lukepriebe
Member
I totally agree. I don't know why we have to give a good reason not to ban guns when there are no good arguments TO ban guns.
Unpopular view, why own handguns?
- Thread starter Buildit
- Start date
- Status
I totally agree. I don't know why we have to give a good reason not to ban guns when there are no good arguments TO ban guns.
Thank you for some well thought out and heart felt answers.
I like topics like this because you can get some diffrent perspectives on an issue which are usefull when defending a position.
So in the intrest of playing a little devils advocate I'd like to respond to a couple posts.
As I understand Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a while, some argue it reduces the ability of those wishing to conceal a weapon for illegal purposes. Harder to hold up a 7 eleven store when your walking in with a clearly visible rifle/shotgun straped across your back.
I live in a farming area. It is not uncommon to see pickups with the traditional shotgun in the back window. So transporting a larger fiearm for safety or rescue reasons can easily be done. I've even seen friends modify ATV cases for their motorcycles during hunting season. They got a lot more respect on the road with the gun cases on the side of their bikes!!!
For personal protection there is nothing like a gun straped across your back! I have never seen people behaving as well as when confronted with someone carrying a rifle or shotgun on their back. Why have a handgun that is hard to see and easy to conceal unless you intend to use it for illegal purposes?
Second, by making a concession to the ability to own handguns we could add words to the extent that the right to bare arms is intended to give every citizen the right to protection provided by a firearm. Therefor it should and is totally leagal for anyone to carry a rifle or shotgun loaded for their self defense anywhere and anytime in public! Imagine the terrorm of criminals knowing everyone is armed and that their guns are bigger, more accurate and numerous than the .38 cal they have hidden in their pocket!
Oh, and don't ever think our government does not limit free speech already or in the past. Wheather for better or worse it is done daily in the stock market, in press releases and in military combat areas for the safety of our troops. Don't want some 6'oclock glory hound reporter giving away the possition of troops to our enemies so they can get a story, do you?
Thanks again for great replies and I hope this strengthens arguments for those reading this thread.
I like topics like this because you can get some diffrent perspectives on an issue which are usefull when defending a position.So in the intrest of playing a little devils advocate I'd like to respond to a couple posts.
evan price
Let me go the other way with it- why should it be OK to ban them? In this country we are free (to most degrees.)
Our Founding Fathers put forth on paper their beliefs in the universal truth that all men are entitled to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness. I have those natural God-Given Rights as much as you or anyone else does and as long as you or I choose to do something that does not directly affect YOUR Natural Rights then why should anyone else bother or care in any way?
So you ask why we should not ban handguns- I ask you, why should we ban handguns- where is my posession of a handgun in any way going to affect YOUR natural Rights?
I can say that my posession of a handgun is what I use to ensure that my Rights to Life & Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness is not deprived from me by force of violence by those who would do me wrong.
Some of those potential wrongdoers are bigger, stronger, faster, and possibly aided by pharmaceuticals to make them better predators and inflicters of mayhem, and I want to have every advantage I can.
I say that guns are machines and they DO wear out and like it or not, there will be a time when the last gun has irreperably cracked its frame or some other damage which renders it inoperable, and where are you?
God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal. A handgun is able to be carried near to hand and ready for use, a handgun can be comfortably holstered in case of need, and brought into action quickly. Try that with a long gun against an attacker at HTH range- not gonna happen.
You sound quite the same philosophically as a close friend of mine who feels that any "concealable" firearm should be banned, but swords and knives and long guns should be legal, because a pistol is a "coward's weapon" and men should defend themselves with weapons that can't be hidden and require you to look into an enemy's eyes if you have to fight/kill them.
He's hopelessly lost on this "romantic" notion that battles in the age of muzzle loaders and swords was somehow cool, swashbuckling, and clean.
I blame Hollywood.
