[Green Lantern]

So said the comment in our local papers little anonymous "twitter-esque" section where people can call in assorted two-to-three sentence comments.

I intend to reply, with a full letter to the editor.

I have some of my own ideas, but was also looking for input from you guys on how best to respond?

[highorder]

Why does an ordinary American citizen

I'm curious how many different types of Americans they think they are, and who deserves to have which rights?

[Green Lantern]

^ Good catch, that one went right by me.

[arizona_cards_11]

To thwart the efforts of a tyrannical government.....and this is the only reason necessary.

[Shmackey]

"What is an assault rifle?"

It's astonishing how misinformed "ordinary" (ahem) Americans are about firearms. Many think that regular AR-15s are full-auto rifles. (Many think the same about Glocks and the like.) Many also don't realize that the AWB didn't ban what they think of as assault rifles at all.

The dreaded "assault rifle" shoots out one bullet for one trigger pull, just like an old-fashioned revolver or grandpa's Garand.

Columbine happened during the "assault weapons ban."

Again, though, if the point is to have a rational discussion, the leading question "OK, define what you want to ban" is a good start. Because they can't.

[mljdeckard]

For all lawful purposes. Rights are not justified by need.

[hso]

First point out that "assault rifles" that citizens possess are highly controlled requiring a background check at the federal level, a $200 tax, permission of your local Sheriff/Chief in writing. They're also expensive.

If the term is being intentionally used to mislead the public into thinking that machine guns are readily available to the public when the discussion is about semiauto rifles that look like assault rifles, there's not much point of a discussion with someone who's decided to lie to make a point.

If the term is mistakenly being used then that mistake can be corrected. Modern firearms take advantage of the advances in ergonomics and design from modern military firearms. Because no new machine guns can be sold to the public since the mid 1980s these firearms are one shop per pull of the trigger derivatives. They're used in competition, the fastest growing portion of the shooting competitive sports, they're used for hunting, Colt originally advertised them for this purpose, and they're used for recreational plinking. As a farm or ranch or house gun they're very handy and easy to shoot and because of the light weight of the bullets are less likely to penetrate structures injuring innocents (they are actually safer than your grandfather's revolver in this respect).

They are not the preferred weapon of criminals in spite of high profile crime just recently committed that involved one (Holmes opened up on the theater attendees with a shotgun, but no one is asking "why..." about them). FBI/DoJ statistics collected each year find that these firearms are used in a tiny fraction of violent crimes.

If they're only used in a tiny fraction of homicides and they are useful for hunting, competition and home defense, why call for their removal?

[Spats McGee]

1) When did need become a requirement for rights?

2) To defend my adorable wife and daughter, should evil come knocking at my door. Oh, and bad guys: (a) travel in groups; and (b) don't make appointments.

3) It ain't about "sporting purposes."

[Dr_B]

Ah, the "need" question. This gets thrown into the ring every time. I heard this argument when my state considered allowing guns on campus. As we should already know, need is not the proper justification for ownership or privilege.

[strykerfire]

I thik we should make a fully automatic "insult rifle" and spray it at the left for all there bull.

[beatledog7]

Isn't it interesting that whenever we manage to get a devoted anti to actually decide to learn how guns work -- what guns can do and what they can't do, etc. -- we can then easily convince them that the term "assault rifle" is functionally meaningless.

Thus, that anti is suddenly a lot less anti.

[Motodeficient]

After the latest Colorado incident, I remember on the news that they showed a picture on the screen and said, the shooter had guns like these: The picture showed a pistol-grip pump shotgun, an AR-style rifle, and two black autoloading handguns. This can't help the gun community any.... Now the uniformed people are going to think that if you have black guns like the ones in the picture, you are up to no good.

[armoredman]

"Why does an ordinary American citizen need an assault rifle?"
Well, for one, I am an extraordinary American. Americans have led the free world in many endeavors, and to call one an "ordinary American" is to immediately denigrate the accomplishments of Americans over the centuries, present Administration excepted.
Why do I "need" something, well, I don't need the tobacco I use in my pipe, and lung cancer kills quite a few people every years. I don't need the beer in my refrigerator, as as Randy Travis can now attest, (naked DUI?), abuse of alcohol can lead to many unpleasant incidents, some of those including death. I abuse neither, and use each sparingly. But I don't need them. So when are the "for the children" types going to ban them - they aren't Constitutionally protected, like firearms are, (SCOTUS, Heller vs US and McDonald vs Chicago), so when will they take these killers away, for the children?
What? It's been tried and failed? Gee, darn, too bad.
Since my firearms ARE Constitutionally protected, a level much higher than my pipe tobacco or Bud Light Platinum, two items which for which I have no requirement to prove a "need" for, and two items that have not been successfully removed from American society despite the level of death and injury misuse of them has caused, then I would have to say I likely have no need to prove a "need" for my firearms, either. You see, they don't "need" me to be unarmed. If they do, as paraphrased from Arfin, "what horrors do you have planned for me that you "need" me to be defenseless?"

