Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon anyway?

I try not to answer with the government tyranny thing because it automatically makes them think you are a "nutjob".I prefer to answer with my own question that most antis can relate to, it may not change their mind but they will at least have to stop and think about it.

Why does someone need to drink alcohol?

There answer can usually be used for the same thing. Both can be enjoyed responsible, both can be abused, both have the potential to kill in the wrong hands. Neither can do anything without a PERSON using it. My favorite thing to add just to use antis own words is what benefit is there to alcohol that can't be gotten from something else? It seems like a simple argument to me, I am just tired of the responsibility of a persons actions being put on the background.
 
Last edited:
During the early wars of the 1800's and early 1900's (even WWI and WWII) the military used bolt action rifles, lever guns, single action pistols, and so on! Are those considered assault weapons??? NOPe. Plenty of Indians were assaulted with lever guns!

The M4 variants and AK's we have on the civilian market are NOT assault weapons by definition!
 
.
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed "National Heros" and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized "Official Government Explanation" or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted "hunting" was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and "target shooting" was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted "target shooting". The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.

As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or "liberty". Far too many times unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of "for your safety" or "for protection" . The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for "safety". Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for "our safety".

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute- Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate "evil" into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, defective people will always find a way around it.

And another thought Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is "evil" and "malevolence" most often found? In the hands of those with the power- governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do governments target? "Scapegoats" and "enemies" within their own borders … but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer "We were disarmed before it happened". Ask any Jew what Hitler's first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn't be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families.

Author Unknown
Seeking attributi
 
Because someday I may need to repel an assault.
Click to expand...

Carne, when the moose band together to assault your place with air support from the ptarmigan, you let me know. Sounds like a chance for good eats! :D
 
The list is endless...

enough food to survive, and enough shelter to do the same thing (and clothing is shelter). Beyond that, humans don't physically NEED anything. Everything else is a want, not a need.

If we were zoo animals, and nothing else, with our physical needs provided, and our protection assured by keeping us in cages or pens, arguing about if we "need" this or that might be a way to pass the time. Other than that, it is a useless waste of both time, and breath.

In the real world, we need arms. Because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Also, they don't respond until after something happens.

Do I need an "assault weapon"? Before the right deniers in the press, anti-gun groups and certain politicians began demonizing them, "assault weapons" were just semi auto firearms. And that's ALL they were.

Forget the lies coming out of the administration, for many decades the FBI has published yearly compilations of the "weapons used to commit murder". Long guns of ALL types are something like 3% of the firearms used. And the long guns classified by the right deniers as "assault weapons" are something like 1.5% (of that 3% total) of the long guns used.

Now true, they have been used in some spectacularly horrifying mass murders, and are in constant use 24/7 on our video screens in movies and games, but the actual use of these arms in crime is so low as to be statistically insignificant. Why is it that they are such a threat today?

It is because of the perception that they are in mass use in crime, when they are not. That perception if fostered by the entertainment industry. THey are all over the screen, all the time. This does translate to most people thinking that they are all over real crime, all the time. They aren't, but that might be changing, thanks to the dedicated efforts of our media.

They are now the glamorous thing. Ordinary folks are buying them like hotcakes, to get one, before the ban. And I would expect that at least a certain element of the criminal culture is getting them beacuse of how they look, and all the attention being focused on them. They are "cool" (or whatever the current slang word is).

As to need? well, leaving aside all the rational arguments, try this one...the bad guys have them, so we need them too!!

Or this counter argument...the govt says minimum wage is all we need to live on. So everyone who thinks that allowing the govt to decide what we need to own should be fine with having all their wages above minimum wage confiscated by the govt. RIGHT????
 
Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon anyway?

I refuse to acknowledge the term "assault rifle" when applied to any semi-auto rifle that does not fire full auto. It does not fit the definition. The correct term is "modern sporting rifle". If some one asked me if I owned a so-called "assault rifle" I would respond that "No, I do not, you ignorant (fill in the blank with the epithet of your choice)."
 
