Question for gun lovers

[Mr. Reactionary]

No. Although if I showed it to you, you would probably say yes, since its a super scary evil assault boomstick whose only purpose is teh killz! I have placed stickers on the stock to make it look less threatening.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Wow ^ very creepy.  You don't need three weapons to protect yourself!  This is why only the police should have guns.

Lol. Why do the police need so many weapons then? They usually carry at least 3 weapons as well. If a private person is trained as well as a cop, I see no real reason why they shouldn't be allowed to be crazy over-protective as long as they aren't hurting anyone. Like people who buy volcano insurance, or who stockpile rice and bottled water in case of doomsday or won't  ride on airplanes out of crash fears. Yeah, we may think its unnecessary or silly, but I don't see how this is evidence for disarmament or something to fret about. I mean, does anyone really NEED life insurance or a backup server? Seems like a point and laugh then move on moment. And you'll probably have the last laugh except in the 1 in a Billion chance where he may need all of those weapons.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Maybe I should host a range day invitation to all atlas members for gun safety and target shooting.  Would actually be a good thing to help educate people about guns.   

Personal note...  My best friend and his partner were anti gun but went to a range with me and really enjoyed it.  Actually changed their opinion on gun ownership. 

In any case, carrying three weapons with you wherever you go is absurd and terrifying. That shouldn't be a "basic right" in the Bill of Rights

The majority opinion in Heller acknowledged that limitations can placed on carrying in certain locations, much like how you can't wander into the Oval Office with a protest sign.