Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie..
sorry, but I'm going to have to file this response and your reading comprehension under "epic fail".
the injustice, your word, is in 2 shotguns and 1 rifle being called an "arsenal".
the post is simply a reference to 2 shotguns and 1 rifle being called an "arsenal", as you can plainly see by the last line of my initial post.
My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.
The title of this thread is "
Example of what law abiding, recreational gun owners are up against..". The article you linked to is about a
scumbag murderer who shot up a church. I fail to see said "example". It seems to be an example of what scumbag muderers are up against.
To use this article as an "example of what law abiding gun owners are up against" is just so far off the mark it's laughable. Regardless of the
word "arsenal" being used, there is absolutely nothing in said article having to do with "law abiding gun owners". Your title is sensationalistic
at best.
If that one word is all you can come up with to build your case on, you're on pretty thin ice. A quick look at a dictionary defines "arsenal"
as:
ar·se·nal (ärs-nl)
n.
1. A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.
2. A stock of weapons.
3. A store or supply:
source
Now, regardless of how many guns he had, it is still considered a "stock of weapons", which fits the definition nicely. So you see, he did, indeed,
have an arsenal, just not a large one. Thus the article is accurate and factual, and the only problem here is the fact that you have a different
definition of "arsenal" from the one in the dictionary. So much for "reading comprehension", eh?
So, unfortunately, this still resides in the "epic fail" file.