[Davek1977]

After the latest Colorado incident, I remember on the news that they showed a picture on the screen and said, the shooter had guns like these: The picture showed a pistol-grip pump shotgun, an AR-style rifle, and two black autoloading handguns. This can't help the gun community any.... Now the uniformed people are going to think that if you have black guns like the ones in the picture, you are up to no good. No offense, but "EBRs" (evil black rifles) had that nickname WELL before the Daark Kniight shooting. No, it won't HELP our cause, but just pointing out what weapons were used....if done so accurately....is what I'd call good reporting. Just because an incident may not directly benefit us doesn't mean its purposely AGAINST us, either. Bieng a gun person, I am usually at least somewhat interested in what the shooter was using, and such reporting gives me the answers I was looking for. Now, if they had shown the rifles and went on a rant about how they needed to be banned and so on, I could understand why you'd be upset. However, reporting the facts should be what we EXPECT out of our news media, even if it doesn't reflect the reality we wished it did. AS long as the "gun details" aren't accompanied by a lengthy opinion, I don't mind the media telling me what the shooter used

[Twmaster]

No, I do not need an assault rifle. I do need a lightweight, ergonomic, easy to use, accurate, semi-automatic rifle based on a 60+ year history of service and improvement to defend my home, my person and my country.

I thik we should make a fully automatic "insult rifle" and spray it at the left for all there bull.

Yup the other side is already armed with blame-throwers. We need countermeasures! :neener:

[Davek1977]

"Blamethrowers" HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA......that is an awesome new word to coin!

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

I don't have an assualt rifle.
I have a semi-automatic rifle.
My rifle is no different than other semi-automatics that have been made over the years for hunting, it is just that mine happens to not have any wood furniture on it. I prefer it that way, as I can be out in the pouring-rain and I could care less if my gun gets wet.:rolleyes:

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

In places where guns are outlawed, why do the police carry guns?
If they are not "needed" by the public, then why are they "needed" by the police?

I think you will find they are "needed" by the police for one of the same reasons we happen to "need" our guns.

If they do not want us to have guns, why not first set an example and take the guns away from the police in places where guns are not allowed? I think the reason is clear. As we have said many, many times, e.g., OUTLAWS DON'T ABIDE BY LAWS!

Isn't it already a felony to use a gun in ANY CRIME?

[Sky]

In places where guns are outlawed, why do the police carry guns?
If they are not "needed" by the public, then why are they "needed" by the police?

I think you will find they are "needed" by the police for one of the same reasons we happen to "need" our guns.

If they do not want us to have guns, why not first set an example and take the guns away from the police in places where guns are not allowed? I think the reason is clear. As we have said many, many times, e.g., OUTLAWS DON'T ABIDE BY LAWS!

It is a felony to shoot at a police officer, yet some people do it anyway.

Good point^^^^^

Yup the other side is already armed with blame-throwers. We need countermeasures!

Salute!

[Mp7]

Because he is a gun nut.

All other explanations constructed, but a lie :D

[PBR Streetgang]

After reading through the posts,,,,maybe we should re-invent the evil black rifle as the new environmental save the earth firearm,pushing the fact no trees were killed in the construction of this rifle!

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

Gun-Nut:
http://www.bnpbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Gun-Laws.jpg
http://www.bnpbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Gun-Laws.jpg

http://globosupply.com/images/heavy_hex_nut1.jpg
http://globosupply.com/images/heavy_hex_nut1.jpg

[Friendly, Don't Fire!]

.....pushing the fact no trees were killed in the construction of this rifle!
Amen! ;)

[Green Lantern]

Good stuff, thanks!

My current plan is to focus on three things:
1) - semiauto rifles are NOT full auto "real" assault rifles
2) - the failure of the AWB to reduce crime, and the absurdity of some of it (bayonet lugs - "if someone attacks me with a knife, I HOPE they're dumb enough to stick it on a big heavy rifle first...")
3) - unlike Hollywood, its rare for a bad guy to go down with one shot alone, and the smart ones find a buddy or five to join up with them to prey on people

Now, even though it could fall under #3, I could use maybe more inspiration on defense of the 100-round magazine - though I don't really plan on going there in this letter. I don't know that "give the antis an inch and they'll take a mile," though true, will hold a lot of water with my audience.

