Dear Friends,
I am going to submit a dissenting opinion here.
In my collection, I am trying to cover all the bases for as little money as possible. For instance, I don't have a pistol for home defense and a separate one for carry. They are one in the same.
And I don't have .243, 30-30, .303, .308, .270, and .30-06 deer rifles. I just have one, a .308.
And I don't have lots of shotguns, just one basic one.
I CAN see having several, or even lots of rifles suitable for militia duty. These might be needed in large numbers some day.
And with ammo, I think 1000 each is a base, and much more would be appropriate. I remember reading that the KLA in Kosovo had plenty of AKs and SKSs, but had little ammo. There are plenty of war stories of units that fought well against the odds until their ammo ran out.
But having lots and lots of handguns, I think that is extreme. You have to balance it against other things. For instance, your wife's respect for you. If she can accept say 10 handguns, but thinks you're crazy with 30, I think you should sell 20 and go out to eat and let her invest the money how she thinks.
If, however, you are earning 100,000/year, have the house and both cars paid off and college money in the bank, then buy however many hundred you want of everything.
For me, though, one or two handguns for each adult, one or two .22s, one or two deer rifles, one or two shotguns, and about ten militia-suitable rifles would be the limit.
As for the judge butting in, the problem is his involvement in the process in the first place. Let's get that whole thing repealed. (More easily said than done, I know.)
JP
------------------
Nehemiah 4:18 " ... and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked."