Your response indicates your character!Thanks for the value-addyou clearly lack the mental capacity to formulate a logical response. I was hoping you'd chime in for a good chuckle.
Guns...Times have changed...
- Thread starter Henro
- Start date
Bmyers
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
Grand L3560 with LA805 loader, EA 55" Wicked Grapple, SBX72 BB, LP 1272 mower
"If your healthcare providers report all instances, good for them, but I doubt your statement is based on fact."You should probably get clarification, mandated reporters report when/if there is a plan in place to act on homicidal or suicidal ideation and not for every instance.
Here's an excerpt from IL DHS: "notify the Department of Human Services (DHS) within 24 hours of determining a person is: "Clear and Present Danger" or "Intellectually Disabled", and notify the Department of Human Servies (DHS) within 7 days of determining a person is "Developmentally Disabled"; as defined in the Firearm Owner's Identification Card (FOID) Act Section 1.1." not all homicidal or suicidal ideation is identified as "clear and present danger." If your healthcare providers report all instances, good for them, but I doubt your statement is based on fact.
"As far as you being targeted, maybe you need to consider your life choices if you feel that people are out targeting you. Most likely, you aren't on anybody's radar."
ah yes, white privilege in it's purest form. My life choices have resulted in a comfortable life for my family and I - doesn't mean I'm protected from some openly or closeted racist MAGA/Qanon//Nazi asshole or other domestic terror organization.
So according to you, groups watchlisted by FBI and other organizations should bear arms because you "don't want to infringe on their rights"?
Regarding your comment about me not mentioning liberal groups - please re-read my comment. I threw Antifa in there as well - or are they only liberal when it fits your agenda?
Again, according to you, limiting firearm access to groups that have means and motive to take lives with firearms is not ok? Limiting access to those deemed by a professional to be mentally unfit to own a firearm is not ok? Please educate me on this logic and how it would allow Nazi's to take over. The logic here is ridiculous.
I know the police is not obligated to protect me or anyone else, they are a revenue generating organization that assesses crime after the fact and helps deter crime in some instances - which is why your statement of putting police in schools is yet another Fox News bandaid you place on the problem.
Another F for comprehension, I never said no other country has gun violence issues. I said like ours does. Even in the countries you mentioned (some of which ours had a major hand in funneling guns into and destabilizing), do not hold a candle to us in terms of domestic terror using firearms - especially in schools and places of worship.
I'm curious if you'll share the same "guns for all" sentiment if more Black Panthers rallies or BLM rallies included guns and open carry, or will you all and the NRA cry like you did in the past because a non-white nationalist group was exercising their rights?
My statement is based on fact.
"white privilege in it's purest form."
I will have to admit, I'm confused by this statement. So you have worked hard and succeeded. Many on this forum has done the same. Some have worked hard and not succeeded. What does that have to do with the simple fact that the vast majority of the people in the United States are not on some secret list to be target and killed.
You are correct in the statement that I'm very concerned and against the government taking ANYONE's rights away. Limitations were put on our government and we were setup as a nation as a REPULIC to protect the rights of the majority AND the minority.
You are confusing RIGHTS with committing crimes. You have a RIGHT to believe that your race, your religion, your whatever, is the right answer. You do NOT have a right to commit a crime in the name of your beliefs. I do not support or believe in the Nazism cause, but they have a right to belief. I do not believe in the KKK, but the do have a right to the belief. Groups do NOT have a right to commit crimes to further their belief, such as burning crosses in people's yards. Yet, if they want to peacefully protest on public property they have that right just as BLM, ANTIFA, or any other group.
You willingness to toss aside person's right to provide yourself with a false sense of security is concerning. This nation is built on defending the RIGHT of the individual and limiting the power of the government.
Again, I will refer you back to history, groups become in power, Germany, China, etc. and in the name of making the nation safer the governments trampled on the rights of the minority groups. This is all great when you are in the majority, but when you are the minority, you quickly find out how important our Constitution and laws are that protect the individual.
Well, I'm not sure where I said that Fox News was my source for putting police in schools. If you read, I used the logical comparison of what do we do to protect our assets? We hire armed people to protect it, money, buildings, other people. If we use hired people to protect other items that we consider of value, why wouldn't we want to put armed people (i.e police) in the schools to protect our most valuable asset? It isn't a band aid, but a very real technique that is used all over the world to protect valuable assets.
