Why do you need an "assault rifle"?

[44 AMP]

Here's another line of response, though usually used for handguns it applies to ALL firearms,

"when seconds count, the police are just minutes away..."

Face it, bottom line, when you call the police because you are being threatened or actually under attack, who do you want to show up? A person(s) WITH A GUN, who can use it on your behalf.

Also make sure they understand that generally speaking the police are not automatically going to charge in and save you. They might, but then again, they might not. They might contain the perimeter, while they assess the situation. And, until they DO move in, you are on your own.

Another kind of response to the question is more personal. When they ask why you "need" this or that, ask them why they think you don't. If they come back with the line about how dangerous these things are, pin them down with "why do the police have them?"

Aren't they dangerous in the hands of the police, too? Ah,ok, they have training...what makes you think I don't?

Why do you think its dangerous in my hands? Have I given you any reason to think I'm dangerous?? No? ok, so you are stereotyping me. PROFILING me.

Doing the exact same thing racist bigots do, only over guns, not skin color.

Does that make you a better person? etc.

Sure, that line gets snarky fast, BUT some people deserve it.

The truly misinformed, who want to understand deserve polite, educated responses. Many who pose the "why do you need" question don't deserve that consideration.

 

[danco]

I don't bother to entertain the question of why one "needs" and "assault rifle".

This.

Since when does "need" hold a claim on the exercise of a Constitutionally-protected right?

 

[g.willikers]

Who decides what others need?
More importantly, by what right do they?

 

[Onward Allusion]

a) So that the government obeys the law and the will of the people
b) Because I don't trust politicians with my money or my life
c) Because that's what the military has
d) The people of previous generations struggled and sacrificed to give us the freedom we have today. We need to preserve that freedom for the future generations
e) Because an armed man is a citizen, and a disarmed man is a serf
f) Because exercising the right to bear arms is the only way to ensure all of the other rights. If we don't, they are not rights, they are privileges that we have only as long as the government decides we do
e) Why do you NEED your cell phone, instead of a phone on the wall of your kitchen? If you aren't willing to only have the technology of 1970, don't ask me to only have the technology of 1900
f) Because I'm willing to do my part to guarantee my freedoms and yours, even if you aren't willing to do your part

I agree with all your points, however, with the exception of "E", the statements come across as a bit on the fringe. This is probably even more true when a non-gun person hears it. So while the statements are true, the challenge is the delivery.

 

[kraigwy]

I NEED, my WOA AR Service Rifle to be competitive in HP Shooting.

I NEED, my M4 style AR to be competitive in 3-gun matches.

The AR style rifle is REQUIRED, in CMP Service Rifle, EIC, and the PRESIDENT'S MATCH.

But I hate the word NEED.

Slaves get what they NEED.

Free men get what the WANT

 

[ATN082268]

If someone asks you, "Why do you need an "assault rifle?," you can respond, "why not?" It is up to those who want to restrict freedoms to justify their policies, not those who want to retain their freedoms. Also feel free to ask questions like what is an "assault weapon?," and how will policy "x" stop situation "y?," etc.

 

[redlightrich]

I have found that most of the people who think we shouldn't have "assault rifles" done even know what they are.

US Citizens in good standing should have whatever the military has. Just like when the amendment was created.

I had this discussion last night, with my younger brother who I love dearly. He is educated, an attorney and a left wing democrat ( some bad traits I know, but I love my brother).

He thinks an AR is an assault rifle, and thinks they are all capable of automatic fire. I explained that I have several, and I am very responsible. It is the right my father fought for in WWII and my fathers before.
1 pull of the trigger, 1 bullet fires. He really didn't understand that.

We as a group need to educate the uneducated ( in regards to firearms) so they won't be so eager to remove our freedom and rights.

It is not the governments job to protect us as individuals.
That is our job, and weapons help assure that.

I now know that my brother will at least think twice before he supports any anti gun law. Even if it is because how strongly I support the 2nd.

I hope I didn't veer off too far, but those are my relevant thoughts.

We should have "assault" weapons because this is the USA!!! It is NOT a privilege. It is my birthright. End of story.

Rich

 

[zincwarrior]

Assault rifles are for wussies. Real men shoot battle rifles.

"If it ain't .30 cal it aint &&%%"
-Thomas Jefferson.

I am not a fan of 5.56 "assault rifles," not for legal reasons but in preference comparing a defacto carbine vs. a true rifle. I have no issue with people having the right to have one however.

 

[g.willikers]

Explaining the technical differences between an AR and the military version generally falls on deaf ears.
The defense of the right to own them must come from the defense of rights, civil and constitutional rights, in general.

 

[K_Mac]

If it ain't .30 cal it aint &&%%"
-Thomas Jefferson.

That is the funniest thing I've read in ages! Thanks for the laugh zincwarrior.

