Why do you need an assault rifle?

[LkWinnipesaukee]

We were talking in History class today about the Second Amendment. The subject of assualt rifles, and me wanting an AR for Christmas came up.

I was asked why I wanted/needed an assualt rifle. The only response I could really come up with was 'because I can', and 'target shooting'. Noone really thought that was a good answer...


So who do we need 'assualt rifles'?

 

[PILMAN]

Any gun can be used as an "assault weapon". The term "Assault Rifle" is coined to mean any weapon the military uses.

Think of it the way you think of cars, you can have your average car to get from place a to place b or you can get a sports car. Why do people need fast cars? It's about choice.

Any gun can be used to kill a person, the term "assault rifle" is misleading.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

Two things here:
1. An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle." A true assault rifle has a selector switch to go from semi-auto fire to full auto fire. Those are already heavily regulated by the government.

2. Since when should Big Brother ban everything we don't "need?" Do you need your computer? Do you need a TV? Maybe we should ban everything but food, water and shelter.

 

[Oleg Volk]

For self-protection at close to intermediate ranges.

They key is to admit that the purpose is legitimate, arguing about the best tools for it is a minor point.

 

[Alex45ACP]

Protection from our own government.

 

[Declaration Day]

The answer I usually give to non-gun owners, be they fence sitters or antis, is that while they find military style firearms to be "scary" looking, they are no more powerful and are often less accurate than their hunting counterparts.

Another good answer is that "assault" implies intent, and you don't intend to harm anybody with it. That doesn't mean you wouldn't if you had to, but you know what I mean.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the true definition of an assault rifle is a select-fire weapon. Either way, I don't use the term at all. My rifles are all "Homeland Defense" rifles.

 

[CountGlockula]

One word...

Zombies.

Seriously though, owning a AR is like owning any other firearm: protection, range time, etc.

Also, it's a great hobby. You're very lucky your state allows you to own one.

 

[Ohio Rifleman]

What Oleg said, too. But that likely won't change the minds of the Sheeple, might bring a fence-sitter to our side, though. Or at least make some people think. Who knows?

 

[RNB65]

An assault rifle is a rifle that's capable of burst/full-auto rapid fire and requires an NFA tax stamp to possess. Is that really what you want?

If not, then what you want isn't an assault rifle. It's a conventional rifle styled to look like an assault rifle.

 

[harvester of sorrow]

The intent of the Second Amendment was that all citizens would have access to whatever the standard issue weapon of the military was. The theory was that a citizenry armed with the same equipment would always outnumber and therefore be able to defeat a standing army. This would guarantee freedom from a tyrannical government. Sadly, this is not nearly as possible as it should be today.

As for why you need one, "they're fun," "because I can," and "because I want one," should all be sufficient answers. Freedom is not dependent on justification. Ask them why they think you shouldn't have one. If their answer is along the lines of "because they're so deadly, etc.," tell them that inanimate objects can't BE anything. Explain that in the hands of a knowledgeable gun owner, shooting and owning a rifle like that might be many things: fun, rewarding, a competitive endeavor....but not "deadly." Tell them that you are confident in your own level of self control. Ask them if they are so insecure about their own judgment that they would be afraid to own or shoot one? Get the AR-15 and invite them shooting.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

I have an assault rifle because I think it makes an excellent home defense weapon, its inexpensive to shoot, and it looks really cool.

 

[Contraindicated]

Because

The old joke or saying, "why does a dog lick...." because he can! : I think the 2nd amendment is still a right and a personal choice as long as it remains so!

 

[KC&97TA]

The last person that asked why I needed my M4-Gery offered me $900 for it, I guess I don't need it... but it's helping hold the safe down, I'd rather it not be needed, than wanted.

What I really don't need is to turn on the furnace, so far I haven't turned on the furnace even with the temperature dipping down to only 25*F, I don't need central heating, I need more love'n

Generally, the assult weapons banning type people consider a .50bmg an assult rifle too, even the single shots... so they're not too up to speed.

Speaking of the .50 BMG, what I NEED is a .700 Nitro Express, because Elephants could excape and stampeed at any minute.

I also have my AR-15 because it looks cool, and looking cool is Rule #1 !

 

[DogBonz]

First and foremost...

Please instruct your classmates that the rifle that you want is NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

The term “assault rifle” was hijacked back in the early days of the Kliton administration. An assault rifle according to Webster’s Dictionary (pre Kliton) was:
Any rifle that could be changed from semi automatic to fully automatic with the flip of a selector switch.

Notice it said nothing about pistol grip stocks, 30 round mags, or a bayonet lug.

If they don’t gut your point, say that AR15’s are being discriminated against because they look like an M16. Just say that calling a civilian rifle an assault weapon because it looks like an assault weapon, is calling your mom’s grocery getting station wagon a race car because you put a big spoiler and some rims on it.

Then you can tell them how the AR family or rifles is one of the most inherently accurate rifle designs ever made. Or tell them that you are doing your part to end discrimination, and that they should be ashamed for “judging a book by its cover”.

 

[mkh100]

Dang ! Harvester beat me to it ! And said it better as well. That "assault" rifle is your constitutional right, its also your unyielding responsibility. You have a right and a responsibility to protect yourself and your family from others who would do you harm.

Right now as unsettling as I find things politically, you do not "need" any weapon to defend yourself from your government, nor your nation from foreign aggressors. But put into a historical context, it is more than likely, even probable that Americans will at some point be called to their own defense or the defense of our Nation.

