"Why does an ordinary American citizen need an assault rifle?"

[Green Lantern]

So said the comment in our local papers little anonymous "twitter-esque" section where people can call in assorted two-to-three sentence comments.

I intend to reply, with a full letter to the editor.

I have some of my own ideas, but was also looking for input from you guys on how best to respond?

 

[highorder]

Why does an ordinary American citizen

I'm curious how many different types of Americans they think they are, and who deserves to have which rights?

 

[Green Lantern]

^ Good catch, that one went right by me.

 

[arizona_cards_11]

To thwart the efforts of a tyrannical government.....and this is the only reason necessary.

 

[Shmackey]

"What is an assault rifle?"

It's astonishing how misinformed "ordinary" (ahem) Americans are about firearms. Many think that regular AR-15s are full-auto rifles. (Many think the same about Glocks and the like.) Many also don't realize that the AWB didn't ban what they think of as assault rifles at all.

The dreaded "assault rifle" shoots out one bullet for one trigger pull, just like an old-fashioned revolver or grandpa's Garand.

Columbine happened during the "assault weapons ban."

Again, though, if the point is to have a rational discussion, the leading question "OK, define what you want to ban" is a good start. Because they can't.

 

[mljdeckard]

For all lawful purposes. Rights are not justified by need.

 

[hso]

First point out that "assault rifles" that citizens possess are highly controlled requiring a background check at the federal level, a $200 tax, permission of your local Sheriff/Chief in writing. They're also expensive.

If the term is being intentionally used to mislead the public into thinking that machine guns are readily available to the public when the discussion is about semiauto rifles that look like assault rifles, there's not much point of a discussion with someone who's decided to lie to make a point.

If the term is mistakenly being used then that mistake can be corrected. Modern firearms take advantage of the advances in ergonomics and design from modern military firearms. Because no new machine guns can be sold to the public since the mid 1980s these firearms are one shop per pull of the trigger derivatives. They're used in competition, the fastest growing portion of the shooting competitive sports, they're used for hunting, Colt originally advertised them for this purpose, and they're used for recreational plinking. As a farm or ranch or house gun they're very handy and easy to shoot and because of the light weight of the bullets are less likely to penetrate structures injuring innocents (they are actually safer than your grandfather's revolver in this respect).

They are not the preferred weapon of criminals in spite of high profile crime just recently committed that involved one (Holmes opened up on the theater attendees with a shotgun, but no one is asking "why..." about them). FBI/DoJ statistics collected each year find that these firearms are used in a tiny fraction of violent crimes.

If they're only used in a tiny fraction of homicides and they are useful for hunting, competition and home defense, why call for their removal?

 

[Spats McGee]

1) When did need become a requirement for rights?

2) To defend my adorable wife and daughter, should evil come knocking at my door. Oh, and bad guys: (a) travel in groups; and (b) don't make appointments.

3) It ain't about "sporting purposes."

 

[Dr_B]

Ah, the "need" question. This gets thrown into the ring every time. I heard this argument when my state considered allowing guns on campus. As we should already know, need is not the proper justification for ownership or privilege.

 

[strykerfire]

I thik we should make a fully automatic "insult rifle" and spray it at the left for all there bull.

 

[beatledog7]

Isn't it interesting that whenever we manage to get a devoted anti to actually decide to learn how guns work -- what guns can do and what they can't do, etc. -- we can then easily convince them that the term "assault rifle" is functionally meaningless.

Thus, that anti is suddenly a lot less anti.

 

[Motodeficient]

After the latest Colorado incident, I remember on the news that they showed a picture on the screen and said, the shooter had guns like these: The picture showed a pistol-grip pump shotgun, an AR-style rifle, and two black autoloading handguns. This can't help the gun community any.... Now the uniformed people are going to think that if you have black guns like the ones in the picture, you are up to no good.

 

[armoredman]

"Why does an ordinary American citizen need an assault rifle?"
Well, for one, I am an extraordinary American. Americans have led the free world in many endeavors, and to call one an "ordinary American" is to immediately denigrate the accomplishments of Americans over the centuries, present Administration excepted.
Why do I "need" something, well, I don't need the tobacco I use in my pipe, and lung cancer kills quite a few people every years. I don't need the beer in my refrigerator, as as Randy Travis can now attest, (naked DUI?), abuse of alcohol can lead to many unpleasant incidents, some of those including death. I abuse neither, and use each sparingly. But I don't need them. So when are the "for the children" types going to ban them - they aren't Constitutionally protected, like firearms are, (SCOTUS, Heller vs US and McDonald vs Chicago), so when will they take these killers away, for the children?
What? It's been tried and failed? Gee, darn, too bad.
Since my firearms ARE Constitutionally protected, a level much higher than my pipe tobacco or Bud Light Platinum, two items which for which I have no requirement to prove a "need" for, and two items that have not been successfully removed from American society despite the level of death and injury misuse of them has caused, then I would have to say I likely have no need to prove a "need" for my firearms, either. You see, they don't "need" me to be unarmed. If they do, as paraphrased from Arfin, "what horrors do you have planned for me that you "need" me to be defenseless?"

 

[Davek1977]

After the latest Colorado incident, I remember on the news that they showed a picture on the screen and said, the shooter had guns like these: The picture showed a pistol-grip pump shotgun, an AR-style rifle, and two black autoloading handguns. This can't help the gun community any.... Now the uniformed people are going to think that if you have black guns like the ones in the picture, you are up to no good.

