The Anti-Gun Blade is at it again.

I didn't see the article as anti-gun.

I'm curious as to why it would be such a burden to require an Ohio resident to hold an Ohio permit. From what you've said, it would appear that one could hold an Ohio license in addition to a license from another state.

Could you explain why you think it is anti-gun to expect an Ohio resident to be licensed in Ohio? There must be something I'm not seeing from the article...

I agree, I did not see it as anti gun, and I do think it's odd to not have a license from the state where you live.

The more disturbing issue for me is that local law enforcement does not know the law and how to enforce it.

The more disturbing issue for me is that local law enforcement does not know the law and how to enforce it.

Agreed. As a layperson, I would have just assumed that an Ohio resident also needs an Ohio license. But I'd expect local law enforcement to know better!

LEOs should know better, but to be fair to them, they are human, make errors, and the laws that they 'should know better' about so numerous that I'm certain most human beings would fail to live up to the mental recall of law standards needed to be ideal LEOs.

Besides, if laws were easy to remember and interpret, we wouldn't have Lawyers, Judges, or Politicians.

No lawyers, judges or politicians, and that's a bad thing?

eh, I can't really agree with that RobJeff. They're law enforcement officers, not hitmen. It shouldn't be a lot to ask that they know the laws they're enforcing. I wouldn't send my kids to a school where the teachers didn't understand the math problems they were writing answers to on the chalk board.

The question is not really why it is a burden to carry an Ohio CHL, but why is it a risk and the article glances over the issue vaguely. In Ohio, the original CCW law allowed the media to obtain and publish a list of permit holders. This to many in the pro-carry camp put them at risk of being identified as having or likely to have a gun. Part of the key to concealed carry is others don't know you carry and here is the media announcing who might be carrying.

The legislature tried to fix this media access issue years ago but it didn't work. Newspapers still managed to put together lists of who had a carry permit. There was a second attempt late last year to correct the media access issue but I don't remember if it passed or not.

So, why have a concealed carry permit when the media likes to tell everyone who is carrying? I know plenty of people who refuse to get an Ohio license because of this alone.

The article points out why we should have nationwide reciprocity. Should Ohio drivers have to have a license from every state they drive in?
If you read the forums at ohioans for concealed carry, you'd be amazed at how much our trained police officers don't know about the laws.
Toby Hoover is a total moron. I really want to know what neighborhood she lives in. You can bet it's a low crime area. She is the epitome of a liberal, if SHE doesn't like something, then NO ONE should be allowed to have that thing.

Again, I'm not sure how the Blade article is anti-gun. On a side note, how you jog with a gun? I couldn’t imagine doing my morning 5k with a gun while I’m running 6-8 miles per hour. I’d be pistol whipping myself.

Agreed, a concealed carry license should have reciprocity in every state like a driver’s license. Then again, a marriage license should be too, but states have opted not to honor the marriage licenses of people they don’t approve of.

I know people who run with a Ruger LCP in a fanny pack.

Johio83, for the LEOs to have the full depth of knowledge we'd like, they'd have to study and be tested (and paid) like Doctors, or more fittingly like Lawyers. They are going to know the most important and relevant laws well, not to mention the ones that get the highest uncontested fines, like traffic laws. But to know each state that has reciprocity for a license that is carried by very few people (relative to population) is what lawyers, Captains, and I would imagine their fancy little laptops are for.

With all the media coverage and pending/new legislation concerning concealed carry--not to mention the whole safety thing--I would expect officers to be well versed on these laws.

i'm not pro or anti gun, but I have heard plenty on the subject from family that do like to carry. They know the laws across states because they travel and want to obey the law wherever they go. is it acceptable they know more than the officers that are paid to enforce the law? If so, I guess we do need lawyers to protect us.

I was thinking of a lady, but that cracked me up so much that I needed to post. LMAO.

Last I heard, there were like 20,000 gun laws on the books in the US. Maybe if possession were actually legal, (as our founding fathers intended it to be when they used the word "bear" rather than "own") the police could focus on the actions of an individual rather than their state of statutory compliance. In other words, if I am not shooting at anyone, go find somebody who IS.

I’d be pistol whipping myself.

Thus saving me the trouble.

Use an ankle holster, a shoulder rig or a waistband holster. Your choice, just try not to shoot yourself in the foot while you're donning your exercise attire.

Any guy with a fanny pack should just keep running...

Tell it to the Pink Pistols, cretin.

Sorry if the fanny pack comment offended you MJ. You’re obviously one of the rare exceptions of a man who can pull it off. Seriously, who pisses your corn flakes every morning?

I didn't see the article as anti-gun either. They pointed out that there is a law causing some confusion in Ohio. People from both sides of the issue expressed their opinion. End of story.

Also, can we all acknowledge that Bugs Bunny had the right idea about Florida?

I find it funny that the guy making a point about gay rights get jollies insinuating that a man who wears a fanny pack is "sissy". Ok to bump uglies with another dude, but don't you wear a fanny pack!

Double standard much?

Acknowledged!

Also, can we all acknowledge that Bugs Bunny had the right idea about Florida?

He could also hack off California too...

dbw -
Sorry, but I find a man wearing a purse strapped around their waist ridicules. I find guys who wear their pants around their ankle or up around their chest ridicules too…

What two people do in their own bedrooms is their own business. Funny how all this talk about guns and licenses and you start thinking about two guys having sex. I’m sure Freud would have some insight…

To be fair, fanny packs are crimes against fashion regardless of the wearer's gender. :)

Licenses cost money. Besides the reasons given by MrsArcher and others, where you frequently travel to can determine which state(s) to obtain a license in.

The Florida permit covers the Southeast and states throughout the Midwest, 34 states as of today. Of Ohio's five neighboring states, a Florida permit covers all but Michigan. If you don't do Michigan, but, travel a lot to Pennsylvania or points south, the Florida permit would be the way to go.

