Errr, counter-argument?

[arctica2]

What's the argument against:

"Well, I respect the right of people to own handguns, etc. in self-defense. But please explain to me why ANYONE would legitimately need an assault rifle."

I'm not big on gun rights so I have no response to that other than "Uhhh..."

 

[pcosmar]

To resist a Tyrannical Government.

 

[pcosmar]

Also, in the words of the Founders.

"Under every government the dernier [Fr. last, or final]
resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend
themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check
the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people...
entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army,
composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain
under the direction of the most wealthy citizens."

Quote by:A Framer
Anonymous 'framer' of the US Constitution
Source:
Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Quote by:Tench Coxe
(1755-1824) American political economist
Source:
Writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the _Philadelphia Federal Gazette,_ June 18, 1789, p.2 col.1

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Quote by:Tench Coxe
(1755-1824) American political economist
Date:20 Feb 1788

 

[synapz]

To me, it's the principle of the thing. If someone wants something, other people are willing to give it to them, and they aren't hurting anyone with it, why should they not be allowed to have it? Typical responses:

"To keep people safe."
You respond: Those who trade liberty for temporary safety will lose both.

"Well, by your reasoning, we should not outlaw people possessing nuclear bombs."
You respond: That's correct.
Or, if you don't like that,
You respond: I'm willing to concede that there are some limitations to this philosophy, but an assault rifle is hardly a nuclear bomb.

 

[XNavyNuke]

What's the argument against:

"Well, I respect the right of people to own handguns, etc. in self-defense. But please explain to me why ANYONE would legitimately need an assault rifle."

I'm not big on gun rights so I have no response to that other than "Uhhh..."

So, people cannot protect themselves in self-defense against their own government? They have both automatic weapons as well as NBC weapons. The difference is governments would have no problem using automatic weapons against individuals or groups in their own country whereas it's almost unthinkable that any reasonable administration would use NBC on their own soil. (C not including pepper spray or tear gas, which governments most certainly do use.)


XNN

 

[1000-points-of-fright]

There have been roughly 262,000,000 victims of democide (the murder of citizens by their own government) in the last century. That's roughly 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. All democide is preceded by gun control laws.

Can't happen here you say? Maybe not now or even 50 yrs from now or in your lifetime. But incrementally encroaching gun laws will eventually leave citizens disarmed at some point in the future and that allows the possibility of democide.

 

[Conservative Christian]

Obtain and read this book thoroughly:

Death by "Gun Control": The Human Cost of Victim Disarmament

by Aaron Zelman & Richard Stevens

http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=22

 

[the_british_are_coming]

short version: to be somewhat equally armed as to those trying to kill me.

 

[mad212]

Right to bear arms, not right to bear only a 9mm. Ar15's can be very fun guns to shoot, more fun then handguns, does that make it wrong for us to own?

Ak47's are cheap and reliable, if sh*t hits the fan you need something thats been in war for years in your hands.

Only an closed minded person says you can't own what i don't understand. Lack of knowledge instills fear and irrational logic.

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

What is an assault weapon?

I never saw a gun assault anybody.

 

[wd4freedom]

As a human, by our natural rights, we inherently have the right and obligation to protect ourselves, our family and our property. Bearing arms of any sort is our right and choice in a free society.

This right SHALL NOT be infringed in any way.

 

[pickdog]

because it is a more efficient tool

 

[Carbine556]

Ask the person you're arguing with just what, exactly, is an assault rifle. Odds are they're going to say "a machine gun". Machine guns have been heavily regulated since 1934, and assault rifle (or weapon) is a buzzword made up by politicians to take guns away from people based on physical appearance only.

Furthermore, assault is a behavior, so anything in the world can be an "assault weapon". I could throw my keyboard at someone and, because I used it as a weapon to assault someone, it is now an "assault weapon". I know, it's stupid.

Also, a Bill of Justify Your Necessity Before Exercising These Rights has never been ratified by these United States, ever in our history. The same question could be posed as...

