Why I "need" an assault rifle?

[Mike128]

I have another line of thought I use when they question gun laws or stats, especially when they throw out the BS anti gun propaganda. I question them on how much do they really know about guns or is it just propaganda they heard. Most people are not gun people so they actually know very little about guns. Point out that the guy spewing the lies don't own or is not knowledgeable about guns. While you do own and shoot guns and would be a better expert to learn from.

Some examples:
Who's the gun guy here? So who would know more about guns? The politician who has never held a gun or the guy who goes shooting every weekend.

Have you ever bought a weapon? Than how can you tell me how easy it is to buy a gun. Because there is no such thing as the gun show loophole in MD. I'll take you to a gunshow and if you can buy a handgun in the parking lot I'll double your money. But I won't be bailing you out of jail.

 

[ThePhantomPatriot]

It is my right! End of discussion.

 

[K.C.Dean]

Just listen to the exgun owners in the UK and Australia. They are warning us to fight back if they take one they will take all of them. If you own one firearm you should either fight and don't relinquish not one gun right. That means being able to sell a gun to a friend or give a gun to one of our children as we see fit!

 

[N3YMY]

Its a little scary that he's role playing taking your guns away.

Yeah; not an oath keeper Ill bet....

 

[justiw]

I just had a thought.

Do you need an AR-15? It's not like we want to take away all guns. All the founders needed were muskets.

What a ridiculous question. It can only be countered with an equally ridiculous rhetorical question.

Do you need your tongue to exercise free speech? You still have your hands and pen and paper. All the founders needed was a quill and parchment.

 

[hdatontodo]

Not only might I need to yell Fire! in a crowded theatre, I might need to yell Commence Fire! at home during an invasion.

 

[K.C.Dean]

I need an ar 15 and a 30 rnd mag because I have herniated disk in my neck from a car accident and can't handle the recoil from a shotgun. I also have arthritis and can't hold a pistol or a revolver. I need a 30 rnd clip because I am a terrible shot.

 

[Sean Gollmer - A.F.&A.M.]

 

[Traveler]

I just had a thought.

Do you need an AR-15? It's not like we want to take away all guns. All the founders needed were muskets.

What a ridiculous question. It can only be countered with an equally ridiculous rhetorical question.

Do you need your tongue to exercise free speech? You still have your hands and pen and paper. All the founders needed was a quill and parchment.

And what did the military have back then. Oh, that's right, muskets. The same firearms for citizens as for the military. Hmmmmm.

By the way, I can't afford an APC, an M1 tank, or an F-22. So the military always wins anyway.

 

[vcaddy05]

I know it's not legally analogous (since when do the antis care about "legal" anyway?)...but my response is always the car one:

Why do you need a BMW 5 series when a Ford Focus still get you around town? Do you need a sports car? Do you need a Prius? The answer is "no", you don't "need one"...you want one. If you get to tell me I can't have a rifle, I get to tell you what cars you aren't allowed to buy.

But guns kill people! Not as many people as cars do.

But driving is a right! So is owning a rifle.

But assault rifles are made only to kill people, you can't/shouldn't/etc have one! I think the Prius is FUGLY and only designed to move people around, not haul furniture, large families, etc around...since it has only one use, it must be banned.

Yes, again, I know the differences between the arguments, the different legal standing between driving and the 2A...the problem is that if you argue those semantics, you loose 99% of people. In my opinion, you need to find something as sacred to them as the 2A is to us and relate it...otherwise you are wasting your breath.

Granted, most leftists (I dislike using the word "liberal" since very few of their political views have anything to do with liberty) are so closed minded and/or filled with a superiority complex that they dismiss you immediately regardless of the arguments you use. The vast majority just hear Charlie Brown's teacher as soon as you open your lips and/or just call you stupid and walk away.

Not to mention the fact that driving is not a right. You have no right to a driver license or to drive on public roads. We do as a free populace have the right to keep and bear arms which is not to be INFRINGED.

As to the vehicle analogy think about how many lives we would save by limiting vehicle speed to 45 mph. There is no reason anyone has to drive faster, besides police and emergency vehicles. The fatality rate increases dramatically at speeds of 50 and over. Therefore we should obviously all be required to have governors on all vehicles limiting the top speed to 45 mph. I mean we need to keep people safe right! Think of the gas we would save while were at it.

Also drunk driving causes far too many deaths. You have no right to alcohol, nor driving. Therefore we should A.) Ban Alcohol, oh wait we already tried that. Didn't work out too well. B.) Blow and go for all cars by 2014. Every car on the road shall be required to have a blow and go installed in their vehicles. Every time you get in your car, you steadily blow into that damn tube, until it can confirm that you have not had any alcohol in your system. Once passed, your car will start, and you can continue to drive up to the 45 mph limit previously talked about. Were saving lives here!!!

 

[DCutdSE]

And what did the military have back then. Oh, that's right, muskets. The same firearms for citizens as for the military. Hmmmmm.

By the way, I can't afford an APC, an M1 tank, or an F-22. So the military always wins anyway.

Anti-gunners often ask, "How do you think citizens with assault rifles could stand up to government aggression and an army with tanks and planes? You can't possibly justify the need for assault rifles against such overwhelming force."

In response, just point to the VC, Taliban, US Colonies or any other group that stood up to the most advanced military force of the day using mostly rifles and ingenuity.