Why do you need an "assault rifle"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Erno86
Because basically...they're fun to shoot --- I can't afford a machinegun {which is legal to possess in Maryland by civilians, with the proper Federal tax stamp}, so my next best toy is a semi-auto that can shoot 6 rounds in 1.5 seconds --- Preferably a centerfire AR or AK.
Click to expand...

Sorry to take issue, but it irks me a bit that one of the marketing procedures that gun-rights people use is to 'take politicians to the range.' It annoys me because "fun" makes gun ownership seem like an expendable hobby practiced by ignorant rednecks.

Back in 2013, before the avalanche of crappy Colorado legislation, I was chatting up my local rep and he was telling me that he had "never fired one before, but a group of citizens had taken me to the range." It struck me as odd, but I had some points to make, so I didn't get off into the weeds.

Like any other natural right, no one "needs X" (in this case a weapon), until he or she needs X. And then you will want the most effective X you can beg, borrow or steal. If there were a way to simulate waking up at 3 a.m. to the sound of a splintering door frame and the realization that your kids' room is 50' away on the other side of the house, I bet a LOT more politicians would see the beauty of having more than a phone ringing to 911 in hand.
 
So, the 2nd amendment was firstly about protecting the union,
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree, and disagree on this statement. The overall intent was "protecting" the US (and I think the use of the term "the union" is not the best one to use, due to Civil War connotations), but the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the GOVERNMENT, to protect the RKBA of the citizens, and thereby keep the government from shortsightedly creating the condition of not having an armed pool of citizen to draw from, at need.

So, the militia was split into two groups. The regulated militia, which is the National Guard, and the unregulated militia,
Click to expand...

The National Guard is NOT the regulated militia. IT was created by Federal law, not, "soon after" the Revolution, but in the early years of the 20th century. It is normally under the control of the state Governors but becomes FEDERAL TROOPS in time of war.

It annoys me because "fun" makes gun ownership seem like an expendable hobby practiced by ignorant rednecks.
Click to expand...

First off, "ignorant rednecks" have the same rights as educated snobs.

Secondly, taking politicians out shooting, and showing them that firearms are more then just our "liberty teeth", they are ALSO something that people enjoy using for recreation, which explains to them just WHY so many people get ticked off when you restrict and ban them. It's NOT just the philosophical "defense against tyranny" that makes our guns important to us, it is the daily, or seasonal LAWFUL, SAFE, RECREATIONAL use that we value.

The politician who has never even shot a gun cannot be expected to realize, let alone understand this. They don't consider how UPSET we get when they pass gun control laws, because they don't realize that besides the deadly utility guns have when needed, we ENJOY shooting them.

We COULD show politicians the political reasons for being armed, but shooting a few tyrannical politicians to encourage the others isn't something we need to do, just yet. Hopefully never. Despite the way so many of them act, politicians aren't stupid, they just have a very narrow, and often misguided view of the world. Showing them that there are things out there that are loved and enjoyed by a lot of people, which are outside of their experience and mindset is not a bad thing. It might just open a few of their eyes to the fact that the entire world does not think like they do. And why.
 
Despite the way so many of them act, politicians aren't stupid, they just have a very narrow, and often misguided view of the world. Showing them that there are things out there that are loved and enjoyed by a lot of people, which are outside of their experience and mindset is not a bad thing. It might just open a few of their eyes to the fact that the entire world does not think like they do. And why.
Click to expand...



Call me cynical but I think you have a rather idealized notion of politicians. Many of them are stupid. Quite a few are corrupt. More than a few are perverts. The dumb ones tend to get caught quicker but not always.

For the most part most of them only care about money and power. It is a difficult balancing act to pretend to care about certain things to acquire more wealth and power but the more brutal ones tend to succeed.
 
Well said 44. The idea that making the case that shooting is fun would somehow characterize me as an ignorant redneck is almost funny. While I well may be a redneck, I am not ignorant regarding the Constitution, and the importance of the 2A or its original intent. If for no other reason, taking someone in the anti-gun camp shooting allows them to see we are regular Americans and are not the dangerous, unthinking fanatics we are often accused of being by those with an agenda to disarm us. This gives us a voice that we may not get any other way.

doofus47, I think we have to be careful not to view those in the gun community who don't see things exactly as we do as part of the problem. Just because I don't lead with, "What are you going to do when your family is attacked and the police are not there?"; or, "My guns are to protect me from tyrannical government." doesn't mean I don't understand how important guns are to our safety and liberty.
 
Why do you (john q citizen) need an assault rifle?
Click to expand...

My reply, I don't really have a need for an "assault" rifle as by definition such rifle would be capable of full automatic firing capability. Further, I don't own such a weapon. However, I do legally own and operate several semi-automatic rifles which are used for hunting, target shooting, and possibly to defend my family should the need arise.

Finally, Why don't you think I should own such a weapon?
 
I think we hurt ourselves by defining tyranny only as something that is practiced by a government. Gangs and criminal enterprises tyrannize populations just as surely as do governments gone awry, and a free person has a right to defend himself or herself against that tyranny, as well.
 
I think we hurt ourselves by defining tyranny only as something that is practiced by a government. Gangs and criminal enterprises tyrannize populations just as surely as do governments gone awry, and a free person has a right to defend himself or herself against that tyranny, as well.
Click to expand...

