Explain "Need" for firearms

CScott

Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
424
Reaction score
639
Location
N. New Mexico
In media coverage and private discussion of recent tragic shootings, there is often stated that there is no legitimate "need" for the public to own "Assault Weapons". I try to explain that "need" is beside the point and that we have a "Right" to own whatever we want. However, I could use some help with some language supporting our side of the issue. Any serious thoughts?

C Scott
 
Register to hide this ad
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

"The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
 
The use of the terms "need" and "assault weapons" are terms a gun owner should never use. The reason for the gun is clearly spelt out in in the 2nd Amendment and need only be re-phrased. They are rifles, not assault anythings.

Also I use this line of logic....

You don't need a house, a car, food beyond gruel, to be allowed to have children etc what other things would you have "the needs" test applied to?
 
There are lots of things I don't feel that some people "need," but I'm not the type of person who runs to his elected officials demanding that "something ought to be done." No matter how cynical I get, my (grudging) trust in humanity not to abuse the freedoms and privileges they currently enjoy is greater than my desire to curtail or eliminate them when they are misused, despite the fact that every day we hear of irresponsible and sometimes downright dangerous people doing just that. If elected officials were the final arbiters on what we actually "need," our society would be even more depressing than it already is (e.g. bans on personal transportation in metropolitan areas with mass transit, bans on vehicles that don't meet mandatory minimum fuel requirements, bans on large sized soft drinks and anything else perceived as "unhealthy," etc.)

My point is that whether or not a "legitimate need" exists for something, I see no reason to ban it so long as the majority of individuals who own said thing aren't misusing it (and yes, this includes arguably "self-destructive" things like consuming alcohol and smoking).

Also, remind these people that "assault" is a type of behavior rather than a descriptor.
 
Part of a longer letter I've been sending out....

"If my self defense, or the defense of my family, home, or community comes down to the (god-forbid) use of weapons, guns specifically, then I want the best equipment I can get. I have a right to it, and I am not willing to surrender that right because of the criminal misuse of similar weapons. Gun bans and restrictions have never stopped the determined criminal or psychopath. All they do is disarm the law-abiding, while those that would prey on them have are free to murder and maim.

Disarming people who have committed no crimes and are responsible gun owners is morally reprehensible, and in my view is in violation not only of the law, but also of the principles that this nation was founded on. I will not let what others "think" I need dictate how I may defend myself; not as long as I am acting within the law..."
 
And check this guy out:

I have to admit I wasn't sure which way this guy was going to go when I first saw this, but I think he does a pretty good job, even if he does appear to be a polar opposite of Wayne LaPierre ;)

WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE? - YouTube


The other thing that I would highly recommend is something I posted in the lounge:

Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality, By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

Best advice I have EVER seen on how to deal with the anti's mindset!

ETA, and another good source, NRA's "Gun Ban Facts": http://www.gunbanfacts.com/
 
Last edited:
I applaud this guy for speaking out. However. and this is not a nit...an AR15 should not be confused with an assault rifle. It's been said many times before a true assault rifle has three fire configurations - semi, burst and full auto. I have noticed that the media is now using the term 'assault style rifle' thereby assimilating the uneducated public that they are one and the same.
With the right furniture you can configure a 10/22 to look like one of the evil 'assault style' rifles.
BTW........did you know what a nit is? Its a lice egg. Thus "nit picking".
 
Last edited:
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY


I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.

Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]

Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]


The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

We are a Republic....not a democracy...and the majority can nopt take away the rights of a minority...this is very important...."Not to be Infringed" means just that. It is unacceptable for me to ever give up my right to self defence....be it from a brutal government....or a home invasion. I do not require a high capacity magazine for hunting....but I do need it to match a brutal government that may try to take my freedom and my AR is a guarentee of my freedom.
 
