget to work it in. Priorities. Do you want that shotgun or the big screen TV?
Another difference is that this guy said get a shotgun and an AR-15, while Joe Biden said no one should be allowed to get an AR-15 because a shotgun handles everyone's defensive firearm needs in all situations, and AR-15s are too complicated for women to figure out how to use.
DeleteLove the way you rich guys think it's nothing to put out hundreds of dollars. Which child do I not feed so I can buy more than a Saturday night special?
Delete"Another difference is that this guy said get a shotgun and an AR-15, while Joe Biden said no one should be allowed to get an AR-15 because a shotgun handles everyone's defensive firearm needs in all situations, and AR-15s are too complicated for women to figure out how to use."
DeleteYeah TS, she laughed HARD when she heard him say that. Don't even try to tell my wife something is too complicated for her. She may just be able to give you an education about it.
Just in case I haven't made it clear yet, I've always thought what Biden said was one of the stupidest most ridiculous things I've ever heard. It's with good reason that you guys have elevated those remarks nearly to the heights of what Carolyn McCarthy said about the barrel shroud.
DeleteWhat I object to is that some of you keep bringing these things up as a way of tarnishing the gun control movement at large. This is wrong. Neither one of those infamous quotes is representative of what we stand for.
Mike,
DeleteWhether they're representative of all of you isn't the point. They're representative of the level of knowledge of the subject held by some of the leading legislators on your side, ones that organizations like the Brady Campaign always push out front, which makes them relevant. Every bit as relevant as scientific misstatements made by Republicans on the science committee.
Sammy,
Cry me a river. If you are in such dire straits, what are you doing arguing here? Some of us here may be well off. Others probably aren't so well off. Some of us squirrel away a few dollars a month for months on end when we want to make a large purchase, whether it's a firearm, a new computer, auto body repair, etc.
Your comment implies that you can afford a "Saturday Night Special" but anything more would stretch the budget too far. We'll skip the fact that there are some good shotguns that can be had for a "Saturday Night Special" price, and I'll just say this: How about you take 1/4 the price of a "Saturday Night Special", stick it in the cookie jar each month for a couple of months until you save up enough for the good gun you want, and use the other 3/4 to buy your kids some ice cream every now and then, or maybe a nice roast you can cut up into steaks for everyone?
"What I object to is that some of you keep bringing these things up as a way of tarnishing the gun control movement at large."
DeleteWell Mike, I'm not sure, but I've never heard the guy who said that ridiculous thing ever come out and say publicly that he messed up and he was wrong. If anyone else has heard it, please let me know, because that would be a good way to shut down that argument.
But then, many gun control advocates are loath to admit error, and will often keep repeating the same stupid stuff in hopes that people will stop calling them on it.
A good example of that is Everytown's school shootings list.
What I object to is that some of you keep bringing these things up as a way of tarnishing the gun control movement at large. This is wrong. Neither one of those infamous quotes is representative of what we stand for.
DeleteSo do you think it's any less wrong for Laci to refer to your pro-rights readers as a pack of morons, because of what one idiot (who is not known ever to have been among your pro-rights readers) chooses to have tattooed on his skin?
Besides, I'd wager that a great many "gun control" supporters have voted for Biden into positions of power, and even after the shotgun idiocy would again vote for him if he were running for another office. McCarthy, we know, has ridden "gun control" advocates' support to reelection multiple times after her "barrel shroud" dipshittery.
Mr. Article Two Tattoo, on the other hand, I suspect will not win over nearly enough pro-rights voters to ever be elected to any position of significance.
FU, SJ, personal defense for the rich. What an elitist asshole.
DeletePoor poor Sammy can't even comprehend simple English, or advice on how those with limited means can afford effective defensive tools, and instead is left with no choice but to swear and attack people for things he incorrectly guesses they said.
Delete"I'm not sure, but I've never heard the guy who said that ridiculous thing ever come out and say PUBLICLY that he messed up and he was wrong. If anyone else has heard it, please let me KNOW, because that would be a good way to shut down that argument."
DeleteWhat's that got to do with it? The man is an idiot. He never recanted. So? It has next to nothing to do with the gun control movement.
"He never recanted. So? It has next to nothing to do with the gun control movement."
DeleteThe VP was presented with the title of gun control spokesman when the President tasked him with heading that special group to look into gun violence, post-Sandy Hook. In fact, that's about when he made his still famous shotgun statement.
Back when he said it he could have easily come out and said oops, I said something wrong. As the years have passed, the window for that route has closed, and now he owns it.
Poor SJ, he's got his, but fuck everyone else.
Delete"Poor SJ, he's got his, but fuck everyone else."
DeleteI sympathize Sammy. Perhaps, instead of giving all of our older M-16s and M-4s to foreign countries, we could donate them to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Then financially challenged folk could get them inexpensively and also promote the shooting sports.
http://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/
Sammy, do you have a point other than trolling? You started with a rambling comment on Biden's shotgun remark, and now you're complaining that I saved up a few months and bought a used shotgun, and then suggested you do the same if you're dissatisfied with your baseball bat?
DeleteWhat do you want? Subsidies for home defense guns? Or do you just want to aggravate people and swear at them?
Great point, Sarge. I suppose Dr. Murthy, being appointed by Obama as the Surgeon General, has next to nothing to do with the medical field as well.
Delete"McCarthy, we know, has ridden "gun control" advocates' support to reelection multiple times after her "barrel shroud" dipshittery."
DeleteWell Kurt, looks like we wont have Ms. McCarthy to kick around soon.
"MINEOLA, N.Y. â?? Early in her congressional career, Carolyn McCarthy's plea â?? rare in politics â?? was, "Let me go home!'' That is, pass gun control laws and let me retire, having done what I came to Washington to do.
Now, after 18 years, she finally is going home, back to the gray clapboard house where she grew up, settled after marriage, raised a child and received condolences after her husband was shot down in the 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre.
But she goes home having accomplished almost none of what she hoped to accomplish when she first ran as a gun control advocate."
http://www.guampdn.com/usatoday/article/20599293
I realize Biden is the nominal head of the administration's gun control efforts, but when he came out with those ridiculous remarks about home defense, he lost all credibility with me and I think everyone else, probably including the president. So, as I said, he has next to nothing to do with the gun control movement. Shannon Watts and Bloomberg and any number of others hold significant positions in the movement, not Biden.
DeleteYep, SSG--it's enough to make me want to send her a few cartons of Salems as a retirement gift (anyone know if there's an unflitered version?).
Delete" it's all a matter of priorities"
DeleteExcuse me for making feeding my kids my priority. Seems you have no idea what it means to not be able to pay bills much less by expensive guns. It's your elitist attitude that sucks. If you are so well off please send me a nice 9mm auto, S&M will be fine.
. . . send me a nice 9mm auto, S&M will be fine.
DeleteAll this time I thought "gun fetish" was just a fabricated myth of the gun ban zealots, and now I see someone trying to solicit an "S&M gun."
Sammy, what city do you live in? There are programs like the Armed Citizens Project that give away free guns and training to people who can’t afford it.
Delete"http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2015/01/florida-man-charged-in-childs-self.html"
DeleteThat doesn't seem fair. NY has about the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Surely that partly due to her efforts.
"http://mikeb302000.blogspot.it/2015/01/florida-man-charged-in-childs-self.html"
DeleteThat doesn't seem fair. NY has about the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Surely that partly due to her efforts.
You lost me. To whom are you responding, and to whose efforts do you refer?
MikeB: "That doesn't seem fair. NY has about the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Surely that partly due to her efforts."
DeleteMcCarthy's works in congress and has nothing to do with the New York State legislature. So no, she had no part in that.
My last comment was too hastily posted. It should have been like this:
Delete"But she goes home having accomplished almost none of what she hoped to accomplish when she first ran as a gun control advocate.""
That doesn't seem fair. NY has about the strictest gun CONTROL laws in the nation. Surely that PARTLY due to her efforts.
"McCarthy's works in congress and has nothing to do with the NEW YORK State legislature. So no, she had no part in that."
DeleteNone? Not even a secondary or tangential one? She influenced no one at all who participated in the Safe Act?
NY has about the strictest gun CONTROL laws in the nation.
DeleteWhich has been the case since before McCarthy even entered her hideous larval stage. The Sullivan Act has made the state of New York "may issue" for mere possession of a handgun, since 1911 (a law passed, as is so routinely the case, to disarm the "bad" races--Italians in this case).
None? Not even a secondary or tangential one? She influenced no one at all who participated in the Safe Act?
If McCarthy has had any effect on New York laws, I would think it's too small to measure, There are plenty of rabidly anti-gun cud-munchers in the state legislature.
Mike: "None? Not even a secondary or tangential one? She influenced no one at all who participated in the Safe Act?"