As I understand Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a while, some argue it reduces the ability of those wishing to conceal a weapon for illegal purposes. Harder to hold up a 7 eleven store when your walking in with a clearly visible rifle/shotgun straped across your back.
Are you making my point for me?
I live in a farming area. It is not uncommon to see pickups with the traditional shotgun in the back window. So transporting a larger fiearm for safety or rescue reasons can easily be done. I've even seen friends modify ATV cases for their motorcycles during hunting season. They got a lot more respect on the road with the gun cases on the side of their bikes!!!
For personal protection there is nothing like a gun straped across your back! I have never seen people behaving as well as when confronted with someone carrying a rifle or shotgun on their back. Why have a handgun that is hard to see and easy to conceal unless you intend to use it for illegal purposes?
Second, by making a concession to the ability to own handguns we could add words to the extent that the right to bare arms is intended to give every citizen the right to protection provided by a firearm. Therefor it should and is totally leagal for anyone to carry a rifle or shotgun loaded for their self defense anywhere and anytime in public! Imagine the terrorm of criminals knowing everyone is armed and that their guns are bigger, more accurate and numerous than the .38 cal they have hidden in their pocket!
Oh, and don't ever think our government does not limit free speech already or in the past. Wheather for better or worse it is done daily in the stock market, in press releases and in military combat areas for the safety of our troops. Don't want some 6'oclock glory hound reporter giving away the possition of troops to our enemies so they can get a story, do you?
Thanks again for great replies and I hope this strengthens arguments for those reading this thread.
Keeping a gun strapped across you back also makes you a good first target for the BGs.
IMO, the biggest reason is because it makes people equal. Short of being physically incapable of handling a handgun or eye sight, people are on equal footing when a firearm is involved. Small, light, relatively easy to manipulate and conceal. The physically weaker now have a way to defend themselves.
IMO, the biggest reason is because it makes people equal. Short of being physically incapable of handling a handgun or eye sight, people are on equal footing when a firearm is involved. Small, light, relatively easy to manipulate and conceal. The physically weaker now have a way to defend themselves.
divemedic
Member
What about other things that only kill:
Swimming pools
Private automobiles
baseball bats
For that matter, why do you need rifles and shotguns? After all, all they are good for is killing. Who needs to hunt? Buy your meat at the store like everyone else, you sick, animal torturing freak. Self defense? If guns are illegal, then criminals won't be able to buy any. Duh.
See? Stupid statements only make sense when they are not aimed at you.
Swimming pools
Private automobiles
baseball bats
For that matter, why do you need rifles and shotguns? After all, all they are good for is killing. Who needs to hunt? Buy your meat at the store like everyone else, you sick, animal torturing freak. Self defense? If guns are illegal, then criminals won't be able to buy any. Duh.
See? Stupid statements only make sense when they are not aimed at you.
The idea behind concealed carry is that criminals don't know who has and who doesn't have a gun on them. The idea that someone COULD be carrying, but you aren't sure is the magic that makes it work. The few who carry (legally) make a safer place for the majority who don't. (Hey, maybe CCW permit holders should get a tax refund...) Plus, in reality, who is going to carry a shotgun or rifle with them everywhere? We have lives to live and get on with, it's not practical, but a little handgun is, and it can be small enough to be there when it's needed.
If you think handguns don't SAVE lives, check out:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
For those on that blog that used a handgun, would you like to tell them, 'no, you can't use that any more, they are only used for evil?'
A lot of people told me, 'when starting out you should learn to shoot a rifle first - handguns are too ....' whatever. Personally, that's fine for me, but I discovered that many women find shooting a rifle/shotgun more intimidating than a handgun. That may explain a few things about the disparity of genders in the sport. Also, people with cross eye dominance have an easier time sighting handguns.
