Unpopular view, why own handguns?

[HoosierQ]

I second the motion made above. Buildit is a troll. If you are what you say you are...a long gun enthusiast...then post in Rifle and/or Shotgun country. If you want to argue against our right to own, maintain, and carry a handgun, you have failed to make a point, have ignored the Constitution, and are not offering anything constructive.

I do not call you a troll, Buildit, because I want to be rude but rather given what I've read, I offer that as my opinion on your motive for pursuing this anti-gun position on our forum.

You've said your piece...nobody here agrees with it. Thanks.

QB

 

[Brian Dale]

I disagree, HoosierQ. He's poking at us to be more articulate. He's arguing that we should learn to refute antis effectively rather than just waving our hands and saying "it's a right."

To judge laws by whether they're likely to accomplish something that looks good is the path to slavery.

Fundamental human rights are those conditions without which one cannot fully live as a human being. We forget that at our peril.


Edited to Add: Still, it's tacky to bait people like that, Buildit.

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

I won handguns for the same reason I own dirt bikes.

When people ask me why I need handguns I always have to say "I didn't know we lived in a society where we are only allow to have things that they need."

To say handguns are for killing only is false. I own many handguns that have never and will probably never kill a man. If these things were designed to kill I believe they would have done so already. When a gun is used to murder someone it is a misuse of that gun, not the intended purpose.

Back to my dirt bike analogy. I own dirt bikes because I like to ride them for fun, it is illegal for me to operate them on the road. If an emergency came up and I had to get to point A to point B I would use my dirt bike on these roads. I own guns because I like shooting at the range and I also use some of these guns for hunting. It is illegal for me to use these guns on the road to get through traffic, or in public. If an emergency came up I would use these guns to protect myself and/or others.

So, basically I own handguns because I want to own handguns. That should be the only reason I have to give being a free man in a free country.

 

[model67a]

troll

You know maybe we should thank Mr.Troll. I have been reading the posts and believe he has rekindled our committment to defend our " RIGHTS". Thank you Mr. Troll. stay safe

 

[SpecialKalltheway]

OP: "me some real reasons that such a law would adversly effect the US in a negative way."

Well I would consider the U.S. being negatively affected by a law like this because it would go against the constitution. Every law that we allow to go against the constitution is unamerican. Anyone who doesn't realize that the constitution is a living document and can be changed is an idiot. If you want to limit guns(Arms) in anyway you have to start with the constitution to make it legal. Those of you that choose to make these laws are unamerican and idiots because you are not doing what you want in the right place. If the constitution was rewritten to ban all guns I would surrender my weapons. Every time a law is made that is unconstitutional and accepted by the general public it takes away credibility to all our rights we have. How long until the government says well they didn't care that we took away their gun rights with unconstitutional laws, lets take away all their rights to unreasonable search and seizure next and see if we can get away with it.

If you truly want to live in a country where the right to bear arms is infringed upon either rally to change the constitution or move.

 

[Sixtigers]

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!

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

OK, this one has devolved into circular argument and name calling.

I'm going to put a stop to it before it starts costing us members.

 

[1911Tuner]

Before this one goes down in flames...

Rifles are, by design and intent...offensive weapons. Killing instruments meant to take the fight to the enemy...or the deer, whichever hunt that you happen to be engaged in.

Pistols are, by design and intent...DE-fensive tools intended to stop a fight that someone else starts at close range.

Like rifles...pistols and revolvers are also sometimes used for sporting purpose. Hunting is one. Competition is another. Plinking at soda cans on a sunday afternoon is yet another. BUT..Sporting purpose isn't what 2a is all about. The sporting use of firearms is a spinoff. It's a pleasant one for we who indulge in the shooting sports...but it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.

The notion that "This gun is good but this one is bad" is a trap that we all need to avoid falling into.

I don't own any of the pseudo military weapons...or "Assault Rifles"...because they don't hold much fascination for me, and I have no current requirement for any of them. HOWEVER...I don't feel that they should be disallowed simply because I personally don't need one...and therefore because I don't need one that nobody does. There are many legitimate uses for them, and it's not my call as to what is legitimate and what isn't, provided that they aren't used for criminal activity.

It's not a need-based question, but rather: "What does need have to do with it? If I want it...why should I not be able to have it?

The Second Amendment doesn't state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods.