Question of the Day: Does the Number of Guns Someone Owns Matter?

Guns confiscated in Brandon, S.D. (courtesy Minnehaha County Sheriff's Office)

“The Colorado man who fatally shot a sheriff’s deputy and wounded six others Sunday in an ‘ambush-style’ attack purchased 11 of his guns — including an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle — from a store in Wyoming,” foxnews.com reports.  “Authorities say a teen fired guns at homes in northwest Iowa,” ksfy.com relates . . .

“leading to an investigation where police found dozens of guns at the juvenile’s home in Brandon.” Man charged after police allegedly find 109 unregistered guns the headline at Australia’s smh.com.au declares. SMH indeed . . .

The mainstream media is infatuated with guns. The idea that a bad guy could get a gun is, somehow, news. The idea that a criminal or other prohibited person could get DOZENS of guns is the stuff of headlines! And yet . . .

How many guns can one bad guy shoot at a time? How many can he or she carry?

Sure, “New York” reloads (shooting a different gun when the primary runs dry rather than reloading) are a thing. But not much of a thing, except, sometimes, during spree killings. Which are as rare as hen’s teeth. And even then the homicidal psychos don’t shoot “dozens” of firearms.

As the old saying goes, beware of the man with one gun.

Which, of course, isn’t you. Or me. Or any of the millions of Americans who have more than a few firearms. Given the above, what difference does it make that we’re equipped with an “arsenal”? Why do the antis get their knickers in a twist about supposed “super owners”?

comments

  1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “Does the Number of Guns Someone Owns Matter?” – If it didn’t matter, I wouldn’t be buying anymore. It’s a much better investment than any other hobby I’ve ever had.

    “Given the above, what difference does it make that we’re equipped with an ‘arsenal’?” If we have an arsenal, we can better share with friends and those in need.

    “Why do the antis get their knickers in a twist about supposed ‘super owners’?” The more super owners there are, the less people own guns.

    1. avatar BLoving says:

      “The more super owners there are, the less people own guns.”
      ???… I don’t get it… y’know manufacturers can always make more, right? Or maybe the bigots are jealous that some folks have “too many” and they need to share them with everyone else? I’m not wasting too much effort trying to understand gun bigots… it makes my head hurt.
      🤠

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Jonathan’s reply is spot on. The point is that if most gun owners are super owners, then there aren’t many gun owners. If there aren’t many gun owners, then 1) it is easier to ostracize and shame gun owners, 2) it is easier to get a political majority. And one is true even if it is just a perception instead of reality.

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      This last point is particularly salient and deserves further discussion.

      The mainstream media doesn’t report the news. They deviously attempt to shape public policy by framing the issues in terms advantageous to their policy preferences. Thus, it is in their interest to diminish and disparage firearms owners, because that renders owners more acceptable targets for cultural and legislative harrassment.

      In this country, we saw that same tactic deployed against cigarette smokers to the point where they are now virtual pariahs. Throughout history, we’ve seen various ethnic groups subjected to this same treatment. When a group is demonized and marginalized, it makes pogroms against them more palatable among the public.

      This is why the media obsesses over firearm counts, hyperventilating and exaggerating at every opportunity. (A guy arrested at a Houston hotel last weekend was reported to have had an “arsenal” in his room, consisting of……three guns. A handgun, a shotgun, and a rifle. Oh my!) It serves two immediate purposes:

      1. Redefine anything greater than one, or preferably zero, firearms as being extreme and unnecessary.

      2. Insinuate that anyone owning more than zero to one firearms is ipso facto loco. (Did you see what I did there? Inspired by Spanglish, I call it Splatin.)

      They want the public to believe that the typical firearm owner is some psycho super owner, that there are few of them out there, and that those wackos are not at all representative of the even fewer responsible gunowners out there. “There aren’t many of them and you’re not like them, anyway, so why defend them?”

      It’s a smear campaign paired with a divide and conquer strategy.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        “It’s a smear campaign paired with a divide and conquer strategy.”

        That comment is spot on

      2. avatar jwm says:

        It’s a campaign that’s working against them. With record gun sales, many of them to first time buyers it’s getting harder and harder to tell that lie that it’s only a few people owning guns and their numbers are decreasing.

