This kind of thing really yanks my chain.
Look--Buildit, Troll, whatever your name is--I don't accept your "I'm just trying to make you think" premise. You're attempting to start fires where there ought not to be fires.
I am tired of having to explain myself to others why I carry or why I own.
I am a free man, a law-abiding citizen. I do not harm others, nor do I initiate force or aggression upon others, but I damn sure will respond to force initiated against me.
There is NOT ONE GOOD REASON to ban--or even limit!--handgun ownership to free men. NOT ONE!
Why would a government choose to limit the right of a good, free man, to be able to defend himself against aggression? WHY? There is NO GOOD REASON!
The criminal angle has been used so many times that it's obvious people don't get it. In their hearts, they know that we're always going to have criminals, no matter what, and in a completely understandable--and also completely illogical!--emotional response, they focus on something they think they can change: Firearm ownership.
NO! NO NO NO NO NO NO!
Why does Sarah Brady not focus more on preventing assassination attempts, intstead of promoting anti-gun doctrine? Why does the VPC not focus on removing firearms away from law enforcement, because if they're truly focused on saving lives by the removal of weaponry, that would do it. Why aren't matches and lighters required by law to be in a locked container in households that have small children? Why does my car have a speedometer that goes to 140 MPH, when the limit in my state is, at max, 70 MPH?
AAARARRRRRRRRGGGHH! I'd post more but I have to go to work! Suffice it to say it's a moot point this troll brings up, because my right to defend myself against aggression isn't granted by the constitution: The constitution merely recognizes a pre-existing condition for those who just don't get it!