 

[zincwarrior]

The honor, is to serve.

 

[sirgilligan]

Alexander Hamilton made it clear that the term militia means the armed citizenry.

We should always remember the captivity of our forefathers and how they thoughtfully and responsibly showed us how to resist and overthrow tyranny. They identified the freedoms that kings and governments remove in order to subject others. For instance, equal treatment under the law, the right to speak out, the right to follow one's conscious and worship God or not, and the right to defend the Constitution which enumerates (not grant, but simply list) these rights. It would be foolishness to think that the protection of individual rights can be turned over to some group, for the individual has that responsibility. Any individual abdicating that responsibility is somewhat of a traitor.

If there is ever a call to arms, who do you think will provide those arms? If there is ever a world war that taxes the resources of our nation even more than WWII who do you think will provide arms to our soldiers, our sons and daughters, to defend the nation?

I do not like AR's in general. They are ugly. I like accuracy and beauty mated together into a fine precision instrument.

I have spent a significant amount of my money to have the very best semi-automatic rifle that would be excellent and reliable in the situation of defending our Constitution. It is prepared and ready to go at a minutes notice. It is not a toy, and I do not take it out to play with at the range. It is fired enough to verify "zero" and functionality and no more.

My wife has a semi-automatic quite different from mine but for the same purpose. Something she can handle. I encourage my children to have the same and they work towards it, first they get a pistol for home, then a shot gun, and one day they will choose their "minute man" firearm that suits their needs.

In my opinion a true American has already had the decision made for them by our founders, "Would you take arms against our government if that government exceeds its Constitutional bounds?" Our founders told us that the answer is "Yes." I do not have to debate it, I do not have to have a conflicted conscious over it, I have a mandate by those that defined the method of taking and securing freedom.

 

[Skans]

I like the OP's reasons. Short, concise and falls in line with my philosophical beliefs.

I think most of us here understand and agree that we are all entitled to own whatever type of gun we want and that we don't have to establish a "need". I believe the OP was trying to come up with quick responses to Antis that ask the question "WHAT DO YOU NEED ONE OF THOSE FOR?" It's actually a pretty common thing for them to ask. You will even here an occasional pro-gun-but-not-so-pro-gun folks ask this type of question like Michael Savage, f/k/a Michael Weiner when he called for a ban on drum magazines and body armor.

 

[44 AMP]

There is also the simple, direct answer to "why do you need"..and that is that despite ALL LAWS, the bad guys have them.

And any law that gives criminals a "built in" advantage is morally repugnant.

 

[Erno86]

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

 

[Stretchman]

2nd Amendment. What does it mean?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When the 2nd Amendment was penned, the government saw a need for two different thing, and both were dependent on an armed citizenry.

The first was a "Well Regulated Militia." Within one year, all abled bodied men between the ages of 18-45 were to acquire a weapon consistent with military service at the time, maintain an ammo cache for that weapon, and prepare to train and drill in the event that they were called up by the President and Congress to put down rebellion, insurrection, and/or anything else that threatened the stability of the government or the security of the state.

The government did not see the 2nd amendment is simply a right, but a duty. They did not want to maintain a standing army, or have to quarter them. They saw standing armies as the biggest threat to freedom in existence. Whereas a militia made up of an army of the people, loyal to the government, could be readily trusted to defend the union against tyranny and uprisings against the union; the same thing they had been fighting against together for years.

So, the 2nd amendment was firstly about protecting the union, and had anything presented a threat to the union, that the militia could be called into service.

The 2nd thing was, back in those days, there was no 911. People had to have a way to defend themselves and their towns, villages, settlements, and property against very viable threats. There wasn't any particular brand of policing either, but the constitution did guarantee people's rights, even if they were accused of a crime.

So, an armed citizenry was actually the first line of defense in this great nation of ours.

However, the government soon found out that the Militia in it's current form wasn't as reliable as they believed it would be. People didn't train enough, weapons and ammo were expensive, and people were hesitant to report for duty. When Militias were employed, they were undisciplined, refused to follow orders, and wanted to be able to choose their own battles. They had lost their sense of duty and urgency that was so prevalent at the end of the revolution.

So, the militia was split into two groups. The regulated militia, which is the National Guard, and the unregulated militia, which was all of the people in the above mentioned group who weren't currently serving but could still be called to duty by congressional order at the request of the President. The regulated militia proved to be much more reliable.

The regular armed forces of the United States, by definition, are not the Militia. The Militia normally has to take two oaths, one to the Governor of the state, and one to the US. If the unregulated milita were called into service, there would be Officers appointed over them who themselves were commissioned by Congress. They would normally not be required to serve at above the State level, unless drafted into military service.

So, an armed citizenry is about patriotism, law and order. It's what keeps a free society from crumbling into chaos, and becoming an anarchy.