Though I toyed with the idea of bringing up things like women with an absurd number of shoes, and people that own sports cars that can do 200mph. They don't "need" them, and the latter can be dangerous, but if they're not hurting anyone with them they why SHOULDN'T they own them if they want?

Also, with the ultimate purpose of the 2A, the defense against tyranny. Actually watching a debate on that on another site, and one guy does make a pretty fair point that We The People long ago lost the 'arms race' with the Government. And he theorizes that we're allowed to keep arms to keep us complacent and give us the illusion that we can overthrow tyranny if needed - even as we move closer and closer to it with each passing year (Patriot act, NDAA, drones, etc).

Syria is an interesting counter-example to a point...but it can be argued that the reason Asaad hasn't REALLY broken bad yet is to avoid bringing the full military wrath of most of the rest of the world down on his head.

So in short, I feel like I really ought to mention something about tyranny, but fear doing so for doing the argument at hand more harm than good if someone replies with some of the above arguments?

[keithbayne]

first,what they do not understand is,it is NOT an assault rifle if it is single fire not full auto.
next,the 2nd amendment says we have the right to a well formed militia,therefore,it is a consitutional right for us to have them. other people have the right to buy expensive fast cars,get drunk,and kill people.no one is trying to outlaw sports cars or alcahol.
and why do these gungrabber types think it makes any difference what type gun or magazine one has? it is the "person"not the things that kill people.

[PedalBiker]

Assault rifle has no meaningful definition.

Full auto is already largely banned.

100 round magazines present their own problems - unreliable, heavy and very large.

Magazines of more reasonable size have legitimate sporting and self defense roles.

High velocity, expanding projectiles are actually safer in an urban environment than shotgun slugs or pistol bullets.

Rifles are more accurate and precise than any other system. i.e. a miss is more likely than with shotguns or pistols. Missing your target helps no one in a self defense scenario.

Semi autos are more useful for the recoil sensitive and handicapped individuals. Since those firing in self defense often have to shoot back after being injured the handicapped benefits of semi autos are quite relevant to everyone.

[PedalBiker]

Also, with the ultimate purpose of the 2A, the defense against tyranny. Actually watching a debate on that on another site, and one guy does make a pretty fair point that We The People long ago lost the 'arms race' with the Government. And he theorizes that we're allowed to keep arms to keep us complacent and give us the illusion that we can overthrow tyranny if needed - even as we move closer and closer to it with each passing year (Patriot act, NDAA, drones, etc).

The "arms race" is bogus. You don't use nuclear weapons or even artillery or MLRS weapons for occupation and peacekeeping. No nation has "won" a war until the people surrender. We didn't leave VietNam because they had better weapons. The Russians were not outgunned in Afghanistan.

An "arms race" is psychological not tactical.

When guns are absent other devices are put to similar use, hence the IED problem in Iraq. We did a fairly good job of getting rid of the "guns on the street" in Iraq. It didn't help us as much as the gun haters have promised.

[hso]

If you'll post your final draft I'm sure we'd have folks who can offer some final fine tuning before you send it out.

BTW, we only need to look at the two most recent conflicts the United States military has had to contend with to show how effective "outgunned" irregulars can be at stymieing national policy.

We won't win these arguments in the public forums by using our right to arms as the argument or the opposition to government tyranny. We can win them by dissecting the baseless anti arguments with facts and emotional appeals to self protection/reliance. Pointing out that collapsing LE budgets illustrate the myth of "the police will protect you" and that being able to protect yourself until the police arrive is something that people get on a "gut" level.

[zxcvbob]

Answer the question with a question, "Why does a dog lick himself?"

[DammitBoy]

Answer the question with a question, "Why does a dog lick himself?"

Because the police are minutes away when seconds count! :D

(sorry, my dog made me post that)

[C0untZer0]

I've decided I don't.

I have decided however that I do need a Battle Rifle :D

[Green Lantern]

^ +1 to that! When I argue that I'd hope that someone that tries to cut me up is dumb enough to use a bayonet on a rifle, if I REALLY get to have it my way it'll be a HEAVY wood-n-steel warrior like the Garand or M14. :D

And blast it all....it never seems to fail that when I need my mind to be it's sharpest, something comes along to utterly destroy my focus. I'd really like to make next week's paper, but better to get things right than rush it.

[DammitBoy]

Try using this quote.

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy.

Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country.

For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." ~ John F. Kennedy, April 1960

Kinda makes you wonder what happened to the Democrat Party, huh?

[Skribs]

It's in a newspaper. Ask why they NEED to print a specific article.