Here's the thing, if you have a handgun, take a look at it, really. If you don't have one, go to the store and inspect one. They aren't complicated - in fact, when I started getting interested in firearms, I thought they were really complicated things, dangerous, etc. ...until I actually used one. They are relatively simple things. If you ban the production of handguns, do you really think people aren't going to make them? I bet there is enough equipment and skill in a five block area in most suburbia and small towns across this country to make any type of firearm - easily. (Americans like to make things) Except, guess who the only people are going to be that will make them - criminals. Great!
If you are really concerned about creating a safer world, don't focus on inanimate objects - focus on making people's lives better. If Chicago's mayor would spend as much time trying to fix the chicago projects as he does fighting gun laws and destroying airports and other nonsensical stuff, the crime rate may actually go down substantially.
Okay, there's my rant.
If you think handguns don't SAVE lives, check out:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
For those on that blog that used a handgun, would you like to tell them, 'no, you can't use that any more, they are only used for evil?'
A lot of people told me, 'when starting out you should learn to shoot a rifle first - handguns are too ....' whatever. Personally, that's fine for me, but I discovered that many women find shooting a rifle/shotgun more intimidating than a handgun. That may explain a few things about the disparity of genders in the sport. Also, people with cross eye dominance have an easier time sighting handguns.
Here's the thing, if you have a handgun, take a look at it, really. If you don't have one, go to the store and inspect one. They aren't complicated - in fact, when I started getting interested in firearms, I thought they were really complicated things, dangerous, etc. ...until I actually used one. They are relatively simple things. If you ban the production of handguns, do you really think people aren't going to make them? I bet there is enough equipment and skill in a five block area in most suburbia and small towns across this country to make any type of firearm - easily. (Americans like to make things) Except, guess who the only people are going to be that will make them - criminals. Great!
If you are really concerned about creating a safer world, don't focus on inanimate objects - focus on making people's lives better. If Chicago's mayor would spend as much time trying to fix the chicago projects as he does fighting gun laws and destroying airports and other nonsensical stuff, the crime rate may actually go down substantially.
Okay, there's my rant.
twoclones
Member
Because hardly any handguns are ever used for committing crimes.
Because the Constitution affirms, not gives, our right to own them. Throw out the Second Amendment and we might as well toss out the First or Thirteenth as well.
I think this is the root issue that separates people in this country. Some people believe that the constitution grants and restricts certain 'rights', and therefore, they really aren't fundamental rights (more like entitlements) since the constitution was written by people and can be changed.
Others believe that because we are humans (not animals) that each person is created with a set of rights, and the constitution only exists to make sure others don't try to take those away.
The right to self defense (and therefore the right to have and use the tools effective for self defense) is just as inalienable as the right to freedom, or the right to expression, or the right to privacy. If we could not exercise those rights, would you (the OP) be okay with that?
Think about this for a while and decide which way you are going to view the constitution. It could revolution your ideas about a lot of things.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
For personal protection, there is relatively little value in having a long gun strapped across you back!
Most practiced pistol shooters could draw their gun from a concealed holster and get their gun on target three times in the amount of time it will take you to unsling a rifle or shotgun and get off a shot. No contest.
And you're going to go about your daily routine with a long-gun slung? I don't believe that for a minute. It will bang into stuff as you pass, is heavy and uncomfortable to carry for more than an hour, and attracts unwanted attention from MANY sources. You're going to set it down and it will NOT be there when you need it. Remember, you don't make an appointment to get held up, robbed, murdered, etc. The criminal WANTS to get the drop on you. If you can't respond with deadly force within 2 seconds (AND THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE), you're probably not going to be successful at resisting the attack.
And say you do have a rifle or shotgun slung. If I'm a criminal, I'll approach you innocuously but quickly from behind and grab the gun. Now I've got control of your gun, and control of YOU too, because you're tied up in the sling! With no gun visible, an attacker may decide to pass you by and choose another target, or he may accost you verbally or even physically, but you will probably have enough time -- and element of surprise -- to draw your sidearm from concealment. If you've got a slung long gun, you've given the criminal a target (high-value, easily converted object) and a path of attack.