Think of these issues:

Hungarian uprising of the 1950's

The defense of England from Nazi Germany (did you know they begged old hunting rifles from the US to give to folks along the coast fearing a land invasion?)

Bolshevek Revolution

French Resistance Movement WW2

How about women and the infirmed along the changing battle lines in the War of Northern Aggression. Not so much fighting for or against, nor even taking sides, but protecting themselves from roving bands of soldiers North or South.

How about a bunch of Farmers defending their ammunition stores from the kings men at Lexington and Concord......they still teach that in Mass. right? Had the Redcoats been the only ones on the field that day with M16's would the colonist ever have dared to fight the Battle that would lead to the creation of the greatest nation to ever grace the planet?

You do not just have a "right" to that rifle......you have a sincere responsibility to own one....its been paid for in blood and declared before God.

Maybe you and I will never be called to use that Rifle in Anger or Fear...What about your kids? your grandkids? If we go quietly into the night and shirk our responsibilities now what tragic course do we set for the future?

Mike

 

[JCF]

I don't "need" one. I want one. I enjoy the comfort, convenience and recreational benefits associated with having one.

There are few things in this life that we absolutely need, and there are multitudes of things that we enjoy that are potentially very harmful to both the individual, and those around him/her.

Personal automobiles are not a necessity, and their production and use is arguably more damaging to the health of the inhabitants of this planet than any other single human invention.

Alcoholic beverages in any form are not a necessity, and are a factor in the deaths of countless persons each and every day worldwide.

Highly-processed, fat and carbohydrate laden, and low-nutrient value foods are not a necessity, and are a factor in a staggering, nearly epidemic, decline in public health over the last thirty years.

I don't NEED any kind of gun. But then again, I don't NEED a lot of things that I have.

The question here is whether or not society should be permitted to regulate individual behavior based upon tangible need and tangible harm. If true and tangible NEED relative to true and tangible HARM are the criteria by which behavior is to be regulated, then Big Macs, Toyotas, Bud Light and escalators should be much, much higher on the hit list than your gun.

The question of need, and the argument that need should dictate access, is both specious and HIGHLY hypocritical.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

"Because the Democrats have control of the Senate and House"
"The great thing about this country is we don't have to show a NEED for everything we WANT"

 

[Hemicuda]

My standard reply is either:

"I don't need it, I already HAVE some, but more is better!" or

"because I want it!"

 

[Taurus92 in KyleTX]

Along the thematic lines of some previous posts...

If I need to cut a 4" hole in a piece of plywood, I could do it with a $8 handsaw and a good amount of time (relative to...)

Or, I could spend 3x or 4x that amount for a hole saw attachment for my drill (not even counting the cost of the drill).

Both would accomplish the same job. The latter just having a little more style (and speed) to it, and making it a hell of lot easier to get the hole directly in the middle of the board.

Likewise, if I wanted to put a hole, roughly .22in in diameter, in an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper, I could use a $160 Taurus PT22, or a $800 AR-15.

Both would accomplish the same job. The latter just having a little more style (and speed) to it, and making it a hell of lot easier to get the hole directly in the middle of the paper.

 

[migoi]

In person to person..

questioning of this type I usually turn the situation around. I answer their "Why do you need an assault rifle?" with "Tell me exactly why I shouldn't be able to own one."

There is no angle that they can take in answering that challenge that I can't deflect.

migoi

 

[Vern Humphrey]

So who do we need 'assualt rifles'?

Read the Debates (this is the term given to the Federalist Papers and the legislative debates over the Constitution during the period of ratification.) I recommend the Library of America two-volume set. (Why every American doesn't have a copy, I don't know.)

From that edition;

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this to be efficient must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; or otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be , on any pretence, raised in America.

"A Citizen of America" (Noah Webster) Philadelphia, October 17th, 1787.

The American people, having just fought a successful revolution against the most powerful empire in the world, understood the dangers of a too-powerful government. Webster explains that the Constitution provides that the government can never be more powerful than the people.

That is the intent of the 2nd Amendment -- that the people be able to constitute a force superior to the Army. The Founding Fathers were not unsophisticated yokels -- they understood how governments work, how power works, and how by creating a counterforce (an armed populace) they also forestalled attempts to creat a tyranny -- the simple knowledge that the people are armed and well-armed forestalls many a power-hungry potential tyrant.

 

[SWMAN]

The simple answer is because I need to practice my unorganized militia shooting skills.

 

[benelli12]

because they are fun to shoot, and they make me feel powerful......
Guns are not a need, they are a hobby

 

[Euclidean]

Well here's what I would say.

"The term assault rifle is inaccurate here, the AR15 was originally marketed to the outdoorsman and today sees use as the premier competition platform in many types of competeition shooting and it also serves well for personal defense. Actually I want an AR15 rifle because they're easily customized to fit the user. They're adaptable to many uses and shooting sports due to the interchangeability of the parts. The rifle is ergonomic, light weight, and easy to work on. I can customize my own rifle much more easily with the AR15 than I ever could with other formats of rifle. It's also easy to work the controls and easy to fire."

A few basic facts go a long old way.

 

[Nathanael_Greene]

Why do I need an "assault rifle"?

Why does someone need a McMansion? An SUV? More than two pairs of pants? Imported beer? An MP3 player? Designer frames for their bifocals? Gourmet food?

"None of your damned business, that's why."