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

[ZeSpectre]

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

History is just chock full of examples where the "peasants" couldn't possibly fight back against the sheer might of a trained standing army....and yet somehow do so.

On a different note, I've had some real fun recently by referring to my AR as a "SUG" (Sports/Utility Gun). When asked what makes that different from an "Assault Rifle" I say "I don't know, tell me what an "Assault Rifle" is". Do you know not one person has been able to tell me what an "Assault Rifle" is. The best answer I've got so far is "I don't know but I know one when I see it".

 

[Midwest]

"Zombie Repellers" sounds better ...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

An interesting question...and I LOVE the way it was phrased. That opens it up to a lot of intelligent criticism.

Why does "an ordinary American citizen need":

- An automobile capable of going over the speed limit
- Books about any subject outside what he needs to do his job
- A TV with hundreds of channels of entertainment
- Children
- More than one religion...or any religion at all
- More than one newspaper
- Internet websites which don't have anything to do with information directly relevant to his work and putting food on the table for his family
- High speed internet
- Cell phones of any kind, much less ones with cameras, music players, and internet access
- Pens available in more than one color (black)
- Any clothing that is more than basically functional as clothing
- More than one pair of shoes
- A privately owned house and property
- Soft drinks (or soft drinks larger than 16 ounces...an obvious jab at New York City)
- Artificial birth control, since abstenance will obviously prevent unwanted pregnancies
- Any paint colors other than officially sanctioned primary colors
- Games, which don't feed your family or put a roof over their heads
- Air conditioning, when fans can be used
- Linen with higher thread counts than 200

Strictly speaking, outside of the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing, the "ordinary American citizen" doesn't NEED anything.

But there is more to a vibrant life than just those three basics.


There is a difference between a "want" and a "need", a "right" and a "privilege".

And, beside all this, these people need to come to terms with what the heck an "assault rifle" actually is. The phrase is used as a euphamism for "military weapon" or "combat weapon", and is deliberately invoked to bring forth an image of a machine gun. We've already got enough laws in place to deal with that particular subject.

 

[Spats McGee]

Rights do not exist based on immediate necessity, they are based on overarching principles having to do with the interaction of individuals in society and between the people and government.

The fact that a particular person or even a large group of persons may not have an easily articulable short term necessity for a particular right or item doesn't mean that item isn't necessary in the long term or in the general, big picture scheme of things.

For example, I don't really have a daily or ongoing need for my constitutional right not to incriminate myself because I've never been in a situation where I was in any real danger of incriminating myself. That's probably true of most "ordinary American citizens", but that doesn't mean that we, as a whole, should give that right up, and it certainly doesn't mean we should have to articulate the reason we need it in order to exercise it. It's there for a reason that, in reality, has very little to do with any particular individual and EVERYTHING to do with limiting the power of government in its dealings with the citizenry as a whole.

The same general principles apply to exercising the 2nd amendment.

This is exceptionally well put, John.

 

[Midwest]

The Korean Store owners who protected their stores and themselves from the looters and gangs during the LA Riots.

 

[DammitBoy]

Rights do not exist based on immediate necessity, they are based on overarching principles having to do with the interaction of individuals in society and between the people and government.

The fact that a particular person or even a large group of persons may not have an easily articulable short term necessity for a particular right or item doesn't mean that item isn't necessary in the long term or in the general, big picture scheme of things.

For example, I don't really have a daily or ongoing need for my constitutional right not to incriminate myself because I've never been in a situation where I was in any real danger of incriminating myself. That's probably true of most "ordinary American citizens", but that doesn't mean that we, as a whole, should give that right up, and it certainly doesn't mean we should have to articulate the reason we need it in order to exercise it. It's there for a reason that, in reality, has very little to do with any particular individual and EVERYTHING to do with limiting the power of government in its dealings with the citizenry as a whole.

The same general principles apply to exercising the 2nd amendment.

I concur with Spats, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar - very well written and very well thought out.

(I'm stealing it)

 

[JohnKSa]

Thanks guys.

(I'm stealing it)

Use it in good health.

 

[joecil]

Now, I have not read every response or remark in this tread so all I will say is first off no, few people have the money to buy the license necessary to own a real assault rifle period. The AR-15 or AK-47 you buy in your gun store is not an assault rifle since they are semi auto and not fully auto. Both are suitable for hunting however movies and TV has made them all the same but little to do with reality. The only thing in common is appearance nothing more.

 

[Ryanxia]

I was going to mention the 'why does an ordinary American need a cell phone? when they kill so many people in car accidents' but someone beat me to it

 

[FMF Doc]

Ordinary citizens DON'T own "Assault Rifles." As someone who spent a lot of time carry a REAL ASSULT RIFLE, what civilians are permitted to buy are not assault rifles. They are not suppressor ready, they don't fire in fully automatic mode, and they are pretty large, all things considered. Now, civilians SHOULD be allowed to own them. Civilians should be permitted to own arms commensurate to what the police (at a minimum, and to avoid the nuke debate) own. It keeps everyone honest. As Jefferson stated:

"Tyranny is defined as that which is legal for the government but illegal for the citizenry."

