I own and enjoy shooting handguns, but if I'm being honest, I have a hard time arguing for why handguns should be legal...

I own and enjoy shooting handguns, but if I'm being honest, I have a hard time arguing for why handguns should be legal. People on both sides of the gun debate admit handguns are the most common murder weapon in America, and if you count all the people who are shot but not killed (I've heard the ratio of wounded to killed with handguns is about 6 to 1), then that means that a very large number of people are being shot with handguns.

I've heard some arguments against this before, but none are especially convincing.

>criminals will still get guns
Some of them surely will, but if you stop the manufacture of new handguns and take the old ones off the street and melt them down, you can make it more difficult for criminals to get them. You could provide owners of existing handguns with compensation for their loss.

>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
The 2nd Amendment is supposed to be about a militia, and a militia would have little use for handguns as they are seldom used in modern warfare.

>self defense
This would only apply to self defense on the street rather than the home, since rifles and shotguns are the preferred home defense weapons. Most people who own handguns (even those licensed to carry) don't carry regularly. Even those who do legally carry have a questionable effect on crime deterrence, since they tend to live in low crime areas in the first place.

I would love to hear any reasonable arguments.

How else are we supposed to protect ourselves from niggers, look at the statistics.

>The 2nd Amendment is supposed to be about a militia

You should read what SCOTUS has to say about this you dumb shill faggot

In US vs. Miller, they said the 2nd Amendment applied only to military weapons.

Did you not read what I wrote about self defense?

oh!?!?!? Are you going to let us open carry rifles and shotguns for self defense now? Probably not. So then what you're really saying is you want to do away with concealed carry.

I carried an M9 or a M1911 with my M16a2 or m590a1 while in the military.

>In US vs. Miller, they said the 2nd Amendment applied only to military weapons
>American education

Also DC vs. Heller back in 07 or 08 affirmed that there is an individual (non-military) right to bear arms.

Whoever educated you did a baaad job, mmkay

Militia is defined as every fighting aged male in the country. You fucking retard you're an antigunner just trying to make palpatible arguments for gun control.
Wonder how much you got paid for this post.

What about rapists? Women need concealed carry

>I own and enjoy shooting handguns

no you don't. no enthusiast i know would dream of making an anti-gun post or comments.


>Most people who own handguns (even those licensed to carry) don't carry regularly

mostly because there are many laws on where you can and can't carry and it's a hassle so i just leave my gun at home most of the time.

>if you melt down guns and stop the manufacture and take them all away.

Except then they will just make their own. And with the rise of 3d printing, that's not going to be less common, it will be more. 3d printing made this impossible, full stop.


>the second amendment is supposed to be about millita

No. No it's not. How ignorant of the English language do you have to be to believe that shit?

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to keep and eat food? The well-balanced breakfast, or the people?

This is exactly the structure of the 2nd amendment, so either the well-balanced breakfast has the right to keep and eat food, or the milita isn't what the 2nd amendment is about.

>rifles and shotguns are preferred home defense

Depends on the home. A home with narrow corridors and lots of people makes shotguns a fucking nightmare to safely use, and rifles are never good for internal home defense, only external. Furthermore, rifles and shotties are generally more expensive, meaning it makes it harder to access for the poorest (read, the most likely to need one to defend themselves).

>Are you going to let us open carry rifles and shotguns for self defense now?
Even in jurisdictions where that is legal, almost nobody does that.
>So then what you're really saying is you want to do away with concealed carry
I have nothing against concealed carry, but if handguns are removed from circulation, concealed carry will be impossible. I think the social cost of gun crime is greater than the harm of preventing concealed carry.

And how many people did you shoot with your pistols? Probably none.

I already know that. The point is that the Supreme Court contradicted itself.

>Militia is defined as every fighting aged male in the country
That would have been true in the 17th century, when young men would gather on the town green and march. It's not true now.

Concealed carriers are overwhelmingly male.

No, I live in a state where you can carry almost anywhere, and almost all the people I know who are licensed to carry don't carry.

>>self defense
>This would only apply to self defense on the street
exactly. this is when youre more likely to encounter a violent criminal.
>Most people who own handguns (even those licensed to carry) don't carry regularly.
so? carrying is taking charge of your safety. CCPers mainly feel open to take the risk because they live in an armed society, where it's the criminal taking a risk by attacking someone
>Even those who do legally carry have a questionable effect on crime deterrence, since they tend to live in low crime areas in the first place.
which came first, the chicken or the egg? (in evolutionary terms probably the egg, but I digress). pic related

>US v. Miller said it only applied to military guns

Yes. And handguns are common in the military. And Miller declared an individual right. And Chicago v. McDonald and D.C. v. Heller explicitly declared handguns protected under that standard.

Cherry picking cases isn't a valid argument style. Not understanding them is even less so.

if the second amendment applies to military weapons, then that's a strong argument for citizens being allowed to carry machine guns and "assault weapons", which are frequently demonized as being "military-grade" incidentally

Well go ahead and get the amendment revised yourself you daft cunt, clearly just an antigunner roleplaying one of us.
Until you get 2A revised it is no business of yours to decide its scope or expect any legislation to act in accordance with what you THINK it SHOULD mean.

what state are you pretending to live in?

>The point is that the Supreme Court contradicted itself

>Societal opinion changes and newer rulings supersede older ones
>something being news

pick uno y solamente uno

owning weapons to defend yourself, family and property is a natural right of man.

>Except then they will just make their own. And with the rise of 3d printing, that's not going to be less common, it will be more. 3d printing made this impossible, full stop.

Zip guns have been a thing for a very long time, but I would much rather criminals be armed with nigger rigged homemade guns than quality, professionally made guns.

>This is exactly the structure of the 2nd amendment, so either the well-balanced breakfast has the right to keep and eat food, or the milita isn't what the 2nd amendment is about.

The people have the right to own guns for the PURPOSE of a militia. If they own guns outside the militia, then they are not within the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment.

>A home with narrow corridors and lots of people makes shotguns a fucking nightmare to safely use

A shotgun fired over a short distance will have a pattern of shot about the size of a baseball. The thing about not needing to aim because a shotgun sprays pellets everywhere is fuddlore.

>rifles and shotties are generally more expensive,
A quality rifle will cost about the same as a quality handgun, maybe a little more. A shotgun will actually cost quite a bit less.

>I own X but X shouldn't be legal because....

that's how you spot a shill

>bad people use guns to kill people

BAN GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>bad people use knifes to kill people

Banning knives is stoopid lol

Guns exist. Two main things: 1) There are problems, but some of those problems go away if we encourage all to have guns. Gun turnins, and most "illegal possession" is bullshit. 2) The great equalizer: No matter your stature, male or female, guns act the same in their hands.

So tell me again, Mohammed, why you want to disarm Americans?

You don't just give up rights like a nigger shut up homo

I'm concerned too...
concerned that this thread isn't sliding fast enough.

>retarded communist shit

this, good points imo

>I think the social cost of gun crime is greater than the harm of preventing concealed carry
So then that's a yes. You want to end concecaled carry.
>And how many people did you shoot with your pistols? Probably none
Me personally? Nope none. But I wasn't in charge and I didn't get to choose what weapons to carry. Those we're assigned to me by my superiors based on the job I was performing at that time.

>I would much rather criminals be armed with nigger rigged homemade guns than quality, professionally made guns.
and I would rather protect myself with a finely made firearm than a piece of niggersteel
>The people have the right to own guns for the PURPOSE of a militia. If they own guns outside the militia, then they are not within the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment.
the PURPOSE of the 2A was for men to protect themselves for threats big or small, foriegn or domestic, and with the tools to organize or stand alone

>This would only apply to self defense on the street rather than the home, since rifles and shotguns are the preferred home defense weapons.
Wrong. Longarms are generally too powerful in the case of rifles and too long to be a good home defense weapon. A shotgun is fine, but handguns are still easier.

Guns are far more commonly used as a criminal deterrent and simply the knowledge that conceal carry is legal in an area reduces the crime rate. You take away guns and tell everyone about it and only criminals will hoard them then promptly spike your crime rate after they feel everyone is disarmed.
>But that's only temporary
Then they just switch to other means or weaker targets, like criminals in the UK and Aus targeting old people because its easy and they have no legal way to defend themselves.

even op's image is a nigger, fucks sake. I bet OP is a nigger

2nd amendment isn't just for militia, it secures the rights of an individual to own firearms and it is explicitly clear in this that the rights of the citizen are being secured, not just a militia. If you create a hole in a market and there is demand, that hole will be filled, whether it be my smugglers or local ops. Can't even keep drugs out of jails and you think you can keep guns off the streets, fat fucking chance

>so?
The point is that concealed carry probably isn't a major deterrent of crime.
>which came first, the chicken or the egg? (in evolutionary terms probably the egg, but I digress). pic related
People who legally concealed carry tend to be upper middle class white people. Their neighborhoods would not be likely to have much crime even if they all suddenly stopped carrying.
>And handguns are common in the military
Not really. They are issued to some soldiers, but they are seldom used.

>Cherry picking cases isn't a valid argument style
It is YOU, not me, who is making an argument from the Constitution, an argument that wasn't accepted by the Supreme Court until very recently.

Yes, I agree, but we are talking about handguns here.

TN

>Societal opinion changes
But I thought conservatives believed in the original meaning doctrine. Isn't it judicial activism when you try to change the constitution through the courts?

I agree, but not an absolute right.

>
Zip guns have been a thing for a very long time, but I would much rather criminals be armed with nigger rigged homemade guns than quality, professionally made guns.


As 3d printers get better, they will get better at making guns.

>
The people have the right to own guns for the PURPOSE of a militia. If they own guns outside the militia, then they are not within the PURPOSE of the 2nd Amendment.

Again, no. In that sentence, (A well-regulated breakfast, being necessary for the start of a good day, the right of the people to keep and eat breakfast shall not be infringed), the purpose is the start of a good day. Similarly, in the 2nd amendment, the purpose is not the militia, it is the security of a free state. Furthermore, the founders viewed a militia as the collective of armed citizens, so merely by having a weapon, you become a member of the militia.

>
A shotgun fired over a short distance will have a pattern of shot about the size of a baseball. The thing about not needing to aim because a shotgun sprays pellets everywhere is fuddlore.

It didn't say a word about not needing to aim. The problem is stray pellets and ricochet are much more likely, and with lots of people, in a small home, it puts those people in danger.

>A quality rifle will cost about the same as a quality handgun, maybe a little more. A shotgun will actually cost quite a bit less.

You and I do not define the word quality the same way, apparently.

you say my guns are dangerous and I must turn them in to be destroyed. i refuse.. you threaten violence to take mt guns away. . I STILL WILL NOT DISARM and am very heavily armed. YOUR MOVE..

sage

I don't see where the argument is. The right to bear arms is written into the Constitution. End of, basically. The militias are the people and it is the constitutionally ordained right and role of the people to act as a check against tyrannical governments and those who attack or try to dismantle the Constitution should they enter into power. How I understand it anyway.

The original meaning of 2A has never changed! It specifies individual right to bear arms, and it has only been affirmed as such! Look at the list of states with constitutional carry laws over time.

Tell me, do you get paid more to make response posts to your shilling, than just doing the standard ?

handguns should be legal so that natural selection naturally happens

If they are used by anyone in the military, they are military weapons.

And it wasn't an issue until recently, the Supreme Court had never needed to rule on it. Their ruling is 100% in line with Miller, and it's almost certain if the question had been asked in the 50's or in the 1800's, the outcome would be the same.

if they ever tried to take away handguns, I don't believe people where I live would ever comply. the east coast would be the site of another revolution. and....the 2nd amendment gives you the right to assemble a militia use guns for its purpose...for when our government gets out of control. the constitution and the 2nd amendment protects us from the government. congratulations. youre a retard.

>but they are seldom used.
What makes you think that?

Fuck this POS Sage thread. Die in an AIDS fire, OP

consider the dynamic of crime in unarmed countries. people who are bigger and stronger and more prone to play with a knife hold a monopoly of force as criminals over their victims. In an unarmed country, though, anyone is POSSIBLY armed, and so being a violent criminal is a very risky business. Even if the criminals have guns, they do not have that monopoly of violence. Every violent crime they commit is an equation in which both parties may be equal and the offender is always risking his life

>In an unarmed country, though,
*armed

I've lived an incredibly comfortable life free from regular threats of violence. I know a handful of people who have been to places that show the absolute worst in humans. I've never seen that. However, I believe them that people can become absolute monsters. I prepare accordingly for that. I will likely never have to fight for my life, but if that situation arises, I want to make sure I can protect those I care about. I want to have the advantage.

I'm not a hypocrite. I'm willing to give up my handguns if everyone else does too.

>So then that's a yes. You want to end concecaled carry.
I am willing to sacrifice concealed carry if the benefit outweighs it. I do not oppose concealed carry per se.

>Wrong. Longarms are generally too powerful in the case of rifles and too long to be a good home defense weapon. A shotgun is fine, but handguns are still easier.
I disagree. There are plenty of firearms instructors who teach that long guns are preferable home defense weapons.

>Guns are far more commonly used as a criminal deterrent
Are you sure?
>and simply the knowledge that conceal carry is legal in an area reduces the crime rate
I doubt it. I a robber suspects that you are packing heat, he'll just shoot you from behind and take your wallet.

>2nd amendment isn't just for militia
Says who? A bunch of Republican judicial activists?

>Can't even keep drugs out of jails and you think you can keep guns off the streets, fat fucking chance
The problem is half measures. They ban things but don't enforce the law. Then the laws get even weaker for political reasons.

>The 2nd Amendment is supposed to be about a militia, and a militia would have little use for handguns as they are seldom used in modern warfare.

That's retarded. The amendment clearly states "the right of the people", not "the right of the militia".

It also says no women or niggers share the right to bear arms.

>The point is that concealed carry probably isn't a major deterrent of crime.
>People who legally concealed carry tend to be upper middle class white people. Their neighborhoods would not be likely to have much crime even if they all suddenly stopped carrying.
Ok, how exactly do you know these conclusions for CERTAIN though? How do you know for certain that their neighborhoods wouldn't have more crime? Additionally, concealed carry helps people defend themselves in ANY neighborhood, not just their own.

Maybe to provide a perspective on the problem that hasn't been proposed yet, consider it this way:
Handguns (and all firearms generally) are a technology. This technology can be abused by shitty people, but it can also just as effectively be used to prevent shitty people from doing shitty people things. Shitty people will always exist, and will try to do shitty things no matter what technology they have available, so normal people having an effective means to deal with said shitty people is a good thing.
The argument that handguns incidentally HAPPEN to be used much for crimes, does not negate the fact that they CAN be used for good. Other arguments you make are similarly incidental, such as how many people happen to choose to carry, or whether the majority of handgun carriers happen to be male, and so forth; these are the product exclusively of peoples' choices of what to do (or not do) with the handgun technology, it is not the fault of the right to bear arms, or the existence of some technology, in principle.
It is often useful to differentiate the incidental vs. the principle--the second amendment, and the bill of rights in general, was based on principle, not how people incidentally use or abuse those principles.

>I do not oppose concealed carry per se.
Ah yeah you do. If you remove the implements for concealed carry then you per force remove concealed carry.

...

>merely by having a weapon, you become a member of the militia.
No. If you have a weapon but are not serving in a military capacity, you are not a militia no matter how many times you say you are. You want the rights without the responsibility.

Empty talk.

>one post by ID.
I've been responding this whole time, genius.

>The original meaning of 2A has never changed!
I agree. Only the courts' interpretation of it changed in 2008.

>It specifies individual right to bear arms
But it doesn't apply to all arms.

>and it has only been affirmed as such
What is US vs. Miller?

>Look at the list of states with constitutional carry laws over time.
That's a pretty recent thing actually.

>Their ruling is 100% in line with Miller
No, it isn't. Do you even know what Miller said?
>1800's
You do realize concealed carry was illegal in most states in the 1800s, don't you? Some even put it in their state constitutions.

Empty talk.

Reading books by, and speaking to, actual military officers.

>unarmed countries
I didn't say all guns should be banned, just handguns.

Also, we already live in a (mostly) unarmed country in one sense. Yes, there are millions of privately owned guns, but most of them are in people's homes. When you are in public, the vast majority of people around you are unarmed.

Are you talking about SHTF bandenkrieg situations? In that case, you're probably going to be using a long gun.

For the purpose of a militia.

>I am willing to sacrifice concealed carry...
Is it within your authority to make that choice for others though? Is it even within a democratic majority's authority to make that choice?
The idea is that some things, rights, are beyond the scope of others' vote. If the ability to keep and bear arms is an individual right, then it cannot be denied by any amount of people. Consider the hypothetical instance of a gang rape not really being a rape, because the majority of participants consent--no, it is still a rape because the victim has fundamental rights to the full sexual authority of their body, among other things.

>For the purpose of a militia.

No. The right belongs to the people regardless of whatever imagined purpose.

>No. If you have a weapon but are not serving in a military capacity, you are not a militia no matter how many times you say you are. You want the rights without the responsibility.

That's explicitly how the Founders meant it.

We're a nation of men who don't need to be protected by momma government.

The idea that we need to justify owning anything is embarrassing, especially when the reasoning boils down to "you'll shoot your eye out".

>rifles
>shotguns
>preferred home defense weapons

nah m8 you got memed on. handguns are the best choice for when someone breaks into your house. there is no better weapon for a close quarters situation. quit listening to Joe Biden.

>>It specifies individual right to bear arms
>But it doesn't apply to all arms.
I'm fairly certain it applies to anything, and thus everything, that can be considered an "arm"--I think that is how legal logic works, right? If you don't list any possibility of exception, then it's automatically logically inclusive to the entirety of things that fall into the category? I'm not a lawyer does anyone know more about this?

>you are not a militia no matter how many times you say you are

wrong. lrn2history pls.

>military officers.
Which military officers?

>Are you talking about SHTF bandenkrieg situations? In that case, you're probably going to be using a long gun.

My main interest are long guns. Planning on getting an AR-15 in a few months, currently own a Remington 700. I'm interested in the Ruger precision rifle too. Handguns are good for concealing if you can't carry a rifle into a situation.

But no, I'm not speaking specifically about SHTF. Sometimes people break into houses trying to rape women. Sometimes they're looking for valuables and end up tying a family up.

I carry a knife day to day and do training to use it effectively.

Context, I grew up in California and am very liberal. I just value my life and my loved ones' lives (even my dogs' lives) more than anyone else's. I never want to be in a situation where I can not act because people can be fucking scum.

I don't really care about amendments or crime. It's about personal protection from humans at their worst.

>how exactly do you know these conclusions for CERTAIN though
I never said I was absolutely certain. I am reasonably confident, however, because upper middle class white people are genetically inclined to be peaceful. When they live in areas surrounded by other upper middle class white people, their chances of needing a gun are pretty slim.

>concealed carry helps people defend themselves in ANY neighborhood, not just their own
But most people who live in safe neighborhoods don't go to the ghetto unless they absolutely have to.

>It is often useful to differentiate the incidental vs. the principle--the second amendment, and the bill of rights in general, was based on principle, not how people incidentally use or abuse those principles.
I agree. There's nothing wrong with handgun ownership PER SE, but the total social cost of handgun ownership is probably greater than the benefits.

>If you remove the implements for concealed carry then you per force remove concealed carry.
That's true, but removing concealed carry is only a side effect of removing handguns from circulation. The indented effect is to reduce handgun violence.

Yes, it is. Individual freedom has to be balanced with the good of society. That's why we have rules.

Says who?

No, in those days, the right to bear arms was intertwined with the DUTY to bear arms when called upon. You want to the right, but not the responsibility.

>Joe Biden
And Larry Correia, and James Yeager. Even Massad Ayoob said a shotgun was a viable option.

>I'm a militia because the militia act says so.
Do if a tranny legally changes his sex (yes, you can do that in many states), does that mean that he is female in reality? Just because the government says something, doesn't mean it's always true for all eternity.

>The indented effect is to reduce handgun violence.
It doesn't matter what you intended. What counts is the actual effect. You would leave us without effective means for self-defense.

>No, in those days, the right to bear arms was intertwined with the DUTY to bear arms when called upon. You want to the right, but not the responsibility.

No I don't. I support a mandatory draft. But the right to bear arms not being infringed isn't contingent on it. Even without the responsibility, there is still a right that shall not be infringed.

>Says who?

The amendment in question.

We're fucking done here. You're clearly retarded and on a crusade against guns. Reason and logic can't reach you where you've gone.

Unless you can prove that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to something other than people and their right to bear arms you're just another moron spouting absolute horse shit.

Concealed carry seems more important these days with all the gangs, rioters and antifa types going around attacking people though. Self defense on the street is an important thing. Handguns are dangerous, but it's a warzone out there.

Don't let your women know you have a gun in the house. You will get in a big argument and she will threaten to kill herself with it to emotionally abuse you. I've seen It happen personally multiple times in the last few years.

I admire that youre going through all these replies to argue them all. I'll only address my (You)
> (You) #
>>unarmed countries
>I didn't say all guns should be banned, just handguns.
the ones that matter in a public setting
>Also, we already live in a (mostly) unarmed country in one sense. Yes, there are millions of privately owned guns, but most of them are in people's homes. When you are in public, the vast majority of people around you are unarmed.
low probability but very high risk. A mass shooter will explicitly target a no-gun zone for a good reason.

if Tyrone makes a living robbing innocent citizens by knife or gun, he may be making a living but he knows theres a substantial risk. It may not be his first or second unlucky customer, but to continue to violently threaten an armed society is to live on borrowed time

If the "total societal cost", which is an incidetal thing, of a right to keep and bear arms is greater than the present benefit (if we assume that to be true for the sake of argument) then it is a problem with SOCIETY's use or abuse of that right, and not the fault of the RIGHT existing in principle.

Thus, the right should not suffer because idiots abuse it. Analogously, just because some assholes become violent from playing FPS video games (assuming that is true--it may not be in reality) does not mean that FPS video games need to be banned for being intrinsically violence-inducing or whatever.

Yes indeed, I will make sure to make sure that all my numerous plural women that are mine do not know about any guns, good catch.

>none are especially convincing

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

convincing enough, Mao?

>my cold dead hands

DON'T POINT A GUN AT YOURSELF, EVEN IF UNLOADED!

I know someone who did and he forgot to pop the chamber. Lost most of his face, and he's now an unfuckable freak.

Gun Safety for idiots:

1 Don't point at what you don't want dead.
2 Keep your booger hook off the bang switch.
3 Keep your gun unloaded until you're ready to bring the heat.

Simple fucking stuff.

Dangerous things should not be banned.

fuck off faggot, handguns are infinitely easier to carry with you everywhere you go, hence you can defend and protect yourself and family everywhere you go. KYS, handguns have been legal in america since the 1500s

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia

Not according to britbongs. GET A LIFE, BIN THAT KNIFE.

>is supposed to be about a militia,
kys