I have no problem with my reading comprehension, you have a problem with facts. You like to ignore any that don't fit your agenda. You ignore all the other attacks that occur in the world and then try to state that the US is the worst.
Here is one of many that you could easily fine: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/world/africa/nigeria-school-attack.html
Understand just because you repeat a lie, doesn't mean it is the truth. You paint the whole US like it is a giant shooting zone, which in reality when you take out the 5 major metropolitan areas, all controlled by Democrats, you will find that the US is one of the safest nations regarding guns even with all the guns we have available.
As far as churches, I follow that topic very closely. Your conveniently forget about all the Christian churches that have been attacked in Africa and the Middle East. India has burnt down more than 300 churches. I can tell you for a FACT churches in the US are safer than churches in other areas.
Why are Christians being targeted in India? – DW – 12/30/2021
A surge in attacks on Christians in India is part of a much broader malaise, experts say. "The objective is clear: to isolate and demonize minorities so that a Hindu state is established," a political scientist told DW.
www.dw.com
Again, stop believing all the media lies and start researching. The information is out there, but you continue to state lies and try to present them as truths.
Finally, I'm assuming you haven't read or comprehended any of my previous post based on your last paragraph. The answer is YES, I support the rights of the groups BLM, Black Panthers, KKK, pick a group to lawfully assemble and if open carry is legal, absolutely for them to legally carry. When they are LEGALLY meeting LEGALLY carrying, I don't have any issues, they are being LAW ABIDING citizens exercising their RIGHTS.
What I don't support from any group is burning buildings, property destruction, attacking individuals, or any other breaking of the law and I don't care what group you are part of.
Just because I support their RIGHTS, doesn't mean that I support their cause.
I can tell by your post that you and I are on opposite spectrums, but that is okay. I will support your RIGHT to opinion and to your beliefs, but I will not allow you to trample my RIGHTS.
Last edited:
I got a new single shot 12 gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was 12 (1970). I told the principal about it at school, and he asked a (then) 7th grader to bring it so he could have a look. "And bring a couple shells, we'll go see what the pattern is like behind the school after 5th period." I was the new kid in the school that had just moved there the previous summer, so he was making an effort to get to know me, simply because that's what school staff did in those days. Not only was gun ownership and stewardship encouraged, EVERY adult involved in a young boy's life in that part of the world taught them respect, responsibility, and culpability. I won the mathematics award in the 9th grade (and every year subsequent in my school) and for my graduation present, the principal gave me a pocket knife. He took an interest in me because of my dedication to education and responsibility. I carried that knife MANY years, and still carry a 100th anniversary Buck to this day. I've been many places where a pocket knife is considered a concealed weapon, including a police station in South Australia (for background forensics while my fiancé was applying for immigration.)
The guns, like my pocket knife, were always considered a tool, NEVER a weapon to threaten another human with. On the other hand, I was also taught to use either as necessary to protect myself, but ONLY in self-defense and as a last measure.
Yes, growing up involved a smack on the ear once in a while, and we had bullies then just like there are now, but NO ONE ever thought about bringing a weapon to school to harm the bullies or anyone else. If we had enough friends, we changed the pecking order by educating the bully. Or, when we did go 'psycho' on the bus because we simply had enough, there were usually some black eyes, bruised knuckles, and occasionally some stitches involved, which also normally led to corporal punishment at school and again at home. I can't say I never deserved any discipline I got, but perhaps not the severity at times. Despite a sometimes brutal experience with my step-dad, I never got unstable enough to do more than learn from what I'd done, and try to NEVER repeat it.
As for hunting, One shot, One kill is what I was taught. God help me if I shot 8 times and came home with less than 8 squirrels, especially since I normally used a 20 gauge single shot for squirrel, and actually killed my first buck with it (which is when it was decided I should get a 12 gauge for Xmas).
Watching my first deer kill die was probably one of the most educational experiences in my life. To see a large living creature's life ebb was a game changer. I fully understood the power of a firearm that day. It was not easy to watch at 12 years old.
My step dad used a .22 LR Winchester pump, .22 Magnum if hunting fox squirrel. He always shot EVERY squirrel through the eye. Headshot EVERY time. He could shoot flying bumblebees and light matchsticks with it. If he shot, the target was hit, otherwise, don't shoot. I learned a lot about shooting from him, and wish I had 10% of his talent and skill with a firearm.
