Why would anyone need an assault weapon?

[ilovetabasco]

First of all, this being my first post, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Cotton and everyone else who contributes to this board. It has proven a very valuable resource. As a matter of introduction, I am a long time hunter and shooter, (recent) NRA lifetime member, and currently waiting on my "plastic."

I have been following closely the recent gun debate and have generally been disheartened by the pro-rights advocates' rhetoric and handling of the gun control advocates' attacks. Of course, the majority of the media aligns with the gun control advocates, meaning that we must suffer the indignation of Alex Jones as our mouthpiece, but even pro-rights commentators and columnists in the online forum seem to be inadequately prepared to deal with the gun control advocates' well rehearsed attacks. One such attack is simply asking the question "why would anyone need an assault weapon?" The best defense it seems anyone can muster, Mr. Shapiro included, is to cite the need to fight tyranny, or dodge the question all together. While I don't disagree with My. Shapiro, I believe there are better ways to appeal to the average viewer. I see my getting a CHL as paradoxical - I want to carry a gun so that I'll never have to use it. Concurrently, I believe the right to bear arms is there to prevent tyranny from happening in the first place, and not because I'm a "doomsday prepper."

Recently, that very same question started appearing among my friends on facebook. I normally shy away from political discussion (at least with people I know), but I feel our cause can use every voice that can speak, and therefore I prepared a response that discussed the benefits of the AR-15 platform, including its modularity, the abundance of aftermarket manufacturers, its ability to be customized, the ability to quickly switch out uppers to suit different uses, why it is often used for hog hunting, what makes it a good target shooting gun, etc. I concluded with the following:

Small arms have continuously evolved for the past 700 years, from matchlocks to muzzleloaders to repeaters to semiautomatics to modern selective fire assault rifles (which are generally not legal for civilian purchase). Throughout this evolution, civilians have gradually adopted each successive generation for hunting, sporting, and self defense purposes (you don’t see many people hunting with muzzleloaders anymore, unless for novelty). Modern sporting rifles (a.k.a “assault weapons”) are civilian adaptations of the latest military small arms. They are adaptations because they do not have automatic fire capability and their barrels are longer to comply with current laws, but they retain the modularity and other cosmetic features which make them look sinister. But once upon a time, your grandfather’s hunting rifle would have been the sinister weapon on the battlefield.

It was asked why an individual should be allowed to possess an AR-15, and I hope I’ve provided a few acceptable reasons. But when taking away someone’s rights or liberties, the burden of proof should be on those arguing to remove them. In 1994, some speculated that these modern rifles should not be owned by civilians, but a decade later there was no proof that the prohibition had helped, and so the assault weapons ban expired as was not renewed. So I pose a question back: what evidence leads us to believe that the benefits of a ban will outweigh the costs?"

The readership of my post was undoubtedly a skewed demographic, given how many of them are close friends and acquaintances. However, the response from those that were previously pro gun control has been overwhelmingly positive, with some seeming to alter their positions. This has made me question whether we, as the pro-rights group, have been failing to adequately defend our position in a way that resonates with everyone from the anti-gunners to the "common sense" populations. After all, the facts are on our side, so this shouldn't be such an uphill battle.

The gun control faction has their own education and propaganda machine - the media. All we have are ourselves and an array of organizations such as the NRA; this is a grassroots cause. So finally, I come to the question this entire post was about: are there any resources for persons such as myself to get properly researched, tested, and vetted defenses for gun control's attacks, as well as proven strategies that we can bring to a debate?

[AEA]

I don't "need" an AR-15. I bought one because I wanted one and I legally could.

I don't "need" 30 round mags. I bought 20 because I wanted 20 and I legally could.

I don't "need" 1000 rounds of ammo. I bought 1000 rounds because I wanted it and I legally could.

I don't "need" the CompM4 red dot sight that the Military uses. I bought one because I wanted it and I legally could.

I don't "need" a bayonet fitted to my AR. I bought 2 because I wanted them and I legally could. (to freak out the Libs) :

What I DO NEED is for FOOLS to stop INFRINGING on my Constitutional RIGHTS!

[Skiprr]

AEA, "ilovetabasco" made a seemingly heartfelt post in favor of the Second Amendment.

His first post on this Forum. And it was a good one.

If you didn't read his entire post, please do so.

Your reply, clearly, was based only upon the Subject line.