DeleteWell, you might as well take partial credit for New York's gun control laws. Who knows, maybe some state legislator was tangentially influenced by your blog. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back.
Kurt and TS, it seems odd that Carolyn McCarthy has been the subject of so much pro-gun attention if she's been as feckless as you guys say. I'm sure you can explain that - have at it.
DeleteKurt and TS, it seems odd that Carolyn McCarthy has been the subject of so much pro-gun attention if she's been as feckless as you guys say.
DeleteYou're the one who quoted an article stating that she is going home "home having accomplished almost none of what she hoped to accomplish . . . ." TS and I merely pointed out that members of Congress have no say in state laws. As for the "pro-gun attention," it's useful to document the rabid extremism, the moral depravity (remember when she introduced a magazine ban bill within hours of the Virginia Tech massacre, meaning she had just been eagerly waiting for some blood to dance in?), and the abject idiocy of the other side--and she's great for that.
"What I object to is that some of you keep bringing these things up as a way of tarnishing the gun control movement at large. This is wrong. Neither one of those infamous quotes is representative of what we stand for."
ReplyDeleteIts no different than your comment about the signs posted about shooting in the are saying that its the permit holders need to be reminded. You lump the criminal actions of the criminals into a group that are the most responsible and more to loose than the criminal. Permit holders are not responsible for the criminal actions of criminals yet you want the permit holders to be criminals. Your playing in the wrong sandbox Mike. You need to focus you attention to the IRESPONSIBLE people Mike and then do your "hidden criminal" or your famous "50 percent" from there.
Just like you don't want Biden to be represented in your group, we the permit holders and RESPONSIBLE owners don't want to be represented by criminals and irresponsible owners.
"Tarnishing the gun control movement at large" . . . Isn't that kinda like tarnishing the outside of a cast iron skillet? But hey, while we're airing the anti's dirty laundry, has anyone heard an update on former gun control crusader Leland Yee?
Delete"Just like you don't want Biden to be represented in your group, we the permit holders and RESPONSIBLE owners don't want to be represented by criminals and irresponsible owners."
DeleteEvery day I post stories of irresponsible LAWFUL gun owners.
Every day I post stories of irresponsible LAWFUL gun owners.
DeleteAnd they don't represent the responsible "LAWFUL" (or "UNLAWFUL," for that matter) ones, any more than Biden and McCarthy represent these hypothetical "gun control" advocates who are supposedly somewhat sentient.
"Every day I post stories of irresponsible LAWFUL gun owners."
DeleteThat's just a contradiction in terms. Either your responsible (lawful) or your irresponsible (unlawful). Its NOT possible to be both.
That's why I invented the third category, hidden criminals. But it still leaves us with those who are lawful and turn bad. Between those and the hidden criminals we've got a lot of problems.
DeleteAnother difficulty is calling irresponsible people unlawful. Unlawful is usually reserved for those convicted of felonies, hence the hidden criminal designation.
Mike, using your "hidden criminal" will refer to every single person on the planet. Everyone is a good person until they are not. Irresponsible is not lawful period. The depth of their irresponsibility will determine the conviction level and once convicted they are criminals.
ReplyDeleteYour invention of your third "term" is an attempt to criminalize every gun owner and legitimize your 50% unfit to own guns. These pack of dogs won't hunt for you Mike. Either your a criminal or your not. Either your responsible or your not. Either your lawful or your not. There is no third term or definition that you can use.
Irresponsible people are not following the rules or abiding by the law hence the are unlawful. If or when they get caught and convicted then they are criminals. It's that simple and again there is no third term that fits.
You're wrong. In our discussions, a criminal is one who has been CONVICTED of a felony. Those who commit crimes and have thus far gotten away with them must be considered law-abiding, legally speaking, the rule of innocent until proven guilty demands it. That's why we need a third category.
DeleteOf course, I include many others in that third category. Those who are irresponsible but do not break laws, for example.
Those that have been convicted are criminals, I said that. Those that have not been caught, yet, ARE NOT law abiding, period. Just because you keep trying to blur the lines doesn't change the definition and give you room to add a new third non existent term.
DeleteAnd like I said above, you use that third term to lump in those that don't fit one term or the other so you can use 50% unfit is wrong.
Just be honest Mike, you don't want ANY gun owners at all. And if that's how you feel, that's fine. I'm a lot better with honest people than those who are just trying to be slick and dishonest.