I still went hunting and fishing until I finished high school and left home, because it was how we put meat on the table. Beef from a grocery store was reserved for Sunday dinner with the preacher, assuming he didn't ask for a venison roast my mother cooked. I only stopped hunting because my life got very busy after I became an engineer and was raising a family. I don't own a 'spray gun' simply because I don't see the need for one, but far be it from me to tell someone else they don't. That's not my place. <-- THAT is the problem these days. There are too many people trying to tell others what they need and what they don't. I don't remember ANYONE trying to tell me what was 'enough' firearm. Ammunition was cheap, (you could buy a box of fifty .22 cartridges then for the price of ONE now) but I was still brought up to conserve it, and avoid waste. It was about being responsible, yet carried a whole other lesson that I had ONE chance to point a weapon and be deadly. It was about understanding the intent and result. I have to agree, that videogames and lack of disciplinary authority have been the game changers for the three generations behind me. My son was forever petrified of weapons. He now has a concealed carry permit because of where he lives. My grandson still won't get near noisy guns. He just presented me with a great grandson that I hope I live long enough to teach to hunt and fish.
The guns, like my pocket knife, were always considered a tool, NEVER a weapon to threaten another human with. On the other hand, I was also taught to use either as necessary to protect myself, but ONLY in self-defense and as a last measure.
Yes, growing up involved a smack on the ear once in a while, and we had bullies then just like there are now, but NO ONE ever thought about bringing a weapon to school to harm the bullies or anyone else. If we had enough friends, we changed the pecking order by educating the bully. Or, when we did go 'psycho' on the bus because we simply had enough, there were usually some black eyes, bruised knuckles, and occasionally some stitches involved, which also normally led to corporal punishment at school and again at home. I can't say I never deserved any discipline I got, but perhaps not the severity at times. Despite a sometimes brutal experience with my step-dad, I never got unstable enough to do more than learn from what I'd done, and try to NEVER repeat it.
As for hunting, One shot, One kill is what I was taught. God help me if I shot 8 times and came home with less than 8 squirrels, especially since I normally used a 20 gauge single shot for squirrel, and actually killed my first buck with it (which is when it was decided I should get a 12 gauge for Xmas).
Watching my first deer kill die was probably one of the most educational experiences in my life. To see a large living creature's life ebb was a game changer. I fully understood the power of a firearm that day. It was not easy to watch at 12 years old.
My step dad used a .22 LR Winchester pump, .22 Magnum if hunting fox squirrel. He always shot EVERY squirrel through the eye. Headshot EVERY time. He could shoot flying bumblebees and light matchsticks with it. If he shot, the target was hit, otherwise, don't shoot. I learned a lot about shooting from him, and wish I had 10% of his talent and skill with a firearm.
I still went hunting and fishing until I finished high school and left home, because it was how we put meat on the table. Beef from a grocery store was reserved for Sunday dinner with the preacher, assuming he didn't ask for a venison roast my mother cooked. I only stopped hunting because my life got very busy after I became an engineer and was raising a family. I don't own a 'spray gun' simply because I don't see the need for one, but far be it from me to tell someone else they don't. That's not my place. <-- THAT is the problem these days. There are too many people trying to tell others what they need and what they don't. I don't remember ANYONE trying to tell me what was 'enough' firearm. Ammunition was cheap, (you could buy a box of fifty .22 cartridges then for the price of ONE now) but I was still brought up to conserve it, and avoid waste. It was about being responsible, yet carried a whole other lesson that I had ONE chance to point a weapon and be deadly. It was about understanding the intent and result. I have to agree, that videogames and lack of disciplinary authority have been the game changers for the three generations behind me. My son was forever petrified of weapons. He now has a concealed carry permit because of where he lives. My grandson still won't get near noisy guns. He just presented me with a great grandson that I hope I live long enough to teach to hunt and fish.
One thing that I wonder about is how do we keep guns out of the hands of people with mental issues? I keep thinking that anyone that could/might/would, for example, go into a elementary school classroom and kill, or attempt to kill, all the little kids and their teacher, must have some kind of mental or psychological issue.
It’s hard for me to think anybody, no matter what their position is on gun ownership, could object to preventing people with mental illness from owning guns.
The real question is how do you keep weapons out of the hands of people who might actually have mental issues which are not apparent ?
