Your Network and Source for National Gun News

This Is Why You Need More Than One Gun

You hear all of the gun control nonsense on a daily basis. Today, we’re going to focus on a specific component of their argument: the idea that no one has a need for multiple weapons. We’ll look at just how dangerous that idea is, and then we’ll show you a real story that puts the lies to bed.

We all see through the ploy. It’s thinly veiled. The liberals really want all of us to have no guns. They think that limiting the number of guns any of us can own is a good step down that path. As hard as it is to admit, their logic is sound on this one. If you can get any hard number limit through Congress, then it’s only a matter of effort to make that number smaller and smaller over time. That’s why they use the catch phrase of “how many guns does one person need?”

To be fair, this is more than just a single step in the road. It’s also a psychological attack. Emphasizing the threat a person can pose when they stockpile weapons shifts the fear from the killer to the tools. A lone gunman is scary, but, somehow, a redneck with a cellar full of guns is scarier. That’s what they really want. The middle-of-the-road voters who don’t care much about guns one way or the other can be swayed by the fear-inducing thought of rogue Americans with too many guns.

You already know why this is ridiculous. Whether you have 5 guns or 500, you only have 2 hands. At most, you can operate two firearms at one time, but anyone with even basic training understands that doing so would dramatically reduce your effectiveness. Weapons stockpiles just don’t matter.

Along those same lines, people who have handled firearms also understand that reloading is often faster and more efficient than changing weapons. You could potentially get into an argument about overheating barrels, but even in those cases you can switch barrels without changing firearms. The simple truth is that caching weapons doesn’t make any human being more dangerous. At all.

On the other hand, there are good reasons to have a varied arsenal. The shotgun might be the ultimate weapon for home invasion, but it’s not practical for concealed carry. The same can be said about hunting rifles and every manner of firearm. You don’t really need to have this explained to you, but it’s important to remind people (in the face of liberal hysteria) that you don’t wear the same pair of shoes for every occasions. Sandals might be great at the beach, but they aren’t much good for a jungle hike.

But Sometimes…Things can be strange and interesting. If you’ve taken any gun safety, you understand the concept of a backup weapon. That’s all good and well, but we have a story for you today that defies conventional wisdom. Just a couple of weeks ago, a retired police officer took down a crazed gunman in the woods of Colorado.

Our hero was on a camping trip with his wife when he heard gunfire. As far as he could tell, the firing was random. Worrying for his safety, the retired officer grabbed his rifle and confronted the shooter. A firefight broke out, and when the officer was out of ammo, he was in a peculiar situation. He had no traditional backup and no accessible reload. So, he did the next best thing and grabbed a second rifle to stay in the fight. When all was said and done, the gunman was subdued and no innocents were harmed.

That said, the gunman is facing six counts of attempted murder. He may not have killed anyone, but he was absolutely putting lives in jeopardy. There is no question that the retired officer acted heroically in the face of mortal danger, and putting the indiscriminate shooting to an end saved lives.

To put this in more appropriate terms, this man was able to save people specifically because he had more than one gun. It’s an abnormal scenario, but it reinforces the same thing we have to say every day. Good guys with guns save lives. Once you acknowledge that, then it only seems reasonable that you wouldn’t want a cap on gun ownership.

There’s a really easy analogue to all of this that can quickly break the liberal spell. If you trust the police then you want them to have a stockpile of weapons in order to do their jobs. If, however, you don’t trust the police, then wouldn’t you want the citizenry to be able to match their firepower? Or, if you don’t like Trump, do you want him to have absolute authority over every weapon in our country? It’s simple logic, and as such, it is the Achilles heel of the liberal argument.

~ National Gun Network

13 Comments
  1. JAMES N MCKINNEY says

    What about legitimate hobbyist firearm collectors ???

    1. trollhunter says

      You beat me to my point, sir. I own an ffl07/sot02 business, but that has nothing to do with my personal collection. Excellent and valid point sir.

    2. longshorts says

      They do not care about the historical value of your firearms – they (the liberals) want them GONE so that they can rule over you with no possibility of resistance against them. Also, the gun your family passed down through the generations would be torched apart, then “recycled into plowshares” by Communist China. You think those container ships go back empty? They carry scrap iron, steel and other metals that we practically give to them. Your great grandpa’s rifle, scrapped so it can be returned as crappy Chinese inferior goods. Think about it – real hard. I think it is time to make a home built man portable railgun – untraceable and unstoppable.

  2. Joe says

    It seems that no officials in Canada have any brains, just witless liberal gun grabbing tendencies. Until a criminal targets them and then they want instant police protection with a ton of weapons! What fools!

    1. Alan says

      Winder no circumstances is such legislation remotely acceptable, nor will it ever be.

      1. Alan says

        Oops, a typo. Wonder should read Under

      2. longshorts says

        If gun owners remain apathetic at the polls, your guns will be gone. Best get out and vote – no matter what inconvenience you face. Voter apathy got us a 10 year black gun ban because conservative gun owners stayed home during the Clinton Administration, voter apathy will lose us our rights under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Talk to the folks you meet at the gun range – and make sure that they vote in November, and make sure they know what will happen if they don’t.

    2. longshorts says

      Canada’s last gun grab ended in failure because everyone ignored the laws enacted by liberals. Canada could not afford to enforce the new gun laws. If the United States tried to do the same, it couldn’t afford the hundreds of billions of dollars to try to enforce the law of the gun grabbers. Multitudes of Americans would ignore the new gun laws anyway – any smart Congressman would not enact a law everybody would plainly ignore (sorta as useful as Prohibition).

  3. CaptTurbo says

    The deep state is not just limited to America. The globalists want the public to be a mass of unarmed sheep.

  4. Buzz Waldron says

    My city says I can only have 3 vehicles… I want a sports car, a big family/old ladies/people hauler car, a ‘pony car’, a pickup truck, and a motorcycle… all of which I already have…

  5. Dawgiron says

    Hey liberal person? How many pairs of shoes do you need? You can only walk in one pair at a time. When that pair wears out then you can legally purchase another. After you submit the old ones to the Shoe Sheriff for permission to buy another pair and have your shoe permit updated and approved by the National Registry . Now, does that sound stupid? Well, if the shoe fits…………

  6. Kenneth Boyd says

    That’s alright , let them try and limit the number of guns a person has . I’d rather shoot them with my bow and arrow . It hurts worse ( they can feel the arrow ) ! One of my eight bows will do the trick !

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.