Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Cops shooting criminals is not including in homicide figures.It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.Sure is when that firearm is used to massacre innocent children
And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?
All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!
So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?
So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?
This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.
Actually over 1600 gun deaths are cops shooting criminals not murder
That drops the number of people murdered by a person with a gun to 8500
Most of those are criminals killing other criminals.
And again of all murders those committed with an AR 15 winds up being less than 1%
It's included in the gun deaths numbers you people use all the timeCops shooting criminals is not including in homicide figures.It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.And what percentage of the 20 million AR 15 rifles in the hands of the public are ever used to do that?
All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!
So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?
So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?
This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.
Actually over 1600 gun deaths are cops shooting criminals not murder
That drops the number of people murdered by a person with a gun to 8500
Most of those are criminals killing other criminals.
And again of all murders those committed with an AR 15 winds up being less than 1%
Yes, I have read that 65% to 80% of the homicides in some cities are gang related. We have no gangs in Maine, so 0% are gang related here. I'm sure that is the case in many areas. And just for the record, to me those people count, too. A lot of those gang members get "recruited" very young, under threat.
A very well documented though small Revolutionary War battle happened here and the men who came from surrounding towns had only three firearms between them. The rest had whatever they could grab from the barn. Pitchforks, staves, whatever.The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%."Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.
Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.
And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.
There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.
Guns were expensive and apparently not as many people spent their time hunting as you might think. Of course the guns in those days weren't very accurate and they were a pain in the ass to use, so .... they went fishing or set traps.
You might have documented that if it was well documented. The Army did not defeat the British with pitchforks. Yes, guns were not as easy to use then as they are now but that was true for both sides.
It was the colonist's use of asymmetrical warfare that defeated the British. At the time, "honorable" battles were fought face to face, with both sides wearing distinctive unforms and standing in formation facing each other. The British had superior numbers and weapons, but got very frustrated when the rebels started decimating them from the trees, behind buildings, etc. Their knowledge of the terrain was a huge advantage.
It was that same advantage the Afghans used to drive the Russians out a few decades ago, and is why it is so difficult to successfully occupy a foreign country, especially when the civilians have access to firearms.
I'm not condemning anyone
I am saying that these people who say the only reason they want more gun laws is they are afraid of being murdered by a person with a gun are focusing on the least likely of scenarios
I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.
They make no mention of other violent crimes that are committed in far greater frequency and seem to think violent crimes that don't involve guns and murder don't exist.
I support gun ownership not because I think I am going to get murdered by a person with a gun but because I know there may be a time where I need to protect myself from being the victim of a crime. And the time I needed a to carry a concealed weapon to prevent such a crime I wasn't old enough to get a CCW permit or buy a handgun.
You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.
I never said anything about more guns.
I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.
I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.
It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.
A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm
Low risk.
Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually
Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.
I see you as focusing on the same. You say it's slightly different, OK but it's still a very low percentage thing.
You think more guns are reasonable, they think less are. Just a difference of opinion with you having the Constitution on your side. I support your right to carry. I think your concern is overblown BUT it's your concern. I think the other argument is not realistic but it's all based upon a very small risk.
I never said anything about more guns.
I don't care if you or anyone else who is not legally prohibited from the ownership of firearms actually owns a gun or not.
I am saying that a fear of being murdered by a person with a gun as a basis for banning or restricting gun ownership by law abiding people or otherwise curbing their rights is unwarranted.
It's really not up to you to determine what people see as warranted. The only real reason is because it a Constitutionally protected act.
A concern of being the victim of a crime is based on a much greater frequency of other crimes and the fact that criminals don't necessarily need a gun to inflict grave harm
Low risk.
Not so low if you have actually been the victim of a violent crime as millions of people are annually
Not so low if you are a loved one was shot by someone with a gun they want to ban either.
How about the loved ones of the 1.1 million Americans who use their legal guns each year to save themselves and others....how do you think they feel when their family member comes home, alive , because of that legal gun?
It's included in the gun deaths numbers you people use all the timeCops shooting criminals is not including in homicide figures.It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!
So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?
So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?
This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.
Actually over 1600 gun deaths are cops shooting criminals not murder
That drops the number of people murdered by a person with a gun to 8500
Most of those are criminals killing other criminals.
And again of all murders those committed with an AR 15 winds up being less than 1%
Yes, I have read that 65% to 80% of the homicides in some cities are gang related. We have no gangs in Maine, so 0% are gang related here. I'm sure that is the case in many areas. And just for the record, to me those people count, too. A lot of those gang members get "recruited" very young, under threat.