[leadcounsel]

Because we are Americans and FREE people.

Taken to the extreme, why does an "ordinary" (whatever that means) person need:
1) A car that goes over 40 miles per hour. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, car accidents are responsible for between 32,000-41,000 deaths EVERY YEAR.

2) Swimming pools and buckets - Drowning is the second leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 1 to 14 and
the leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children ages 1 to 4. The majority of
drownings and near-drownings occur in residential swimming pools and in open water sites. However,
children can drown in as little as one inch of water and are therefore at risk of drowning in wading pools,
bathtubs, buckets, diaper pails, toilets, spas and hot tubs.

3) Knives. Why does anyone need a pointy kitchen knife? Let's make pointy knives illegal. Surely lives could be saved.

And on and on and on... until we outlaw everything that can possibly be used to hurt, mame, or kill someone...

Globally, and in the US, mass murders occur with gasoline and a match (arson), knives, hammers, machetes, rope (hangings), swords, cars (remember that guy that drove through the bicyclists)...

The object isn't the issue it's human nature to be violent and we are doing a poor job at teaching people to be non-violent.

And finally, the 2A is the only thing that keeps the government from completely steamrolling our rights. Don't believe it, look at Europe, the UK, China, and on and on and on... those people are not free.

[Owen Sparks]

Why does an ordinary American citizen need liberty of any kind? After all, when human beings are allowed to run around loose that they might harm themselves or others.

[Green Lantern]

Draft ready:

"Why does anyone need an "assault rifle," asks an anonymous Ranter. The short answer, I suppose, would be that the Second Amendment is a part of what is known as the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. The longer answer gets a bit more complex. First of all one needs to actually define "assault rifle." I wouldn't be surprised if the asker was thinking of a fully automatic weapon that can empty it's magazine in seconds as long as the trigger is held down. Which is actually (in my opinion) the correct definition of assault rifle. The thing is, by that definition, there are almost NO assault rifles in the hands of average American citizens. The confusion comes from the fact that a lot of civilian semi-automatic rifles are designed to look like the full-auto counterparts. The misunderstanding is also reinforced by some anti-gun members of the media, where a favorite trick is to show footage of full-auto assault weapons while doing a story about their semi-auto counterparts. It's true that there are full-automatic weapons out there on the civilain market. Their numbers are miniscule, and thus their price is astronomical (usually starting in the 5-digit range). In order to own a REAL assault rifle, you need permission from the Federal Government (as well as your local Sheriff in North Carolina).

When people talk about assault weapon bans, both state laws on the books and the prospect of renewing Bill Clinton's failed Federal experiment that ran from 1994 to 2004, they're talking about banning "politician-defined assault rifles." The definition of those, rifles classified as assault rifles because they look "scary" and have some "scary" features. One such feature politicians strongly object to, for instance? Bayonet lugs. How many people have been bayoneted by criminals, exactly? If I ever have the misfortune of being attacked by someone weilding a knife, I can only hope he's stupid enough to have it attached to a long, bulky, heavy rifle when he comes at me. The Clinton ban is considered a failure by all but the most zealous gun-haters who flatly refuse to acknowledge the researched and documented fact that the ban failed to reduce crime - mainly because such guns were very rarely used in crimes. Even "assault weapon" ban champion Dianne Feinstein admitted both before and after the ban that such weapons are rarely used in crimes - which makes one wonder how she justified her claim that they were "turning America's streets into war zones."

Finally, In a free country the burden of proof is not upon those who seek to exercise rights, but upon those who seek to prevent their exercise. "Politician-defined assault weapons" have plenty of perfectly legitimate uses. One advantage of rifles like the AR-15 is the relative ease of modifying it for different purposes. One rifle, in the right configuration, can be used for target shooting, informal plinking, hunting, and of course the defense of life and liberty if the need should ever arise. Naturally the concept of self-defense is foreign to many elitist gun-control supporters who can either afford their own team of bodyguards, or have security teams supplied to them courtesy of the tax dollars of the people they wish to render defenseless. Yet the hard truth is that the police can't predict a crime before it happens and they can't magically appear on the scene the second one begins. Joe Biden and his ilk have their fancy Beretta shotguns - and teams of Secret Service agents (armed with REAL assault weapons). The rest of us have to make do with the most effective defensive weapons available to "ordinary" Americans.

[DammitBoy]

"Name one defensive use of an AR-15 rifle by a civilian"

That's the response I get when I list self-defense as a use for an "assault rifle"...

[Green Lantern]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE

Just one I found with a dialup-powered Google.

I'd counter for them to explain WHY it COULDN"T work for self-defense?