Please don't argue that you could resist or anticipate the grab, either. Very unlikely. And even if you do, you're now in a death-struggle for a long gun. But even if you get half-way decent control of it, it is not manuverable enough to turn it on the assailant. If you can't break free and get both hands free, your rifle is practically useless. Picture for me please the gyrations neccessary to shoot an attacker with a full-sized shotgun while he's grappling with you, rolling on the ground. While you're trying to get a thumb through the trigger guard and the muzzle pointed in his general direction, he's got total access to your ribs, your belly, your throat, etc. AND, he probably has the ability to put MORE leverage on the long gun to turn it away from himself than you can apply to aim it at him. And if you fire a shot that misses (as it undoubtedly would in that case) how will you reload it?
When you see people being extra polite to folks with a slung (or scabbarded) rifle/shotgun, you're seeing people who were out to do no harm anyway. Remember how "locks only keep out the honest people?" Same with long-guns (as a means of self-defense). Unless it's in your hands, ready to fire, it's probably more of a target than a deterrant.
These are some silly questions, but I suppose some of these basic principles bear repeating. Kind of "spring cleaning" for stored up BAD ideas.
-Sam
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Imagine the GLEE of a criminal who knows that he can approach a man armed with a rifle and get off six center-of-mass shots into that man before the poor guy can respond. Yup. That rifle is bigger, more accurate, and SLOW to employ.
This is a truly silly argument.
-Sam
The OP has a serious case of logical disconnect.
Handguns are only made for killing?
Tell me, what firearm, EVER made wasn't originally designed for killing?
Not to mention, your idea undermines the concealed carry movement.
But hey, we all know long guns are capable of WAY more damage than a handgun, in fact the have over penetration issues, they are the most dangerous thing of all. Who needs THOSE when all you have to do is buy your food at a grocery store?
Pfft, I'm sorry but you are off your rocker.
Handguns are only made for killing?
Tell me, what firearm, EVER made wasn't originally designed for killing?
Not to mention, your idea undermines the concealed carry movement.
But hey, we all know long guns are capable of WAY more damage than a handgun, in fact the have over penetration issues, they are the most dangerous thing of all. Who needs THOSE when all you have to do is buy your food at a grocery store?
Pfft, I'm sorry but you are off your rocker.
The virtues of a hand gun are 1) portability, and 2) ease of maneuver in a tight spaces, 3) ease of storage.
Even if you don't want to carry socially, there are times when you might want to carry a firearm but not want to sling a rifle, e.g. hiking. A long gun is awkward indoors, and in some places outdoors. A handgun can be stored close at hand in a locked drawer.
I think surveys show that more homes have handguns that long guns, so people prefer them. That's reason enough.
Even if you don't want to carry socially, there are times when you might want to carry a firearm but not want to sling a rifle, e.g. hiking. A long gun is awkward indoors, and in some places outdoors. A handgun can be stored close at hand in a locked drawer.
I think surveys show that more homes have handguns that long guns, so people prefer them. That's reason enough.
maksim
Member
its about being a deterrant.
I live on the border of NJ/Pa. and often, when I talk to my clients(financial field), guns come up. a bunch of pro gun control folks may feel safe until I bring this up.
If you are a criminal and you needed to carjack a car, or to rob someone for money... do you either a. cross the border into PA, where any 76 year old granny can be packing a 44magnum, or do you cross the river and go to Jersey, where you know it is practically illegal to have a weapon on you, unless you are a celeb or a retired LEO.
I live on the border of NJ/Pa. and often, when I talk to my clients(financial field), guns come up. a bunch of pro gun control folks may feel safe until I bring this up.