 

[colorado_handgunner]

Why should I not be allowed to have one?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sobel]

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.

Time to break out the spray paint. Maybe if the guns weren't such an ominous and scary colour people would be more accepting.

 

[michaelbsc]

Time to break out the spray paint. Maybe if the guns weren't such an ominous and scary colour people would be more accepting.

That's not as far off as it sounds.

Mauve anyone?

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Allow me to point out thst our Founding Fathers had access to state of the art weapon systems when we went for independance.


Another thing to consider is if you realize thst you need a certian type of weapon its really too late to.do anything aboit the mess you are about to find yourself in. By the yime you need something its just too laye.

 

[Esoxchaser]

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

I don't. Call it whatever you want to, Mine is a defensive weapon.

 

[beatledog7]

"Name one defensive use of an AR-15 rifle by a civilian"

When the Federal agents come to break down the doors of private American homes, the list could grow rapidly.

 

[berettaprofessor]

When the Federal agents come to break down the doors of private American homes, the list could grow rapidly.

Not the list of those who "defended themselves with an AR15"....the list that will grow is the list of those "gun-crazies who killed innocent Federal agents and policemen who were only doing their sworn duties."

 

[Jim K]

Why does an ordinary citizen need:

More than one government TV channel?
More than one government radio station?
Any newspaper or magazine not published by the government?
Golf clubs?
An automobile?
A motorcycle?
A boat?
A camera?
A cell phone?
A computer?
A carving knife?
Any object capable of being used as a weapon?
A multi-room house?
Indoor plumbing?

The answer is that no one NEEDS anything beyond the basics in food, clothing and shelter. In the days of slavery, slaves had all that, but wanted more - they wanted freedom.

Slaves can have only what their masters allow them to have; why do "progressives" want American citizens put in the same category? Why do "progressives" like Joe Biden want to put us all into chains?

Jim

 

[effengee]

My assault rifle

1917 Birmingham Small Arms, Short, Magazine, Lee, Enfield, Number 1, Mark 3* chambered in .303 British, with a Pattern 07 Bayonet affixed. Old Bessie can't tell me for sure if she's been used during an actual assault, but if I was a betting man, I'd wager the farm on her before I'd drop a penny on my politically incorrect Romanian WASR-10, because the only things my Kalashniclone has ever assaulted is tin cans, plastic bottles, and paper targets!

The only definition of the word "Arms" that can be construed or inferred when used in the context of the Second Amendment, is simply any weapon that could be used to defend oneself. I would go so far as to say that I'm pretty sure they meant anything from improvised weapons on up to personal weapons that are available to a modern military force.

This country wasn't founded by idiots, and they certainly expected that those who could read the Constitution weren't idiots, either... Too bad that so many who can read, have very little comprehension.

 

[FMF Doc]

Not the list of those who "defended themselves with an AR15"....the list that will grow is the list of those "gun-crazies who killed innocent Federal agents and policemen who were only doing their sworn duties."

I don't advocate violence as the primary course of action (usually) but I also don't assume that the guys with the badges and guns are the good guys. There are bad apples in every group, and depending on where the police fall on an issue, even the "good ones" can be bad guys. There were no "good" cops seizing guns after Katrina. Every single one of them was violating several parts of the consitution, regarles of what a state law or court says. That is precisely why we "ordinary citizens" need to be as well armed as our goverment/police. "Who will police the police?"

 

[oneounceload]

Why do the police, who have no duty to protect you, have assault weapons? To protect THEMSELVES, yet they typically show up after us innocent civilians have been the victims; it seems WE need them more than the police.

Maybe the police in DC and Chicago can lead by example by disarming since their cities are gun-free zones - the same with campus police, those who work in gov't buildings and all of the rest

 

[michaelbsc]

Why do the police, who have no duty to protect you, have assault weapons? To protect THEMSELVES, yet they typically show up after us innocent civilians have been the victims;

Yeah! Isn't this the truth?

 

[kurt1305]

Clearly, I need one for Zombie control. Its just as good of an answer as any. The actual answer is, "because it is within my 2A rights".

 

[nyresq]

I always answer that question with the following-

The second amendment wording states "in order to form a well regulated militia"... now what kind of rifle is best suited to a militia? Right, an assault rifle. And for the second argument that follows that statement, the supreme court has already ruled the militia IS NOT the national guard.

 

[bbuddtec]

"Imagine" was a dream. People really do want to do us harm, and they don't give a whit about a silly idealistic song, other than hopefully we all throw down our weapons...

-there I said it.