*cough* Never mind the overpenetration issue...which is a risk to varying degrees with any firearm anyway...

[Rmeju]

@ the OP: I think your letter is addressing the wrong things. You are making policy arguments (i.e. X should be allowed, but Y should be banned, because it's a smart move). The antis are not entitled to even engage in this argument until they get around the constitutional requirements. The only policy argument the antis are entitled to, is to say that the 2A is such a bad idea that it needs to be repealed. Say what you want about the wisdom of that course of action, but at least it's a legitimate means under the constitution.

I would still point out that the commonly available rifles are semi-only, but I wouldn't make it a centerpiece of my argument. Giving it more than a sentence opens the door to argument that they already know that the AR used in the Colo. shooting was a semi-only AR, and that it caused a lot of damage. I also would not spend any time arguing crime statistics or SD (other than to note that the gun in question is suitable for SD) or tyranny-based justifications, because those are policy-based arguments.

The proper response to the question is that whether anyone "needs" them or not couldn't possibly be any more irrelevant. What is relevant under current SCOTUS jurisprudence is whether the weapon is a suitable SD weapon, and whether the weapon is in a "class" of arms common in this country.

[bikerdoc]

I refer to mine as stop assault rifles.

[2ndAmFan]

I don't have an assault rifle. I can't afford one. I have a couple semiauto clones. As long as criminals and the enemies of my country have assault rifles we the people should have them too. For that matter, I believe we should have them anyway. But since government decided to price them out of the reach of people like me I will take the best I can get. I would much rather have a semiauto rifle with a hi-cap mag than a single shot, bolt, pump or lever action with a limited number of rounds and which takes longer to reload and fire.

[Route666]

I don't know why those against guns are always talking about need as if that should matter. I believe anyone on the planet should be allowed to have anything, but if they use it in an illegal / immoral / harmful way, they should be stopped and punished severely.

If I want a tank I should be allowed to have one. I have no need for it, (just like most luxuries no-one has a need for...) but if I have the money and do no wrong with it what should it matter?

The amount of distrust and "lock up (restrict) the law-abiding to stop them from committing a crime" type of attitude build into the laws in countries like the US and most other western countries I find pretty disgusting and offensive honestly.

[Kevin5098]

It's the Bill of Rights not the "Bill of Needs". Take away our rights and we are no longer free.

[tomrkba]

"Why does an ordinary American need free speech?"

"Why does an ordinary American need a speedy trial by jury?"

"Why does an ordinary American need freedom of assembly and of religion?"

etc

[Sky]

"Why does anyone need an "assault rifle," asks an anonymous Ranter. The short answer, I suppose, would be that the Second Amendment is a part of what is known as the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. The longer answer gets a bit more complex. First of all one needs to actually define "assault rifle." I wouldn't be surprised if the ask-er was thinking of a fully automatic weapon that can empty it's magazine in seconds as long as the trigger is held down. Which is actually (in my opinion) the correct definition of assault rifle. The thing is, by that definition, there are almost NO assault rifles in the hands of average American citizens. The confusion comes from the fact that a lot of civilian semi-automatic rifles are designed to look like the full-auto counterparts. The misunderstanding is also reinforced by some anti-gun members of the media, where a favorite trick is to show footage of full-auto assault weapons while doing a story about their semi-auto counterparts. It's true that there are full-automatic weapons out there on the civilian market. Their numbers are minuscule, and thus their price is astronomical (usually starting in the 5-digit range). In order to own a REAL assault rifle, you need permission from the Federal Government (as well as your local Sheriff in North Carolina).

When people talk about assault weapon bans, both state laws on the books and the prospect of renewing Bill Clinton's failed Federal experiment that ran from 1994 to 2004, they're talking about banning "politician-defined assault rifles." The definition of those, rifles classified as assault rifles because they look "scary" and have some "scary" features. One such feature politicians strongly object to, for instance? Bayonet lugs. How many people have been bayoneted by criminals, exactly? If I ever have the misfortune of being attacked by someone wielding a knife, I can only hope he's stupid enough to have it attached to a long, bulky, heavy rifle when he comes at me. The Clinton ban is considered a failure by all but the most zealous gun-haters who flatly refuse to acknowledge the researched and documented fact that the ban failed to reduce crime - mainly because such guns were very rarely used in crimes. Even "assault weapon" ban champion Dianne Feinstein admitted both before and after the ban that such weapons are rarely used in crimes - which makes one wonder how she justified her claim that they were "turning America's streets into war zones."