Dig deeper...

I don't "need" an AR-15. I bought one because I wanted one and I legally could.

I don't "need" 30 round mags. I bought 20 because I wanted 20 and I legally could.

I don't "need" 1000 rounds of ammo. I bought 1000 rounds because I wanted it and I legally could.

I don't "need" the CompM4 red dot sight that the Military uses. I bought one because I wanted it and I legally could.

I don't "need" a bayonet fitted to my AR. I bought 2 because I wanted them and I legally could. (to freak out the Libs) :

What I DO NEED is for FOOLS to stop INFRINGING on my Constitutional RIGHTS!

[AEA]

I read his entire post.

I replied with points he can make to his "friends" that wonder "why".

[Beiruty]

What so ridiculous, is the proposed ban would ban AR and AK like rifle and save us the military-issued battle rifles, the M1 and the SKS. Crazy idiots gun-grabbers!

[Kythas]

First of all, this being my first post, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. Cotton and everyone else who contributes to this board. It has proven a very valuable resource. As a matter of introduction, I am a long time hunter and shooter, (recent) NRA lifetime member, and currently waiting on my "plastic."

I have been following closely the recent gun debate and have generally been disheartened by the pro-rights advocates' rhetoric and handling of the gun control advocates' attacks. Of course, the majority of the media aligns with the gun control advocates, meaning that we must suffer the indignation of Alex Jones as our mouthpiece, but even pro-rights commentators and columnists in the online forum seem to be inadequately prepared to deal with the gun control advocates' well rehearsed attacks. One such attack is simply asking the question "why would anyone need an assault weapon?" The best defense it seems anyone can muster, Mr. Shapiro included, is to cite the need to fight tyranny, or dodge the question all together. While I don't disagree with My. Shapiro, I believe there are better ways to appeal to the average viewer. I see my getting a CHL as paradoxical - I want to carry a gun so that I'll never have to use it. Concurrently, I believe the right to bear arms is there to prevent tyranny from happening in the first place, and not because I'm a "doomsday prepper."

Recently, that very same question started appearing among my friends on facebook. I normally shy away from political discussion (at least with people I know), but I feel our cause can use every voice that can speak, and therefore I prepared a response that discussed the benefits of the AR-15 platform, including its modularity, the abundance of aftermarket manufacturers, its ability to be customized, the ability to quickly switch out uppers to suit different uses, why it is often used for hog hunting, what makes it a good target shooting gun, etc. I concluded with the following:

Small arms have continuously evolved for the past 700 years, from matchlocks to muzzleloaders to repeaters to semiautomatics to modern selective fire assault rifles (which are generally not legal for civilian purchase). Throughout this evolution, civilians have gradually adopted each successive generation for hunting, sporting, and self defense purposes (you don’t see many people hunting with muzzleloaders anymore, unless for novelty). Modern sporting rifles (a.k.a “assault weapons”) are civilian adaptations of the latest military small arms. They are adaptations because they do not have automatic fire capability and their barrels are longer to comply with current laws, but they retain the modularity and other cosmetic features which make them look sinister. But once upon a time, your grandfather’s hunting rifle would have been the sinister weapon on the battlefield.

It was asked why an individual should be allowed to possess an AR-15, and I hope I’ve provided a few acceptable reasons. But when taking away someone’s rights or liberties, the burden of proof should be on those arguing to remove them. In 1994, some speculated that these modern rifles should not be owned by civilians, but a decade later there was no proof that the prohibition had helped, and so the assault weapons ban expired as was not renewed. So I pose a question back: what evidence leads us to believe that the benefits of a ban will outweigh the costs?"

The readership of my post was undoubtedly a skewed demographic, given how many of them are close friends and acquaintances. However, the response from those that were previously pro gun control has been overwhelmingly positive, with some seeming to alter their positions. This has made me question whether we, as the pro-rights group, have been failing to adequately defend our position in a way that resonates with everyone from the anti-gunners to the "common sense" populations. After all, the facts are on our side, so this shouldn't be such an uphill battle.

The gun control faction has their own education and propaganda machine - the media. All we have are ourselves and an array of organizations such as the NRA; this is a grassroots cause. So finally, I come to the question this entire post was about: are there any resources for persons such as myself to get properly researched, tested, and vetted defenses for gun control's attacks, as well as proven strategies that we can bring to a debate?