It’s a damn difficult question. But I would like to think that it is something that we could all agree on.
I realize the counter argument would be that in the end we would have to prove that we are not mentally incompetent. But is this a realistic argument?
It’s hard for me to think anybody, no matter what their position is on gun ownership, could object to preventing people with mental illness from owning guns.
The real question is how do you keep weapons out of the hands of people who might actually have mental issues which are not apparent ?
It’s a damn difficult question. But I would like to think that it is something that we could all agree on.
I realize the counter argument would be that in the end we would have to prove that we are not mentally incompetent. But is this a realistic argument?
Too many people in the US were getting drunk, so prohibition came about. A total failure, it was repealed after 13 years and a tax was put on liquor. Many years later, Obama put a 'sin tax' on liquor. I was never aware that sin could be taxed???
Pot was against the law. Now it is legal almost everywhere, because the government can make money on it. So, as long as there is money to be made, it can be legal.
It's not about what is good or bad, it's about making money and control of the populace. The more power the government can seize, the less of a Republic we become. Ask Nazi Germany how it works.
Pot was against the law. Now it is legal almost everywhere, because the government can make money on it. So, as long as there is money to be made, it can be legal.
It's not about what is good or bad, it's about making money and control of the populace. The more power the government can seize, the less of a Republic we become. Ask Nazi Germany how it works.
Arm teachers.
“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”
Even in Australia, with its very strict gun laws, the Feds allow Jewish schools to have armed guards on the premises. Weird huh!?!
Nazis did not come up with gun grabbing all on their own in the 1900s. They may have gotten some of their dispicable ideas from reading US newspapers. I am sure some of the assholes in Us that started that shit learned from some other assholes in another country….it’s not new. Germany did not come up with Gun grabbing’ started in 1770’s here locally and then had a resurgance in popularity in 1800’s with the native Americans. There is an unfortunate common thread and inconvenient common truth in those that agree or like to try reason the benefits of such power or ‘reasonable and common sense’….all started with the ‘best of intentions’….
I don't agree with the "arm teachers" answer to the problem. Teachers are already overworked and underpaid and parents expect them to raise their kids while at school. Now you ask them to act as armed police too? If my wife was told she had to carry while teaching, she would not teach anymore, and quite honestly it's the kids that would suffer for it. I'd have no problem with a teacher carrying if 1. they wanted to , and 2. they were specifically trained to (and I don't mean a simple CCW permit class, I mean real hands on active shooter training). I also think if they chose to carry, they should also get paid to do so.
A more practical solution would be to pay folks that are already highly trained to protect our schools. This is done in many places but not everywhere. I don't know what the best answer is, but "arm teachers" is not it in my opinion.
mcmxi
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
***Current*** M6060HDC, MX6000HSTC & GL7000 ***Sold*** MX6000HST & BX25DLB
Unfortunately many won't read through this post in its entirety which is a pity since it's excellent and insightful on so many levels.
The truth is that we're faced with a big problem with no easy solution. The problem I'm referring to isn't firearms but as @Bmyers says, it's society and its rapid unraveling, which has been going on in this country for decades. What's changed over the last 10 years or so is the rate at which it's unraveling.
Full disclosure: I'm a design engineer in the firearms industry and have been since 2011. I'm also an FFL 07/02 SOT holder which means that I can legally manufacture and sell Title II firearms.
mcmxi
Well-known member
Lifetime Member
Equipment
***Current*** M6060HDC, MX6000HSTC & GL7000 ***Sold*** MX6000HST & BX25DLB
I understand one side of the argument but I agree that there's a better short or long-term solution. As far as I'm aware, the vast majority of bank tellers aren't armed because protecting bank assets isn't the responsibility of bank tellers.
"If your healthcare providers report all instances, good for them, but I doubt your statement is based on fact."
My statement is based on fact.
"white privilege in it's purest form."
I will have to admit, I'm confused by this statement. So you have worked hard and succeeded. Many on this forum has done the same. Some have worked hard and not succeeded. What does that have to do with the simple fact that the vast majority of the people in the United States are not on some secret list to be target and killed.
You are correct in the statement that I'm very concerned and against the government taking ANYONE's rights away. Limitations were put on our government and we were setup as a nation as a REPULIC to protect the rights of the majority AND the minority.
You are confusing RIGHTS with committing crimes. You have a RIGHT to believe that your race, your religion, your whatever, is the right answer. You do NOT have a right to commit a crime in the name of your beliefs. I do not support or believe in the Nazism cause, but they have a right to belief. I do not believe in the KKK, but the do have a right to the belief. Groups do NOT have a right to commit crimes to further their belief, such as burning crosses in people's yards. Yet, if they want to peacefully protest on public property they have that right just as BLM, ANTIFA, or any other group.
You willingness to toss aside person's right to provide yourself with a false sense of security is concerning. This nation is built on defending the RIGHT of the individual and limiting the power of the government.
Again, I will refer you back to history, groups become in power, Germany, China, etc. and in the name of making the nation safer the governments trampled on the rights of the minority groups. This is all great when you are in the majority, but when you are the minority, you quickly find out how important our Constitution and laws are that protect the individual.
Well, I'm not sure where I said that Fox News was my source for putting police in schools. If you read, I used the logical comparison of what do we do to protect our assets? We hire armed people to protect it, money, buildings, other people. If we use hired people to protect other items that we consider of value, why wouldn't we want to put armed people (i.e police) in the schools to protect our most valuable asset? It isn't a band aid, but a very real technique that is used all over the world to protect valuable assets.
I have no problem with my reading comprehension, you have a problem with facts. You like to ignore any that don't fit your agenda. You ignore all the other attacks that occur in the world and then try to state that the US is the worst.
Here is one of many that you could easily fine: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/17/world/africa/nigeria-school-attack.html
Understand just because you repeat a lie, doesn't mean it is the truth. You paint the whole US like it is a giant shooting zone, which in reality when you take out the 5 major metropolitan areas, all controlled by Democrats, you will find that the US is one of the safest nations regarding guns even with all the guns we have available.
As far as churches, I follow that topic very closely. Your conveniently forget about all the Christian churches that have been attacked in Africa and the Middle East. India has burnt down more than 300 churches. I can tell you for a FACT churches in the US are safer than churches in other areas.
Why are Christians being targeted in India? – DW – 12/30/2021
A surge in attacks on Christians in India is part of a much broader malaise, experts say. "The objective is clear: to isolate and demonize minorities so that a Hindu state is established," a political scientist told DW.
Again, stop believing all the media lies and start researching. The information is out there, but you continue to state lies and try to present them as truths.
Finally, I'm assuming you haven't read or comprehended any of my previous post based on your last paragraph. The answer is YES, I support the rights of the groups BLM, Black Panthers, KKK, pick a group to lawfully assemble and if open carry is legal, absolutely for them to legally carry. When they are LEGALLY meeting LEGALLY carrying, I don't have any issues, they are being LAW ABIDING citizens exercising their RIGHTS.
What I don't support from any group is burning buildings, property destruction, attacking individuals, or any other breaking of the law and I don't care what group you are part of.
Just because I support their RIGHTS, doesn't mean that I support their cause.
I can tell by your post that you and I are on opposite spectrums, but that is okay. I will support your RIGHT to opinion and to your beliefs, but I will not allow you to trample my RIGHTS.
Re: White Privilege: "As far as you being targeted, maybe you need to consider your life choices if you feel that people are out targeting you. Most likely, you aren't on anybody's radar."
You don't know how anyone is targeted, although it's all around you in the news, in neighborhoods, in racial and ethnic bias around friends and family. My response was in response to your life choices statement and your clear lack of understanding for minority oppression and targeting by the aforementioned groups. Prime example would be the recent terrorist attack of a white nationalist targeting only African Americans in a predominantly African American neighborhood and apologizing to the Caucasian cashier for pointing a gun at him. I don't think any consideration of personal choices would impact a domestic terror group's intent to target minorities. The only consideration and personal choice I've made, as a civilian who is of sane mind and unaffiliated with any group, is to protect myself and my family by having the means to do so. Again, a priveledge.
Regarding your healthcare statement, please show the facts. I specifically found the reporting requirements for qualified professionals on the ILDHS website and not by chatting with 4 people in the field.
Re: Churches - another example of having the blinders on. What about mosques or other sites of worship? In America, while churches may be safe, mosques are targeted. One religious group's safety and a few school incidents in other countries are not an indicator that our country (one who is viewed as being more "humanitarian" than others) has a problem with mass killings using firearms.
I also don't support groups looting, burning buildings, and breaking the law. There is a fine line between peaceful protest and terrorism. Your comment indicates a similar understanding.