I have an Ohio permit, but, my Florida permit added TX, MS, AL, GA & PA; states that I frequently travel in and do not honor Ohio's permit.

Trilby--

Florida does have reciprocity with Michigan. Please visit the Florida AG website. I am a Florida NRA and Class K instructor.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/concealed_carry.html/

Yeah as a citizen try telling a judge that you don't know the laws for concealed carry and see how far that gets you. If we are expected to know them then so should the people enforcing the laws.

Michigan only gives reciprocity to resident permits so an Ohio resident with a Florida non-resident permit would not have legal ability to carry in Michigan, only a Florida resident with a Florida permit or an Ohio resident with an Ohio permit. (at least that was the rule the last time I checked).

MrsArcher--

Yes that is correct. Having a Florida CWP would not be of any use to an Ohio resident in Michigan. But it works fine for me. I hold six different state permits. Not just because I travel a lot but it also allows me qualify for instructor certification in several states (like Nevada) even though I am a Florida resident. Maybe someday we will get it right and adopt the Vermont model. They just follow the constitution. No permit needed period by any law abiding U.S. citizen.

Six different state permits for an instructor who goes by the name "wydowmaker." Awesome. I guess the part of the amendment that states "well-regulated" is just for you to wipe your ass with. . . .

There is also another part that states "shall not infringe". Well regulated does not refer to regulating what I can own. It refers to a disciplined civilian militia. And Wydowmaker was my radio call sign in Vietnam dumbass.

Doesn't refer to what you can own? Better brush up on your supreme court decisions. And you are no judge of what "well-regulated" means. We'll leave that up to the supremes.

Damn--just ran out of troll food. Shucks, back to bad sci fi movie.

What does the license exactly do for you? There are so many illegal guns and unlicensed guns that requiring law abiding citizens to get licenses is foolish.
You should be held responsible for your gun if you have one. That means keeping it locked and out of reach of children or thiefs.
Punish the criminals, not those who follow the rules. Is that so hard?

Hockeyfan

You hit the nail on the head. I should not be required to obtain a license. But I am absolutely responsible for my actions should one of my firearms be misused or get into the wrong hands. It's a responsibility I accept. The same responsibility I accept when I get behind the wheel of my vehicle every day. Personal responsibility seems to be in short supply these days. I also accept that it is my personal responsibility to keep my self and my family safe. I was asked once why I carry a gun. My reply was "a cop is too heavy".

I believe that if a person was disqualified from obtaining an Ohio license it would be illegal for them to go get a Florida license for the purpose of carrying in Ohio. As in there isn't a loophole. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Erin:

That would depend on the wording of the Florida Application and the underlying law. It would also depend on whether Florida actually checks to see if the applicant applied for a license in another state. That being said, Florida appears to have a very similar procedure to the one used in Ohio. It is unlikely that a person disqualified here would make it through the process in Florida.

One other thing. The story about the jogger in the blade left out one little thing. When the guy did get his gun back they failed to give him back his ammo. Now with good self defense rounds going at over a dollar a round I think the Lucas county sheriff commit ed petty theft. I could be mistaken and the rounds were finally returned, but I read the thread the person this happened to posted over on another site. After so many pages I stopped reading. Last I knew though the ammo wasn't returned.

Are you assuming that the jogger was disqualified from obtaining an Ohio license as Ms. Hoover seemed to imply. Please note: she carefully chose the word "wouldn't" and not "couldn't". Changes the meaning.

I could be mistaken and the rounds were finally returned, but I read the thread the person this happened to posted over on another site.

How about a link?

It's likely that the ammo wasn't returned. Part of the problem we have in the State of Ohio is that the police can confiscate an item and hold on to it for 'safe keeping'. The confiscation of personal property at the whim of an authoritarian cop has been going on for a long time, and the weak kneed sisters of the USSC heartily endorse it - because they know better than we do what's good for us. Commie bastards.

Those 'deputies' should be publicly stripped of their badges and sidearms and made to do the perp walk through the village square. What they did is not about keeping people safe or keeping the peace; it's about being a couple of assholes. Professional assholes.

Timely article out of Florida -
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2012-07-06/news/fl-gun-carry-permits-20120706_1_mental-illness-mental-health-nics

Another gap has surfaced in how Florida screens applicants for gun carry permits: The state agency responsible can't access a federal database containing 1.6 million records of people nationwide with mental illness, the Sun Sentinel found.

Last month, the Sun Sentinel reported that Florida wasn't completing background checks for gun carry permits on those applicants whose fingerprint card submissions repeatedly were illegible.

...

The state agency responsible can't access a federal database containing 1.6 million records of people nationwide with mental illness

There's a reason for that, and it's called abuse and invasion of privacy. Read up on HIPAA regulations.

I don't know what your particular bitch is SensorG, or why you're against freedom, but after reading your contributions for some time I can honestly and accurately say that I no longer give a tinker's damn about your problem.

My objection to a CCW license is that we, the law abiding adult citizens of the United States, should not be forced to obtain a license at all. If any of us feel the need to carry, either openly or concealed, we should just have at it. Instead of using pretext stops to confiscate our weapons, the police should be castigating and harassing anyone who dares to complain.

Actually, HIPAA doesn't pertain to this situation.

The federal NICS database contains information about people who have been ruled mentally incompetent and/or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital.

It comes from court records, not the provider's medical records.

In other words, it's not a record of everyone who happened to have a few therapy or counseling visits, but people who have had court/legal issues stemming from their mental health.

Does anyone else find it odd that Florida's Department of Agriculture is the one that does concealed weapon permits?

The Department's mission from the official website

The mission of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is to safeguard the public and support Florida's agricultural economy by:

Ensuring the safety and wholesomeness of food and other consumer products through inspection and testing programs;

Protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices and providing consumer information;

Assisting Florida's farmers and agricultural industries with the production and promotion of agricultural products; and

Conserving and protecting the state's agricultural and natural resources by reducing wildfires, promoting environmentally safe agricultural practices, and managing public lands.

mom2 why do you hate freedom? </sarasm>

You never know when you're gonna get mugged on a tractor.