        It’s such an obvious lie that anyone with an internet connection can plainly see that it has helped to destroy the credibility of the gun grabbers and their minions in the MSM.

        We live in the information age. Monsanto Mommy can’t lie fast enough to change that. If not for superfunding from two evil billionaires the cause of gun control would fade to obscurity.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Virtually everything they say is an easily disproven lie, yet many, maybe most, people still believe many of the lies.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Sadly, I agree with Tx on this last point. I have seen too many intelligent, educated people spouting the liberal “statistics” and using such words as “gun violence epidemic” that many times it seems we are in our own little echo chamber that is simply not heard in the “ban” states and is intentionally ignored, obscured, or laughed at by the MSM. When is the last time you have heard a a major news source report that the murder rate in the US, although it ticked up in 2016, is at lows not seen since the 1950s? When have you seen them admit that but for gang violence, this is a pretty safe place to live, and that there is not a damn thing anyone can do about the occasional wacko who commits a mass slaying? The truth is you haven’t, and probably never will. When this is all people hear, this is what they believe.

          I live in a ban state, and quite frankly, the Legislature does not care what the real statistics are, all they care about is banning as many guns as possible and making gun ownership as difficult as possible. Why were CCW holders banned from school (including college and university) campuses? It wasn’t because of any actual problem with CCW holders, because there were none, zero, zilch, as a factual basis for the law; it was because GUNZ! A majority of Californians apparently agree that people should not be allowed to carry firearms in public. The same was true for the open unloaded carry ban; other than the soccer moms being frightened, there were no crimes and no violence. But gunz should be banned from public! A game commissioner (and a hunter) lost his seat because he had the temerity to legally hunt cougar in Idaho (cougar hunting is banned in California except for predation). Hunting is BAAAAD! If they could ban hunting, they would.

        3. avatar jwm says:

          TX. I don’t think many or most believe the lies. Most probably don’t care enough to believe one way or the other.

          Very few people will vote just their guns. Most will find a pol that at least comes close to fullfilling their wishes and desires and vote for them. If all the other issues and distractions were eliminated the issue of guns would be settled, in our favor.

          Mark, I live in the same state. There is willfull ignorance at play. But the truth is there. And it does surface. And when people know that they are being lied to they start to resent that.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Tonight I was thinking about your post to which I replied. I was thinking about it because I was hanging out with an old man and talking politics with him. As I was driving him home (he can’t see well enough to drive), he asked me what I thought about “assault rifles.” I asked him what an assault rifle was. He said a rapid fire rifle. I explained that those have been illegal to produce those since 1986. He was under the impression that every time the media talked about assault rifles, they were talking about assault rifles. I explained an actual M-16 costs at least $20,000, not including any of the government hassle.

          The media is lying to the American people. Most people have no reason to check on the facts. Most people didn’t catch the media reporting falsehoods in elementary school and lose trust in them at that point.

        5. avatar BLoving says:

          @jwm
          “Very few people will vote just their guns.”
          And WE are those few people.
          While it’s easy to find someone who will say, “guns? Oh, yeah. They’re bad…” – finding someone who will use that to decide who to vote for is harder.
          From that we can safely assume it’s because their opinion of guns is not very well thought out.
          But we knew that too, didn’t we?
          🤠

        6. avatar Rattlerjake says:

          And yet they have NO IDEA of how many guns there are that have been built from 80% lowers. So their numbers aren’t even real!

        7. avatar Scoutino says:

          Very few of non-gun owners care enough to look up the truth online or enywhere else. Non stop smear campaign in mainstream media works on sub conscious level. It’s scientifically developed propaganda and brainwashing barrage aimed to connect guns with crime and crazy killers in minds of the populace.

          And it works. Unfortunately some of my wife’s friends got caught in the web of “OMG, gun violence crisis is here! We have to do something (read ban guns)!” lies they hear several times every day on TV and radio. That’s how we get pearls of wisdom like “I don’t like guns and I believe no one should have them.”

      3. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “2. Insinuate that anyone owning more than zero to one firearms is ipso facto loco. (Did you see what I did there? Inspired by Spanglish, I call it Splatin.)”