If you are a criminal and you needed to carjack a car, or to rob someone for money... do you either a. cross the border into PA, where any 76 year old granny can be packing a 44magnum, or do you cross the river and go to Jersey, where you know it is practically illegal to have a weapon on you, unless you are a celeb or a retired LEO.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
And...just because I apparantly LIKE shooting fish in a barrel:
"Overpenetration." The idea that a bullet may pass through the attacker and go on to strike other people. It is a hotly debated topic when discussing handgun ammo. Hollowpoint ammunition is designed to transfer energy to the target by increasing resistance as it expands in the body -- thus slowing the projectile and hindering its ability to punch through with enough energy to go on and do further damage. The magic number is generally given to be about 12" of penetration in ballistic testing geletin. Common handgun calibers manage this pretty well.
Most rifle calibers (not to mention shotgun slugs) deliver far more energy. They're designed for field conditions where they need to penetrate a game animal end-to-end (or a soldier, possibly behind cover) from a long distance. It is very difficult to conceive of a justifiable self-defense shooting taking place at more than 30 yds -- and most happen at near touching-distance. At contact range, all but a very few rifle bullets are goint to pass through the bad guy and continue easily for hundreds of yards with enough energy to kill another person. Yes, this can be a worry with handguns, but it is 100 times the worry when rifles are involved. (Again, with a few exceptions.)
Shall we go on, or do you have enough reasons to abandon your original premise?
-Sam
"Overpenetration." The idea that a bullet may pass through the attacker and go on to strike other people. It is a hotly debated topic when discussing handgun ammo. Hollowpoint ammunition is designed to transfer energy to the target by increasing resistance as it expands in the body -- thus slowing the projectile and hindering its ability to punch through with enough energy to go on and do further damage. The magic number is generally given to be about 12" of penetration in ballistic testing geletin. Common handgun calibers manage this pretty well.
Most rifle calibers (not to mention shotgun slugs) deliver far more energy. They're designed for field conditions where they need to penetrate a game animal end-to-end (or a soldier, possibly behind cover) from a long distance. It is very difficult to conceive of a justifiable self-defense shooting taking place at more than 30 yds -- and most happen at near touching-distance. At contact range, all but a very few rifle bullets are goint to pass through the bad guy and continue easily for hundreds of yards with enough energy to kill another person. Yes, this can be a worry with handguns, but it is 100 times the worry when rifles are involved. (Again, with a few exceptions.)
Shall we go on, or do you have enough reasons to abandon your original premise?
-Sam
Gungnir
Member
Not really difficult. 1600 armed robberies in the DC area in 2007 why, well chances are the perps were concealed carrying handguns
! How can that be, there's a handgun ban in DC in that year (yes I'm being sarcastic). Unfortunately Criminals are not naive, and will use whatever tools they can get, the legality of the tool is not relevant, since they're planning on using the tool in a crime anyway.
Restricting a legal tool only makes law abiding citizens access to that tool restricted; and some may become non-law abiding if they think the restriction is heinous enough.
Rifles and long guns have their place, but for self defense in an urban environment, then a handgun is hard to beat.
scottmac019
Member
Quote:
evan price
Let me go the other way with it- why should it be OK to ban them? In this country we are free (to most degrees.)
Our Founding Fathers put forth on paper their beliefs in the universal truth that all men are entitled to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness. I have those natural God-Given Rights as much as you or anyone else does and as long as you or I choose to do something that does not directly affect YOUR Natural Rights then why should anyone else bother or care in any way?
So you ask why we should not ban handguns- I ask you, why should we ban handguns- where is my posession of a handgun in any way going to affect YOUR natural Rights?
I can say that my posession of a handgun is what I use to ensure that my Rights to Life & Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness is not deprived from me by force of violence by those who would do me wrong.
Some of those potential wrongdoers are bigger, stronger, faster, and possibly aided by pharmaceuticals to make them better predators and inflicters of mayhem, and I want to have every advantage I can.
I say that guns are machines and they DO wear out and like it or not, there will be a time when the last gun has irreperably cracked its frame or some other damage which renders it inoperable, and where are you?