Maine has one of the lowest murder rates in the country and guess what Maine does not require a permit to buy a gun does not have an "assault weapon" ban, no magazine size restrictions etc
So how do you explain that Maine has a murder rate that is less than half that of CA , a state that has all the gun laws and restrictions that you don't have in Maine?
Gun laws in Maine - Wikipedia
Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.Graham is wrong on a lot of things, Red Flag Laws for one, but he explains the need for AR-15 civilian and police rifles really well...
Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15
A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.
The New York Post:
Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.
“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.
A reporter asked if he meant looters.
“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”
That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.
Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.
I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.
"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."
That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.
My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:
"Where do you keep yours?"
Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.
I am not, however, obligated to explain to anyone why I would prefer not to be killed.
I live in an area with tornadoes....same concept.... and store owners in democrat cities always have to look out for Black lives matter inspired riots and looting...that is if they don't want their businesses looted then burnt to the ground.....or like New York, having al sharpton inciting a riot that gets your business burnt to the ground...
The AR-15 civilian and police rifle is a nice way to tell democrat looters...move along asshole...
Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!
What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those
what if a person used one of these instead?
SO what?
MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%.Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
"Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.
Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.
And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.
There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.
Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.
Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.
Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.
Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!
What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those
what if a person used one of these instead?
SO what?
MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
Well...dipshit.....if you prefer a shotgun to a semi-automatic rifle..... have fun. That is your choice...... a lot of other people like the semi-auto rifle and think it fits their needs more than the shotgun...or they have both.......
That is called freedom, you fascist stooge....... you don't like rifles, don't buy one. 18 million people who own AR-15s like them and want to own them......
The AR-15 is not a military weapon you moron.....a soldier isn't going to use it....the AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle...not a military rifle...you moron.
Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%."Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.
Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.
And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.
There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.
Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.
Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.
Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%."Needs" is not a good argument. The founders understood the people may need an equalizing force because the government was armed. The founders had just successfully pulled this off.
Now you can argue that is outdated. I will argue it is not and irrelevant as long as the 2nd remains a part of the COnstitution.
And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.
There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.
Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.
Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.
The lethality of the round fired is a consideration, until one realizes that given the circumstances, a .22 caliber bullet is also lethal. The rate of fire, the rate of sustainable fire is the issue.They have the privilege, not the right. Removing assault weapons does not infringe the citizen's right to bear arms.Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.
SO what?
MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
They have the right, need doesn't have to be demonstrated.
And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that is a false argument until such time as all agree on the definition of "assault weapons". Those who own and shoot AR-15's will tell you that they are just another rifle with a distinctive shape, not any deadlier than a deer rifle. And yes, they have the right until the SC weighs in on any proposed ban.
I can only imagine the size of beach towel you need to clear the hysterical spittle from your chin.Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?Lindsey Graham said he needed an AR, not I. I think looters could be held at bay with a pump action .12 gauge. But there is a need among the underdeveloped mentally to be the hero go n slinger in some cinematic version of life. Little kids haven't learned they are not the action stars they revere.Millions of AR-15s for hurricane preparedness.
Makes sense! We can afford to lose people in mass shootings so my convienence stroke won't get ripped off the next time a hurricane rages just off shore here in Pittsburgh!
What does in matter of a store owner uses an AR 15 for protection?
Any other semiautomatic rifle would work just as well but you don't seem to have an issue with those
what if a person used one of these instead?
SO what?
MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
Well...dipshit.....if you prefer a shotgun to a semi-automatic rifle..... have fun. That is your choice...... a lot of other people like the semi-auto rifle and think it fits their needs more than the shotgun...or they have both.......
That is called freedom, you fascist stooge....... you don't like rifles, don't buy one. 18 million people who own AR-15s like them and want to own them......
The AR-15 is not a military weapon you moron.....a soldier isn't going to use it....the AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle...not a military rifle...you moron.
god people can be so blinders on stupid.And if an AR15 is needed, why not an M4? That would be even better, Shirley?
The homicide rates I am using -- the 10,000+ p/year -- is only homicides and does not include law enforcement.It's included in the gun deaths numbers you people use all the timeCops shooting criminals is not including in homicide figures.It's not ONE person. It is 10,000 persons per year. 100,000 a decade. It is not ONE.All it takes is for one bad man to kill four or more innocent Americans with a weapon made to kill human beings; Domestic Terrorism needs to be taken seriously!
So because one person will commit a heinous crime no one can own a specific gun?
So if one person drives drunk no one should drive or no one should drink right?
This argument is one of the most ridiculous ones out there.
Actually over 1600 gun deaths are cops shooting criminals not murder
That drops the number of people murdered by a person with a gun to 8500
Most of those are criminals killing other criminals.
