What is an “arsenal”?

Apparently, Tommy Mannard thinks it’s 600 gunsUncle talks for a bit about it, and rightly points out that there is not really a fundamental difference between regulating 600 guns and 6 guns.

The editorial is pretty much completely riddled with hysterics the whole way, with cries about neighborhood safety and “why would you need 600 guns”, etc.  Despite the fact that the owner of said guns was licensed and a collector, apparently “600” is too many.

So Tom, my question for you is “how many”?  How many guns should a collector be allowed to have?  100?  50?  Why should your arbitrary definition be accepted by anyone?

This is why I am opposed to “arsenal” laws.  It imposes an arbitrary restriction based on no real information.  I have over a dozen guns, and a couple thousand rounds of ammo.  That’s not even counting muzzleloading components like loose powder and shot.  Tommy Mannard says that 600 guns is too many, and he couches in “for the children/neighborhood/collective”; but I bet he would think that my 15 or so guns is an arsenal as well.


  1. Seems to me, it really can’t be an arsenal unless used for outfitting others besides oneself and immediate family in an organized sense. For example, if you have 258 guns, but no one else gets to use them unless they go to the range with you, not an arsenal. If you’re a cop, have 6 guns, and issue them to friends who are fellow cops for training or some other organized activity, then you have an arsenal. Does this make sense to anyone else?

    Also, arsenal laws based on an arbitrary number of guns or ammo make little sense to me anyway. Just trying to get a handle on how arsenal should be defined.

  2. Why should it matter how many you have? A person can’t shoot more than one or two simultaneously, so how are 100 guns more dangerous than one or two? Just another excuse to chip away at gun ownership.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: