This would mean that it would have to be proved that there was a serious harm to others when members of a society are allowed to own handguns before that right could be restricted. The best defense for the "Right" argument is that it is a derivative right and its restriction would be in violation of the principle of non-interference. .
Another popular justification of private handgun ownership without further restrictions is the slippery slope of Government interference. This justification is often used by groups such as the NRA and provides that if the government passes laws restricting the purchase of handguns, then eventually we will be living in a country where no human rights will be respected. For instance, if cop-killer bullets are illegal then other types of ammunition could also be made illegal. If ammunition is made illegal then guns can be made illegal, to make guns illegal the 2nd amendment would have to be amended. If the 2nd amendment is changed to suit the current political climate, what is to prevent other amendments from being changed as well? Why not revoke freedom of speech, or the right to own other private property? Another angle taken along the same theme is that if citizens are not allowed to bear arms then they are vulnerable to attack from military forces, both internationally and from a hostile internal takeover. If these are legitimate concerns then any restrictions placed on guns should be extremely limited.
There are many problems with this line of reasoning. First of all, let's look at why the NRA would want people to believe this justification. The essential reason is fear, if they can convince the public that it is much scarier to live without guns than with them then they have won the derivative right argument hands down. The problem is that these fears are unfounded. The idea that if cop-killer bullets are illegal then we won't have the right to personal property would be taken away is ludicrous.