I have no idea why but virtually all state licenses here in Florida are processed through the Dept. of Agriculture. My nursing license included. The state nursing board granted it but the licensing itself is a function of the state agri. dept. Strange indeed. Also strange is the fact that the feds mandated the mandatory waiting period and background checks for firearms purchases but then will not cooperate with state agencies when they try to comply.

Apparently, that's possible at the Lucas County fair.

Toledo politicians, should pass laws requiring its citizens to carry concealed weapons in certain areas of town.
I derive this sentiment from the daily news reports about shootings, arson,gang attacks, and assaults.
Watch the daily go apoplectic like an electrocuted cat when and if that's ever proposed!
Are you folks really nicknamed ,Little Detroit ?
And, is that a High Honor ?

Nice catch, SensorG.

It comes from court records, not the provider's medical records.

My own fault as I leaped to conclusions - I thought the complaint was that the medical profession was not registering their patients with the Federal Government. Which the Feds want, but which the Psychiatric professionals have refused to provide.

Toby Hoover is a total moron. I really want to know what neighborhood she lives in. You can bet it's a low crime area.

I believe that Toby Hoover lives in Perrysburg - Gray Panther territory. Her office is in the basement of a church building on Floyd Street in Toledo, which is high crime area except for Sunday morning. At least that's the last I knew about her. Unlike public figures who are pro-freedom, Hoover hides everything she can about herself.

I'm not sure I'd call Toby Hoover a moron and let it go at that. Hoover makes a very nice living as an anti-freedom crusader, and in spite of her emotionally charged rhetoric she can be quite shrewd about the gun control issue.

Never underestimate the enemy, if you see what I mean.

Avery / Mike Coon said: "...who would obviously prefer to run than fight."

This coming from a borderline psychotic who likes to terrorize people via harassing phone calls and emails. Yes, Mike Coon sure knows a thing or two about keeping a safe distance, like when he last called my house in 2010 pretending to be someone who was interested in a history degree for his kid. After about 20 seconds of chit-chat, he began ranting this graphic homoerotic weirdness that about how socialists and liberals... well, you get the point. I was not sure how much of the call was anger and how much of it was pornography, but that is Coon for you.

Interesting also that Coon is not denying who he is in this thread, but just that his current sock puppet is an "employee" of Mike Coon. Sir, you sound even more unraveled than ever. Seek help. Soon.

Thank you.

What's funny is that The Toledo Free Press pretty much let's Mike Coon say anything as ErieEagle but they refuse to post 50% of my comments because I respectfully disagree with the author.

I'll be driving up from Florida in a couple of days. Packing up now but can't seem to find the holster for my Glock 22. Anyone know where I can buy a good fanny pack in Toledo ? :)

You should consider the support-hose/ankle holster instead.

But only if you've got the legs for it.

Madjack--

Forgive me--it was just a bad attempt at humor. But actually i'm only 5'7 and very little of that is legs. I have an ankle rig for my Bersa .380 but if I tried that with a Glock 22 I would have a severe list on that side. I'll just stick with the Fobus rig.

Egads. All this fuss about carrying a gun. I read every post and try to understand the need/want/desire to own and/or carry a fire arm. But I just don't get it. Probably never will. To me its boring at best and carries an element of serious risk. My better half has a couple of hand guns and an antique rifle stuck around the house somewhere, all unloaded. If we had to turn them in tomorrow I wouldn't even consider it news worthy. Yawn.

The clueless, useful idiots will be the first to turn in those nasty gun owners. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described this vividly in The Gulag Archipelago. If every household in the village had a weapon they could have systematically held the party hacks/bosses at bay. But the useful idiots squealed on anybody who didn't turn in their weapon.

Holland will be perfect in the new paradigm.

Yeah, I know. That's why I made the equally bad joke about legs. See?

But I just don't get it. Probably never will. To me its boring at best...

Yeah, you living in upscale P-burg and all, packing heat would be an inconvenience for you. The thing is this: If you don't want to carry a gun or have one in your home, that's fine with the gun owning community. Most gun owners will think you're foolish, but thoughts of Holland being unarmed wouldn't occupy more than 5 seconds of time. The trouble comes in when people like you try to disarm people like me, or by your tacit support assist the government in disarming people like me. I have a hard spot with that.

As to why anyone would carry a gun, allow me to relate the following vignette.

Around 1972 I worked at the Sohio gas station located at the corner of Collingwood and Delaware in Toledo. Not the best area back then, and it hasn't gotten any better. I learned a lot about black people and black culture, but that's another story. Anyway, I had to work alone at night sometimes and that wasn't easy. People (mainly teenagers) would try to steal things and short change me, and I learned how to deal with the majority of crap, including the lousy attitudes of he customers at the pumps, this being back in the bad old days where some minimum wage slave pumped the gas for people.

So one fine autumn evening around 10:00 PM a group of five teenagers came through on foot. They didn't talk much, just stared at me with a lot of hostility. One finally said they wanted to see Clint, a waste of space about my age who worked days. I explained that Clint wasn't here, and they decided to wait. Silently, with no response to casual questions or comments on my part. So what I did was I went into the back room and took the .38 revolver kept in the top drawer and tucked it into the waistband of my jeans, then I went back outside. I faced the group and I told them that Clint worked days, not nights. They didn't say a word, just stared at me. I let my jacket swing open. Just as soon as they saw I was armed they all smiled and jive shuffled out of the lot and down the street, laughing and making out that the whole business was a huge joke. They didn't ever come back.

I called the Toledo police, and the cops who responded knew this group. The leader was Bartholomew, and they were small time criminals on their way up the ladder.

This group was not looking to buy a bag of Skittles and a bottle of Arizona Ice Tea. They were waiting for me to close the station so they could rob me of the day's receipts and give me the kind of beating every white man deserves who has the unmitigated gall to operate a gas station in a black community. Shame on me. I was saved that experience because I armed myself.

Now see if you can get your head around that, and understand that some of us would much rather avoid being robbed and beaten, even if it means arming ourselves to do so, or especially if it means arming ourselves to do so.

Holland---

I don't want to carry a firearm. I long for the days when I could walk the streets at any time I chose to and not have to haul a gun around. I grew up on Lagrange street. When I was a kid I could walk those streets after dark without any concern for my safety. Not so much now. Carrying a gun is a bother. It's heavy and uncomfortable. Try concealing in Florida during the summer. I also must be far more aware of my surroundings and my whole demeanor changes when i'm armed. I can't afford to be rude or confrontational. I am a much more polite individual since I can't afford to "start something". I also have to put in the time,effort and expense training with my weapons to keep my skill level up so that I remain a safe and responsible gun toter. But as a guy by the name of Col.Jeff Cooper said "the gun isn't there to be comfortable it's there to be comforting". A confrontation about 18 yrs ago with three armed gangstas sealed the deal for me. I now carry everywhere it is legal for me to do so. I am a professional firearms instructor. Many of my new students once had your attitude. That is until they went through a home invasion or were robbed or raped or-- well you get the idea. Hope it never happens to you or your loved ones. But the police are always there for you. Right?

Doesn't Holland live in Holland? Or am I missing something?

Would your better half so easily give up the guns too? Or would he/she be fighting for both of you (sorry - don't know your gender).

I was newly married when my husband was out of town for a weekend; never had touched a gun before. A foster child who lived a mile or two from us (out in Spencer Twp.) shot and killed his foster mother and they couldn't find the kid. I dug out my husband's handgun (a 22 with a magazine?) and managed to get it loaded. When he came home late that night it was the first thing I told him - gun is loaded, didn't touch it beyond that but wanted it handy just in case. Since then, I've acquired several hand firearms, taken classes, am an NRA certified instructor (though I don't actively teach any classes) and would fight to the death for the right to keep my gun(s).

OK folks.

I'm female and a senior citizen.

I've lived in the Village of Holland for over 40 years.

My husband is not attached to his guns other than as material posessions with some economic value. Since we sold our last businesses he unloaded the guns and stored them.

When we ran the convenience stores (35 years) he carried every single day without a permit. I carried, without a permit, on very, very rare occaisions. We transported large amounts of cash, sometimes over $100,000. Yes - $100,000+. Neither of us felt more than marginally safer carrying. It was much better to be smart about how you conducted yourself than to rely on a gun.

Go ahead. Enjoy your fire arms. I just think its nutty. And YES I would support gun control. And no amount of vitriolic frothing of the mouth about the "right to bear arms" is going to change my mind. I've been there, done that, longer than any of you from as much as I can tell, and with better justification.

Holland will be a "good German" in the coming order. Turn in those nutty gun people like the good Germans turned in the Jews. Same thinking, same result.

Star, that's uncalled for. Foul play!

Holland's lack of concern for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution suggests an attitude similar to that found in Germany circa 1938. The less we see of those nutty gun people and their babble about the Constitution the better. The government should do something about them.

Do you think that the majority of well-educated and literate Germans were sociopathic? No. They were just ignorant of the malignancy that had gripped their nation. Wake up and smell the leftist fascism.

" And YES I would support gun control"

So you would support gun control - whatever that means to you - to keep the guns out of who's hands? Law abiding citizens? Because if you believe it will keep them out of the hands of gangstas and other assorted worthless, wondering shreds of human debris, then you are indeed naive and ill informed.

Too late for gun control. People control doesn't work, why would gun control? Our ever-expanding population of people with nothing to lose and no moral fiber makes gun reduction among responsible and law abiding people an impossible option. Perhaps as the ratio of armed criminals to armed victims comes into balance, violent confrontational crime will be a less attractive option for criminals.

In my book, one of the definitions of "gun control" means you can safely load, aim, fire, and hit what you're aiming at. If you can't, that's "gun uncontrolled".

Another is "in a household with children, the gun is ALWAYS controlled by adults and put in a controlled area with controls to prevent the kids from playing with it".

A third is "the children, upon reaching sufficient maturity, are taught that guns put big holes in things, that they should NEVER EVER under penalty of the most painful thrashing of their lives EVER touch a gun without parental permission let alone point one at ANYONE, and if they ever find a gun or are with a friend who is playing with a gun they need to summon a responsible adult IMMEDIATELY".

A fourth is that in my ideal little world, EVERY kid getting a hunting license or every adult upon reaching age 18 is required to sit through something combining the best points of CCL training, NRA instruction, and hunter safety. Something including a hands-on loading, firing, reloading, and making safe of ALL common types of firearms (revolving and semi-auto pistols, bolt-action, lever-action, break-action, and pump-action long guns as well as muzzleloaders). A course that you automatically fail if at any point you assume the weapon is unloaded, even if you watched the instructor check it twice. A course where it is drilled into your head that the gun is to be treated as loaded, even if you just unloaded it, because you never know if God or Loki or quantum mechanics might have reloaded it for you when you took 1/500th of a second to blink.

But then I'm a commie pinko socialist America-hating faggot-loving scumbag atheist Constitution-burning liberal according to madjack and Linecrosser, so feel free to dismiss my views on "gun control".

Please, do continue with this thread...

No wonder I tend to enjoy/identify with MadJacks posts. Back around 1975, I worked at the Sohio station at Bancroft & Upton. Was there for about a year, until the company closed the place and rebuilt it as a gas only station.
We were robbed about 6 or 7 times in that year. Each time the perp was a black male, though I did have a black female try to rob me with an obviously toy gun. I told her to go away. One of the times myself and the guy working with me were robbed, we were asked to go to the Safety Building and look at mug shots.
We were shocked/amused at the huge number of regular customers in that book.

BTW, anyone who "supports gun control" is an enemy of freedom and the 2nd amendment.
I find it mind boggling that people can't get it through their heads that the only people who pay any attention to the laws are the good guys. There are thousands of "gun control" laws on the books nationwide, if they orked there wouldn't BE any crime committed with guns.

Wow. It seems that "nutty" might be too tame a descriptor. I'm Jewish on my mother's side. All of my grandmother's relatives who did not emigrate were lost to the holocaust. She emigrated from Orlak, Hungary in 1913. Books about the holocaust, complete with copius concentration camp pictures, were coffee table reading at my house immediatley after WWII, when I was just old enough to learn to read.

To conflate gun control with the holocaust is absurd. Assuming I would somehow be sympathetic to the German Nazis is sick and deranged thinking.

I think everyone who just Godwinned this thread on you needs a good hard kick in the nuts/box and then to wheeze out an apology to you.

On the other hand, if we had the kind of draconic gun control laws on the books that the UK for example has, there would be almost NO crime committed with guns. Which would be loads better in many ways than having guns everywhere. But I'm not a fan of that kind of society, either.

Of course, the Second Amendment says "keep and bear arms", and we talk about "nuclear arms", so why the hell am I not allowed to have a tacnuke? Biological arms? Why can't I have some anthrax and smallpox? Chemical arms? Where's my sarin and mustard gas? Funny how none of the people who go on about "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ignore all arms that don't involve gunpowder/black powder and bullets. Come on now, if you're going to yell at people for being pretty literal about the "well-regulated militia", then how about being literal about the "arms" part? Where's my right to have a stash of RPGs and some C4? I don't feel safe in my home unless I have depleted uranium sabots ready to use in case the police and military decide to take over using their armored SWAT vehicles (military handoffs) and M1A2 tanks through town.

Oh sweet jesus...a post by AC that I essentially agree with in entirety?

Is that a sign of the apocalypse?

;) :)

But then I'm a commie pinko socialist America-hating faggot-loving scumbag atheist Constitution-burning liberal according to madjack and Linecrosser, so feel free to dismiss my views on "gun control".

Funny, I didn't know you were an atheist...

I'm not, I just get slapped with that one because I don't believe in the Raving Christian Loony-flavored God.

To conflate gun control with the holocaust is absurd.

So you say. I'll defer to HistoryMike on most of this, but several pertinent facts are outstanding.

In 1938 the German government passed a law forbidding Jews to own any type of firearm or weapon, while at the same time loosening restrictions on firearms for the rest of the populace. Prior to this it was possible to own a firearm, but all firearms had to be registered and the owner licensed. Confiscation was easy.

Starting around 1940 Jewish underground resistance groups started to form. They fought the Nazis using improvised munitions and illegal armaments, mostly shotguns and the occasional handgun.

In the summer of 1942 the Nazis encountered stiff resistance in the Warsaw ghetto in Poland. The Nazi storm troopers suffer several defeats and are routed by the Jewish resistance fighters in spite of superior numbers and vastly superior firepower.

While no one can say for certain what would have happened had the entire Jewish community been armed from the beginning, one thing is certain: Being armed, the Jews would have had a choice. They could have resisted the Nazis effectively with modern weaponry.

For a dictatorship to succeed, it must disarm the populace and control the news media. That's what happened in Germany.

People disparage the idea that something like a military dictatorship could happen in the United States, so therefore guns are not needed. Talk to the hurricane Katrina refugees from New Orleans about that and judge for yourself.

As for me, I'm keeping my freedom such as it is. It isn't much, but it's all I've got left.

Why can't you have a tactical nuke? Easy, because the material in a tactical nuke can be deadly without being used if not stored properly. Ordinary weapons won't hurt anyone by themselves. Same thing would go for bio weapons.

A/C: ...EVERY kid getting a hunting license or every adult upon reaching age 18 is required to sit through something combining the best points of CCL training, NRA instruction, and hunter safety.

We don't agree on much, but I'll agree with you here. You could take care of the males at age 18 by simply having them sit through the course to complete Selective Service registration.

madjack: People disparage the idea that something like a military dictatorship could happen in the United States, so therefore guns are not needed. Talk to the hurricane Katrina refugees from New Orleans about that and judge for yourself.

A better example would be the experience of Japanese American citizens, circa 1942.

A group of American citizens rounded up by the military, put into prison camps for the duration of the war, property sold off to others by the government. All because of their ethnicity.

I'm sure they couldn't believe it was happening to them in the United States either.

Rats...there was one small point that I missed, where I thought I was in complete agreement with AC.

I agree that people applying for licenses (hunting or CCW) should prove completing training/instruction, but I don't think it should be mandated for every single adult.

Don't see the point of an adult who has no intention of picking up a weapon being mandated to sit through a training course.

If I were going to use a firearm, I'd seek out training. It would be a complete waste of time to make me sit through a training course that I wouldn't use now. I know not to pick up a firearm I'm not trained to use, and that seems sufficient.

Don't see the point of an adult who has no intention of picking up a weapon being mandated to sit through a training course.

I dunno. Sometimes our intention has little to do with situations with which we are confronted.

You may (and I suspect do ) have a healthy respect for the life/death/injurious power of a firearm. Little Fauntleroy, age 17 years 364 days, may not--due to a lifetime of either sheltering or action movies where someone's penis does not get shot off by jamming a pistol down their pants.

I'm not a fan of mandating shit for people to do, but as "right to bear arms" is Constitutionally enshrined, I think completing a 4-6 hour firearms course when signing up for Selective Service is appropriate. I view it as a citizen responsibility, for the safety of yourself as well as others. Also, it will help demystify firearms to people who view them as only something cavemen/neanderthals/uneducated/hillbilly/rednecks enjoy (along with PBR and their cousins luvin').

I would think the military would have some incentive in demonstrating (in case any of these people are drafted) basic knowledge in firearms safety, mechanics, and ethics.

Just one guy's opinion. Full disclosure--I don't own a firearm, nor am I licensed in anything gun-related. But I have completed basic safety and use courses for my knowledge.