"Why do rock singers always buy Ferraris when a yugo is just as good for getting from point A to point B". Well, a Ferrari is a whole lot more fun than a Yugo, and a CAR-15, with all the bells and whistles that would make a liberal college student literally crap their pants, is a lot more fun than a muzzle loader to shoot (personal opinion).

It's the Bill of Rights. I'll be thrice damned before I justify my right to own an assault rifle to the government, which is limited by the same document. They are the ones that need to justify their actions to US, not the other way around.

Most assault rifles are NOT designed to kill people. They aren't powerful enough (with the notable exception of the AR15). Their purpose is to wound people to take as many enemies out of the fight as possible as they take care of their wounded comrades. A semi-automatic pistol would do more damage with the right rounds than a FMJ assault rifle round.

The Militia Act of 1797 (I think) says that all able bodied males aged 17-45 are members of the unorganized militia, and therefore must own a weapon of military usefullness and be proficient with it's use. If you do not own a weapon of military usefullness, you are breaking the law and are derelict in your duty as a member of the militia.

Just my .02.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ask the person you're arguing with just what, exactly, is an assault rifle. Odds are they're going to say "a machine gun". Machine guns have been heavily regulated since 1934, and assault rifle (or weapon) is a buzzword made up by politicians to take guns away from people based on physical appearance only.

WOW! - you are just a fountain of mis-information this morning! Assault RIFLE is a real, military term for a ruggedized, lightweight rifle that can fire either single shot or full automatic (ie: it's a "machine gun"). A Assault WEAPON is a legal fiction made up by gun grabbers to ban "evil looking" guns and to make the public believe they are banning machine guns.

Most assault rifles are NOT designed to kill people. They aren't powerful enough (with the notable exception of the AR15). Their purpose is to wound people to take as many enemies out of the fight as possible as they take care of their wounded comrades. A semi-automatic pistol would do more damage with the right rounds than a FMJ assault rifle round.

The "notable exception of the AR15" is total BS! Just because you obviously own one does not make it any more or less powerful than any other weapon in it's class. You are right that one of the benefits of a assault rifle (or their semi-auto brethren, for the civilian market in the USA) is that it's less likely to kill, but rather wound.

btw: I think you own a CAR-15, not an AR-15. You didn't lay down $200 on a tax stamp, did you?

The Militia Act of 1797 (I think) says that all able bodied males aged 17-45 are members of the unorganized militia, and therefore must own a weapon of military usefullness and be proficient with it's use. If you do not own a weapon of military usefullness, you are breaking the law and are derelict in your duty as a member of the militia.

Just my .02.

The unorganized militia was called up in WWII to defend our shores and ports and told to bring their own weapons. A lot of them were bolt action rifles and shotguns.

-n

 

[arctica2]

There have been roughly 262,000,000 victims of democide (the murder of citizens by their own government) in the last century. That's roughly 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. All democide is preceded by gun control laws.

Can't happen here you say? Maybe not now or even 50 yrs from now or in your lifetime. But incrementally encroaching gun laws will eventually leave citizens disarmed at some point in the future and that allows the possibility of democide.

FTW!

 

[Doktor_Jeep]

Keep in mind that all other land-dwelling creatures in the same scope as people (internal gestation, vertabrae, etc) have some sort of defense born into them.

From quils to claws, it's hard to find an example of a defensless animal. Even those lacking tough skin or weapons have some other defense, like keen senses or speed.


But people do not.

And humans are the only species that enslaves, slaughters, controls against the will, and commits genocide against itself.

Whether the aggressor is a 300 lb rapist attacking a 100 pound woman or a bloated tyrannical government sucking every last bit of life and production out of a subjugated mass, the outcome is expectedly the same.

Guns change that. It could be argued that swords and bows had some effect and they did in their times.

Those medieval castles that are still standing today for example. Back in the day they were whitewashed and kept bright to stand out on the land, and intimidate the people. The kings men rode horses that the average peasant family could not feed, and had weapons and armor only a state could aquire. The men themselves had a full time job of training to fight and were well fed. The starved peasant who toiled all day in the field could not stand a chance.