God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal. A handgun is able to be carried near to hand and ready for use, a handgun can be comfortably holstered in case of need, and brought into action quickly. Try that with a long gun against an attacker at HTH range- not gonna happen.
You sound quite the same philosophically as a close friend of mine who feels that any "concealable" firearm should be banned, but swords and knives and long guns should be legal, because a pistol is a "coward's weapon" and men should defend themselves with weapons that can't be hidden and require you to look into an enemy's eyes if you have to fight/kill them.
He's hopelessly lost on this "romantic" notion that battles in the age of muzzle loaders and swords was somehow cool, swashbuckling, and clean.
I blame Hollywood.
As I understand Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a while, some argue it reduces the ability of those wishing to conceal a weapon for illegal purposes. Harder to hold up a 7 eleven store when your walking in with a clearly visible rifle/shotgun straped across your back.
Again this is someone who thinks that the rules/laws apply to the BG's!!! I get sick and tired of that way of thinking...Buildit, people can argue all they want that banning concealment reduces crime..that is out and out BULL!!!! All it does ,and it has been beaten to death , is keep the lawful , good people from carrying....the BG's will always carry, CONCEALED, so they can do whatever evil stuff they want. It's actually better for them because they know that most likely there will be nobody to stop them and the Sheep will do exactly as the wolf wants them to. Your thinking is so backwards I almost didn't post because I don't like arguing with those that obviously have twisted views of things. My head is hurting trying to keep this somewhat civil so I am done for now. I will let the rest of the Forum tear you apart....and don't forget YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!!!!
evan price
Let me go the other way with it- why should it be OK to ban them? In this country we are free (to most degrees.)
Our Founding Fathers put forth on paper their beliefs in the universal truth that all men are entitled to Life, Liberty, pursuit of Happiness. I have those natural God-Given Rights as much as you or anyone else does and as long as you or I choose to do something that does not directly affect YOUR Natural Rights then why should anyone else bother or care in any way?
So you ask why we should not ban handguns- I ask you, why should we ban handguns- where is my posession of a handgun in any way going to affect YOUR natural Rights?
I can say that my posession of a handgun is what I use to ensure that my Rights to Life & Liberty & Pursuit of Happiness is not deprived from me by force of violence by those who would do me wrong.
Some of those potential wrongdoers are bigger, stronger, faster, and possibly aided by pharmaceuticals to make them better predators and inflicters of mayhem, and I want to have every advantage I can.
I say that guns are machines and they DO wear out and like it or not, there will be a time when the last gun has irreperably cracked its frame or some other damage which renders it inoperable, and where are you?
God made men, but Sam Colt made them equal. A handgun is able to be carried near to hand and ready for use, a handgun can be comfortably holstered in case of need, and brought into action quickly. Try that with a long gun against an attacker at HTH range- not gonna happen.
You sound quite the same philosophically as a close friend of mine who feels that any "concealable" firearm should be banned, but swords and knives and long guns should be legal, because a pistol is a "coward's weapon" and men should defend themselves with weapons that can't be hidden and require you to look into an enemy's eyes if you have to fight/kill them.
He's hopelessly lost on this "romantic" notion that battles in the age of muzzle loaders and swords was somehow cool, swashbuckling, and clean.
I blame Hollywood.
As I understand Washington DC has had a ban on handguns for a while, some argue it reduces the ability of those wishing to conceal a weapon for illegal purposes. Harder to hold up a 7 eleven store when your walking in with a clearly visible rifle/shotgun straped across your back.
Again this is someone who thinks that the rules/laws apply to the BG's!!! I get sick and tired of that way of thinking...Buildit, people can argue all they want that banning concealment reduces crime..that is out and out BULL!!!! All it does ,and it has been beaten to death , is keep the lawful , good people from carrying....the BG's will always carry, CONCEALED, so they can do whatever evil stuff they want. It's actually better for them because they know that most likely there will be nobody to stop them and the Sheep will do exactly as the wolf wants them to. Your thinking is so backwards I almost didn't post because I don't like arguing with those that obviously have twisted views of things. My head is hurting trying to keep this somewhat civil so I am done for now. I will let the rest of the Forum tear you apart....and don't forget YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!!!!
