How to answer Piers Morgan's question "why does anyone need to own an assault rifle"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with other posters, and it is not a question of a need vs. a question as to whether it is your right to own one.

The analysis of dogs and others is to the point. We have the right to own cars. It is your right to choose either a Smart Car or a Ferrari. Do you need a Ferrarri which will go three to four times the speed limit? Do you need a weapon with greater firepower? This question has no merrit. You may choose to take the Ferrari to the race track. You may choose to carry a high capacity weapon to a firing range. It is your right to choose and use in a legal manner.

Unfortunately if the law is changed, we the responsible citizens will be the only ones who comply. There will always be the few who find away around the law and/or violate the law. A perfect example are those who modify vehicles for greater power which bypass emission laws. The same can be done by those converting semi-auto to full automatic weapons.
 
Here is another reason Piers Morgan. There are a tremendous number of so called "assault weapons" out there now. In the last month, more than ever.

Even if banned completely, a lot of bad guys have them either by thievery or straw.

I have to be able to fight back if needed, with equal force and having the same firepower is the only way to do it.

Plus the fact, you are assuming I will do harm with my "assault weapon" and its 30 round mags. That to me is ----

v


v


v

v

Are you ready?

v
v
v
v
Here it comes

v
v
v
v
v
OFFENSIVE:eek:
 
Keep it to the 2nd Amendment period. The 2A is there to allow us to protect ourselves from the tyranny of government first and fore most. I feel that if we are going to be able to maintain our ability to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government we should be allowed to arm ourselves with similar fierarms as the basic weapon of the US Military. The RTKBA is more about protection from within than protection from an invading country.

Here are some quotes I like.

"A free people ought to be armed."- George Washington

*"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."- George Washington

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson*

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."- Thomas Jefferson*
Click to expand...

Our founding fathers penned the 2A because they had just thrown off the chains of a tyrannical government, and the knew that the citizens of the US might have to do so again.
 
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."- Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

Thats the strongest reason right there, Jefferson hit the nail on the head, as he so often did.

If someone poo, poos the idea of tyrannical government, remind them of Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc, etc from just the 20th century alone. Many of those millions of dead people thought the government would protect them too.
 
How can you expect someone who has been a subject his entire life, along with his father and all the sires before him to understand the language and mindset of a freeman? Easy! Let Jesse Ventura explain it to him! I think even Piers Morgan, whether he agrees with it or not, at least gets it now.
 
After giving this some more thought, I tend to agree with those who say it is not up to us to have to prove to Piers Morgan, why we need them. Since, semi-automatic rifles are so rarely used in criminal activity; it's up to Piers Morgan to prove why he needs to have these rifles outlawed. Semi-automatic rifles have been around and used for lawful purposes by millions of Americans for over 100 years.
 
Someone should also point out that high capacity magazines for semi auto handguns have been available since WW1, the Luger Snail Drum is a case in point, and as a standard feature for a 9mm handgun since 1935, the Browning HP.
Semi Auto carbines with 30 round magazines have been available to the public since the 1950's. Yet school shootings were practically unheard of before the late 90's.
Availability of the rifles is not the deciding factor, its the evil intent of a very few homocidal pyschopaths.
Mass murders have been performed using gasoline and improvised explosives, with no firearms of any sort involved.

Personally I don't have any pressing need or desire for an autoloading rifle of any sort, but theres a lot of things I don't need that others should be able to buy should they feel the need.
Anyone who has been stuck in a large city during a major riot could easily see the need for a high capacity autoloader to defend the lives of yourself and family and to protect your property.
 
it is not up to us to have to prove to Piers Morgan, why we need them. Since, semi-automatic rifles are so rarely used in criminal activity;
Click to expand...

Oh how right you are !!!

Check out this chart . It shows only 358 deaths out of 10k+ do to RIFLES not ASSAULT rifles just rifles . Im sure the number goes way down if your just talking about "assault" rifles . This is what also needs to be talked about . They are talking about banning something that does less then 1% off the deaths .

w620afe014391829c8524fb.jpg
 
I don't "need" an assault rifle, but If I "want" one, then I should be able to buy one. If I have the money and can pass a background check, then why not?

I'm so sick and tired of these liberal hacks on the news talking about "hunting" and "sporting purpose" when it comes the 2nd Ammendment. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE 2-A IS ABOUT!!!.

The 2-A is about protection from a tyrannical govt, something the media idiots will never understand.
 
The most convincing argument that I have come up with outside of defending against tyranny has been this "Out of all of the firearms I own, my AR-15 is the only one in which I am truly confident that my wife can pick it up and engage multiple armed intruders and score center mass hits each time she pulls the trigger"

She has chased off armed intruders before when I haven't been around (before we lived in a free state where I could own my Rock River) and let me know that she did not feel confident with the handgun she had if it had turned into a gunfight.

My wife is safe= me being happy. All other things aside, that is what truly matters for me.
 
Murders, not deaths. That would run all the Numbers up, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

Yes , sorry if you say all deaths by firearm it's more like 25k and almost all of those extras are suicides . My point is still the same but thank you for helping me clarify .

The anti's keep saying these "ASSAULT" weapons must be taken off the streets . When the fact is they are almost never used in firearm related murders or shootings .
 
Facts don't matter to the antis - they intentionally lie and change facts to suit their purpose. They have stated, many times, that their goal is to eliminate all forms of gun ownership and destroy the NRA. You have to deal with antis the same way you would deal with liars, bullies, thugs and would-be tyrants. They do not lack understanding, they simply don't want guns or gun owners to exist, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to make this happen. What do I mean by this? When they call gun owners "lunatic fringe" and "racist", we need to call them Stalinists and Hitlers, Ted Bundies, or anyone else who likes to prey on and murder defenseless people.

Save the rational explanations for non-gun owners who are simply ignorant about 2nd Amendment and gun ownership. We will ALWAYS lose the fight when we try to fight fair against a bunch of low-down dirty fighters. If you want to win, you have to not only stand your ground, but try to take new ground and learn to fight dirtier than the nastiest gun-banning fascist. This means that the NRA should push politicians to put the repeal of the '89 ban as well as the '86 machinegun ban on the table, organize protests, marches, and provide us with an outlet to display who we are. Our numbers far outnumber any lousy Occupy Movement.
 
Last edited:
Why does anyone need to own a Maserati or a Rolls Royce? A Honda Civic will get you to the grocery store just as effectively.

It's because I have the financial means to do so and I am a lawful and responsible citizen who will use it only for legal sporting purposes....and because I can.

Oh, and they're also a lot of fun to shoot at the range!
 
Last edited:
Also, people of Piers Morgan's ilk fail to realize that these guns are already in the country in large numbers, and that making them illegal will only disenfranchise and hurt law abiding citizens. Criminals could care less if they're legal or illegal.
 
Well, why does anyone need alcohol? At least guns can protect my family. What does alcohol do? It costs society more money than it generates. Of course, we know from experience that banning alcohol won't stop people from drinking...and so it is with guns, magazines, and the like.

Did you know that 75,000 people die from alcohol in the US per year!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/ns/health-addictions/t/alcohol-linked-us-deaths-year/

I mean, can't you get drunk on Light Beer? Why do you need whiskey? If guns are safer with 10 round mags, then alcohol would be safer if we just banned everything, but beer.

All sarcasm aside, listen to a Piers Morgan rant on guns and replace "11,000 gun deaths" with "75,000 alcohol related deaths", replace "gun" with "alcohol", and "assault rifle" with "whiskey". It sounds like a tired speech from the prohibition era. (Of course, it's a lot more fun to drink every time Piers defies logic or talks over his guest.)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top