I am aware of the rules on this forum, so I will try to tread lightly... (no pun)
Law abiding, and gun owner, are steadily becoming mutually exclusive terms, no longer belonging in the same sentence. I prefer the term "responsible gun owner" How can you be responsible for your own defense when your means of protection is "lawfully" disassembled, padlocked, and stowed in 3 different locations around your house, Chicago style.
Funny how we never think that the politicians and cops are breaking the law, when they prohibit you from defending yourself. Say for instance you are a truck driver, and your load delivers in Oakland California at 1:00 am. The idea that a few politicians backed by hired mercenaries can limit your access to self defense, is inhumane. Even deeper is the pride instilled in us as we go along with that crap, touting what "law abiding" folk we are.
The system that purports to work for you puts you in a bad dilemma. In many geographic locations, you either retain your ability to survive, risking imprisonment from the govt. or throw yourself at the mercy of the "bad guys." What is telling, is that most on here will bow to the threats and violence of the govt. and take their chances with the so called "Bad Guys" Since everything is risk assessment, it appears the biggest threat is govt. Why is it we follow the rules of our most likely aggressor so religiously?
I ask the moderators to consider an exception to the "advocating of law breaking" rule on this forum. Since laws can be chanmged for the better in courts, ands harm is a required element. I purpose a change that allows talk of lawbreaking in the context of showing harm, or changing law peacefully.