Question of the Day: Why Do Americans Need “Assault Weapons”?

 

I’m not a regular Morning Joe viewer. But after Mr Scarborough got General McChrystal to declare that the .223 round (i.e. AR-15-style rifles) are too lethal for civilian ownership I decided to share a cup of Joe with Joe. A guest/yes man unveiled a new civilian disarmament meme: “assault weapons are the drunk driving of gun ownership.” At which point Joltin’ Joe hit a towering foul ball: “Assault weapons are fun. Getting drunk and driving through town is fun.” You should have seen the look on the pneumatic co-host’s face. Anyway, Scarborough insisted (many times) that the Supreme Court had decided “it’s OK to have a handgun in your home to kill someone who means to do your family harm” but the Second Amendment didn’t protect citizens’ right to own an “assault weapon.”Joe asked the question of the day: why does anyone need an “assault weapon”? Your answer below.

avatar

About Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the Publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

161 Responses to Question of the Day: Why Do Americans Need “Assault Weapons”?

  1. avatarmike says:

    …. in case I get assaulted duh.

  2. avatarchris says:

    The better question is why should I be restricted from owning a certain firearm.

  3. avatarNick says:

    To protect me from control freak fascists like him and his friends.

  4. avatarBigTex says:

    I don’t need a reason. I have an amendment in the Bill of Rights. Anyone who wants to keep me from owning one needs to show a clear reason why infringing on my rights has a societal benefit that clearly outweighs trampling on the Constitution.

    Oh, they’re used in 2% of crimes? Outlaw baseball bats and get back to me.

    Oh, they kill people? Outlaw cars, which are 150Xs more likely to kill me and get back to me.

    • avatarChris says:

      God gave you that right, the Bill of Rights simply reinforces that the government can’t infringe on that right. Remember that the Constituation does not give you permission for anything, it only tells the government that it CAN’T do things to you.

      • avatarspeedracer5050 says:

        Ah, there they go confusing need and want again!!! I don’t absolutely need it but I damn sure want it!! My right to want it and have it within the legal limits of the law!!
        End Of Story!

    • avatarHal says:

      Yes BigTex, or booze, cigarettes, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, MSG, aspartame, etc. for that matter!

      This country deserves EVERYTHING that is coming to it over the next 100 years. We are so hoplessly stupid as a people that we believe the above factors (which kill *FAR MORE* people than guns) shouldn’t be touched because that would be an infringement on our rights. Who cares that they collectively kill millions? But oh… ban guns! Do it for the children! Nevermind they are our ONE remaining protection against tyranny (the media is long gone… replaced by propagandists).

      We have lost our way. I mourn for our nation… as it has been replaced by statist fools and hipsters.

      One admin note: I am not advocating the elimination of ANY of those things. I believe people’s rights should be nearly limitless until they infringe on the rights of others. It just sickens me that we have become so hypocritical as a nation.

      • avatarGreat Scot says:

        So true. Britain has already gone, America is going, and the Governments are ruining the world. Pen pushing shit-for-brains like Bloomberg, or Obama, they’ve probably never been in a situation where their loved ones are in danger. I say (and I paraphrase from another poster, I can’t remember who); Take Bloomberg, put him in an expensive suit, give him $5000 in one pocket and an iPhone in the other and make him walk down the bad part of town, and he’ll appreciate our points. When he phones the police and they find him, sans $5000 and an iPhone, fucked-up, he’ll realise that the po-po can’t help him.

    • avatarTim says:

      Correction: RIFLES are used in only 2% of murders, “assault rifles” are used even less.

    • avatarRicardo Shillyshally says:

      Amen to that

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      Outlaw drs. & hospitals they kill around 100,000 folks a year.

  5. As I have already said…

    I am an American. As such, none of my rights depend on a showing of need. I am a free man who has the right to define and pursue my happiness in any peaceful way I see fit. The government does not grant me rights. I was born free. The legitimate role of government is to act as my agent to protect my rights; which exist independent of government. Americans do not beg the government for rights nor are they required to demonstrate a “need” for rights.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/victor7.1.1.html

    • avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

      Agreed.
      1. We have a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs.
      2. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and oh hell, I’m screwed.
      3. Who’s to say that it’s an assault weapon and not an anti-assault weapon?
      4. Why do you “need” that microphone Mr. Talking Head?
      5. Because I say so.
      Need I go on?

  6. Why do we Need Democracy??? Why can’t we just do what we are told!!!

    Is that General so stupid that he does not know that .223 is very low powered compared to hunting ammo???

    Good thing I bought that AK chambered in .308.

    • avatarIvy Mike says:

      The pissant brass wants to get shot at with only .177 when he’s in charge of confiscating weapons. He’s just looking out for himself.

  7. avatarHal says:

    Yes. For a variety of reasons.

    Especially for those in rural envrionments. Every person living in NYC or DC or Chicago or WHEREVER who advocates for a ban on assault weapons should be air dropped onto a ranch on the US-MX border where the nearest LEO help is three hours away. BTW no signal out there too you smartphone wielding a$$holes.

    FOAD to anyone who is pushing for ANY time of firearms ban or limitation. We don’t all live on the greenbelt. I hope you get AIDS you self-styled elite MFs. Leave my community and our rights alone.

    • avataruncommon_sense says:

      +1

      I have camped in isolated areas of a national forest within 10 or so miles of the border in Arizona. I have also camped in isolated areas of national forests in North Carolina when Eric Rudolph was running around on the loose. And then we have the exciting experience of camping in national forests almost anywhere knowing we might stumble upon an illegal marijuana grow field. You bet your @ss I want to have a semi-automatic rifle with lots of ammunition when I am camping alone out in the wilds.

      Please keep in mind that we are “rustic campers”. That means we do not camp in campgrounds. And since I have a a wife and daughters, I do not camp without serious armament.

  8. avatarCHRiS says:

    As a last resort against a tyranical government. Libery’s teeth when all else fails.

  9. avatarMr aNINNYmouse says:

    I don’t own assault weapons. All my rifles are Defense Rifles.

  10. avatarChase says:

    Am I the only noticing how low her boobs are, not sagging just where they start..

  11. avatarready,fire,aim says:

    Joe asked the question of the day: why does anyone need an assault weapon? …well what else am i going to spread my butter with? (knife) play baseball with my son (bat) change my flat tire (tire iron) write my congressman (pencil/pen)those are ASSAULT WEAPONS>..right?