        You’re closer than you realize on the language thing, Wiki verified Spanish developed from ‘Vulgar Latin’ :

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influences_on_the_Spanish_language

        You’re right on the main point, they intend to to do to guns what they did to cigarettes.

        One *critical* difference – The succeeded in getting Hollywood to dump cigarettes. That ain’t gonna be happening with guns. They make too much damn money from them with their leading men rescuing the stereotypical ‘Damsel in distress’ ding-bat woman with big knockers with… Guns.

        Cigarettes were a relatively easy target for them, smokers literally stink.

        But it won’t stop them from trying their damnedest to do the same with guns…

      4. avatar racer88 says:

        “Splatin!”

        ^^^ Wins the internetz for the day! ^^^

        LOL!

    3. avatar Rusty Chains says:

      Remember the lefties operate on emotion not logic, so if one gun is scary, then two guns is terrifying, and half a dozen is likely to make them need to change their underwear!

      1. avatar VF77 says:

        THIS ^^^

  2. avatar BLoving says:

    Nope.
    Neither number, type, quality, color, capacity, range or power.
    Next question.
    🤠

    1. avatar Illinois Shooter in Texas says:

      actually… Maybe the number of guns DOES matter but not in the way the anti’s think.
      I mean if we look at bangers and drug/gang shootings in a realistic way, they “own” (even illegally) very few guns per capita. BUT on the flip side, the more guns you own, the more likely you are to be a law abiding, trained citizen, with knowledge of the weapons (the least likely to commit a crime). Vegas shooter was a rarity. most only need “enough guns” to do their crime.

      So while I get the premise of the question, and ignoring the Vegas shooter, it is hard to find a mass shooter or criminal shooter that had a real arsenal.

      1. avatar Buck Cassidy says:

        The Vegas ” shooters ” were armed by your government! Poor old Paddock was dead before the first shots were fired at the concert goers. ALL the shooting was done by Saudi nationals, or other mercenaries!

        1. avatar Shallnot BeInfringed says:

          Citation, please. From a credible source.

          I’m not even saying you’re wrong – but I’d like to evaluate that information on my own, and run it through my personal bullshit detector before going any further.

    2. avatar SparkyInWI says:

      ^^^^^^
      +1 here…

      Does not matter, no more than how many cars a car collector owns, books for a book collector, etc. And it is no one’s business either, especially not the media or any politician, law enforcement, etc.

  3. avatar pieslapper says:

    Only to those that wish to control you, and their minions.

  4. avatar Alex Waits says:

    It doesn’t matter.

    But the MSM has to sensationalize everything, so it does to them.

  5. avatar former water walker says:

    It matters to ME! I want more and better gunz😄😋😎

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      Good point!

    2. avatar Ing says:

      That’s exactly what I was going to say.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Me too. I do care how many guns _I_ have.

  6. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Not to me. Every gun I own has a reason for it. If all guns were the same. I’d only need 2. One to back up the first when it runs out of bullets.

    1. avatar Roadking says:

      +1

  7. avatar RCC says:

    There is always “one” more I’d like but storage space is becoming a problem. Having said that 3 rifles do most of my hunting.

    No restrictions on the number of firearms you can own in my part of Australia aside from having an alarm once you get past either 30 or 50 guns.

    1. avatar Southern Cross says:

      Despite the process of applying for a permit to acquire, you just tick a box beside the statement saying the usage is in accordance to my license conditions. Wait a week or so for approval, and receive the approved PTA in the post (assuming the form isn’t lost in the post). The PTA is generally regarded as a transfer tax.

  8. avatar H says:

    The other word is “stockpile.”

    If it’s Beanie Babies you’re a collector. 🙂

  9. avatar strych9 says:

    No.

  10. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    The media SELLS NEWS. The more sensationalistic, the better. Low-hanging fruit is “gun violence”. A legitimate defensive use sometimes makes headlines but a tragic tale of suicide, robbery, murder, etc. is BOUND to get views.

    They talk with two faces because they can, unfettered.