I dunno. Sometimes our intention has little to do with situations with which we are confronted.

I don't have access to firearms.

In the unlikely event that I needed to wrestle a firearm away from a thug and take a shot, I can't imagine I'd recall much from a forced 4-6 hour course I took at age 18. :)

(Not anti-gun for people who want to own one. And I believe people who foresee situations where they would potentially have access to a firearm should be educated on how to handle it. There's just no reasonable reason to force someone like me to sit through a course on it as an adult.)

Really? Mandated fire arms training? Just in case you're ever faced with the need to know how to handle a gun? How about purchasing car insurance in case you're ever in an accident? Oh, I forgot, that's already a pre-requisite for driving a motor vehicle. Then, how about mandated swimming lessons? Just in case you're ever near water? Or how about purchasing health care insurance? Just in case you get injured or sick - two possible likely events? Which of these scenarios has the greatest likehood of occurrence in the average person's lifetime?

Oh fine...you guys win.

Screw me for agreeing that firearms education at an appropriate age (18) might help things, rather than putting law 18,345 on the books controlling guns. God forbid.

Done here. AC, the floor is yours.

IMO it was worth "Fauntleroy."

Why can't you have a tactical nuke? Easy, because the material in a tactical nuke can be deadly without being used if not stored properly. Ordinary weapons won't hurt anyone by themselves. Same thing would go for bio weapons.

Same can be said about guns, they can be deadly if not stored properly, look at how many kids find a gun in a home and kill someone with it, but the very second you propose a law on trigger locks, gun storage, whatever, the gun nuts LOSE THEIR SHIT as such things are an abridgement of their right to keep and bear arms. So yeah, where's my tacnuke?

We don't agree on much, but I'll agree with you here. You could take care of the males at age 18 by simply having them sit through the course to complete Selective Service registration.

That's sexist. Selective Service should take women too. And women should be allowed into combat.

Really? Mandated fire arms training? Just in case you're ever faced with the need to know how to handle a gun? How about purchasing car insurance in case you're ever in an accident? Oh, I forgot, that's already a pre-requisite for driving a motor vehicle. Then, how about mandated swimming lessons? Just in case you're ever near water? Or how about purchasing health care insurance? Just in case you get injured or sick - two possible likely events? Which of these scenarios has the greatest likehood of occurrence in the average person's lifetime?

Funny thing how schools are MANDATED to have the kiddies take these stupid standardized tests to see how much they learn, but hey, they are coming out without a fucking clue how to cook, how to balance a budget, how to fix things around a house, etc. etc. and how we put a higher emphasis on teaching kids "American history" than we do science.

School needs a Real Life class since Mommy and Daddy are too busy working two jobs to actually teach Timmy and Sally anything.

That's sexist. Selective Service should take women too. And women should be allowed into combat.

I'm just going with the system that's there. You're welcome to fight the good fight re Selective Service and combat duty for women.

Just on a numbers basis, it's males dying a helluva lot faster than females from firearms. IMO, start there.

Kaiser Family Foundation: Number of Deaths Due to Firearms per 100,000 Population by Gender, 2008

United States:
18.2 deaths/per 100,000 males
2.7 deaths/per 100,000 females

Ohio:
17.8 deaths/per 100,000 males
2.1 deaths/per 100,000 females

Michigan:
19.9 deaths/per 100,000 males
2.1 deaths/per 100,000 females

Screw me for agreeing that firearms education at an appropriate age (18) might help things, rather than putting law 18,345 on the books controlling guns. God forbid.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing for more gun laws either.

(Yes, back to the original post, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a person to be licensed in their own state of residence. But I'm not arguing for that law or any others.)

Honestly, I can't imagine paying much attention through a mandated firearms class. Unless they were going to fine me or toss me in the clink if I didn't pass a test at the end, I'd sit there and daydream the whole time.

I'd imagine I wouldn't be the only one. Would that really be the best use of funding and time to force someone who will 99.9% likely never touch a gun to sit through a class? I don't think so.

So yeah, where's my tacnuke?

It's in your imagination next to your ten inch dick.

I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a person to be licensed in their own state of residence.

Well I do think it's unreasonable to subject an adult to any sort of licensing so as to exercise a constitutional right. Substitute the first amendment for the second and then tell me if you want restrictions. Holland will, but she and hers are insulated from violent society - besides, it'll never happen to us... right, Holland? Never here, in the good old US of A.

Restrict the freedom of speech to those who take training and pass a background check and then see what you come up with.

A better example would be the experience of Japanese American citizens, circa 1942.

You're right. I missed that one and I shouldn't have.

In fact firearms education would help the situation of accidental shootings, but it would be very marginal. The reason being that most shootings are deliberate. If you want to cut back on gun violence, cut back on the criminal behavior - that's what's driving the statistics up.

And, by the way, I don't remember just who it was that started carping about Europe and gun control, but violent crime in Europe is extremely high. The crime doesn't involve firearms and much of it isn't reported. Don't believe me? Ask someone in the know about the bovver boys.

That happened here in Good old Toledo to the Japanese American's in 1942. They talked about it on one of the "Toledo Stories" about Toledo and the surrounding are during the war.

Madjack, perhaps I should say that when licenses are commonly required (which they are at present), then I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a person to hold a license from their state of residence.

I do not know enough about the "shouldn't need licensed at all" argument to feel comfortable offering an opinion on that at this time.

"Substitute the first amendment for the second and then tell me if you want restrictions."
Um, Jack . . . There are many restrictions on the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st amendment and this is a pretty fundamental fact; taught in every high school civics class. So, yes, I'll take my 2nd A just like my 1st - with plenty of reasonable restrictions. Anyone who does not think that there should be reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms is being, well, unreasonable.

AC - there is no reason to maintain the selective service. Whether its for just men or women also, it is an antiquated and pointless exercise. There is no draft; and the all-volunteer force is never wanting for more recruits. There is a line at the door.