Finally, In a free country the burden of proof is not upon those who seek to exercise rights, but upon those who seek to prevent their exercise. "Politician-defined assault weapons" have plenty of perfectly legitimate uses. One advantage of rifles like the AR-15 is the relative ease of modifying it for different purposes. One rifle, in the right configuration, can be used for target shooting, informal plinking, hunting, and of course the defense of life and liberty if the need should ever arise. Naturally the concept of self-defense is foreign to many elitist gun-control supporters who can either afford their own team of bodyguards, or have security teams supplied to them courtesy of the tax dollars of the people they wish to render defenseless. Yet the hard truth is that the police can't predict a crime before it happens and they can't magically appear on the scene the second one begins. Joe Biden and his ilk have their fancy Beretta shotguns - and teams of Secret Service agents (armed with REAL assault weapons). The rest of us have to make do with the most effective defensive weapons available to "ordinary" Americans. Fixed a few mis-spelled words/typos.

I believe you made a well written articulate statement. +1^^^^

[zxcvbob]

Answer the question with a question, "Why does a dog lick himself?"
Because the police are minutes away when seconds count!

(sorry, my dog made me post that)

Because he can!!! (my dog made me post the first one)

[JohnKSa]

Rights do not exist based on immediate necessity, they are based on overarching principles having to do with the interaction of individuals in society and between the people and government.

The fact that a particular person or even a large group of persons may not have an easily articulable short term necessity for a particular right or item doesn't mean that item isn't necessary in the long term or in the general, big picture scheme of things.

For example, I don't really have a daily or ongoing need for my constitutional right not to incriminate myself because I've never been in a situation where I was in any real danger of incriminating myself. That's probably true of most "ordinary American citizens", but that doesn't mean that we, as a whole, should give that right up, and it certainly doesn't mean we should have to articulate the reason we need it in order to exercise it. It's there for a reason that, in reality, has very little to do with any particular individual and EVERYTHING to do with limiting the power of government in its dealings with the citizenry as a whole.

The same general principles apply to exercising the 2nd amendment.

[Snake Plisskin]

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty " Thomas Jefferson

[BigN]

The same reason why people "need" a Mercedes instead of a VW. You don't need one, but in a supposedly free country, if you've got the money you're free to buy what you "want." Who cares what I need or want? The difference between need and want shouldn't even be a question. If we all only got what we need, we wouldn't have anything...

[ZeSpectre]

Also, with the ultimate purpose of the 2A, the defense against tyranny. Actually watching a debate on that on another site, and one guy does make a pretty fair point that We The People long ago lost the 'arms race' with the Government. And he theorizes that we're allowed to keep arms to keep us complacent and give us the illusion that we can overthrow tyranny if needed

History is just chock full of examples where the "peasants" couldn't possibly fight back against the sheer might of a trained standing army....and yet somehow do so.

On a different note, I've had some real fun recently by referring to my AR as a "SUG" (Sports/Utility Gun). When asked what makes that different from an "Assault Rifle" I say "I don't know, tell me what an "Assault Rifle" is". Do you know not one person has been able to tell me what an "Assault Rifle" is. The best answer I've got so far is "I don't know but I know one when I see it". :rolleyes:

[Midwest]

"Zombie Repellers" sounds better ...

[RetiredUSNChief]

An interesting question...and I LOVE the way it was phrased. That opens it up to a lot of intelligent criticism.

Why does "an ordinary American citizen need":

- An automobile capable of going over the speed limit
- Books about any subject outside what he needs to do his job
- A TV with hundreds of channels of entertainment
- Children
- More than one religion...or any religion at all
- More than one newspaper
- Internet websites which don't have anything to do with information directly relevant to his work and putting food on the table for his family
- High speed internet
- Cell phones of any kind, much less ones with cameras, music players, and internet access
- Pens available in more than one color (black)
- Any clothing that is more than basically functional as clothing
- More than one pair of shoes
- A privately owned house and property
- Soft drinks (or soft drinks larger than 16 ounces...an obvious jab at New York City)
- Artificial birth control, since abstenance will obviously prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Any paint colors other than officially sanctioned primary colors
- Games, which don't feed your family or put a roof over their heads
- Air conditioning, when fans can be used
- Linen with higher thread counts than 200

Strictly speaking, outside of the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing, the "ordinary American citizen" doesn't NEED anything.

But there is more to a vibrant life than just those three basics.


There is a difference between a "want" and a "need", a "right" and a "privilege".

And, beside all this, these people need to come to terms with what the heck an "assault rifle" actually is. The phrase is used as a euphamism for "military weapon" or "combat weapon", and is deliberately invoked to bring forth an image of a machine gun. We've already got enough laws in place to deal with that particular subject.

