What "purpose" of the gun ownership is most important to you?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

With all of the recent talk about banning certain styles of firearms, magazines, actions etc; I wanted to get a glimpse of the opinions about why gun ownership is important to you at all. I know there are many individual reason why one owns guns, and I just mean this in general terms. I also understand the sentiment behind ideas of "It's my right because it's my right. I don't need a reason". And that's completely true. I'm asking for your personal opinion of why you own guns, not why anyone should.

But I would also like to extend that to the realm of law. Does your opinion of why Americans can and should own guns extend to your personal political beliefs? Why, or why not? Are your opinions regarding what should or should not be banned connected to your personal reasons for gun ownership? I know that THR, especially recently, has people with varying opinions on the legality of certain guns. And I have seen more than a few members state that they might be willing to support enhanced restrictions on certain styles, magazines, actions, etc. If you're one of these members, I am particularly interested in what gun ownership as a whole means to you as just yourself, and as an American citizen.

Also, try to pick one, even if you're thinking "they're all exactly equally important. It is impossible to choose". Just try

EDIT: Self defense and defense against a tyrannical government were left separate intentionally and for a reason.

 

[ReelFaith]

1. It is my responsibility as an American citizen to participate in arming myself to guard against potential tyranny from any government from within and abroad.
2. It is my God given responsibility to protect and defend myself and those who can not defend themselves from any evil that may potentially destroy human life.

Simple.

 

[Bob2222]

'cause this is America, so I can!

("Defense against a tyrannical government" would be closest; and also closest to the original intent; it was the Redcoats who were breaking into homes and confiscating firearms during our nation's inception.)

 

[freyasman]

This was a tough choice... I wish I could have ranked my choices in order of importance to me

 

[mcdonl]

Sport. I hunt and trap, both of which require firearms. I also like to shoot targets, IDPA and some trap.

And to support all of those I cast and reload. It is a way of life for my people (rednecks)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Home/self defense is the way I went because to me that covers the tyranny issue as well.
Then it's recreation which sharpens the skills for above.
This dog don't hunt anymore.

 

[ATBackPackin]

I love my family more than I value even my own life. I would die or kill for them, however in the grand scheme of things they are not more important than all the freedoms of an entire country.

1. Tyrannical Government
2. Self Defense
3. Hunting
4. Sport

 

[CZ223]

Ditto what realfaith said

It comes as close to what I believe as anything I could write. Well stated sir.

 

[tmknecht]

Tyranny is the way I went because to me that covers the home/self defense issue as well. I believe that these two are one.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I separated them because many of the types of firearms that could be adequate for home/self defense are not at all adequate for fighting tyranny.

There are some who are willing to limit "military style" firearms and magazines but leave revolvers or shotguns alone because they believe that those are all you "need" for defending yourself or your home. The recent suggestions of banning/limiting "high-capacity" magazines for semi-autos, or even the semi-autos themselves show this. This type of talk, including from some on THR, is what made me separate the two. Someone who does indeed believe in gun ownership to defend the home, and supports the ownership of certain arms appropriate for that, might not believe in gun ownership to defend against tyranny and may very well be opposed to citizens owning arms that are more appropriate for that. That attitude has been seen recently on this very forum. And for that reason, I felt there is a big enough difference to separate the two purposes.

 

[jason41987]

1. It is my responsibility as an American citizen to participate in arming myself to guard against potential tyranny from any government from within and abroad.
2. It is my God given responsibility to protect and defend myself and those who can not defend themselves from any evil that may potentially destroy human life.

Simple.

i agree completely

 

[CTPhil]

The poll needs to have the option of "Tool". I'm a livestock farmer, and guns are as necessary here as any other farm tool.

Having said that I'm not sure I want to choose. I carry for SD and just like guns. All of the reasons are good to me.

 

[1911 guy]

I voted SD/HD because it also covers a bit of the tyranical government bit as well.

SD
gov't
hunting
target shooting
collecting

Those are mine in order of importance. But to be exceedingly clear, I will defend the lawful use of firearms by anyone, regardlesss of whether their chosen use makes it onto my radar or not.