    1. avatar Big Bill says:

      The media doesn’t “sell news.” It sells advertising.
      The individual media outlets are for-profit companies. They exist to make money, not to tell you what happened. Just like car manufacturers, the news is only the vehicle they use to make money.
      The more viewers/readers they have, the more they can advertise, the more money they make.
      They get more viewers/readers by making themselves seem more relevant. They do that by grabbing their viewers/readers ‘by the throat’ and feeding them sensational tidbits, like you’d feed your dog a treat. The reaction they get is money in the bank.
      At this point in time, there are many different flavors of sensational tidbits; Trump, Russia, North Korea, and guns are among those tidbits. The more sensational they can make these sound, the more money they make.
      It really is that simple.

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        I agree that media are in business to make money. From advertisers, sure. But does Bloomberg’s dollar for brainwashing campaign smell any different than dollar for advertising?

  11. avatar Nigel the Expat says:

    Other than envy that I don’t own the Charleston cache, or the dragon mans cache 😀

    I’m working on it, but I don’t think my retirement will allow that big of a collection. Barring a winning lotto ticket.

  12. avatar Dog of War says:

    Of course not. Make no mistake: this question of how many guns purchased is and has always been an anti-2A talking point. Be it how many guns bought at a time or how many guns bought over any arbitrarily chosen period of time. Be it 3 days, 5 days, or 15 days. All which have been routinely floated by various democrat shills.

    Personally I find it a little more interesting that the ATF has often said that you can only build 4 guns of your own in a year. There is no apparent law or regulation about this, it’s just a line that’s been repeated many times over the years.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Four, you say?

      Ummmm….. Oopsie?

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        Four? I’m lacking here. That AR10 is not going to build itself.

  13. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Meh. Buy as many as you want, I say.

    Same rule of thumb applies as with anything else: if the activity becomes a problem seriously impacting your finances, your family, or your health, then it’s probably gone too far.

    Exceptions abound to this general rule, of course, but it’s a fine starting point.

  14. avatar ATFAgentBob says:

    does the number of guns I own matter? umm only in the sense than it is always at least 1 less than the number I want or can convince the wife I need.

  15. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Only if one is the jealous type.

    1. avatar Herb Allen says:

      In my state, a “super owner” who has less than 100 guns is also known as a “piker”.

  16. avatar No one of consequence says:

    It’s good to know whose house serves as the neighborhood armory and ammo dump in case of trouble. (And of course to be on good terms with that neighbor.)

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Not necessarily. A man who lives in my area reported to police that he had been burgled while he was away visiting family. The thieves removed three safes containing “50 to 60” guns and additionally stole 30,000 to 60,000 rounds of ammunition. The owner couldn’t be sure…he was in the process of trying to verify his serial numbers. I’d say he had too many guns, and that he opened his mouth too much about how many he had. Someone knew what he had and knew he was away for a while.

      1. avatar No one of consequence says:

        *wince* That hurts … And good luck (and great patience) to him re insurance claims.

      2. avatar Scoutino says:

        “I’d say he had too many guns, and that he opened his mouth too much about how many he had.”

        If someone cleaned out Jay Leno’s garages, would you say that he had too many cars, and that he opened his mouth too much about how many he had? The guy trumpeted it on national TV!
        I think that there is no such thing as having too many guns, unless you are drowning.

  17. avatar Paranoid prepper says:

    Idk, how many guns did the ATF let the cartel buy and then waltz back across the border with? They didn’t seem too concerned with the number of guns those guys had. Meanwhile, law-abiding me has to pay a tax and have a stamp to put a buttstock on my AR pistol. Seems reasonable….

  18. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Why do the antis get their knickers in a twist about supposed “super owners”?

    In addition to the other reasons that other commenters already mentioned, “super owners” have a large pool of firearms that criminals can exploit to supply their stolen firearms trade. Remember, gun-grabbers whine incessantly about “stolen firearms” and how criminals would somehow have a much more difficult time acquiring firearms if we reduced/eliminated civilian firearm ownership.

    1. avatar Hunter says:

      Yes indeed! And it is these same ‘Gun Grabbers’ who aid and abet the criminal ‘trade’ by convincing the politicians to enact regulations such as Firearms Registration.
      Perfect! All the information at the fingertips of anyone capable enough of getting it!

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m an aspiring “Super-Owner.” And I’m only one lottery win away from achieving my goal.

    Aren’t you?

  20. avatar Scooter says:

    My “arsenal” is a joke among my friends, but they slowly keep adding to their collections as well. I just like to have the rights tools for any occasion from plinking to defense.