Stirling XD
Member
Am I the only one that smells a troll?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Oh of course, but a fairly polite one. And like I said, sometimes it's good to have a good, cathartic, airing of the basics. There's probably some new folks reading these threads who could use the education.
I don't see the harm. It is good to see everyone come out united, logical, and eloquent on the subject.
A troll is most damaging (and certainly happiest) when they rake the muck and we end up snarling and biting at each other before it's done. That's not happening here.
-Sam
twoclones
Member
Nope.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Exactly so.
Carry on.
Mr. O.P.,
Last year, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms specifically includes the right to own a handgun, as well as other weapons commonly used by the people for the defense of their physical selves and their homes.
so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Last year, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that my 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms specifically includes the right to own a handgun, as well as other weapons commonly used by the people for the defense of their physical selves and their homes.
so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Stirling XD
Member
Quote:
Fair enough!
It has been a pretty civil discussion and I have enjoyed reading everyone's arguments and rebuttals. But I certainly didn't want anyone to inadvertantly feed the trolls.
Fair enough!
It has been a pretty civil discussion and I have enjoyed reading everyone's arguments and rebuttals. But I certainly didn't want anyone to inadvertantly feed the trolls.
I long ago grew weary of the ploy where an anti-Second Amendment advocate begins his discourse against gun ownership with "I am a gun owner too, but..."
I am suspicious of a new member who posts comments questioning the legitimacy of owning firearms... ANY firearms.
Buildit, I believe you are a mole. I think you are an operative for one of the anti-gun groups. I will not respond to any further comments you make as I consider you to be working against my interests.
Have a nice day.
I am suspicious of a new member who posts comments questioning the legitimacy of owning firearms... ANY firearms.
Buildit, I believe you are a mole. I think you are an operative for one of the anti-gun groups. I will not respond to any further comments you make as I consider you to be working against my interests.
Have a nice day.
catspa
Member
Hey, Buildit.
Choosing not to own a handgun yourself is one thing. Forcing your fellow citizen to not own a handgun is a whole 'nother. Who are you (and I don't mean just you personally, I mean any faction of society including but not limited to the government) to decide for me?
Here's another thing. The power and authority of government has a few legitimate and useful purposes in a society of equals. Unfortunately, we live in a time when way too many want to use that authority to suppress things they don't like, or force their arbitrary preferences on others against their will. This is 1) a completely fraudulent use of government power, and 2) a major stepping stone of tyranny. I understand Thomas Paine once wrote, The man who loves freedom must defend his enemy's freedom as vigorously as his own, otherwise he will set a precedent that will reach to himself or words to that effect. So unless you want government dictating the vehicle you can drive, the movies you can see, and whether to put ketchup or mustard on your hotdog, you would do well to respect the choices of other citizens. After all, they are your equals, no?
Parker
Choosing not to own a handgun yourself is one thing. Forcing your fellow citizen to not own a handgun is a whole 'nother. Who are you (and I don't mean just you personally, I mean any faction of society including but not limited to the government) to decide for me?
Here's another thing. The power and authority of government has a few legitimate and useful purposes in a society of equals. Unfortunately, we live in a time when way too many want to use that authority to suppress things they don't like, or force their arbitrary preferences on others against their will. This is 1) a completely fraudulent use of government power, and 2) a major stepping stone of tyranny. I understand Thomas Paine once wrote, The man who loves freedom must defend his enemy's freedom as vigorously as his own, otherwise he will set a precedent that will reach to himself or words to that effect. So unless you want government dictating the vehicle you can drive, the movies you can see, and whether to put ketchup or mustard on your hotdog, you would do well to respect the choices of other citizens. After all, they are your equals, no?
Parker
- Status