  12. avatarSilver says:

    The eternal irony is that the people who ask that are the reason we need assault rifles.

  13. avatarDrama says:

    Nobody NEEDS anything, but that shouldn’t be a reason to stop millions of people from responsibly exercising a right given to them, with good reason, by their forefathers(intellectually superior forefathers I might add).

  14. avatarFiun Dagner says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

    Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

    By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial

    Police have no duty to protect you. the goverment has no duty to protect you. you have to protect yourself, sometime from the goverment.

  15. Because the spirit of the 2nd Amendment is to allow citizens the choice to arm themselves with the same type of weaponry that would be used against them. So why do I need the choice to have an AR or 30rd standard capacity magazines?…because the military has them. We then tend to draw a line at indiscriminate fire weapons like full auto and explosives.

    • avatarEvan says:

      Make sure you know where your bomb is dropped and how big the blast radius is. Keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. There its no longer indiscriminate fire.

      • avatarAlphaGeek says:

        How’s that approach working out for those drone strikes that so many TTAG commenters rant about?

        Sorry, couldn’t resist. Not trying to start a flame war.

  16. avatarEvan says:

    Protection from mobs, such as the riots in New Orleans or the Rodney King Riot. Protection from tyrants, such as Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot.Protection from foreign invaders. Protection from dangerous game, such as boars or bears. Practicing for military or Law Enforcement duties. Recreation such as 3 gun and run and gun. And because I just like them and have no need to justify my desire. also yes i know those all are fragments for any potential grammar fiends out there:)

  17. avatarPatriot says:

    Pretty sure England said the same thing 250 years or so ago about the musket, “Why do civilians NEED a musket?” That is a weapon meant for the troops on the battlefield. F-cking bring it.

    Christ people the Constitution isn’t even 250 years old, and it’s outdated? Excuse me? F_ck that, and F_ck this government.

  18. avatarDon says:

    You mean modern style rifles with adjustable stocks pistol grips, flash suppressors, and barrel shrouds, that take 30 round magazines?

    Because they are adjustable to different body types and me and my partner can both use the same gun comfortably. I can buy one gun instead of many.

    Because the pistol grip is more more ergonomic and controllable for people with arthritis or disabilities. Long arms in general are better for home defense than pistols because they are inherently more accurate and allow recoil to be handled with both arms and the body. This could be very important if you are anything other than an average sized able bodied person.

    Because small, elderly, or disabled people can better handle the recoil of a .223 than 00 or 000 buckshot. A typical shotgun loaded with 5 shots of 00 buck has the ability to put a total of 40 .330 caliber solid lead projectiles on target, but you are forced to fire 8 at a time so the recoil is much greater. 8 .330 caliber projectiles is considered adequate to reliably put down one attacker. A typical AR15 with a standard 30 round magazine only affords the ability to put 30 .223 caliber projectiles on target, but you can fire them one at a time, so it is much lower recoil and therefore more controllable, and therefore safer and more socially conscious.

    Because an AR15 can be loaded with hollow point ammo for home defense, which will stop inside a target and will not penetrate building structures as readily as a .330 lead ball used in 00 buckshot, so it is therefore a much safer weapon and much more socially conscious defense option.

    Because the barrel shroud has mounting surfaces for flashlights so that in a home defense situation one can positively identify their target and what is beyond it, and therefore this is a much safer and socially conscious option than shooting shotguns in the dark.

    Because a flash suppressor decreases muzzle flash which can contribute to night blindness which inhibits a person’s ability to recognize if they’ve stopped their home invader or not, and the alternative in this situation is to fire blind, which is dangerous and socially irresponsible.

    -D

  19. avatarJim says:

    The answer is simple.

    We need them to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm. That could mean a home invader. It could mean a gang-banging thug. Or it could mean something else entirely.

    And don’t say “It couldn’t happen here.” They said that in Australia. They said it in the UK. They’re saying it here. It’s still wrong.

  20. avatarSaul Feldstein says:

    Ah, the wonderful “needs” test the Marxists love to refrain.

    Why do we NEED to support these Hollywood fascists by purchasing their degenerate “entertainment?”

    IF ALL GUN OWNERS QUIT PAYING TAXES AND SUPPORTING HOLLYWOOD MAYBE THE GOVT WOULD TAKE NOTICE.

    STARVE THE BEAST.

  21. avatarRob says:

    Why does anyone need tobacco, alcohol or fast food? All of which kill and create a health system burden on us all.

  22. avatarBrian says:

    So I’m on an equal playing field with the bad guys.

    MrColionNoir has said it best:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60

  23. avatarJR LORENCZ says:

    Assault weapons are illegal. Let’s try not to fall into the semantic trap, or the Big Lie. You cannot go out and just buy a select fire AR. That’s an assault weapon.

    Why do I need a semi-automatic rifle with a 30rd magazine? I don’t. I want one. I want a Ferrari. I want a villa on Lake Como, I want a basement target range (100 yards), I want lotsofthings. I have to the right to pursue my happiness, particularly when covered additionally under the 2nd Amendment.

    There is no gun violence. Another Big Lie. There is no knife, car, or brick violence. There is only people violence. The failing is not in the ability of citizens to own certain weapons, but in this government’s failures to REGULATE anything effectively. From the big banks, and home loan departments, to the BP oil spill, to failing to restrain red flagged certifiable crazies from getting guns. We need them to start doing their F-ing jobs, or else get canned sans pension.

    I put this squarely on the shoulders of our bill-a-minute government and their video-game attention span on following through on how well their enacted laws and regs are being carried out and managed by our paid regulators.

    Is anyone in gov responsible for anything anymore? Anyone in gov get fired for the BP spill? For Freddie and Fanny? When is John Corzine going to jail? Are there no consequences? Hello? Hillary?

    • avatarJim says:

      You can buy a select-fire AR. You just need an NFA tax stamp and an obscene amount of money to purchase one. True you can’t just walk into your local gun store and walk out with an M16 but if you can find one the owner is willing to part with, you can own it.

      • avatarJWhite says:

        According to Piers Morgan on CNN Jan 8th ~8:15am – “[He] can just walk into a store and within the hour purchase enough magazines, ammo, and a gun to kill dozens of people”

        None of the recent shooters behavior would have triggered these “fail safe feel good” measures. At most the ammo thing but still… Much like Sturm on Youtube pointed out….

