Need?

R

roashooter

Moderator
In another forum...which I will not say...(THR)...an individual has started a thread listing guns he thinks....based on his opinion....we as gun owners do not need.

I have a sore nerve for anyone stating what I may or may not "Need"

Anyone on this forum agree?
 
I don't think someone should have any control of any of my actions as long as they don't harm anyone else. And the harm better be considered as direct, not some namby-pamby "impact on society".
 
A link to the thread in question, or a summary of the person's arguments, would help us to better discuss this.

That said, proving that I "need" something is appeasement of a sort. I don't need a computer to exercise free speech when typewriters still exist. Yet I doubt free-speech advocates would agree with that.
 
In a free society, need is determined by the individual.
Having what fills that need must be earned by the individual.
Anyone else who wants to have the power of determination over either is up to no good.
 
We have wants and desires, there's very few things you absolutely need in life.
Needs and rights are two different things. Sure I can have good uses for most of my guns but I don't need them. I do have a right to have them though. There's a lot of things in life that that make living easier and more enjoyable, just because we don't need them doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

It's like a car, you don't need it. Having one makes life easier.
 
The post does not advocate gun control, but rather lists some firearms that the writer thinks should be discontinued. The first on the list, for example, is Ruger's LC380, with the reason given that the LC9 is the same size and the LCP is a smaller pistol that uses the same cartridge.

It is just gun talk, and although it ignores the simple premise that the market can determine whether the product is wanted or not, it seems fairly harmless to me. It is more a discussion of what guns the writer doesn't want than it is an endorsement of gun control measures.
 
I'll never need at least 95% of my guns, and most likely 100%. Do I really need to hunt? No. If I die of a heart attack in my sleep, did I ever need any of my non-hunting guns? No.

If the day ever comes that I actually need all of my guns, and ammo - we are all in big, big, BIG trouble!
 
The post does not advocate gun control, but rather lists some firearms that the writer thinks should be discontinued. The first on the list, for example, is Ruger's LC380, with the reason given that the LC9 is the same size and the LCP is a smaller pistol that uses the same cartridge.
Click to expand...

+1 TailGator

It's pretty clear that the linked forum thread is talking about guns which people think should be discontinued. I'm sure similar discussions have occurred here. It seems to be a civil discussion on why certain handguns are better than others. I'm sure 90% of Glock diehards would burn Beretta in a heartbeat.

If the thread author had gone on there and started talking about how AR-15s and such should be taken off the market; I'd agree. It doesn't seem to be a kneejerk post.
 
I have no need for a firearm and never have. I'm over the legal age of the militia, so that part is no longer an issue. I've had just about every interesting gun that I wanted. I live in the greatest, most stable, most peaceful country in the world (and the same goes for my county, too), at least unless some radical party gets in power. My religion frowns on killing people, too, although I was still in both the army and the National Guard. That pretty much covers needs.

I haven't mentioned what I want, however.
 
"If the thread author had gone on there and started talking about how AR-15s and such should be taken off the market; I'd agree. It doesn't seem to be a kneejerk post."

So those guns he listed ...if you happen to own one....would you feel different??

let me remind you...there are MANY.....who advocate that the AR-15s....have NO place on the public market....

the mindset that any guns could...should be discontinued...based on "NEED"...should be considered as a threat to gun ownership
 
Well here's the retort of the guy who started the thread over there on The High Road.

No, I'm not trying to get these guns removed because I'm a ******bag liberal. I'm as pro gun as it comes. I was making suggestions on guns that I think take up machine time at the factories where other, more in demand gun models would be better suited to production time to meet that greater demand.
Click to expand...

So I'll take him at his word that he's not a gun grabber.

There's lots of things to get upset about today but IMhO this isn't one of them.

If you want to go down this road why not bring up the states that don't allow certain firearms and discuss that again. There is a REAL case of gun grabbing dumbness.
 
The gun owner is the most dangerous to gun rights.

I used to be the guy that said "you don't need X TO hunt" and "you don't need Y for defense"

Just like "Modern Sporting Rifle" is not a term freedom lovers use either.

Freedom means that you will have to accept other people's freedoms as well.
You have to accept that neighbor A rides a Harley. Neighbor B smokes pot for enjoyment. Neighbor C goes to night clubs. And neighbor D raises chickens. Guy down the block bangs his drums.

One buddy hunts with a muzzle loader. Your best friend sprays chemicals to treat his lawn and your boss has a flashy sports car. So-and-so is in that different church and believes differently than you.

No one can fully accept everyone's freedoms. Even pro-2nd amendment guys can have pretty restrictive beliefs on others freedoms.
 
I think I know what thread you are discussing and that Op is talking about guns that he/she thinks should be discontinued. It's a little different subject than talking about what one "needs." As in most things in reality, we don't really "need" much....but actual need is completely subjective and personal.

Frankly, if they discontinued producing ARs and those variants, most every plastic pistol made, rifles without wood stocks, it would not really affect me much.
 
The post does not advocate gun control, but rather lists some firearms that the writer thinks should be discontinued. The first on the list, for example, is Ruger's LC380, with the reason given that the LC9 is the same size and the LCP is a smaller pistol that uses the same cartridge.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and he makes some valid arguments in that regard
 
Ask the clown, who needs a Ferrari Testarossa or a Lamborghini? Each will get you from point A to point B as well as Chevy Impala, maybe not as fast but it will get you there. Need has little to do with it. Yes I know people who need certain guns for certain specific circumstances (hunting for one). When I started out shooting shotguns as a kid a single shot was all I needed. When I started hunting I used a pump action shotgun. For home and personal defense I'll use whatever I feel like and nothing should be off limits because bad guys don't care about limits. Now my collection is what I want just as the stamp or coin collector.
 
It's easy to get locked into a continued defensive posture over the "need" for a particular gun when the question is most often asked in the nanny/ police state context. "why would anyone need ....... kind of gun, it should not be allowed". I think the use of the word "need" by the OP meant market place need (demand). Certain gun models get discontinued from production due to lack of market need. I have no problem with someone asking what need a particular product serves, as that is what drives business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top