Asking why you "need" to have an assault weapon is just shifting the burden of proof. Gun ownership in the U.S. is a right and thus the default position and requires no explanation. The onus is on those asserting that not having or taking away guns or certain guns would produce the results they desire.
 
You ever notice the media has never (that I have seen) reported on or freaked out about class III firearms? You would think they would plaster all that on the front page. Is it because you have to be rich to own one therefore they don't mess with them? The anti people would have to seek counseling if you took them to Knob Creek, lol.
 
Someone said today,

"I need a semiauto rifle with a 30 round magazine because the government has fully auto rifles with 30 round magazines"

Lol
 
This idea of defending the "need" to own an evil black rifle is currently running in many threads here, and on boards all over the interweb. Jimbob86 made the quote I have in my signature line in response. If we are a free people, then need has nothing to do with our natural rights. With those rights comes responsibility, and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are dangerously mentally ill must be a high priority. That will not, can not, and should not be accomplished by taking firearms from law abiding citizens.
 
Last edited:
I take a different stance - rather than answer the question, I ask a question.

The whole point is that it's a rhetorical argument. The person asking isn't intending to engage in thoughtful conversation and learn something. No, they are just stirring things up and seeing what reaction they get.

So, I match their rhetoric - which shows I understand their real intent. I ask, why does anyone need a 24 pack of beer, or a gallon of whiskey? That much alcohol is dangerous, either ingested or as an accelerant.

And not letting up, I ask if they know 3,000 teens a year get killed drunk driving.

I have others, all based on "If you hate guns and want to see them banned, why do you tolerate even one death by alcohol, which kills 10,000 people a year?"

Don't argue from their perspective. Argue that if it is such a good thing, then the same waiting periods, restrictions, and bans are even better saving lives that would be snuffed out from alcohol.

Like, a three day waiting period between purchases, restrictions on how much equivalent of three beers, registering ALL alcohol drinkers, requiring their vehicles to have a breathlyzer, having alcohol drinkers placed in a high cost insurance group to underwrite their expenses. It's already done with smokers - they pay higher premiums.

Yeah, I know, it might touch a nerve with some, but the reality is to get them to think about it - not bait you with a dumb comment they haven't really thought about.

If it's good for "assault rifles," how much better for maniacs under the influence? They are far more deadly. That needs to be done to put perspective on the issue.
 
Why do I have a motorcycle that will get to 60 in 3 seconds and tops out over 200mph. Cause it makes me grin that's why. I think there is something in the constitution about pursuit of happiness! Firing off a big round and screaming down the highway at a safe speed:D makes me happy. So outside of the second amendment I have plenty of reason to own and use whatever I like.
 
Just responding to the question about "need" of any firearm is falling into the trap of the antis.
The 2ndA says nothing about need other than for defense. We are still America and have a right to choose for ourselves.
 
Tirod,

my point exactly with my earlier post. If you are going to argue with antis you have to use their argument with something that they relate to. Most probably can relate to alcohol use, whether they use it or not.

Usually answering with protection, gov tyranny, or most other defenses from the pro-gun group will automatically turn a switch off in their brain, and they will just ignore you.
 
Why do I have a motorcycle that will get to 60 in 3 seconds and tops out over 200mph. Cause it makes me grin that's why. I think there is something in the constitution about pursuit of happiness!
Click to expand...
The "pursuit of happiness" quote is from the Declaration of Independence and NOT the Constitution.

Furthermore, IMHO the "because I like it!" argument is very weak. Some people like cocaine too, but that doesn't automatically mean that it should be legal to possess.*

*FOOTNOTE: I don't intend to discuss libertarian arguments regarding the validity and/or constitutionality of federal controlled substance prohibition; it's settled law, the majority of U.S. citizens agree with it, and I'm citing it only as an example. Let's leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top