Why I need an assault weapon

[xd ED]

It won't resonate with most of the loonies, but on another board the remark was made, to the effect '...Rosa Parks didn't NEED to ride in the front of the bus, either...'

[2in2out]

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

--Ronald Reagan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDouNtnR_IA

[jgalt]

Nice point! I wonder how many people are killed each year as a result of DWI/DUI. What other non constitutionally protected activities that we take for granted cause death and mayhem?

Here's a nice, simple graphical answer to your question...

[45Badger]

Nice point! I wonder how many people are killed each year as a result of DWI/DUI. What other non constitutionally protected activities that we take for granted cause death and mayhem?

Here's a nice, simple graphical answer to your question...

I like it. Seems to be that guns and booze cause @ same # fatalities. Gun murders and drunk driving murders also very similar. Maybe we need more laws to regulate alcohol and motor vehicles, prohibit drunk driving. Definitely should prohibit drink driving with a gun.

[xd ED]

Nice point! I wonder how many people are killed each year as a result of DWI/DUI. What other non constitutionally protected activities that we take for granted cause death and mayhem?

Here's a nice, simple graphical answer to your question...

I like it. Seems to be that guns and booze cause @ same # fatalities. Gun murders and drunk driving murders also very similar. Maybe we need more laws to regulate alcohol and motor vehicles, prohibit drunk driving. Definitely should prohibit drink driving with a gun.

I wonder what is the percent of alcohol is in all of the non-alcohol direct stats?

[ijosef]

I think we need to re-frame the debate. It is not our job, as gun owners, to tell the average ignorant gun grabber why we should have what we do. The onus is on them to to explain why we do not. I'm stealing this quote from another forum because it sums the argument up nicely:

The discussion should never be about why I "need" to own an "assault rifle", it should be about why my right to do so should be taken away. Such is the case with any right. I won't say that rights are non-negotiable, but to diminish any given right, there must be a valid justification. The reasons behind the proposed assault weapons ban do not pass muster.

You don't argue with people on why they "need" freedom of speech. You accept that fact as a basic right and debate on the freedom's limits.

[elroy]

I think we need to re-frame the debate. It is not our job, as gun owners, to tell the average ignorant gun grabber why we should have what we do. The onus is on them to to explain why we do not. I'm stealing this quote from another forum because it sums the argument up nicely:

The discussion should never be about why I "need" to own an "assault rifle", it should be about why my right to do so should be taken away. Such is the case with any right. I won't say that rights are non-negotiable, but to diminish any given right, there must be a valid justification. The reasons behind the proposed assault weapons ban do not pass muster.

You don't argue with people on why they "need" freedom of speech. You accept that fact as a basic right and debate on the freedom's limits.

+1

Our country was founded on the right to own property (and not just land). Neither the King, nor anyone else can tell us what we can or cannot own. "Want" and "Need" have nothing to do with it.

Also, let's stop using their terminology. STOP using the terms "Assault Rifle" and "Assault Weapon". Use AR15 or Modern Sporting Rifle.

[jshuberg]

The problem is that our current representatives believe they *can* infringe on our rights if they choose to, and many think they should regarding firearms. We need to be able to convince the average person why they are necessary so they'll stand with us.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be drawing a hard line in the sand, I think we should. But we should also be taking a softer approach when discussing the issues to try to convince those on the fence that we are on the side of right. The fact the constitution says that it's necessary is a compelling place to start the discussion from.

[XDM45]

Also remember that laws aren't there to make things legal, only illegal. If there isn't a law against it, it's legal. Laws do not give us rights and freedoms, they remove them.

[ferch]

There are some really good responses here guys. To sum up how I will be responding I will summarize what a few people here have said:

I think the first response should be "in a free state I don't need to justify my right to excercise my 2nd Ammendment right - you NEED to tell me why you want to infringe upon my rights." They will inevitably respond with something like "most people think assult weapons should be illegal." Make sure to point out the WANTS of the majority don't take precidence over the RIGHTS of the few. Which transitions nicely to xd EDs quote "Rosa Parks didn't NEED to ride in the front of the bus" - I particularly like this because it paints a mental image that reminds people how important rights are and their importance is based on your perception of them. Your perception changes when you're the one who is forced to sit in the back of the bus.

Or you can always respond by asking them to justify why they NEED the freedom of speech. This is particularly useful if they made the comment on Facebook. Say they don't NEED the freedom of speech on Facebook. They'll say "Facebook doesn't kill people" - kindly point out the case about the girl who got depressed and killed herself because people were mean to her on Facebook. Wouldn't it make sense to ban Facebook or freedom of speech if we could save just one girl's life?