nice distinction between "use' and "fire", Roy.

I am retired military, granted it was the Navy and it is not known for handgun use except for SEALS. However, I was trained in the use of many different types of guns. Since I retired, I have accumulated a couple of guns I liked and keep them for home and personal protection. I am trained and licensed according to all local and state laws. I have never had to use these guns but they are available if I need them. I will not hesitate to use force if nothing else settles the situation but it is a last resort and will not be used if I can help it.

The statistics on guns and crime, leave off instance like yours, in which all you had to do was somehow demonstrate you had a firearm, and the other party would either "say the password" or make him/herself scarce.

the answer is all of those noted or simply because you happen to want one and are not a criminal.

I know the military would not be in it but as evidenced by the Bundy situation in Nevada. I am not sure about all the other weaponized departments like the ATF, BLM, Forest Service, IRS and others. The ATF has been doing this for years, like Waco and Ruby Ridge, situations that could have been settled without problems, they escalated them to out and out warfare. Lots of other cases of weaponized departments raiding the guitar factory in Tennessee or a mining district in Alaska. I am sure they would not even flinch at having to shoot average citizens.

You know what John Galt said about withdrawing the sanction of the victim.

That's a ridiculous querstion.

The question is, who gave anyone the authority to ask?

The second amendment exists for when government is too weak and there is anarchy and for when government is too strong and there is tyranny.

A "standing army" as you describe, assumes the willingness of that army to blindly follow orders and take up arms against their own populace. In my experience as a soldier, that would never happen. A soldier can always refuse an order they believe to be unjust, and has an obligation to do so.

Secondly, a standing army of a million or two against 150 million armed citizens would also be a very short fight, in the unlikely event that happened at all.

We are a strong country, because we are a nation of individuals with individual liberty. If you think that gun ownership is bad, feel free to hang out in Mexico for a while, it's a great example of what not to do.

"Because it suits me to have one."

This is the only reason that is required. I refuse to reply to petulant demands for justification from irrational lefties.

That was the point of the capitalization of "MAN" - once enslaved, you no longer have a man.

"You cannot enslave a free man; the most you can do is kill him". Heinlein

OK, yes," someone always has a bigger-better" object. But the gun is not the weapon; it is the MIND which is the weapon. Our weapons are better.
Does that mean some of us will not die in defense of our "Lives, Fortunes and Sacred Honor"? Well, yeah, some of us will. But better a dead MAN than a live slave.

Great stories, Roy! Thanks for the comment

In the photo I see two hand guns, a shot gun, a hunting rifle and an AK-47. For the stated purposes the first three types are all well and good. I was addressing the futility of the fourth.

huzzah! +1

the problem is, they DON'T think. They "feel" that guns are "bad". and, since you can't be argued out of something you weren't argued into, there is no logical, factual, reasoned argument which will sway them.

Having been around guns I will share three instances where I have "used" mine, but not fired them.

At two points in my life an unexpected visitor came in the back door to my house during the night. In one case it was someone I did not know, in the other it was my brother. Both had the same response in me. I reached over under the edge of my bed, grabbed my pump action shot gun with an extension on it, pumped one shell into the chamber and had two very different responses.

In the case of brother he immediately called out and identified himself. I greeted him and told him I would be in the living room in a minute. I removed the shell from the chamber, and put it back in the gun ready to be loaded into the firing chamber again when needed. I went in and talked with my brother.

The other case resulted in nearly immediate departure of the would be robber from my home. I have no idea who he or she was. I do not need to. They had the good sense not to make me fire the weapon.

The third was a instance where a group of three people thought they should mug me, I let my coat open to show the holster under my arm and they left.

The vast majority of reason to have a gun will not require the firing of the gun. Its presence and the knowledge of its presence is enough to change the course of the person who would otherwise be interested in initiating some kind of force upon me, you or a country.

Thanks for the post. I like it.

"If you die, you will not know what you are dying for; if I die, I will".

Well said. +1

I agree with you Mamaemma. I have more to lose, so more to fight for.

I don't agree. What I see are people who are trained, and not only that, they have something to protect, which is a far greater motivator than a taker's motivation. As well, the military I do not believe would attack their fellow Americans, unless there is some deep covert force loyal to a traitor. Nor would civilians be eager to fire on their fellow Americans in uniform. There would have to be a total and complete breakdown in government for that to even have a chance of occurring.
My gun(s) would have to be pried from my cold hands, ammunition depleted, for me to stop protecting what is most precious to me.

"Even if you ask them the hard questions, like "should a woman allow herself and her daughter to be raped rather than defend herself with a gun?" they will, if you push them to the wall, say "yes. there is no excuse for citizens to have guns." "
If they're starting with the premises that guns could be effectively banned from criminals and safety from crimes is more important than liberty, they could argue that having the gun is more risk. Every day you have a gun, there's a tiny chance of it falling into the wrong hands and/or some kind of accident/mistake. Most people go their whole lives without being in a situation in which they could use a gun to stop a crime. So the sum of the daily risk of having a gun ready are greater than the benefit of stopping an unlikely crime.

I know the premises are wrong. I'm just saying how advocates of control of people who keep and cary guns think.

Now here I agree with everything you have said, Coal.