And again of all murders those committed with an AR 15 winds up being less than 1%
Yes, I have read that 65% to 80% of the homicides in some cities are gang related. We have no gangs in Maine, so 0% are gang related here. I'm sure that is the case in many areas. And just for the record, to me those people count, too. A lot of those gang members get "recruited" very young, under threat.
Maine has one of the lowest murder rates in the country and guess what Maine does not require a permit to buy a gun does not have an "assault weapon" ban, no magazine size restrictions etc
So how do you explain that Maine has a murder rate that is less than half that of CA , a state that has all the gun laws and restrictions that you don't have in Maine?
Gun laws in Maine - Wikipedia
The point is:Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?The government wasn't armed. Mcheck your constitution. The Army could only be reaped every two years. If 2% of the population serves in active duty armed services today, in 1789 it was .02%.
And you're not going to stand the 82nd Airborne down with your AK.
There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.
Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.
Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.
And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....
So?
The lethality of the round fired is a consideration, until one realizes that given the circumstances, a .22 caliber bullet is also lethal. The rate of fire, the rate of sustainable fire is the issue.They have the privilege, not the right. Removing assault weapons does not infringe the citizen's right to bear arms.Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?SO what?
MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
They have the right, need doesn't have to be demonstrated.
And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that is a false argument until such time as all agree on the definition of "assault weapons". Those who own and shoot AR-15's will tell you that they are just another rifle with a distinctive shape, not any deadlier than a deer rifle. And yes, they have the right until the SC weighs in on any proposed ban.
Deer rifles are occasionally bolt action rifles requiring the shooter to load another round mechanically. Not a practical weapon if you just watched a bunch of propaganda and decided to take out a few dozen people on your own.
A 100 round clip? Really? There's an absolute need for such a thing?
The point is:Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.
Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.
Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.
And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....
So?
Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.
So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.
The lethality of the round fired is a consideration, until one realizes that given the circumstances, a .22 caliber bullet is also lethal. The rate of fire, the rate of sustainable fire is the issue.They have the privilege, not the right. Removing assault weapons does not infringe the citizen's right to bear arms.Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?SO what?
MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
They have the right, need doesn't have to be demonstrated.
And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that is a false argument until such time as all agree on the definition of "assault weapons". Those who own and shoot AR-15's will tell you that they are just another rifle with a distinctive shape, not any deadlier than a deer rifle. And yes, they have the right until the SC weighs in on any proposed ban.
Deer rifles are occasionally bolt action rifles requiring the shooter to load another round mechanically. Not a practical weapon if you just watched a bunch of propaganda and decided to take out a few dozen people on your own.
A 100 round clip? Really? There's an absolute need for such a thing?
The lethality of the round fired is a consideration, until one realizes that given the circumstances, a .22 caliber bullet is also lethal. The rate of fire, the rate of sustainable fire is the issue.They have the privilege, not the right. Removing assault weapons does not infringe the citizen's right to bear arms.Maybe a hand game n? Does is absolutely have to be a weapon equipped with a 100 round magazine and a semi-automatic firing system? Couldn't he be better served by a grenade launcher or a mortar?SO what?
MAybe he can't fire a shotgun for some reason and he prefers a lighter weapon
The gun! What is the one singular commonality among all mass shootings? A video game? No! It's the fucking gun!
No one, absolutely no one NEEDS an AR-15 or similar weapon. Unless you're actually a soldier, such weapons are unnecessary.
They have the right, need doesn't have to be demonstrated.
And, as has been repeatedly pointed out, that is a false argument until such time as all agree on the definition of "assault weapons". Those who own and shoot AR-15's will tell you that they are just another rifle with a distinctive shape, not any deadlier than a deer rifle. And yes, they have the right until the SC weighs in on any proposed ban.
Deer rifles are occasionally bolt action rifles requiring the shooter to load another round mechanically. Not a practical weapon if you just watched a bunch of propaganda and decided to take out a few dozen people on your own.
A 100 round clip? Really? There's an absolute need for such a thing?
The point is:Without the intervention of France we might still be ruled by Britain.Do you think there was a musket hanging above every hearth in everynhome? How many guns were there in private hands in 1789?There was no government. People brought their own weapons with them to throw out the British.
Remember, NO GUN WAS MASS PRODUCED THEN! Every girl n was handmade.
Without the private ownership of guns we would have still been ruled by England.
And we repaid that debt in World War 1 and World War 2.....you know, when we stopped the Germans from taking over France....twice....
So?
Guns in private hands during the American revolution were rar. There was not sporting goods stores from which to buy mass produced guns and ammunition because those concepts were not imagined at that time. If you wanted a gun, someone had to hand make it for you. The cost was prohibitive.
So, the notion of volunteer soldiers flocking to a recruitment center armed to the teeth is wrong. Part of the romanticization of guns in America, I suppose, but not born out by historical facts.
