Someday your slingshot, or can of gas for your mower, or who knows what could be described as "dangerous for your kids to be around, and illegal as heck", and have you, or me, or any of us hauled off. As someone else said here, this is not an unreasonable amount of stuff as briefly described even though it is rather above "the average" nowadays.

Any restriction or law or action taken to protect someone from themselves or their parents may indeed save some, but will always kill others. Statistically more people are saved by seatbelts than are killed by them, but there are those who will and have indeed died because they had one on. Lower speed limits will save some and contribute to the death of others, hopefully fewer, but some will die because of it. Locking up guns in homes with children will save some, and like the family attacked by the guy with the pitchfork some time back, others will be left defenseless. And don't even get me started on the chickenpox vaccine that is supposed to save 5,000 children from the virus, and kill 5,000 elderly from shingles, an interresting tradeoff if you ask me.

I do not know if this guy is dangerous nuts or not. But especially as fewer and fewer guns are considered an arsenal, and more and more people get locked up and their kids put away with a long string of strangers, the war on weapons in family homes will cause more and more deaths. If this was still a free country, we would not have wars on possessions that others find offensive or threatening. We would enforce laws against criminal behaviour and activities, not crimes of alleged thought and possessions. We would laud preparedness and be thankful that someone on our street might be able to stop a mob before it got to our family. Instead, we seem to have a generation trying to play god and deciding to try to save some at the expense of others.

So what is the line? If you think he went over the top, where should he have stopped? Please understand that this is a serious question. You seem to be saying that there is either no need for the guns, or a certain number per person or family that is justifiable, or certain types are just evil on their own merits. While I admit that this family went rrather farther than I would dream of, I am very curous if I am worthy in your sight to be hauled off to jail and have my kids parceled out also. (Yes, I have a can of gas also, and a slingshot) I am just asking for an objective description of the line between sane preparedness and/or fun hobby, and a dangerous and unstable person that society needs to be protected from. I have to grant that this family may indeed have gone over the edge, but I do not see any solid evidence of it in the news report.