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8C-CLsMRcA0#t=229s

        It just means more magazines. So, we can conclude that if one where to plan a heinous crime such as these recent shooting, one would only have to put some time between purchases, easily circumventing these restrictions.Gang members could contract dozens of people to purchase ammo across the city and even further dilute the effectiveness of such a law. If such laws are so easily circumvented, they serve but one purpose, to make it harder for law abiding citizens to purchase, own, and practice the shooting arts. Criminals will still exist, and that’s just a fact. The end result would mean a higher perceived threat of violent crime, the desire to sacrifice more rights for security, and a database of “potential threats” to the US. It would only take an executive order, or some terrorist event to exchange that list in for a new list, a list of potential terrorist within our borders, and under the oath they swore in under, they could sleep at night knowing they where serving the people and protecting the nation from domestic terrorist.

        Sure its a bit “tin foil hat”-ish but it is clearly simple enough to institute by ramming legislation through congress or executive orders demanded by the scared masses.

        Ill take the tinfoil hat off…

  24. avatarRalph says:

    I need an AR for the same reason that Joe Scarborough needs a Mercedes Benz that can travel three times the national speed limit while guzzling gasoline, and a 7500 square foot house that uses more energy and causes more pollution that entire middle-class neighborhoods.

  25. avatarm.ia says:

    Of course her breasts are fake. Does that mean I want to motorboat them any less? Hells no…

    Oh and I need assault weapons because I like and want them. I just wish I had some. An ar-15 is not an assault weapon.

  26. avatarJWhite says:

    Judging by the picture… Civilians need assault weapons because, booth-babes.

    Makes sense to me ;)

  27. avatarmike marriam says:

    Because the police and military have them. Plus its nobody’s business what guns I have.

  28. avatarIpe says:

    I really don’t remember it being the Bill of Needs… pretty sure there’s something about Rights in there…

    Why do I need a modern sporting rifle? Well, thats pretty simple: To defend against a morally corrupt government… sort of like the one we have now.

    • avatarJWhite says:

      And potentially morally corrupt populace. Dont forget that a group of citizens can become just as corrupt as a government.

  29. avatarzeos386sx says:

    Why does one need a library full of books?

    Why does a chef need a stand mixer?

    Why do we need tablet computers?

  30. avatarTim says:

    What the hell is an assault weapon? I bought a rifle because it’s my responsibility as an American to understand and safely control this form of power. I bought an AR-15 because in term of accuracy, power, reliability, versatility, and cost, it is the best rifle in the world. I need no further justification.

    • avatarJWhite says:

      ” bought an AR-15 because in term of accuracy, power, reliability, versatility, and cost, it is the best rifle in the world. I need no further justification.”

      My roommate last night tried to tell me that if you buy an AR15 (or 500 round sof ammo) he would rather the FBI or POLICE know that you bought those things and investigate it. I asked why. He stated “because if it stops one person from killing a dozen children im fine with it” and i was like “so you’re ok with circumventing due process and automatically requiring that I provide necessity for said purchase inroder to avoid going to jail? That my friend is a slippery slope”

  31. avatarConway Redding says:

    What Mike said. It’s simply worst case scenario thinking. I might never actually have to use a semi-automatic rifle with a 30-round clip to protect me and mine, but then again I might, and the consequences of not having such firepower when I need it seem much worse to me than the consequences of having such firepower but never having to use it. The anti-AW people will no doubt point out that it is unlikely that I will ever have to defend myself and mine against a horde, and I concur with them, but what if they’re wrong?

    The anti-AW people, btw, use the same kind of thinking in arriving at their anti-AW position. Instead of focusing on such a rare event as a private citizen having to defend him/herself against a bunch of folks who are demonstrating
    unequivocally malign intent, they focus on the rare event of someone equipped with an assault rifle attacking innocent people, and conclude that they prefer that NO citizens have the means to defend themselves, certainly not if such means involve AW’s, to the possibility that, as demonstrated by more than one recent event, an AW might be used to perpetrate something horrific.

    My belief is that if you don’t want to own an AW yourself, fine, but that you have no right to tell me I can’t own one, if owning one gives me a little peace of mind.

    While I’m at it, let me point out to those who say that AW’s have no sporting or hunting purposes — which de facto is simply not so — that whatever firearms I own are NOT primarily for sporting or hunting but for personal defense, should I find myself in a position where the use of lethal force seems called for.

  32. avatarHimself says:

    The standard reasoning goes like this: in order to combat even the chance that tyranny could take hold in America, we need to have weapons that are the rough equal of those carried and used by light infantry. And we need a lot of them–and so the mere ownership of what the left loves to mischaracterize as “assault weapons” is as much a political statement as marching with an illiterate sign outside a tent commune.

    But considering that anyone who would ask such a question is almost certainly going to be among the political shock troops of disarmament, the honest answer would be: “because of people like you.”

  33. 6,000,000 reasons why.

    • avatarWilliam says:

      Uh… they’re now saying 13,000,000. I guess Jews are still being holocausted.

      • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

        Jews killed in WW2 were mostly killed by Russians. This is another historical fact that is manipulated by those with an agenda.

      • avatarJR LORENCZ says:

        6 million Jews and 7 million non-Jews makes for the 13 million figure. The majority of Jews were, of course, killed by the Nazi system. Ukrainian groups also killed quite a few, but nowhere approaching the death camps and Einsatzgruppen, Sorry to get involved in this tangent to the main subject, but facts are good to know.

    • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

      Israel unfortunately practices heavy gun control by a centralized tyrannical govt.

      The only ones who can carry firearms are in the IDF, or given permits because they are in hostile zones like the West Bank.

      • I would not use such harsh terms, but yes, restrictions on ownership and inability to own more than one gun is in fact a major reason I would not consider making aliyah, and would advise my children to strongly consider that point before doing so.

  34. avatarDrDave says:

    Just taking some big breaths; perhaps the last few that won’t taste of tyranny…..and that’s why I need the most effective means of defense (short, medium, and long range) I can get my hands on.

  35. avatarGreg Camp says:

    Need doesn’t enter into it. Free people don’t have to answer that question with regard to exercising their rights.

  36. avatarWilliam says:

    Because I care.