    1. avatar MeRp says:

      I have a friend like that. He moved in with a couple other friends. His ammo stockpile was heavier than everything else moved into the house combined.

      Still, I slowly add guns and ammo to my supply as well, despite his reasonable over supply.

  21. avatar oldandshaky says:

    “Why do the antis get their knickers in a twist about supposed “super owners”?”

    As a non-gun-owner for the first four decades of my adulthood, I retain a slightly enhanced insight into the mind of the nervous antis. There really is a faith that the police will keep safe everyone who deserves it. An anti avoids danger and bad neighborhoods and spends his money to keep it that way. The police are on his side.

    Also, the enthusiasm that some people have for fine wines and Persian carpets is similar to the enthusiasm others have for guns. The antis view the POTG as dangerous because the pleasure of consumption of a gun (as opposed to that of fine wine) means firing the gun. The antis know that firing the gun AT SOMETHING is dangerous and not controlled by responsible people, i.e. the police. Of course the limitations and infringements we all chafe at are a stand-in for confiscation. Understanding the responsibility that POTG feel toward their long- and short-barreled children does not come easily, or probably at all, to the antis.

    I was neutral and uncomprehending for years. When I did decide to love guns, I was made confident (of avoiding shooting at the wrong time.) Every step of my growth into the POTG community was accompanied by dumb questions, internet searches, and a growing knowledge that the fun was far greater than the need for obsessive worry. Prudence and common sense almost always prevail.

    But why should gun owners have more than one gun, they wonder. They might admit with difficulty that different purposes require different guns: shoot varmints, shoot deer for food, shoot aggressive bears to save human life, shoot bad people who can’t be argued out of violence.. Maybe. What they don’t see is that guns are more like bottles in a wine cellar. Why does a guy have more that one AR rifle? They TASTE DIFFERENT! Wine connoisseurs don’t open bottles indiscriminately; neither do gun owners shoot indiscriminately. Jay Leno doesn’t drive more than one of his collectible cars at once, does he? Should we confiscate the heaviest or fastest cars he owns? Why should an anti assume that there exists an intense pressure of using multiple guns the same day doing something illegal? Do they see the burden of owning more guns that one can possibly shoot in a short time as incitement of the gun owner to homicide? Their logic is akin to the reasoning, “Mommy’s cold, put on a sweater.” They project much and empathize little.

    “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.” 1 John 4:18

  22. avatar Specialist38 says:

    Doesn’t matter……can’t carry that many at one time.

    Need has no bearing on gun ownership. I buy what I want and can afford.

    The antis are aware of this and it’s why we see them attempt to limit/tax/criminalize ammunition from time time to time.

    They know if they could restrict ammo, it would starve the gun industry and firearm owners.

    They would love for us to only be able to purchase 10 rounds on a blister pack like in Brazil.

    Long live the republic.

  23. avatar Grumpy says:

    It does not matter, we don’t adjust the 1A rights for someone who talks or post too much, why should we adjust 2A rights for number of guns or qty of ammo? Economics keep most of us in check and risk of loss tends to get collectors to invest in some security based on the value of their collection.

    1. avatar CHS says:

      It doesn’t matter. And it shouldn’t matter.

      But what you said is false. The left is trying very hard lately to restrict the 1st on the basis of the rise of the neo-nazi’s that we’ve seen emboldened by Trumps election.

      They fought to keep alive NYC’s illegal 4th-violating “Stop and Frisk” operations.

      They fought to keep people from purchasing guns that are on the no-fly list. They fought and won to keep people ON the no-fly list, depriving people of due process.

      This is why this stuff matters and why we need to continue to talk about it.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “[T]he rise of the neo-nazi’s that we’ve seen emboldened by Trumps election.” Is that true? Are there more neo-nazis? Or are the media focusing on them because that meets their narrative? If there are more neo-nazis is it because of Trump? Or is it a response to having a racist, anti-white President for 8 years or a response to the racist, anti-white BLM?

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      It does not matter, we don’t adjust the 1A rights for someone who talks or post too much

      There are, unfortunately, lots of people these days advocating for 1A restrictions.

  24. avatar matt o says:

    a quick google says a super owner has 17 or more. this gives me two thoughts.
    1. that number seems low
    2. i’ve never been called a super anything before, i like it.