No offense, but "EBRs" (evil black rifles) had that nickname WELL before the Daark Kniight shooting. No, it won't HELP our cause, but just pointing out what weapons were used....if done so accurately....is what I'd call good reporting. Just because an incident may not directly benefit us doesn't mean its purposely AGAINST us, either. Bieng a gun person, I am usually at least somewhat interested in what the shooter was using, and such reporting gives me the answers I was looking for. Now, if they had shown the rifles and went on a rant about how they needed to be banned and so on, I could understand why you'd be upset. However, reporting the facts should be what we EXPECT out of our news media, even if it doesn't reflect the reality we wished it did. AS long as the "gun details" aren't accompanied by a lengthy opinion, I don't mind the media telling me what the shooter used

 

[Twmaster]

No, I do not need an assault rifle. I do need a lightweight, ergonomic, easy to use, accurate, semi-automatic rifle based on a 60+ year history of service and improvement to defend my home, my person and my country.

I thik we should make a fully automatic "insult rifle" and spray it at the left for all there bull.

Yup the other side is already armed with blame-throwers. We need countermeasures!

 

[Davek1977]

"Blamethrowers" HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHA......that is an awesome new word to coin!

 

[BADUNAME37]

I don't have an assualt rifle.
I have a semi-automatic rifle.
My rifle is no different than other semi-automatics that have been made over the years for hunting, it is just that mine happens to not have any wood furniture on it. I prefer it that way, as I can be out in the pouring-rain and I could care less if my gun gets wet.

 

[BADUNAME37]

In places where guns are outlawed, why do the police carry guns?
If they are not "needed" by the public, then why are they "needed" by the police?

I think you will find they are "needed" by the police for one of the same reasons we happen to "need" our guns.

If they do not want us to have guns, why not first set an example and take the guns away from the police in places where guns are not allowed? I think the reason is clear. As we have said many, many times, e.g., OUTLAWS DON'T ABIDE BY LAWS!

Isn't it already a felony to use a gun in ANY CRIME?

 

[Sky]

In places where guns are outlawed, why do the police carry guns?
If they are not "needed" by the public, then why are they "needed" by the police?

I think you will find they are "needed" by the police for one of the same reasons we happen to "need" our guns.

If they do not want us to have guns, why not first set an example and take the guns away from the police in places where guns are not allowed? I think the reason is clear. As we have said many, many times, e.g., OUTLAWS DON'T ABIDE BY LAWS!

It is a felony to shoot at a police officer, yet some people do it anyway.

Good point^^^^^

Yup the other side is already armed with blame-throwers. We need countermeasures!

Salute!

 

[Mp7]

Because he is a gun nut.

All other explanations constructed, but a lie

 

[PBR Streetgang]

After reading through the posts,,,,maybe we should re-invent the evil black rifle as the new environmental save the earth firearm,pushing the fact no trees were killed in the construction of this rifle!

 

[BADUNAME37]

'Gun-Nut' defined

Gun-Nut:

http://www.bnpbd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Gun-Laws.jpg

http://globosupply.com/images/heavy_hex_nut1.jpg

 

[BADUNAME37]

.....pushing the fact no trees were killed in the construction of this rifle!

Amen!

 

[Green Lantern]

Good stuff, thanks!

My current plan is to focus on three things:
1) - semiauto rifles are NOT full auto "real" assault rifles
2) - the failure of the AWB to reduce crime, and the absurdity of some of it (bayonet lugs - "if someone attacks me with a knife, I HOPE they're dumb enough to stick it on a big heavy rifle first...")
3) - unlike Hollywood, its rare for a bad guy to go down with one shot alone, and the smart ones find a buddy or five to join up with them to prey on people

Now, even though it could fall under #3, I could use maybe more inspiration on defense of the 100-round magazine - though I don't really plan on going there in this letter. I don't know that "give the antis an inch and they'll take a mile," though true, will hold a lot of water with my audience.

Though I toyed with the idea of bringing up things like women with an absurd number of shoes, and people that own sports cars that can do 200mph. They don't "need" them, and the latter can be dangerous, but if they're not hurting anyone with them they why SHOULDN'T they own them if they want?

Also, with the ultimate purpose of the 2A, the defense against tyranny. Actually watching a debate on that on another site, and one guy does make a pretty fair point that We The People long ago lost the 'arms race' with the Government. And he theorizes that we're allowed to keep arms to keep us complacent and give us the illusion that we can overthrow tyranny if needed - even as we move closer and closer to it with each passing year (Patriot act, NDAA, drones, etc).

Syria is an interesting counter-example to a point...but it can be argued that the reason Asaad hasn't REALLY broken bad yet is to avoid bringing the full military wrath of most of the rest of the world down on his head.

So in short, I feel like I really ought to mention something about tyranny, but fear doing so for doing the argument at hand more harm than good if someone replies with some of the above arguments?

 

[keithbayne]

first,what they do not understand is,it is NOT an assault rifle if it is single fire not full auto.
next,the 2nd amendment says we have the right to a well formed militia,therefore,it is a consitutional right for us to have them. other people have the right to buy expensive fast cars,get drunk,and kill people.no one is trying to outlaw sports cars or alcahol.
and why do these gungrabber types think it makes any difference what type gun or magazine one has? it is the "person"not the things that kill people.