Excellent first post. I generally bring out all these points, too, but many people who have made up their mind cannot be persuaded with facts and logic. Their stance on the matter is based purely on emotion.

Another argument I use is that one does not need to justify the exercise of a right. Banning particular weapons due solely to cosmetic features some people find objectionable is akin to banning word processing software due solely to fonts some people may find objectionable. When people make the argument that the Second Amendment only applies to the arms available at the time the Constitution was written, I counter that, by that logic, the First Amendment only applies to newspapers printed on printing presses, as that was the technology available at that time.

People don't NEED cars that can go faster than 80 miles per hour. People don't NEED to buy a large collection of movies on DVD. People don't NEED more than one TV in their house - or even that one, for that matter. In a free society, we, the People, get to decide for ourselves what we NEED. Government doesn't have the right to make that decision for us. So, on that point, we NEED assault rifles to prevent exactly that type of government oppression.

People also always say how my AR-15 won't do any good against the US military using tanks, jets, and nuclear weapons. I then mention that they must not be keeping up with the war in Afghanistan, or didn't pay attention to the war in Iraq, or must have slept through their history lessons on a little place called Vietnam.

[Robert*PPS]

Here's the thing, as some have already mentioned, and I know I have on previous posts. One doesn't need a reason to exercise a fundamental right. I've been asked this question in person by several of my friends who are indifferent to the whole discussion. Like I tell them, if one right must be justified to the satisfaction of others, then all rights are bound to be subjected to the same justification. Inalienable rights are beyond contestation, even by the majority. That is the premise on which this country was founded on.

An example I used on a co-worker (I was in her office when the question came up) is, why do you need a religious scripture quote displayed on your desk? She just looked at me for a second, and I asked her if she felt that she should have to justify that to me. She said no....I said I rest my case.

[RHenriksen]

Throwing the burden of proof back on the people wanting to restrict your rights is a very good step. I use the same technique.

If you haven't read John Lott's book, 'More Guns Less Crime' I strongly encourage to do so.

Memorizing salient statistics from the FBI crime data is very valuable. If you begin asking your friends questions calmly, that they have to continually respond with 'I don't know', and then you provide them the answers, they may begin to realize they're not as informed as they should be. I do this without putting out the attitude that I'm 'winning', or trying to embarrass them with my questions - I just want to further the discussion. And every time they don't know the answer (eg, 'How many people were killed with blunt instruments in 2011?', I provide the information.

Instead of telling them 'more children drowned in 5 gal buckets last year than were killed by "assault rifles"', ask:

how many children drowned in swimming pools last year?
How many children drowned in 5 gallon buckets?
how many people died of smoking complications?
how many people died in car accidents?
how many people died from drunk drivers?
How many people were killed by ALL rifles (not just "assault" rifles)?

When they have to keep responding, 'I don't know', 'I don't know', 'I don't know' they may begin to realize they're spouting media talking points instead of making up their own mind based on data.

[mojo84]

I ask them why they need an automobile that can exceed 70 mph, a house with air conditioning, more than one bathroom and kids.

[RPB]

Here's the thing, as some have already mentioned, and I know I have on previous posts. One doesn't need a reason to exercise a fundamental right. I've been asked this question in person by several of my friends who are indifferent to the whole discussion. Like I tell them, if one right must be justified to the satisfaction of others, then all rights are bound to be subjected to the same justification. Inalienable rights are beyond contestation, even by the majority. That is the premise on which this country was founded on.

An example I used on a co-worker (I was in her office when the question came up) is, why do you need a religious scripture quote displayed on your desk? She just looked at me for a second, and I asked her if she felt that she should have to justify that to me. She said no....I said I rest my case.

[Abraham]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEED" so says Karl Marx.

NEED is a favorite word among the progressives.

They get to decide what you need whether it's a large soft drink or firearm.

They don't sincerely ask why you need - they want to tell you what you need (as defined by them) and then enforce it.

[A-R]

Welcome. Very good first post.


To expand on one of your streams of logic, ALL firearms in current civilian use were (or are direct descendants from) arms used by militaries. Nearly all modern bolt-action hunting rifles are descendants of the Mauser or Enfielf designs (and a few others - I'm not a bolt-action expert). Nearly all self-defense handguns use Browning's short-action recoil design or the straight blowback design.

This is the same as with most civilian technology - GPS is direct descdant of military systems, much computer technology (including the Internet itself) comes from military origins.