I have done my research:
The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons | HISTORY
Back in the 1960s, even the NRA supported gun control to disarm the group.
www.history.com
The NRA as well as pro 2A Americans didn't propose gun control until it was for a targeted demographic. My argument is, and while you say you don't have a problem with it, others will as history has shown. My opinion is that all groups that have the potential for committing violent acts and are being watched by law enforcement should not be able to purchase firearms.
I do plenty of research, and provide first hand-experience, just because my account differs from yours, it doesn't mean that it is sourced from a "media lie". Truth be told, any form of media holds some sort of lie or bias including the sources both of us have researched.
Root cause analysis - if you have a machine that is flinging parts at people walking by, would you shield the pedestrians and allow the machine to continue flinging parts? No. If you have unstable people who have easy access to firearms targeting people in public settings, will you place a cop there or would it be simpler to limit access to the firearms for unstable individuals and/or do both? I think you know the answer.
This is where our opinions are totally different. While I am not opposed to the right to bear arms, I am opposed to unstable individuals having easy access to firearms. I, personally, cannot infringe upon your rights and my proposal shouldn't either since you aren't a part of an FBI watchlist organization or mentally unstable...right? So not sure of the point you're trying to make. Do you support ISIS sympathisers in America owning guns? If your answer is no, why would you support Nazis or any other hate/terrorist group owning them?
As far as adding more police to schools, another point. When does this end? Do you want police literally everywhere you go? Do we want a country comprised of police anywhere and everywhere watching our every move? There are good police officers and there are bad ones - I have had experiences with both, but I will say, you will never forget your experiences with a bad cop. Will they help? Maybe? Is there corruption in existing police forces? Yes. Should you be comfortable with such a huge police presence without any reform of the existing police construct? That's up to you, but I wouldn't. That's a slippery slope.
Last edited:
Yes, this has been a great thread. I never understood the 10 day waiting period (cool off), if you already own a gun. I own a few, built my AR-15, and fully customized a 10-22. Let's keep this thread going.
It’s all BS…if you step back and look through a different lens it’s part of the scare tactics, demonization and general protection racket of organized crime and those we ‘elect’.
How can an unemployed 18 year old loner buy two expensive rifles that cost about 5000 dollars plus expensive body armor and drive a 70 thousand dollar Ford pickup truck? Then enter a school through an UNLOCKED. Back door? Nope something isn’t right here
Agreed 100%, unless they are compensated to the extent or better than private security contractors, were willing, and had hundreds of hours of hands-on firearm training similar to that of the military, I'm not for it. You would end up trusting the lives of children around "average Joe" with a gun and poor aim to shoot an aggressor...what if a child was hurt as a result? What if the teacher was disarmed due to lack of training? What if, what if, what if.mm
I'm ok with having a psych eval done as a prerequisite to purchasing a firearm, not sure why anyone else would object unless of course 1. They have psychiatric issues that they know would prevent them from owning a firearm or 2. It's a "hassle".
It's pretty sad that people have to jump through hoops and multiple psych evaluations and clinical assessments to be screened to adopt a child and give them a good life but people are offended if one is proposed to be able to purchase a tool that has the potential to kill many people quickly.
Last edited:
Here come the conspiracy theories denouncing the existence of a tragedy. Have some shame, there are many parents and family members suffering a tragic loss and you're questioning it's legitimacy... What a joke.
I'm late to the party. Being in Canada i am extremely envious of your constutuion, we have one; however its only a list of privileges. You're stating your 2nd amendment is dated, does that mean you should be writing your post on paper with a quill pen? does your freedom of speech stop because of the internet? does your right to keep an bear arms stop because the musket is outdated?
When bad things happen we are forced to call a good guy with a gun and a badge and wait for them to show up. Why not just a good guy with a gun?
My country trusted me to be responsible for a considerable sum of ammo, in 5.56 and 9mm, a rifle with full auto capability. 30rnd rifle and 15rd pistol mags, and grenades... all of this in a different country; however in my own country my semi-auto AR is prohibited and when it wasn't i was only "allowed" 5rd mags it was only allowed to be used on a range. I can be trusted to defend myself and my brothers and sisters in arms while deployed; however I am not trusted to defend myself and my family in my own country. Fight to keep your 2nd because if it every disappears; you wont get it back.