Quote:
Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Not taking sides here, but perhaps the "problem" is the perception that firearms have only one basic purpose. It would be difficult to equate this with someone owning mulitple cameras, pairs of shoes, or a massive stamp collection. Most posters here in favor of multiple ownership appear to rationalize it as a means of protecting home and hearth. Like I said, I am not against gun ownership. However, what I have difficulty understanding is if the firearm is to be readily available for, let's say' a late night breakin, where can it be safely stored and still be readily available? If I had kids, I would not want a loaded weapon in my nightstand.
Yeah, I own a shotgun that I keep in a locked closet. But that is the only firearm I have. Well, except for my .22 pellet pistol...
|
It's really not very hard to equate guns to cameras, shoes, or stamps. They are all innanimate objects that various folks like to collect. These objects bring pleasure to those people. It is no one's business how many any other individual would like to own. That is one parallel.
Another parallel is the need for rationalization. There is no need to rationalize anything you enjoy to anyone else. Particularly with firearms, this perceived need to rationalize puts us on a very sippery slope indeed. The day a gun owner is asked to rationalize his or her need for firearms is the day some one else gets to decide for them what is "reasonable" for them to own.
The bottom line is that it is simply no one else's business. That is the parallel I hoped to draw with the camera/shoe/stamp comparisons. No one feels threatened by my wife's shoe collection. No one is threatened by my gun collection. It's that simple.