[Spats McGee]

Rights do not exist based on immediate necessity, they are based on overarching principles having to do with the interaction of individuals in society and between the people and government.

The fact that a particular person or even a large group of persons may not have an easily articulable short term necessity for a particular right or item doesn't mean that item isn't necessary in the long term or in the general, big picture scheme of things.

For example, I don't really have a daily or ongoing need for my constitutional right not to incriminate myself because I've never been in a situation where I was in any real danger of incriminating myself. That's probably true of most "ordinary American citizens", but that doesn't mean that we, as a whole, should give that right up, and it certainly doesn't mean we should have to articulate the reason we need it in order to exercise it. It's there for a reason that, in reality, has very little to do with any particular individual and EVERYTHING to do with limiting the power of government in its dealings with the citizenry as a whole.

The same general principles apply to exercising the 2nd amendment.
This is exceptionally well put, John.

[Midwest]

The Korean Store owners who protected their stores and themselves from the looters and gangs during the LA Riots.

[DammitBoy]

Rights do not exist based on immediate necessity, they are based on overarching principles having to do with the interaction of individuals in society and between the people and government.

The fact that a particular person or even a large group of persons may not have an easily articulable short term necessity for a particular right or item doesn't mean that item isn't necessary in the long term or in the general, big picture scheme of things.

For example, I don't really have a daily or ongoing need for my constitutional right not to incriminate myself because I've never been in a situation where I was in any real danger of incriminating myself. That's probably true of most "ordinary American citizens", but that doesn't mean that we, as a whole, should give that right up, and it certainly doesn't mean we should have to articulate the reason we need it in order to exercise it. It's there for a reason that, in reality, has very little to do with any particular individual and EVERYTHING to do with limiting the power of government in its dealings with the citizenry as a whole.

The same general principles apply to exercising the 2nd amendment.

I concur with Spats, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar - very well written and very well thought out.

(I'm stealing it) :D

[JohnKSa]

Thanks guys. (I'm stealing it) Use it in good health. :D

[joecil]

Now, I have not read every response or remark in this tread so all I will say is first off no, few people have the money to buy the license necessary to own a real assault rifle period. The AR-15 or AK-47 you buy in your gun store is not an assault rifle since they are semi auto and not fully auto. Both are suitable for hunting however movies and TV has made them all the same but little to do with reality. The only thing in common is appearance nothing more.

[Ryanxia]

I was going to mention the 'why does an ordinary American need a cell phone? when they kill so many people in car accidents' but someone beat me to it :)

[FMF Doc]

Ordinary citizens DON'T own "Assault Rifles." As someone who spent a lot of time carry a REAL ASSULT RIFLE, what civilians are permitted to buy are not assault rifles. They are not suppressor ready, they don't fire in fully automatic mode, and they are pretty large, all things considered. Now, civilians SHOULD be allowed to own them. Civilians should be permitted to own arms commensurate to what the police (at a minimum, and to avoid the nuke debate) own. It keeps everyone honest. As Jefferson stated:

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

[colorado_handgunner]

Why should I not be allowed to have one?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Sobel]

After the latest Colorado incident, I remember on the news that they showed a picture on the screen and said, the shooter had guns like these: The picture showed a pistol-grip pump shotgun, an AR-style rifle, and two black autoloading handguns. This can't help the gun community any.... Now the uniformed people are going to think that if you have black guns like the ones in the picture, you are up to no good.
Time to break out the spray paint. Maybe if the guns weren't such an ominous and scary colour people would be more accepting.

[michaelbsc]

Time to break out the spray paint. Maybe if the guns weren't such an ominous and scary colour people would be more accepting.

That's not as far off as it sounds.

Mauve anyone?

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Allow me to point out thst our Founding Fathers had access to state of the art weapon systems when we went for independance.


Another thing to consider is if you realize thst you need a certian type of weapon its really too late to.do anything aboit the mess you are about to find yourself in. By the yime you need something its just too laye.

[Esoxchaser]

"Why does an ordinary American citizen need an assault rifle?"

I don't. Call it whatever you want to, Mine is a defensive weapon.

[beatledog7]

[QUOTE]"Name one defensive use of an AR-15 rifle by a civilian"[QUOTE]

When the Federal agents come to break down the doors of private American homes, the list could grow rapidly.

[berettaprofessor]

When the Federal agents come to break down the doors of private American homes, the list could grow rapidly.

Not the list of those who "defended themselves with an AR15"....the list that will grow is the list of those "gun-crazies who killed innocent Federal agents and policemen who were only doing their sworn duties."