  37. avatarBud says:

    As Masaad Ayoob has stated, ‘if the police need to be armed with AR15 rifles and semi-automatic handguns to me and my family, then why wouldn’t I need to be armed with an AR-15 rifle and semi-automatic handguns?”

    Fact is I live a in a very rural area with virtually no police protection. In the last ten years, our local bank called in ‘bank robbery in progress’ twice and everyone was very please when on the second occurance, the local poice were able to respond thiry minutes faster than the first time.

    I am an American. My birthright is the US Constitution. The Bill of Rights were written in response to tyrannical government. We already learned that lesson and all the folks in my extended family have been protecting that right for better than 200 years.

    Pass all the silly, stupid laws you want but don’t be surprised at the reaction that you will receive. There are thousands of us, maybe even millions of us, that will view any attempt to limit the 2nd Amendment as an attack on the Constitution.

  38. avatarThe Concerned Citizen says:

    Really General? Really?

    So, the 223 is too lethal? Hmm. What about the:
    22-06?
    220 Swift?
    22-250?
    225?
    219 Zipper?
    222 Magnum?
    222?
    22 Jet?
    22 Hornet?
    22 Magnum?
    22 Long Rifle
    22 Short?
    22 CB caps?
    22 Air Rifle?

    Which one will you allow me to have, General? I think the General is “generally” misinformed and has a political agenda. Is he running for something that he needs democrat appoval for? He has been in command of the most powerful weapons on earth and he took orders FROM THE MOST CORRUPT PEOPLE ON EARTH and yet he claims the 223 is too leathal for civilian use?

    I’ll be nice:

    Screw you General. Screw you and the Humvee you rode in on. I didn’t realize they sucked your brain out when you joined the military. You’ve now been officially marked: you’re part of the globalist lackeys. I’ll never believe another word you say.

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      Concerned Citizen, the General, once again, has his head up his ass and is speaking through his navel!!

  39. avatarCasey T says:

    Why do I need to own one? It is not a question of why but a question of liberty. I am a citizen of the United States of American, the country that was founded under the principles of the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. Our Constitution further delineates those rights to include the right to bear arms. When I choose to purchase an assault weapon, I am freely executing my rights of liberty and to bear arms in my pursuit of happiness, which I derive from shooting my firearm legally. To question why I need to own an assault weapon is to question why I need the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and to question those rights is equal to asking to choose tyranny instead of liberty.

  40. avatargastorgrab says:

    NEED is irrelevant! Are we obligated to state a ‘need’ before we enjoy our First Amendment rights?

    Liberal Progressives are re-characterizing Constitutional rights as ‘entitlements’, because entitlements can be regulated by government. With every right, the burden of proof falls on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt why any person shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy their rights.

    But with entitlement programs like welfare, the responsibility to prove you meet the terms that program falls on the individual.

    The fight over gun control is about a whole lot more than people believe. It is about the authority of government to limit our Constitutional rights without due process………ANY of our rights.

  41. avatarAlexBosco says:

    “Need” is never a metric used to determine the exercise of a right. “Need”, in this regard, is an artificial value judgment imposed by one person on another. In other words: Tyranny.You do not get to determine what I need any more than I get to determine what you need. The list of items we possess, and actions we indulge in, that are “un-needed” and potentially (or even demonstrably) dangerous is endless. A freedom to choose things outside of our “needs” is what it means to
    have self-determination and freedom. Unless someone exercising that choice directly infringes on another freedom it should not be a consideration of the State or any other person what that choice may be. “Need” is not the justification I must make to live my life.

  42. avatarJon R. says:

    I won’t answer this question, I’ll let George Washington answer it for you:

    “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    -George Washington

    “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
    -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

    I don’t believe George Washington would feel a handgun, shotgun, or bolt action rifle would qualify as sufficient arms in this modern era, and neither do I.

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      Very good, Jon. I like your response, yours and George’s. Some folks have forgotten why the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. Like others have stated,”It’s a Bill of Rights not a bill of needs” and I will add to that it isn’t a bill of priveleges either!

  43. avatarRob Pincus says:

    I can think of some scenarios where an American would need what is now colloquially known as an “assault weapon”. Thankfully, those situations are very rare and unlikely. The good news is that Americans are allowed to own these tools, just in case those unlikely events come to pass. In the meantime, there are plenty of things that Americans can do with these guns. Training for those unlikely events is one of those things… so are recreational shooting, competitions, hunting and simply collecting and enjoying firearms.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      “The good news is that Americans are entitled to own these tools, just in case those unlikely events come to pass.”

      Fixed that for you, Rob. Allowed implies that we need permission in the first place. Entitled says that we start from a presumption of liberty, then negotiate the social contract from there.

  44. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    For the same reason Law Enforcement shows up to every shooting with one…its the right tool for the damn job!

  45. avatarP51 says:

    First of all I am getting tired of the media using the term “Assault Weapon”. The AR-15, in it’s everyday configuration, is not a assault weapon. I chose the AR for the same reason I got a Mini-14 in the early 80′s. It is presently the most modern iteration of the firearm our forefathers used to build and protect this country. If it was 1850 I would have a musket but its 2013 and I have a AR for the same reason. If the government tries to confiscate these arms then it is no longer a government for the people.

    My favorite quote is “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. The confiscation of arms would just be the first step in repeating the sins of the past (Hitler comes to mind).

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      While Hitler was not a role model, certainly not someone that I want to emulate. I believe, however, he is taking a worse rap than he should. I think that Stalin was a much worse dictator, he was in power for much longer, he was more brutal and he killed many more folks just because he was more of a bastard than Hitler. Just my opinion, for what it’s worth.

      • avatarRalph says:

        The math may work out that way, but Stalin did not wage an aggressive world war, nor was genocide a part of his official party and national program. All in all, they were both scumb@gs, and saying that one was better than the other is like saying that brain cancer is better than pancreatic cancer.

        • avatarBobtheGrape says:

          Ralph, Stalin did wage aggressive war, review your history concerning the Russo-Finnish War of 1938? or 39?. And review the history books about the Ukranian genocide that Stalin used to collectivize the Ukranian farmers. He cuse 20,000,000 Ukranian deaths due to starvation. Chec yer fax b-4 you shoot your pen off.