  25. avatar CHS says:

    It matters because it’s part of the rules.

    Rules for Radicals, #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

    This is their playbook. Strategies like focusing on the amount of guns someone has is right out of the rulebook. Ridicule and marginalize us because you can’t win with facts.

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    Does owning lots of cars make one a different driver?

  27. avatar rt66paul says:

    Some people own guns as collections, the best specimens they can find. If you collect pre-WWII rifles, for instance, yes you may have a lot of guns. But are you really a danger to anyone?
    Even if kept in pristine condition, assuming you shoot them at all, what advantage do you have in shooting someone? The only advantage here, is that you could equip a small force, but then there are others that can and will turn on you.
    Maybe you collect vest pocket pistols – most of which have a limit of 2-6 rounds. That would put you at an extreme disadvantage to any anyone carrying a modern double stack pistol, not to mention the weak caliber.
    Unless you are able to purchase 4 or 5 new firearms a year(or legal MGs) and never sell them, could you be a real danger.

  28. avatar Doug says:

    Their greatest fear should be the guys with ONE bolt action hunting rifle each – when they finally get round to pissing them off!

  29. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You only really need one gun, when your victims have none. I believe one of the worst mass shooting was done with a revolver. I can’t remember where.

  30. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    Brenda Potterfield: “Honey, how many guns does one man need?”
    Larry Potterfield: “Well, maybe just one more!”

  31. avatar Johnny108 says:

    Guns are like golf clubs.
    You need a different one depending on your situation
    Is a belt fed M-60 good for squirrel hunting?
    Nope.
    And a Ruger 10/22 is no good to provide suppressive fire.
    Different missions, different guns

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Is a belt fed M-60 good for squirrel hunting?
      Nope.

      Lies! 🙂

  32. avatar little horn says:

    no why would it? no matter how many you buy, the most you can shoot at one time is 2 so who cares.

  33. avatar raptor jesus says:

    I’m a New Yorker and I love me my New York reloads.

  34. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    I only have two hands, and guns and ammo are heavy. Antis should feel good that the more guns I own, the more that are sitting unused in my safes in at any particular moment. 🙂

  35. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Does the Number of Guns Someone Owns Matter?

    Yes.

    It matters to your property insurance underwriter.

    It could matter to your spouse and/or heirs.

    It could matter to your carpenter/interior designer.

    Beyond that I don’t see any thing where how many means anything other than you have more than one of something.

  36. avatar zebra dun says:

    Does it matter how many cars and trucks a man owns?
    How about skil saws and hammers?
    I personally due to inheriting from 5 uncles and a father’s tools own about 20 to 25 hammers, I have a hammer for every job that has pound with striking tool written in it’s instruction.
    How about electric screw drivers?
    The question when not addressing item is moot.
    I will own as many guns as I wish, can afford and my wife allows m to buy.

  37. avatar TXGunGal says:

    Let’s just say I have more guns than pairs of shoes.
    I have more revolvers than semi automatic pistols. Have a Shot Gun but no rifles.
    My husband doesn’t know how many guns I own and doesn’t ask. I don’t have an arsenal, I have a collection of tools. Each one for the job it’s designed to do. I prefer metal handguns but do have some with plastic parts. Caliber is limited to 22lr, 38+ Special, 357, and 9mm, 380acp. Don’t plan on adding any handguns. Might add a rifle when we move to ranch property for gray foxes, cayotes, bobcats and raccoons with a bad attitude.
    When I’m gone relatives will inherit my collection and ammunition .

    1. avatar Gunr says:

      More guns than shoes?
      God, you must have a lot of guns! Most women are Imelda Marcos “wanna be’s”. That means they probably own close to a hundred pair of shoes, and are on the the way to the shoe store to make sure they don’t short themselve’s.

  38. avatar Gunr says:

    Does the number of guns one owns matter?
    It depends on whos’s doing the “mattering”
    If it’s the gun store, you don’t own enough, if its an Anti gun person, no matter how many you own is too many, if it’s the district attorney, the one you used to commit the alleged crime is too many.
    And last but not least……..If it’s you wife doing the “mattering”, What ever you can sneak into the house and into your safe doesn’t count.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email