[Jim K]

Why does an ordinary citizen need:

More than one government TV channel?
More than one government radio station?
Any newspaper or magazine not published by the government?
Golf clubs?
An automobile?
A motorcycle?
A boat?
A camera?
A cell phone?
A computer?
A carving knife?
Any object capable of being used as a weapon?
A multi-room house?
Indoor plumbing?

The answer is that no one NEEDS anything beyond the basics in food, clothing and shelter. In the days of slavery, slaves had all that, but wanted more - they wanted freedom.

Slaves can have only what their masters allow them to have; why do "progressives" want American citizens put in the same category? Why do "progressives" like Joe Biden want to put us all into chains?

Jim

[effengee]

1917 Birmingham Small Arms, Short, Magazine, Lee, Enfield, Number 1, Mark 3* chambered in .303 British, with a Pattern 07 Bayonet affixed. Old Bessie can't tell me for sure if she's been used during an actual assault, but if I was a betting man, I'd wager the farm on her before I'd drop a penny on my politically incorrect Romanian WASR-10, because the only things my Kalashniclone has ever assaulted is tin cans, plastic bottles, and paper targets!

The only definition of the word "Arms" that can be construed or inferred when used in the context of the Second Amendment, is simply any weapon that could be used to defend oneself. I would go so far as to say that I'm pretty sure they meant anything from improvised weapons on up to personal weapons that are available to a modern military force.

This country wasn't founded by idiots, and they certainly expected that those who could read the Constitution weren't idiots, either... Too bad that so many who can read, have very little comprehension.

[FMF Doc]

Not the list of those who "defended themselves with an AR15"....the list that will grow is the list of those "gun-crazies who killed innocent Federal agents and policemen who were only doing their sworn duties."
I don't advocate violence as the primary course of action (usually) but I also don't assume that the guys with the badges and guns are the good guys. There are bad apples in every group, and depending on where the police fall on an issue, even the "good ones" can be bad guys. There were no "good" cops seizing guns after Katrina. Every single one of them was violating several parts of the consitution, regarles of what a state law or court says. That is precisely why we "ordinary citizens" need to be as well armed as our goverment/police. "Who will police the police?"

[oneounceload]

Why do the police, who have no duty to protect you, have assault weapons? To protect THEMSELVES, yet they typically show up after us innocent civilians have been the victims; it seems WE need them more than the police.

Maybe the police in DC and Chicago can lead by example by disarming since their cities are gun-free zones - the same with campus police, those who work in gov't buildings and all of the rest

[michaelbsc]

Why do the police, who have no duty to protect you, have assault weapons? To protect THEMSELVES, yet they typically show up after us innocent civilians have been the victims;

Yeah! Isn't this the truth?

[kurt1305]

Clearly, I need one for Zombie control. Its just as good of an answer as any. The actual answer is, "because it is within my 2A rights".

[nyresq]

I always answer that question with the following-

The second amendment wording states "in order to form a well regulated militia"... now what kind of rifle is best suited to a militia? Right, an assault rifle. And for the second argument that follows that statement, the supreme court has already ruled the militia IS NOT the national guard.

[bbuddtec]

"Imagine" was a dream. People really do want to do us harm, and they don't give a whit about a silly idealistic song, other than hopefully we all throw down our weapons...

-there I said it.

[Darkhorse]

Reginald Denny could have used one in south central L. A. in 1992...

[Yelovitz_503]

Who is deciding who's ordinary and who isn't? Also why do we really NEED the 1st amendment, or the 4th amendment, or any of that pesky constitution? All it does it hold us back... :banghead:

I recently had a conversation with a friend about this (he is thoroughly anti gun) I tried to explain to him that there is a big difference between what is readily available and what is more restricted (NFA items). I tried to explain that as citizens we are the last line of defense for this country we all love. I understand the likelihood of citizens having to fight a tyrannical government is low, as are the chances that a foreign army will launch a full scale invasion, and in spite of that I have still chosen to arm myself. I think it's the responsibility of citizens in this country to defend it if the time does arrise. In the event of these unlikely things coming to pass (stranger things have happened though) I want our citizenry to be equipped as best as possible to give us a fighting chance.

[bluethunder1962]

They are a fun sport. More fun than throwing a ball.

[winterhorse290]

we don,t need assault weapons. we need anti assault weapons. i don,t plan on charging across a field. but i might be in a ditch trying to stop someone who is

[Carl N. Brown]

They make the best defense rifles. Ask any vet.

[hso]

This one's gotten goofy.

The sane and persuasive answers are here with tinfoil ones. Let's hope that the folks who see this thread see clearer than some of the folks that have posted.