Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know this question gets asked all the time when the gun debate comes up, especially on the talking head talk shows in the late evening. Piers Morgan asks all the pro gun people why an average citizen needs an assault weapon, and I've yet to hear the most satisfactory answer from any of these pro gun folks. The question is a legit one, and the proper way to answer it is very obvious.
Instead of giving the obvious answer, these guys drift off into the answer of "we need them for the possibility of gov. tyranny" answer. While this answer IS the original intent of the second amendment and still remains a valid reason to this day, giving this answer does not help our cause in the least. Most people hear that answer and cringe, and call us gun nuts and conspiracy theorists and so forth.
So, when asked the question, I just can't understand why these so called prominant gun rights advocates don't skip all the tyranny mumbo jumbo and just get right down to the real answer: we don't NEED to have a NEED to own an assault weapon. Not at all. The Constitution doesn't say we have to show a valid need for a weapon, it simply says we have the right to own a weapon or "arms" to be more specific. It is YOU, all the people who want to ban assault weapons, who must prove the need to do so, not us.
I can already anticipate your answer, which will be something to the effect of "I'd say 20 kids being slaughtered shows a need to ban them" { yes, you people are very predictable } That logic doesn't work. How many kids are killed in car accidents every year? How many kids are killed with other weapons every year? How many kids/people are killed with hammers, wrenches or other blunt objects every year? Most importantly, why are we not considering a ban on those things? Because we can't live our lives that way, We can't just ban anything and everything the has a potential risk factor of being usd to take innocent lives.
So let me ask YOU, why do we NEED to ban so-called "assault weapons"
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 01-11-2013 at 12:26 AM..
You know this question gets asked all the time when the gun debate comes up, especially on the talking head talk shows in the late evening. Piers Morgan asks all the pro gun people why an average citizen needs an assault weapon, and I've yet to hear the most satisfactory answer from any of these pro gun folks. The question is a legit one, and the proper way to answer it is very obvious.
Instead of giving the obvious answer, these guys drift off into the answer of "we need them for the possibility of gov. tyranny" answer. While this answer IS the original intent of the second amendment and still remains a valid reason to this day, giving this answer does not help our cause in the least. Most people hear that answer and cringe, and call us gun nuts and conspiracy theorists and so forth.
So, when asked the question, I just can't understand why these so called prominant gun rights advocates don't skip all the tyranny mumbo jumbo and just get right down to the real answer: we don't NEED to have a NEED to own an assault weapon. Not at all. The Constitution doesn't say we have to show a valid need for a weapon, it simply says we have the right to own a weapon or "arms" to be more specific. It is YOU, all the people who want to ban assault weapons, who must prove the need to do so, not us.
I can already anticipate your answer, which will be something to the effect of "I'd say 20 kids being slaughtered shows a need to ban them" { yes, you people are very predictable } That logic doesn't work. How many kids are killed in car accidents every year? How many kids are killed with other weapons every year? How many kids/people are killed with hammers, wrenches or other blunt objects every year? Most importantly, why are we not considering a ban on those things? Because we can't live our lives that way, We can't just ban anything and everything the has a potential risk factor of being usd to take innocent lives.
So let me ask YOU, why do we NEED to ban so-called "assault weapons"
Just another step in the long march toward the "world of nerf" some seem to think we all ned to live in.
I do think the original intent of the 2A remains valid, but there are other reasons I believe more likely to happen. For one, I think the biggest threat is an economical and societal breakdown. Just look at the world around you. Civilization could break down and it could be anarchy in the streets, every man for himself. When and if that day comes, you will be glad you have weapons powerful enough to defend your food/supplies, your home, and your family from people less prepared. For those of you who think I'm a nut, just look at what happened after Katrina. Looters in the streets, violent thugs etc. etc. Our gov. failed them and IT WAS every man for themselves for quite a while.
Many experts have said that the question of a future pandemic is not if, but when. If an outbreak of diseas were to occur, depending on how bad it is and what area it is confined to, it also could lead to panic and hysteria. I don't know about you, but I want to be able to protect myself, family, and home from people who would otherwise take THEIR powrful gun and take my food, my property etc.
Let's also not forget about the threat posed from other countries. If you want to know a good reason for owning powerful firearms, just watch the movie "Red Dawn"....... While it may not be right now, I think the threat of invasion from foreign gov't could be a real possibility in the future.
the difference is, cars serve a useful purpose for ordinary people. it is impossible to live without cars in modern society. hence they cannot be banned.
but assault rifles serve no useful purpose. their only purpose is to kill and maim. we can live without them. they can be banned and we'll be better off without them because they serve no useful purpose (unless you're a mass killer or a paranoid anti-government freak). you want to have a hunting rifle? fine. that is your right and no one will ever take that from you.
the difference is, cars serve a useful purpose for ordinary people. it is impossible to live without them in modern society. hence they cannot be banned.
but assault rifles serve no useful purpose. their only purpose is to kill and maim. we can live without them. they can be banned and we're better off without them. you want to have a hunting rifle? fine. that is your right.
Of course you feel the same way about banning them for the millitary and police depts.
you want to legally carry an assault rifle? no problem! you are always free to join the armed forces, or your local police SWAT team, while serving your country in the process.
you want to legally carry an assault rifle? no problem! you are always free to join the armed forces, or your local police SWAT team, while serving your country in the process.
So you cant answer?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