Now, these people who are doing these mass shootings are firstly, targeting innocents or police because their real target is us. Whatever their motivations, they go against the grain of everything we stand for when they do what they do. They are the enemy, and they sometimes profess that to us while they do what they do. Who has the most to gain from seeing us disarmed? Patriots? Preservation of the union? Law and Order?

Our enemies do this. Their ultimate goal is to cause the type of reaction we are currently seeing in the media. They want someone to take our guns away, so that we can be found in the same state as most of their victims. Disarmed and cowering in the corner, unable to resist. This is by clinical definition insurrection, the very reason we are to be armed in the first place. It is blatant enemy action. It is terrorism.

If we do as these people would have us do, it would only serve to encourage their behavior. And why not? I mean, it worked in Iraq. They had the military disarm the general populace, and then, once our forces were pulled out, ISIS, the remnants of the former regime, rushed in to fill the void. Their first target was the Iraqi military, who were taken out and summarily executed. Then, their police were taken out. That put ISIS firmly in control.

Will we repeat that mistake? To be certain, the 2nd amendment is about not about sporting, or clays, or even hunting. It is about having military grade weapons in the best interest of peace and preservation of the union. And AR-15 type weapons serve two purposes, not one.

Yes, they kill people. But, they also kill people who are trying to kill people. I, for one, do not think that this nation would be better off without. I am, however, convinced that the enemy does. Maybe we should take that into account before we cave in to terrorist demands.

 

[Snappo]

IMHO your weapons purchases depend on your requirements.

1) Insurrection /tyrannical government - high capacity carbine with high reliability and reasonable accuracy out to 300 yards. I prefer Galil and AK47 because they are 1,000x more reliable than AR; but I have AR's too. I think it's still possible to find a used semi-auto Galil or Golani these days. AK's are a dime a dozen. AR's left many hundreds of soldiers dead in vietnam lying next to an AR that FTE'd. That's why Stoner went back to the drawing board for chrome lining, a FTF assist, etc. Still - unreliable product in extreme conditions.

2) Hunting - I highly recommend Remington700 but others may feel differently. I have a pair of 700 Police, a BDL in 300 winmag, an XHR extreme hunting rifle in 30-06, a Classic in 338 Winmag, and a BDL in 223. I also have a Savage that's sub MOA, and everyone constantly talks about Thompson Center being sub MOA right from the box every time.

3) Trap/Skeet. I have a Mossberg M9200A1 USMC. Lots of companies make far better quality products but I just shoot trap from my home range. Benelli, Browning, etc.

4) Bird hunting - I have a Mossberg 815. Yeah, when it comes to shotguns I am cheap. Point and shoot semis.

5) Sidearms. I recommend owning both wheel guns and semis. I have five 1911's and two 44 Mag's (S&W 29, and Raging Bull). NOTE: I prefer 44 Mag because that's the same round I use in my Henry Big Boy.

6) Lever Action. I have a Henry Big Boy, and a Marlin 45-70 Government. There are many beautiful lever actions out there; but Henry Big Boy is the deal. Deserves to be in every gun safe.

7) C&R. Now you get into the fun stuff. Personally, I am huge on WW I and WW II. I have long rifles and carbines representing most countries; and a few nazi sidearms.

8) 22 LR. I have a Marlin, but on my list to get someday is a Henry H004. Same deal - Henry should be in everyone's safe.

9) Class III. I buy what I think is a good deal and will appreciate well. That's investment stuff. Don't blow a lot on cans, and never waste money on short barrel garbage. That's a money loser. I prefer Uzi bolts, Macs, and AR's. I also have a 1919A4 Navy, but those are hard to find a good deal on anymore. A Ma Deuce is a great investment if you can find one for $25K or so.

 

[danco]

I'm going to try this, the next time someone asks me:

Them: "Why do you need an AR-15/assault weapon/assault rifle?"

Me: "Why do you think I shouldn't be allowed to have one?"

 

[Skans]

Class III. I buy what I think is a good deal and will appreciate well. That's investment stuff

None of my Class III stuff started out as an investment (well, I only have 2). The AC556 is now an "investment", unfortunately (I bought it to shoot), and the USAS-12 is also an investment...sort of - had to form 1 it myself under threat of imprisonment from the Clinton Administration.

 

[Old Bill Dibble]

Ask them how much money they make. Why do they NEED all that money??
Our government sets minimum wages, so clearly, that's ALL anyone NEEDS, right?

(don't allow distracting arguments like how the minimum wage isn't enough, that is a different subject, entirely.)

The point is that they need to see that NEED is NOT the defining factor. Tell them that if they want you to give up your property, in order to have any moral basis, first, they should give up theirs.

That discussion is coming up more and more again these days. The conversations being held are even more scary than the infringements on gun rights.


I don't actually need one. I didn't need one when I was in the Army either. Sure was helpful though...