      • avatarMilsurp Collector says:

        I completely agree, Bob. I do not demonize Stalin and present examples of Soviet brutality during WWII to my friends as a way of excusing the Nazi party from carrying out its crimes. Hitler was a monster and so were all those who committed war crimes in his name. However, I tend to agree that Stalin is a far worse dictator. He had been issuing orders to kill scores of innocent people in his own and other countries before, during, and after WWII when he enslaved half of Europe. He was a paranoid nut just like Mao with his “Great Leap Forward”. I had absolutely no knowledge of Communist atrocities until I started taking books out from the library and reading on my own. In high school it was Nazis Nazis Nazis for days on end.

  46. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    I think we should just bargain with the bradys/grabbers. We will turn in/modify our semi auto black rifles for full auto. I’d bet good money that most would laugh up their sleeves that they really got us, Randy

  47. avatarLance says:

    First a AR-15 is NOT a Assault weapon. Assault weapon is all political crap meaning: Gun I want to ban! A AR is perfect like a Winchester was in the old west you can kill small game for eating protect yourself from multiple bad guns and you can configure the weapon to any specs of the day you want. THAT’S WHY!

  48. avatarIndyEric says:

    Because F-you. That’s why.

  49. avatarRonaldo Ignacio says:

    My AR-15 is not .223/5.56, it is 6.8 SPC. Therefore it is not an “Assault Weapon”

  50. avatarEd says:

    “Assault Weapons” are any weapon used to commit assault. I do not own any,

  51. avatarJWhite says:

    All joking aside, we compromised and banned true-assault-weapons back in 1986. Why are we attempting to demonize a specific type of gun because it looks the same as the other, also, the revisionist history and double speak is appalling.

    The issue here is this. Why should I have to show necessity to justify a right, or provide evidence in support of my right to avoid loosing them?

    The hardest argument to discuss, at least for me, is the age old “our forefathers never could have imagined these kinds of rifles” – Uhhh Have you read the Federalist papers? I recently purchased a Nexus 7 and decided to look for an app or book that has the Anti-Federalist and Federalist papers. I found one, not bad either. The point I’m trying to make is, if you haven’t read these papers, than you are incapable of discussing what they could or could not have imagined. Even still, any argument regarding what they could or couldn’t have imagined is purely based on speculation, until of course you introduce the Federalist papers and see first hand what exactly was going through the great minds of our founding fathers. I spent maybe an hour and a half reading a couple of the papers. I decided to read them in order, and skipped a few papers here and there. After having spent some time reading and highlighting, I discovered that not only did our founding fathers acknowledge technological advances, but also acknowledged that because times change, and the need for standing armies and an armed populace, may become moot, the rights of the people are to be upheld regardless of necessity. As a great nation we have a duty to protect our borders and the union, from enemies both foreign and domestic. Domestic enemies was not limited to individuals, rather, it also meant states within the union, a mob, or uprising that could potentially compromise the safety of our people. A quick reaction force was to be provided by the means of the militia, and if seen fit, may serve to protect against uprisings, mobs, or insurrection.

    Required reading if you’re to argue any constitutional argument.

    Recommended reading…
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/150464/americans-believe-crime-worsening.aspx
    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
    http://www.examiner.com/article/censored-news-violent-crime-decreases-over-50-percent-last-15-years
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
    http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/Strategy.htm
    http://www.justice.gov/archive/opd/Figure3.JPG

  52. avatarHandprop says:

    What’s the crapola about “need”? I have lot’s of stuff I don’t “need”, I just have it ’cause I want it. That’s the American way, it’s called free will and people sure smile on it in every other instance. This “need” angle is the most disingenous of all the arguments for a weapons ban…what we “need” is for the gun grabbers to rub two brain cells together and arrive at a rational thought.

  53. avatarstateisevil says:

    Why do the police need “assault” weapons? If they can carry them down the street, then I can have one in my car or home. The right to bear arms protects me from intolerable laws that the police may try to enforce.

    Also, “assault” rifles can protect legitimate government in the face of illegitimate insurrection or chaos.

    You don’t have to show a “need” to own property in a free society, especially tools that protect life and all other property. It’s ridiculous to say otherwise.

  54. avatarYawner says:

    Because it’s the finest self-defense firearm I can currently think of. Why would I not need that?

  55. avatarRob Eide says:

    As far as the Constitution and I am concerned, It is really no one’s business why I need to own an “assault weapon”.

    • avatarRob Eide says:

      I think the only one that I let tell me what I need would be my wife! At least according to her. Needless to say I sleep on the couch quite often. If you know what I mean.

  56. avatarCB Demented says:

    Why does law enforcement need them?

    Me too.

  57. avatarborekfk says:

    Why do I need an “assault weapon”? Because if politicians get taxpayer subsidized bodyguards, than I get firearms. Because if police and military demand magazines with more than 10 rounds for their protection, than I deserve the same. Also, because those Goddamned zombies aren’t going to kill themselves.

  58. avatarProfBathrobe says:

    Best tool for the job.

  59. avatarErik says:

    Because of home invaders wearing body armor

    Because I hate any constitutional violations such as the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, NYC’s stop-and-frisk tactics, peaceful OWS protestors being attacked, and a Congress member being locked out for saying “vagina.”

    Because other civilians – the local police – can have them.

    Because the USC ruled that police have no legal obligation to protect you.

    Because poor minorities live in high-crime areas where they are discriminated against by police gun ownership is all but forbidden

    Because criminals still manage to get their hands on them.

  60. avatarDavid says:

    Does a government really need an H-bomb? Does any government need so many atomic weapons that it can blow the world up more than once? Up is down & down is the new up. Isaiah 5:20.

  61. avatarstyrgwillidar says:

    IAW SCOTUS rulings in Heller, to be able to oppose government tyranny. From the US Court of Appeals, DC decision upheld by SCOTUS in Heller:

    “To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
    protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
    existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
    Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
    activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
    understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
    depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
    abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
    important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
    citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
    for the Federalis¬s in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
    placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right
    facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
    barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
    for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
    Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
    are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
    enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
    intermittent enrollment in the militia.”

    Pg 53
    The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
    long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
    colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
    of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
    Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
    preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
    also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
    1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
    colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
    the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
    speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
    to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
    Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
    “search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
    modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
    v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
    Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).

    SCOTUS orals discussion
    GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult — I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
    CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one — narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
    GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre – pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
    JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is — which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
    GENERAL CLEMENT: Well -
    JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.

    GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I — I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion — I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”

  62. avatarInBox485 says:

    This really needs to be a canned answer to this question. I’m sure this steps on some pet toes in the community, but I’m trying to be concise, and direct in advocating why assault rifles are absolutely relevant to and ideally suited to home defense use. Feel free to plagiarize and circulate:

    There is a common misconception that handguns are appropriate for home defense. They can be used for this purpose, but there primary purpose relates to their ability to be carried conveniently.

    Assault rifles (and yes I will use that term as the Army has long defined it as being any rifle that is designed to be select fire which fires an intermediate cartridge between a sub-machine gun and a battle rifle cartridge) when not neutered or handicapped are the absolute ideal weapon for defensive use in the home for a number of specific reasons that are not available through other weapon platforms.

    Low Recoil: Low recoil allows the demographics most as risk (women, elderly, or otherwise small or weak statured) to effectively defend themselves. Persons unable to or uncomfortable with managing the recoil of defense caliber handguns, hunting rifles, or shotguns are often comfortable with the recoil of the intermediate cartridge.

    Accuracy: Assault rifles are purpose built to be intuitively accurate and ergonomically friendly so that even with minimal training, and under high stress accurate shots can be fired at close ranges while dealing with moving targets that are posing a deadly threat. Accuracy is absolutely critical both to stopping the threat of an assailant, and to preventing harm to others. Any time a shot does not hit the bad guy in a defensive situation, it has the potential to harm somebody other than the bad guy. For this reason, a weapon used for defense in the home should be as ergonomic as possible. Features like pistol grips were not designed because they look cool. They exist because they make shooting accurately easier. There is a reason why civilian police will always prefer to have weapons that are ergonomic. The person defending their home alone deserves no less.

    Magazine Capacity: Assault rifles are generally built with the intention of using a 20 to 30 round magazine. The size of these magazines are part of the ergonomics of the rifle, but the volume of ammunition is also important to home defense. For home defense, it is well known that the odds of needing more than a handful of rounds are even slimmer than needing the weapon in the first place. But it is also well known that for home defense, the person defending themselves will rarely have anything other than what is already attached to the weapon. They don’t get to choose who, when, or how many will attack them. Having ammunition left over after an attack is infinitely better than running out of ammunition while still being attacked. There is a reason why civilian police, despite having a virtually endless line of backup, will always prefer the standard capacity magazines, and generally several of them. The person defending their home alone deserves no less.

    Ideal Ammunition: Of all the types and calibers of ammunition available, the intermediate rifle cartridge common to assault rifles is the ideal projectile for home defense in a number of categories. Because of the light weight and high velocity nature of the intermediate rifle cartridge, it has sufficient penetration and power to quickly incapacitate an attacker, yet it has approximately half the penetration capacity of common handgun rounds when going through walls. In addition to the inherent accuracy mentioned earlier, this reduced penetration through walls further reduces the risk to harming others. In addition, the intermediate rifle cartridge will penetrate soft body armor (as will virtually all rifle rounds) which is a growing concern with violent criminals. It should be noted that shotgun rounds generally will not penetrate soft body armor. And finally, there is the question of effectively stopping an attacker. Entire reports have been compiled on this one topic, but it can be summarized by saying that while both handgun rounds and rifle rounds are often eventually fatal, handgun rounds often leave the attacker capable of continuing to attack sometimes running as far as multiple blocks away, and rifle rounds tend to stop attackers immediately. When faced with a threat to the lives of yourself and those you care about, there is no priority higher than preventing harm to those you care about, and the time it takes to stop an attacker from attacking is critical to preventing harm.

    To recap: Low recoil allows those at greatest risk to defend themselves.Accuracy and ergonomics increases the ability to hit the bad guy thereby reducing the risk of harm to others. Magazine capacity is part of the weight and balance of rifle, and ensures you can defend yourself with ammo to spare rather than running out. The ammunition caliber and type is ideally suited to defend against attacks in the home.

    • avatarAlphaGeek says:

      Very well-written, nicely condenses many of the common points we need to be making.

      I do have one piece of constructive criticism. Based on the test results I’ve seen, this statement is incorrect:

      Because of the light weight and high velocity nature of the intermediate rifle cartridge, it has sufficient penetration and power to quickly incapacitate an attacker, yet it has approximately half the penetration capacity of common handgun rounds when going through walls. In addition to the inherent accuracy mentioned earlier, this reduced penetration through walls further reduces the risk to harming others.

      If you refer to the tests at The Box O’ Truth, you’ll find that 5.56 rounds penetrate interior walls just fine compared to handgun rounds.

      http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

      • avatarDavid says:

        I agree. The whole “5.56 will not go thru walls meme” that is developing irks me. Ballistics is like other things “it depends”. I do not want to jeopardize the someone’s life because a barrel is too short or long, bullet did not yaw, etc.

        Besides, I do believe over penetration is an issue but for many it is over hyped. Most anything that has the kinetic energy to incapacitate/kill will penetrate walls.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I’m far more worried about people who take a shot believing that they can miss and it will be stopped by 2 thicknesses of drywall, than I am about someone who knows it won’t stop and takes the shot with that in mind.

          This is why I’m such a tiresome pedant about the “5.56 is actually better than handgun rounds for overpenetration” myth. It’s dangerously wrong to assume that, and people need to assume that a miss with any round that packs enough power to kill a man is going to keep going until it hits brick, dirt, or a bunch of 2×4 framing.

  63. avatarCyrano says:

    There was a social experiment in Iowa called the Amana Colonies which was established in the 1800s. A governing body determined what everyone needed. You lived in apartments, where and how long was dictated. Your life was completely managed down to the fruits of your labor and it was shared with your community. The question that finally broke the colonies was… “Why do you have the right to tell me what I don’t want to do, why can’t I have stuff according to my decision.” The system collapsed and became a private corporation. The thing survives today as a tourist attraction. I look at it as a monument to a failed communist/socialist/central planned liberal society, others look at it as a place to stay for a bed’n’breakfast and some german food.

  64. avatarMichigan Voter says:

    The last I read the BATF classified the “Assault Rifle” as “a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it’s capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch” and these weapons have been restricted since 1934, and the semi-automatic AR15 doesn’t fit this description…or maybe Obama is going to use his Executive powers to change the decsription of class 3 weapons? Nothing surprises me anymore!