And what times it was: feudalism, starvation, slavery. With the wave of a scepter the king could have anyone hauled off and killed with no need to answer for it. If the king said it was OK to rape and steal, so be it. Taxation on peoples' wealth, not productivity, was the norm - even if they had no wealth to speak of.

And the king was the sovereign. All was unto him and for him alone, land and people.

Then comes the day when the peasant puts the plow aside, picks up a musket, and with one lead ball shoots the warhorse out from under the knight. And with the other punches a hole in his armor. Everything changed.

And change it did because the very ideal behind the Constitution and seen in the writings of the founders was that everybody is sovereign. Everybody owns their own land and controls their own lives, and determines the outcome of their labor with control of the direction.

But today the governments of the world now produce and deploy advanced weaponry that only a state could afford, and pass laws to ensure that nobody with the ability can obtain it. They issue guns with armor-piercing bullets to their minions and give them the best armor that can stop armor-penetrating projectiles. They ride in vehicles that consume so much fuel that few could pay for it alone, and train in special tactical schools using thousands of rounds of ammo plus their own pay and overhead costs, ensuring that they alone can have the upper hand over anyone they are sent against - especially those that cannot afford the schools and ammo and instead toil at their jobs day after day paying bills and taxes.

And how sovereign or free are we now? How are those taxes? How about the regulations for every little thing, prison for victimless crimes and regulatory fouls that center mainly around not paying for a fee here or a permit there?

Does it all look familiar? It's not a New World Order, it's the way things were before the gun.

But the armor is not foolproof, and the elites in control cannot garuntee the outcome YET. They can and will know security if they can disarm us. Sure they get as far as they do infringing on our rights, robbing us of wealth and substance because one AR is not going to stop one of their SWAT teams, but many with ARs can take out a few minions here and a few there until they run out of operators. They cannot garuntee the outcome so long as we are armed and they are in fear of it.

The same people who tax you, the same people who want to tell you how to live, the same people who already think you are either too evil to survive (religionists) or too stupid (socialists), and the same people who wield shallow jingoism and false patriotism and concoct wars to get us killing each other, happen to be the same people who want you to be disarmed.

Like the rapist and the tyrant, the outcome is predictable.

 

[maeqFREEDOMfree]

i agree with the poster who said something to the effect of:

I don't "need" an assault rifle, but i want one. I'm not using it for anything illegal or irresponsible. Why should i be unable to own one then?

 

[SpamBots Attack!!!]

The idea is not for them to pry my "assault" rifle out of my cold dead fingers, but for me to to pry their "assault" rifle from their cold dead fingers. Of course giving newly acquired "assault" rifle to another Patriot who might not have one, as to facilitate the rapid liberation of other "assault" rifles from those who would stand in the way of Liberty, Prosperity, and Peace.

 

[MarcS]

What's the argument against:

"Well, I respect the right of people to own handguns, etc. in self-defense. But please explain to me why ANYONE would legitimately need an assault rifle."

I'm not big on gun rights so I have no response to that other than "Uhhh..."

A) Resist tyrannical government

B) self defense. I keep an AR-15 (semi-automatic m4/m16 clone) in my apartment for defense. There's lots of good reasons. Higher capacity and a more effective round. helps if you're fighting home invaders in your bathrobe without the standard 2 reloads i carry with my glock.

C) I wouldn't expect someone asking that question to understand.

 

[weslinder]

The Militia Act of 1797 (I think) says that all able bodied males aged 17-45 are members of the unorganized militia, and therefore must own a weapon of military usefullness and be proficient with it's use. If you do not own a weapon of military usefullness, you are breaking the law and are derelict in your duty as a member of the militia.

Just my .02.

Are you sure you're not thinking of another law? I've never heard of this Federal law in the US (although many states passed mandatory militia service). The Militia Act of 1797 does exactly what you said, but for Scotland.