It's in your imagination next to your ten inch dick.

I wish it was only ten inches. Look what happened to me as I was trying to get on a flight:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/16/jonah-falcon-largest-penis-frisked-by-tsa_n_1675767.html

Ha!
Ha!Ha!
Ha!Ha!Ha!

Good one!

Here's to you, AC!

Yes, there are restrictions and about a third of these restrictions shouldn't exist. Free speech zones, for instance. Fighting words is another good example. If speech were licensed the same way the anti-freedom zealots want to restrict firearms, ToledoTalk would not exist - or if it did, I wouldn't be allowed to contribute.

Arizona has open carry. Amazing how friendly to each other people openly carrying sidearms can be.

What? McCain tell us that Phoenix was the kidnapping capital of the world.

Arizona’s governor told us that beheaded bodies in the desert were a common sight.

We're told regular that “illegal” immigrants are raping, murdering and robbing people every day there.

Arizona sounds like a real shithole.

Ohio also has open carry. Totally legal to openly carry a firearm in Ohio.

The Ohio Attorney General's 2011 manual, p17

" The open carry of firearms is a legal activity in Ohio"

http://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/files/Publications/Publications-for-Law-Enforcement/Concealed-Carry-Publications/Concealed-Carry-Laws-Booklet

For the info in linecrosser's picture, Chicago has twice the population as Phoenix, so having twice the "gun crime violence" (what does that even mean?) would be expected, wouldn't it?

No. What it points out is that in a place where I'm most likely to need a gun the local law denies me that Constitutional right.

Haboobs suck.
Heat sucks.
Being 45 miles from a store can suck.
Sunset from the porch most of the way of the Superstition Mountains is amazing. Illegals don't stumble through Apache Junction all that often. Coyotes do. Good and bad everywhere, but Arizona is not a real shithole.
The illegals are in a hurry to get to Chicago.

Rare TV Interview - Reuters - Washington
Justice Antonin Scalia was asked whether legislatures could ban the sale of semiautomatic weapons.

He said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissable. Some undoubtedly are"

Later in the interview he went on to say "So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed."

Full text:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/justice-antonin-scalia-kicking-off-book-tour-with-piers-morgan-interview_b138074

What he forgot to add, was that those are the restrictions already in place.

"Can be" does not equal "have been", nor does it limit it to those which have been already codified, but unfortunately unenforced.

Scalia's your boy, wulf. Gun control is possible under the Constitution.

If anyone thinks that this will stop anyone but law abiding citizens people are dumber than I thought. The criminals will still get what they want and do what they wanna do.

There a plenty of felons running around with firearms that aren't getting them from gun stores, gun shows, or law abiding citizens. Where you think they are getting them from and do you really think they care about any laws if they are already breaking them carrying firearms as felons?

Isn't it just like our government to dump guns on the streets of other countries to influence outcomes but try to take them away from law-abiding US citizens?

Gun control is not possible. All the laws that people can dream up will not put the Genie back in the bottle. Whether good or bad, firearms are huge part of our short history. To try to surgically remove them from our culture will result in irreparable harm to our nation, in my opinion.

"Isn't it just like our government to dump guns on the streets of other countries to influence outcomes but try to take them away from law-abiding US citizens?" - Best post of the tread.

Where do you think the black market gets the guns to sell back to the criminals? Wouldn't happen to be the "military aid" we flood the 3rd world with?

Wonder if Syria had strict gun control prior to the uprising.

BTW, gun sales are up--way up. I wonder why?

There is always a shooting, people buy more guns, then there is another shooting and people buy more guns, then theres another shooting and people buy more guns...repeat, repeat, repeat

You missed a step or two.

There's a shooting. The commercial media screams bloody murder and the anti-gun liberals add their howls to the cacophony. Mindful of re-election Our Elected Officials make noise about sensible gun control, which means different things to different people. Fearing that this time the anti-freedom moonbats will be successful, those civilians who don't own a firearm buy one or two. Other people buy ammunition.

Then it's repeat, repeat, repeat. Ironically, the number of guns and amount of ammunition in the hands of the average law abiding citizen increases in direct proportion to the frequency and volume of the Brady bunch.

You missed a step or two.

There's a shooting.
The commercial media screams bloody murder, since "if it bleeds, it leads" and a major shooting is ratings and that's what the commercial media is all about (PROFIT!)

The commercial media talk up all sorts of "WHYYYYYY? WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?" points, blaming everything from A to Z, including the phase of the moon, rock music, violent movies and video games, lack of belief in the Bible, availability of weapons, mental illness, terrorism, lack of regulation, lack of concealed carry, food coloring/fluoride/orbital mind control lasers, and God's judgement.

Mindful of re-election and the corporations (which include special interests/unions/non-profits as well as for-profits and private companies) who bought them their office, Our Elected Officials make noise about whatever position least offends their corporate masters and is most likely to get them re-elected. This is solely in their own self-interest, because they're concerned about POWER and PROFIT too.

Fearing ANY sort of "gun control", crazy LIBERAL interpreters of the Second Amendment (all the people who miss the part about "a well regulated militia" but focus on "keep and bear arms") immediately rush out and buy more guns, 100-round magazines, and as much ammo as they can get their hands on.

The NRA helps by scaring its members with more "booga booga Dems are coming for your guns, Obama is coming for your guns" fear, uncertainty and doubt.

Gun and ammo manufacturers put their prices up and start reaping record profits and holding diving contests into their moneybins, right after they pay their kickbacks to the appropriate officials. PROFIT!

A number of pants-pissing liberal gun-hating types who have never fired a gun and don't know the difference between semi-auto and "spray and pray" fully automatic start calling for completely idiotic bans and so on, which only drive the other "I must have my own personal arsenal in case the government tries to invade my property or the Commies invade and make Red Dawn come true" even more insane.