  65. avatarKevin M IL says:

    I use my for 3 gun competition every year. I will ship my to TX before I turn it in. Screw the government.

  66. avatarJAS says:

    My needs are nobody’s business.

    That said, Simple – because I’m not a superhero. If I’m ever confronted at home by two or three handguns, defending myself with just one handgun is just plain stupid.

  67. avatarJeremy says:

    Why? That’s just ignorant. Besides the fact that you’re asking someone to justify liberty, in just the same reason as “Why fake nails?”, “Why UFC?”, or “Why Nascar?”. You think there is no comparison? Let’s see, race car drivers like to drive fast, using the best mechanical devices on the planet. Now sure some of them drive recklessly on our public thruways and kill people in the process, but should we ban it? If you really want to know why, maybe you should do a little research on places that have banned firearms, before you dismiss everyone’s comments. Take a look at South Africa, under English rule by the way, since everyone loves to use them as an example. Genocide over a oppressed people protesting. You will have to look hard because the internet has been washed of their wrong doing, but it happened and continues to happen. How about the American citizens that happen to have been Japanese during WWII or imprisonment based on the fact you were accused as being a communist. Our own history has not gotten away from us so much that we shouldn’t fear a Tyrannical Government. Careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Maybe you should read about the Military raids at 3AM on American citizens during Katrina or the U.N. Global weapon ban and registration that they will enforce in this country. Since you like questions so much, “What do the rich fear, under a finical collapse of a nation filled with oppressed desperate people?” Do you know that our stock market was closed three times to prevent a finical collapse in 2012? How will a Government supply you with the essentials, if there are no tax payers to pay for it? I think you’re fearing the wrong things.

  68. avatarBobtheGrape says:

    General McChrystal took the same oath when he joined the Army as I did when I joined the Navy and later on when I became a member of the PA National Guard and as I did as a federal employee:
    I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    5 U.S.C. §3331

    The wording is a little different for military but the part concerning the Constitution is the same for all. It seems that McChrystal doesn’t remember his oath, the horse’s ass. Making statements like he did is not upholding the Constitution, in my opinion.

  69. avatarDirk says:

    I reject the whole notion of an “assault weapon”. That’s just an inflammatory term invented by the gun banners. What I have in my safe are semi-automatic rifles.

    As for why I have them? It is a very effective tool for self-defense, easy to mount accessories that help fulfill that mission (Aimpoint, VFG, sling & white light), low recoil, simple to maintain and accurate.

    As others have said, though, I don’t need a reason to own one. That’s what liberty is all about.

    • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

      “Assault rifle” was first coined by Adolf Hitler upon reviewing the STG44.

      • avatarDirk says:

        Assault rifle normally describes a select-fire (capable of semi-auto and full-auto or burst fire) rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge. What is an “assault weapon”?

      • avatarYawner says:

        …and defines the currently existing specifications for the term.
        Select fire, using an intermediate bullet spec.

  70. avatarKeith says:

    We live in America no one has the right to tell me what I need or don’t need. I do not need a reason nor do I need to prove why I need something. If you do not like firearms, if you know nothing about firearms, if you are afraid of firearms… cool… don’t buy one…. If you want to live in a country where people and government tell you what you need and don’t need… move, this is not the country for you.

    • avatarSaul Feldstein says:

      Its not about gun control, its ultimately about PEOPLE CONTROL.

      Obama was not raised by hardcore communists to be placed in this position and not fulfill his programming.

      His father Frank Marshall Davis would be proud.

  71. avatarAlex says:

    I just wrote about this! Personally, I think reason #7 is particularly convincing:
    http://2wolvesandalamb.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/why-would-anyone-need-something-so-scary-looking/

  72. avatarDon says:

    P.S. If anyone at SHOT is missing about 3.5 quarts of ballistics gelatin, I think I know who’s hiding it…

  73. avatarWiregrass says:

    You don’t really need a reason to live. The fact remains that you do. And you have a right to live.

    Same goes for my gun as long as it is not depriving you of your rights.

  74. avatarMark says:

    The answer was in a TTAG post the other day about the movie where only the military and police had firearms: Schindler’s List.

  75. avatarTim says:

    Why does anyone need a rolex to tell time? Why does anyone need a 500 horse power car when our roads only go to 75mph?? It’s our right to want what we want as a free Nation!! Also the bad guys will always poses theses types of guns!! They get them illegally!! So a ban on them won’t solve any gun related problems.

  76. avatarTim says:

    Why does anyone need a Rolex to tell time? Why does anyone need a 500 horse power car when our roads only go to mph?? It’s our right to want what we want as a free Nation!! Also the bad guys will always poses theses types of guns!! They get them illegally!! So a ban on them won’t solve any gun related problems.

  77. avatarclinton allen says:

    1.TO START- what their calling an assault weapon is not an assault weapon, just looks like one. It doesn’t fire full automatic, u have to pull the tricker each time. This system has been around for decades, u can buy shotguns, small calibre rifles etc. in this system. So get off the assault weapon name.
    2.The 2nd amendment says they will not infringe upon it.-meaning gun control any form ofit.
    3. In the 20th century 170,000,000 innocent men,women and children lost their lives because of gun control: Check it out; read mein Kampf, author Adolph Hitler seems to be the model for dictators to take over a country. Check this out the next names i’m giving you were all involved with genocide and other atrocities of over 1,000,000,000 people each, STALIN/MAU/LEOPOLD2/HEDEKI/ ISMAIL/POL POT/KIM 2 SUNG/ MENGHISTU/YAKUBU AND HITLER IS A GIMME. And the way are officials are conducting themselves parallels Hitlers. Atheist communist/socialist have a great hold in our country through what we call the left
    check ou leaders out. to quote Abraham Lincoln; ” We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who would pervert the Constitution.”

  78. avatarRockThisTown says:

    Why do we need Congress?
    Why do we need a Vice-President & President?
    Why do we need city councils?
    Why do we need county government?
    Why do we need taxes?
    Why do we need thousands of gun control laws?
    Why do we need the IRS?
    Why do we need police?
    Why do we need Nancy Pelosi?
    Why do we need Dianne Feinstein?
    Inquiring minds want to know!!!

  79. avatarDerryM says:

    Lots of good thoughts in these comments, but the question itself is nonsense, as several people have pointed out.