Ah, the third category--those who must be disarmed without any legal justification at all.
DeleteGunsmoke. You're the one who wants to have a simplistic world view, black and white, good and bad, criminal and law-abiding. That's not how the real world works. In gun rights discussions, or any other for that matter, you cannot consider people criminals if they have not been convicted of a felony. According to the law, a person who has not been convicted of a crime is law-abiding and has the right to own guns. Yet many of them are unfit and irresponsible, hence the 50% idea. And believe it or not, I don't want to disarm the good half.
DeleteIt's better than to live in tortured view you have of the world.
DeleteFirst off READ what I said. I said those that have been convicted ARE CRIMINALS.
I said, those that do not abide by the law but not caught yet, are NOT LAW ABIDING.
Those that are not law abiding ARE IRRESPONSIBLE.
You can't criminalize those that haven't been convicted of anything, but that doesn't make them law abiding either, or responsible. It's just that you can't do anything about it until they are caught. That doesn't make them a hidden criminal either and your 50% has no legit basis or measure for any action. Assumptions are without walls or boundaries and that's all you have. Laws have boundaries and have to be followed. Once a boundary is crossed then the law has teeth. It is black and white in the real world Mike, yours is nothing more than a gray area.
I'm puzzled, Mikeb:
DeleteYou're wrong. In our discussions, a criminal is one who has been CONVICTED of a felony.
And let's not forget:
In gun rights discussions, or any other for that matter, you cannot consider people criminals if they have not been convicted of a felony.
Funny you should say that, Mikeb. My utter lack of felony convictions doesn't stop you from calling me a criminal.
Should I accept your heartfelt apology in advance, or would that be putting a bit too much faith in your integrity?
You're a hidden criminal, Kurt. I thought I already clarified that. Thanks for continuing to educate Gunsmoke on these categories.
Delete"Of course, I include many others in that third category. Those who are irresponsible but do not break laws, for example."
ReplyDeleteCan you show exactly how someone can be irresponsible and NOT break laws? Really? Now who is being bogus.
Are you kidding? I post those stories every day. Failure to safely store firearms, dropping guns, committing negligent discharges, to name just a few. How many times have I posted stories about people actually shooting others by accident and not being charged with a crime? All these types, and the actual hidden criminals who haven't been caught yet, make up the 50%.
DeleteThat makes no sense, haven't been caught yet, what a laugh. If hadn't they haven't been caught yet, you wouldn't know about it.
DeleteThey all have broken laws, just not prosecuted for a legitimate accident but having that accident means they all broke rules (AKA safety laws) in handling those guns.
There is no hidden criminal. Your 50% is nothing more than a pipe dream, an invention of yours that holds no water any where else except in your own mind on your blog. There is no legal definition, no way to make law from and no way to bring prosecution or confiscation using your 3rd term. A judge would laugh it out of court if your term was brought fourth before him. A lawyer will investigate you to see if your own drugs. A law maker would call on security to have you removed from his office.
In other words, your "3rd term" exists only here, in your blog. But not in the real world. Why not help yourself and get outside in the real world and be a true anti gunner that could make some real sense instead of this make believe world you have encapsulated yourself in, and everyone, including quite a few anti gunners are laughing at. In fact, pissing off some of the anti's because your "3rd term" being thrown up on their blogs is making them look like idiots too.
In fact, that's how I found your blog, anti's pissed at an anti. It's quite comical to read.
"In fact, that's how I found your blog, anti's pissed at an anti. It's quite comical to read."
DeleteLink please. Or did you make that up?
No I did not make that up. Again, I am not your secretary, look it up yourself. There is more than ten.
DeleteMore than ten what, ten gun control blogs that have criticized me?
DeleteYou are a lying bullshitter.
Oh sure, ya got me! Didn't bother to look it up did you. Keep your head in the sand Mike. It's a lot of fun,,,,,,,
DeleteAs I thought. When caught, you deny and pretend.
DeleteSure, sure, you caught me, (snicker).
DeleteI am also sure you didn't look it up.
Pay me and I will be your secretary.
But you wont like what I can dig up for you.
Caught me, sure. Your going to have to do better than that, (snicker).
Aw to hell with snicker, I am ROTFLMAO with tears in my eyes as I re-read the comments about you,,,,,,,,, again!
If there are 10 gun control blogs who criticize me, you should be able to show us a link or two in about 30 seconds. The fact that you're unwilling to back up your bizarre statement is obviously because you made it up.
Delete