Good luck defending yourself in court when you shoot the corner drug dealers out of hand yelling; "Sic Semper Tyrannis". It will likely go as well as the using the pocket copy of the Constitution as a CCL.

No duty to retreat laws aside self defense is near universally recognized as a valid. Very few governments in the US argue against self defense of person. They just don't want you to use the best tools.
 
Yes, ignorant rednecks have exactly the same rights as anyone else Skans. Unfortunately our system often favors those with power and money, but to the extent we allow that to happen is the measure of us as a people.
 
Yes, ignorant rednecks have exactly the same rights as anyone else Skans.
Click to expand...

No, they really don't. If a redneck got caught leaking classified documents to our enemies he would be prosecuted for his crime. That's his right, the right to a trial and to spend $200,000 on a lawyer for his defense. When one of our "elite" get caught leaking classified documents to our enemies, they have the right and power to back law enforcement officials off their butt.

"Equal Justice For All" doesn't apply to the elite in All.
 
Ok, if you look at the law, as written you see one thing (equal rights for all), and if you look at what a corrupt system does with that, you see something else.

Other than serious thread drift, your point it??

(hint)
 
I've been meaning to come back to this thread, so that I could answer the original questions:
Why do you need an "assault rifle"?

Some answers for the question of why you need an AR-15/semi-auto/"assault rifle"/"assault weapon"
Click to expand...

Why do I need "an AR-15/semi-auto/assault rifle/assault weapon?"

I don't. I have never needed one. I sincerely hope that I never come to need one. In the event that I should ever truly need a semiautomatic weapon, nothing else will really serve as a substitute. If I ever need that "assault weapon," there's almost no way that a 911 call will get the police to my house before the threat has ended, either in my favor, or against it. No amount of love and tolerance will dissuade a determined home invader. But thirty rounds of .223 just might.

That, however, is completely irrelevant to my right to own one. I don't need an assault weapon, but I have a right to have one. What's more, just because I haven't exercised that right does not mean that it should be taken from me. There are many rights which our society needs for me to have, regardless of whether I actually ever put them into active use. I, for one, have never needed to exercise my rights under the Fourth, Fifth, or Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. I would submit, however, that it is absolutely necessary for every citizen to have those rights, as they are (to paraphrase our Supreme Court) "essential to our concept of ordered liberty." Take away those rights, and warrantless searches and torturing confessions become much less far-fetched. So while I, personally, have never needed to exercise those rights, I'd suggest that it's necessary to keep them in place.
 
To put it bluntly, I need it because the government feels it needs millions of them. If they want me to give up mine, then the civilian government (not including the military) needs to give up theirs as well, until then, I'm keeping mine.
 
Those who ask that question usually have their mind already made up and are just looking to argue. However, the answer you give will depend on who is asking. I think analogies provide the best argument to those who don't know firearms. Cell phones, shoes, purses, vehicles, etc. Pose the same question to them with something that's of interest to them: Why do you need the latest model of (item X) when there are older and less complicated versions available? Hopefully they can at least internalize that about themselves. Vehicles are my favorite one to use because everybody owns one and they can be used to kill somebody just as easy as a gun (just in case they say a phone and a gun aren't the same thing, thus your argument is void).

If it's somebody you know or at least trust enough to not do anything crazy, offer to take them shooting and see for themselves! I've converted most of my friends who were raised anti-gun by just taking them shooting and teaching them. Most anti-gunners never touched a gun before and have no idea of the joy they provide :)
 
Last edited:
Need

"Need"....in the wrong hands it is one of the most dangerous words in the language.
It was and is comforting to see so much awareness in this thread of the different and dangerous ways that "need" is applied by people who do not understand it as well as by people who would take it in their own hands to decide what I and you and others "need".
There is a classic list of things that people need to survive...it is arguable of course but it is comprised of food, shelter, companionship.
Guns are not mentioned. The list, classic though it may be, accounts only for the basics of survival. It ignores comfort, contentment, the pursuit of happiness.
I enjoy firearms and take great pleasure in owning them and using them...I need them for those reasons.
Pete
 
I'm not going to comment on the 'needs' question because it is usually a politically loaded question. However, check out the comments in this article that is a review of the FN M249s (the semi auto belt fed version of the 249).

From reading the comments, you would think that MDA snuck in and posted comments about why anyone needs X gun. But, nope, it seems like actual gun owners passing judgment of what gun is needed or not needed. Kind of an interesting read.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/unleash-saw-civilian-m249-now-available-full-review/
 
In casual conversation, we talk about what people "need" all the time. Cars, cooking, computers, guns, golf shoes, any and everywhere people discuss things people talk about what you need, or don't need for this or that.

The difference here is that what in casual conversation is just an opinion, in the case here, they want to make their opinion the LAW.

And asking the "why do you need.." question is often "a common sense first step..."
 
You can take a look at some of the conversations (mostly on other boards) about bump-fire stocks - lots of gun folks questioned the need for something that simulates full-auto fire. These same conversations and comments came in flurries from gun folks about the Fostech Echo and Franklin Armory Binary Triggers that have recently come out. Lots of gun folks question the "need" for these devices as well and some down-right advocate against them.

I think some of us tend to forget that once upon a time not too long ago, it was legal to manufacture machine guns and/or convert semi-auto guns into machine guns and sell them to ordinary people, so long as they went through ATF's process of getting a stamp. So, IMHO, anything that comes close to simulating full-auto fire under the current laws comes close to restoring the rights we once had and lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top