The point is not whether we "need" military tech, but how long must we mere civilians wait before we're allowed to adopt neutered versions of military tech for our own non- military use? Apply same standards to other tech that antis want applied to "military style" weapons and we better all get off the Internet, turn in our smart phones, and find some old paper road maps.

[JJVP]

Great first post. Lots of good arguments there. But here is my take.

Ask them why would anyone need a sports car (Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porshe, etc). Those are high performance cars designed to travel at high rates of speed, well above speed limits in the US. Would they approve to have those automobiles be declared illegal and force people to turn them in or go to jail?

Ask them why anyone needs a 10-20 bedroom mansion costing millions of dollars. A large amount of energy (heating, cooling, water for the large lawns) is used to maintain those houses. Energy created by burning fossil fuels that cause global warming. (Not the I believe on man-made global warming theories, but usually the antis do). Should the government force people that own those mansions to house homeless people in their spare bedrooms? Or to put minimum limits of say 2 people per bedroom so than when your kids move out of your 2-3-4 bedroom house, you are forced to sell your house and you and your wife be forced to live in a one bedroom condo, or be forced to take in guests to fill up the empty rooms. As a further benefit that would help solve the housing crisis. There would be housing for everyone. No more homeless people. Common sense approach.

If Lansa had used his mother's automobile to run down those kids as they were exiting the school, would they be calling for the confiscation of that particular make and model of automobile or automobiles altogether. After all, why do you need a car. There are buses, trains, taxis you can use. There is no right for you to own an automobile. Not to mention the supposed environmental benefits discussed above.

You see the point. But the most important thing you can say is that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Right not part of the Bill of Needs. There are million of owners of these "assault weapons" in the US who legally bought their weapons because they legally could, whether they felt a need or a want, who have no intention of ever going into a school and murdering kids with their "assault weapons".

[JJVP]

Throwing the burden of proof back on the people wanting to restrict your rights is a very good step. I use the same technique.

If you haven't read John Lott's book, 'More Guns Less Crime' I strongly encourage to do so.

Memorizing salient statistics from the FBI crime data is very valuable. If you begin asking your friends questions calmly, that they have to continually respond with 'I don't know', and then you provide them the answers, they may begin to realize they're not as informed as they should be. I do this without putting out the attitude that I'm 'winning', or trying to embarrass them with my questions - I just want to further the discussion. And every time they don't know the answer (eg, 'How many people were killed with blunt instruments in 2011?', I provide the information.

Instead of telling them 'more children drowned in 5 gal buckets last year than were killed by "assault rifles"', ask:

how many children drowned in swimming pools last year?
How many children drowned in 5 gallon buckets?
how many people died of smoking complications?
how many people died in car accidents?
how many people died from drunk drivers?
How many people were killed by ALL rifles (not just "assault" rifles)?

When they have to keep responding, 'I don't know', 'I don't know', 'I don't know' they may begin to realize they're spouting media talking points instead of making up their own mind based on data.

Excellent.

[canvasbck]

I am waiting for someone to go onto Piers Morgan's show and when he asks his favorite question; "Why do you need an AR-15 assault rifle?" answer it with:

"Piers, I'm glad you asked that, the answer is that I have never needed my AR-15 and I hope that I never do need it just as I have never needed the fire extinguisher that I keep in the kitchen and I hope that I never do. But what I can not allow to happen is for the need for either of those items to arise and I don't have access to the one that I need."

ETA: we have been trying to win an arguement with facts while the left has successfully framed the issue into an emotional arguement. We will not win with facts, they won't argue facts because they do not have the facts on their side. Since the left owns the media, we must win the argument in the format that they are putting out. For this reason, we need to also be carefull who we are sending out to give the message. The guy from WVCDL did a marvelous job making a fool of Piers, but the uninformed viewer is seeing a guy in relatively good shape and is wondering if he really needs a gun to protect himself. Putting someone like Michelle Maliken (SP?) out there saying she carries or owns an AR because she is afraid of a rapist or mugger would make viewers sympathetic. They can easily imagine her being overpowered and victimized by a bad guy with a kife. When you disarm her, she becomes a defensless damsel in distress. If they want to use children as pawns to sell their agenda, we must respond with equally compelling potential victims. What I'm saying here is not politically correct, but I don't care. This fight is too important to lose in the interest of fighting fair.