Blackbeard
Member
I often hear the antis, and many pros, speak of "legitimate" uses for privately-owned firearms. Now what each side considers legitimate could vary wildly from person to person. In my opinion, there are five legitimate uses for privately-owned firearms:
1. Sports (target/action shooting for fun)
2. Hunting (put food on the table)
3. Self-defense (prevent harm to yourself or others)
4. National defense (repel invading armies)
5. Revolution (throw off oppressive government)
It seems that most anti's recognize only #1 and #2, while the rest of us recognize all 5. Can you think of any that don't fit these categories? I think in order to have a proper debate about what firearms should be allowed, there must first be agreement on what are legitimate uses.
P.S. I suppose "collecting" for enjoyment or historical significance could be another category, but it's not really a "use".
1. Sports (target/action shooting for fun)
2. Hunting (put food on the table)
3. Self-defense (prevent harm to yourself or others)
4. National defense (repel invading armies)
5. Revolution (throw off oppressive government)
It seems that most anti's recognize only #1 and #2, while the rest of us recognize all 5. Can you think of any that don't fit these categories? I think in order to have a proper debate about what firearms should be allowed, there must first be agreement on what are legitimate uses.
P.S. I suppose "collecting" for enjoyment or historical significance could be another category, but it's not really a "use".