 

[thump_rrr]

I separated them because many of the types of firearms that could be adequate for home/self defense are not at all adequate for fighting tyranny.

There are some who are willing to limit "military style" firearms and magazines but leave revolvers or shotguns alone because they believe that those are all you "need" for defending yourself or your home. The recent suggestions of banning/limiting "high-capacity" magazines for semi-autos, or even the semi-autos themselves show this. This type of talk, including from some on THR, is what made me separate the two. Someone who does indeed believe in gun ownership to defend the home, and supports the ownership of certain arms appropriate for that, might not believe in gun ownership to defend against tyranny and may very well be opposed to citizens owning arms that are more appropriate for that. That attitude has been seen recently on this very forum. And for that reason, I felt there is a big enough difference to separate the two purposes.

I selected recreation since I don't hunt and in Canada we are not allowed to purchase handguns for self defense even though our charter of rights and freedoms recognizes our right to use deadly force in self defense.

For those willing to allow the ban on "military style" rifles where will they stop?
Barret 50 or 416, G3, AR-15, AK, M14, M1 Garand, SKS, 98 Mauser?

For those who think giving an inch is OK look at our gun laws in Canada and you will realize that giving an inch means losing a foot or two.

 

[22-rimfire]

That is a pretty well thought out poll. All of the above is essentially where I am.... But that is not your poll. At this point in my life, recreation is the most important firearm use as I think that I can handle the home defense aspect with the same guns.

The tyranny choice is interesting and certainly rooted in the 2A language and interpretations. It is the ulitmate choice. For me, it serves as a backdrop to other reasons to own and shoot firearms. But the firearms I would choose for "national defense" are different than the ones I would normally choose for hunting and my typical recreational use. This certainly fits in with the group that are "prepping" for whatever emergency. That is a real fear.

Politicians dismiss the tryanny rationale for the most part and it is what any government fears most. They essentially say it is ridiculous. Well, it is not ridiculous. But to say you can fight on equal terms with our military is also ridiculous. But in a broken world, the military would also be fractured.

 

[Sheepdog1968]

It started with self defense and is hobby with going to shoot sporting clays being the thing I enjoy he most.

 

[GEM]

Here's an interesting CNN discussion:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/21/us/military-style-weapons-ireport/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

There's a link to describe your personal views on ARs in the article.

 

[22-rimfire]

For those willing to allow the ban on "military style" rifles where will they stop?

They would stop at the same point as England and Australia unfortunately.

 

[Mp7]

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-899798

one of the better ireport postings.


When i look into the commentaries
the pro-gun commenters give a really bad picture.
Using pears to contra-argument apples. Mostly.

 

[morcey2]

Self and family defense first. Defense from a tyrannical govt second. Hunting/target shooting third. Collection fourth.

That said, most of my firearms are C&R eligible down to my EDC gun. And, other than my shotguns, even my hunting rifles started as C&R firearms before they were shamelessly butchered by someone before I acquired them. But I can still get about 25 rounds of aimed fire out of any of my short mosins (M38 or M44) that in a minute. If I do it without a good slip-on pad, it leaves a pretty good bruise.

But target shooting is what we do most. Lots of trap and punching holes in paper, watermelon, the occasional aggressive squid, and metal targets.

Matt

 

[Kahr33556]

where is the all above choice ????
Protecting my family is number 1 but before I had a family I had guns that I used for hunting which was number 1.

 

[WYOMan]

If we vote other, does that count for all of the above?

 

[Trent]

Anyone want to take a wild guess what my vote was? Lol.

 

[jimflam]

having a firearm for any reason automatically includes self defense because it is stored at home

 

[glove]

Hunting (for food, sport, etc)
Recreation (trap, skeet, targets, competition, etc)
Self-defense (Home defense, protecting family, etc)
Collection (Curio and Relic, heirlooms, pure collecting, etc)
Defense against a tyrannical government

All of these for me.