  80. avatarRanger G says:

    We need semiautomatic, clip fed weapons for the same reason that British–soon to be American–citizens at Lexington needed muskets: they approximated the standard military weapon of the day, and posed a credible, tangible limit on abusive government powers. Hunting is a privilege; self-defense a private right: both are important reasons for gun ownership, but the underlying rationale for an armed populace is to keep the government within the bounds of a self-governed state. While the right is personal and individual, the rationale is rooted in assuring self-governance as the guiding principle for a free state. Armed revolution is NOT the answer to every issue–a sound constitution, with a reasonable amendment process and a textual/originalist approach to interpretation serves admirably to regulate the course of human events. But when such fails, and the government treats free citizens as subjects, then there may be a fair argument for recourse to armed resistance.

  81. avatarJon says:

    Why the hell do we need cars that go over 70 mph? This is America and we are supposed to have freedom and liberty! Cars kill waaaaaaay more people than all guns and much much less than that are killed with ‘assault weapons’ . Wake up!

  82. avatarBob says:

    “why does anyone need an “assault weapon”?

    If they think that it is OK to take it away from me, BECAUSE I don’t NEED it, then I do need it to protect my rights from politicians like them.

  83. avatarDamon says:

    I own a modern sporting rifle (assault rifles are what we have at work – Army) for a myriad of reasons, among them are personal defense and for the fun of shooting it.

    However, not one of those reasons is to shoot innocent people.

  84. Answer: We don’t “NEED” them because we “HAVE” them! It’s when we give them up that we’ll “NEED” them.

    • avatarmike marriam says:

      Well put.

    • avatarBobtheGrape says:

      Bull Lion and Pat, you guys are so right. If we give them up then how will we bring our maverick guv’mint back in line. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about plinking, target shooting competitions, hunting it’s about protecting ourselves from a corrupt, tyrannical guv’mint. Too many folks are so conditioned by the MSM that they think our guv’mint acts in their best interests and that what happened in Turkey, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Communist China would never happen here. God almighty, folks, it will and it’s been happening since the 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1968 Gun Control Act is an exact duplication of the Nazi Gun Control Act of 1938. Watch out, folks, it’s only getting worse.

  85. avatarpat says:

    Assault weapons are needed to stop future corrupt governments (which is the main purpose of the 2nd amendment). You need the semiautomatic/magazine interface to properly conduct asymetrical (gorilla) warfare. Bolts are good for sniping, though. I sure hope we dont need to use assault weapons on present libtards who are breaking down our doors to take said tools?

  86. avatarJustice06RR says:

    What the heck are assault weapons anyway? You mean like bats and knives? Anything can be used to assault a person. Chainsaws, machettes, pitch forks, etc.

    I’m really getting tired of these people throwing the words “Assault Weapon”, “Assault Rifle” around without thinking.

  87. avatardaveR says:

    Why do **I** “need” to not have one?

  88. avatarPaul W says:

    What the hell does “need” have to do with it? Seriously, need hasn’t been a justification for why I buy…much of anything.

  89. avatarAlex Ferreras says:

    Any idiot who calls for the banning of any gun should be ashamed, and anyone who thinks the second amendment is for hunting or home protection is an idiot. You all think we live in a perfect Utopia? You think Obama or any other president is your friend. The founders of this country without a doubt intended for American citizens to have military style weapons. I don’t like calling people stupid, but when you live in your little box and ignore the history of the world and the evil of dictators then you really are acting ignorant. When are we going to start banning the video games that promote gun violence. When are we going to ban the drugs that affect the brains of these psychopaths. O right, that doesn’t fit the liberal agenda. Unfortunately, disarming American citizens does.

  90. avatarMr Michael Edward McNeff says:

    I own “personal defense weapons” as defined by the DHS, but mine are semi-auto, not even full auto. The reason I need these is because the police do. If they need to them to respond to my call for help, then I definitely need them before they show up to defend myself because we are the true first responders.

  91. avatarAlfonso A. Rodriguez says:

    The US constitution does not mention any particular weapon, just firearms. So “assault weapon” is just an arbitrary modern construct. Please define “assault”, under any current definition in any state, the term could be applied to any weapon, even a .22 LR Derringer depending on how you use it. The definition of assault weapon is full of nonsense technicalities included to suit any political purpose. An AR 15 could be and “assault or combat rifle” if used by a soldier in war, a “hunting ” rifle if used for legitimate hunting activities or a “self defense ” firearm if used in defense of you place of abode. If used by a criminal with nefarious purposes it could be defined as a Weapon of Mass Destruction if a high capacity cartridge drum, the type that holds 100 rounds, is attached and fire in rapid succession indiscriminately into a crowd of bystanders. Most politicians as well as most civilians are not knowledgeable in the use and technicalities of firearms and yet they opined on these subjects with such fanatic fervor as if inspired by the Burning Bush. Politicians are indoctrinating the public into irrational fear of firearms and to overreact hysterically by the simple mention of words like “assault rifle’, “firearms” or “weapon”. This is nation that is fast becoming so civilized and passive that they are like sheep and even police agencies feel entitle to entitled to overreact because they are also afraid of just words. Anyone can shoot a firearm, shooting responsibly is another matter and cannot be accomplished by the public at large, to include law enforcement, if they have irrational fears. So pray tell me, what’s in a word or arbitrary definition? I have target grade competition AR15′s and I use them for recreational shooting, which I find relaxing. The can be use in hostile action but they are too heaving to carry, they are long range rifles. Why do are have them? well, because I can legally, because as a former soldier and now target shooter, I am trained in their use. Because they are fun if used properly like any other hobby. I do not complained of my neighbor having a motorcycle, or the other guy with big dogs that bark on occasion or someone owning a Mustang Cobra with a 450HP engine that uses gallons of fuel to the mile instead miles per gallon of fuel; its their hobby and as long as they do not hurt anyone, who I am to complain. So do not complain about me having firearms that for the most part, stay in a safe and are used in a firing range. I am CCW holder and as retired federal LEO I am well trained in the use of firearms and do not go hysterical as the sight of a weapon. I am not scare of the weapon, only of an improperly trained or a mentally unbalanced individual. So training and education is the crux to our problem with firearms not name branding and confiscation but I guess that is too much work and when there are no gun in the hands of responsible civilians, there is going to be a real problem for law enforcement for you will never have a completely disarmed population.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.