Both sides of nutjobs go back and forth, feeding off each side's obvious insanity, while the moderates pretty much conclude that a) the shooter is a fucking nutjob, regardless; b) he shouldn't have been able to get the guns, but there's no stopping this from happening because either (as in Aurora) they were bought legally, or they are so easily available under the radar and any attempts to regulate "gun show sales" or any other private transactions is just going to make the gun nuts flip their shit, and c) shit like this is going to happen unless you want to lock America down into an Orwellian state, either with the full gamut of TSA-like screening at EVERY private business that wants to spring for it, or by actually trying to take all the weapons away and making the gun nuts flip their shit.

Meanwhile, some well-intentioned yet careless fuck concludes he's no longer safe in his home, buys a gun, fails to secure it, and his kid finds it and kills his friend with it while playing "cops and robbers". Or it gets stolen and used in a crime. Or some other tragedy, which gets the gun control crowd all wound up again and gives the media yet another "it bleeds, it leads" story to start the cycle with again.

Americans are so pussy-whipped by FEAR! FEAR! FEAR! now CONSUME! CONSUME! CONSUME! it's not even funny. THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE AWAY OUR GUNS! QUICK BUY MORE GUNS! Don't like guns? QUICK BUY BODY ARMOR! BUY PEPPER SPRAY AND TASERS! Don't like any of those options? MAKE THE BUSINESSES INSTALL METAL DETECTORS AND TSA PORNO-SCANNERS! FEAR FEAR FEAR!

You are the expert. Would that be enough profanity to warrant the politics section, or are we still in the kindergarten playground that you described to me last night?

The problem with using "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" as a method to enact gun control is that most people use the modern interpretation of regulated. Lets take some writings of the founders on "A well regulated":

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777

Do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Your a word twister or flat uneducated on the meaning of the words of the 2nd 2nd Amendment if you juxtapose "well regulated" in a gun control argument.

Please AC tell me that the 1709 Oxford English Dictionary is a stupid Romney Gun Lovin' Teabagger right?

Nice little argument... that you completely stole.

Do you have any original thoughts or are you just going to plagiarize someone else's pages?

0/100 F-- for plagiarism, please report to the principal's office after class.

What not enough F' Bombs in it for you, I mean your misuse of "well regulated" is completely inaccurate. Maybe you should stop making things up.

DBW YOU didn't think that, someone else thought that for you. lol

When you plagiarize a couple pro-gun site instead of, you know, quoting and citing it as such, and then claim I'm misusing "well regulated" on the basis of your plagiarized and uncredited claims, you kinda fail at your argumentative skills, dude.

Nice little argument... that you completely stole.

Which doesn't make it any less valid.

It makes it easier to deflect and dismiss the arguement rather than reply to it, its a common tactic used by all.

Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Regulators... Let's ride!
- B. Kid

The vast majority of vocal, anti-freedom politicos understand the meaning and the intent of the Second Amendment correctly. They don't care.

Their goal is the complete disarming of the people of the United States. Others who feel a partial disarming - no fully automatic weapons, sawed off shotguns or (No! Heaven save us!!) hidden guns should be allowed anywhere in the U.S. except for police and the government - will unwittingly help them with this, then they will be disarmed by the government with very little fanfare.

The anti-freedom commies don't care about civil rights or the Constitution or the intent of the founding fathers. Both world wars are completely devoid of significance to them and their ilk. They truly believe that they know what is best for everyone.

For my part, I intend to resist when they come to my door.

Calm down Gollum, no one is going to take your precious...

Too bad you don't feel the same about the 2nd amendment as you do about the 1st, both are just as important in my opinion. I suppose its just a shortcoming of liberals to want to selectively choose what they want to believe, allow, follow or permit others to do.

He doesn't. Or rather, he does but since he hasn't had his speech restricted yet it doesn't apply to him. The people who want their lives controlled by someone or some thing else don't really believe in free speech, or the freedom to travel unimpeded by governmental restrictions, or really much of any kind of freedom. I've concluded that there's a large segment of the population that really doesn't want to make their own decisions.

I think AC argues for the sake of disagreement. SensorG on the other hand really and truly does believe all that crap that he spews out here.

I hate to break it to you, but while, yes, with the right licensing and tax stamps and all that, you can own all sorts of fun weapons, the government STILL has better toys than you and will always have bigger guns. I don't know what sort of door-to-door disarmament you think will happen, if the black Army/CIA helicopters will have troops rappelling off of them or what, but when your local police department has fucking ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS and the new shiny sonic- and microwave-based crowd dispersal/incapacitation weapons, and the military has even better toys, your big bad so-called "assault rifle" isn't going to stop the evil commie UN troops or whatever the fuck.

They don't have to come to the door. Ask the Wackos in Waco how well knocking on the door with a fucking tank works. What the fuck do you think you're going to do against that? Or if UN-cle Sam decides to do some biological warfare such that you have something that makes food poisoning look merely like a night of Taco Bell? Or, hell, they could even pop off a fucking neutron bomb and come take your gun from your cold dead hands.

Yeah, longbow and rifle were fantastic at knocking the feudal lord off his horse, and up until WWII you could pretty much hold out with a larger number of inferior weapons. This is the post-Cold War era, and your AR-15 isn't going to beat all the technological goodies the USA has. Nor are you and your two dozen buddies from down at the range going to do it, either.

You want to own enough firearms to arm every ninth-grader in TPS? Fine. Whatever. I support you so long as you're not being a dumbfuck with your weapons. You think owning that many is going to make a difference if they do decide to come for your guns? You're fucking delusional.

Guess those outgunned Syrians should just give up eh.

It isn't the number you own, it's what you're willing to do that counts. Just ask your average Syrian.

Yeah, so when Obama comes for your guns, you should totally put up a fight and rig your house for demolition and send your kids out wearing dynamite vests.

You have to give your Middle Eastern people credit here. Fighting for their beliefs is something they seriously respect. The same thing happened in WW2. Here, on the other hand, most people would cave in if the government shut their television sets off.