Many good replies but.......CScott, the damage is already done. Our schools, and Universities have been inundated with the Liberal Progressive Movement, and generations of young Americans simply trust what they have been told by their teachers and community leaders.
I know less about all this than I do about women, but what I know is enough to say this:
They are giving away the store, and we have let it happen.
Understanding this requires some research, and looking at leftist news and dot.coms is part of that.
An example of what we are up against can be found at this Flagship leftist organization:
The particular article featured also will give you an idea what is happening and what has happened.
The Fifty Most Influential Progressives of the Twentieth Century | The Nation
Henry Wallace, Saul Alinsky, and so many more, will become familiar names to future generations, just as they are familiar now to the Elite Member Rulers of the current Party in Power.
To try and persuade those adults who have been taught otherwise, that we still have the best Constitution ever known, would be a formidable task.
In this age of low information voters, our strategy to win should be simple one liners, easy for short attention spans to grasp.
In the case of your specific request for "help with language supporting our side" try this one liner:
Security of a Free State.
It is short so they can remember it long enough to Google it, and even text it to all their BF's.........


and then tell them something they will understand......tell them that your guns make you feel good.
 
Last edited:
I can't disagree with anything Douk says; we have a difficult task before us. The reason for this is that so many Americans have let our situation degrade over a period of more than 100 years.

When people ask me 'why do you need firearm X' I reply - - -
"I don't believe in empty and meaningless actions. Its horrible what happened, but such events are highly unlikely. What is common in most of these events (that are less likely than being struck by lightening) is that usually the shooter was taking pyschiatric medications which can increase suicidal and violent behavior. Even some of our troops are on these medications and suicide rates are unsually high now in the military. This is where our attention should be focused. There should be investigations on this."

Unfortunately, too many people seem to be mathematically and statistically 'challenged'. They are drawn into 'debates' on preventing the highly unlikely. And, they don't seem to see that the opposition isnt interested in a factual based debate, at all. Its better not to be drawn into to this, or allow yourself to be put on the defensive IMO.
 
All you NEED are Food, Water, & Shelter.

A "RIGHT" is a whole different matter.

A different kind of "WRITE" is to write your government officials, National, State, and LOCAL.

Firmly state your position, Please do not become abusive or threaten them.
 
You need food, water, and shelter - - - and the means to effectively defend your life and those you care about.

We may not think about this last need until we're under attack. And by that time, it may be too late.

The real reason the American founders wrote the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from potential government tyranny. (Just read the writings of those men such as Jefferson on this subject.) Most of the sheeple are too domesticated & spineless to handle that, so we dance around the subject.
 
Perhaps this explains it best...

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
 
You need them to fight tyranny. Simple.

If the person asking "why do you need that" cannot comprehend the concept of tyranny and fighting against it, no debate tactic is going to be persuasive, and it is pointless to try to argue with them. Most people TRULY think that the government is only there to help them, and at most, their leaders are sometimes misguided... NEVER evil. "Why, that can't happen in Uhmuhrka!"... all while they have been living under what our country's Founders clearly considered tyranny for generations now.
 
I've had this conversation with various sheeple . . including those in my own family.
Mention to them the reason the American founders really wrote the 2nd Amendment - - - as a final defense against tyranny, and they stand dumbstruck. Since they were tykes they were taught that 'government' is 'good' in public 'schools'. (They don't quite see that government is only made up of individual people, who sometimes do things which are good, and other times do things that are not. And, that those people have their own agendas.)

The whole concept of 'tyranny' is absolutely foreign to such sheeple. Ask them to do a little research on the National Defense Authorization Act - which includes provisions for imprisoning and killing Americans without formal charges or trial. Ask them to research accounts of proposals to authorize 30,000 drones be flown overhead in the U.S., or to have checkpoints across the nation manned by the military. Ask them to research 'democide' - that is the killing of people by governments which totaled over 200 million in the 20th Century and does not include troops killed in wars. (Prof RJ Rummel - Univ of Hawaii "Democide: Death by Government"). Ask them to look into the tendencies of American presidents to use un-Constitutional, 'executive orders' like some kind of dictator or emperor from the past . . . . and they just refuse to even investigate for themselves.

You cannot rationally discuss these matters with someone who refuses to look at reality. Evil does exist in the hearts of men, whether one acknowledges it or not. The American founders were realists, who understood this.
 
Unfortunately, this "needs test" is exactly what New York City uses to deny one's application for a CCW. There have been numerous articles written of retired LEO's who live within the "confines" of Planet Manhattan, Bronx, Brookly, Queens, and Staten Island who have been denied CCW's because they could not meet any demonstrable "need" for a CCW, or even owning a handgun for that matter. I suppose one has to be a bona fide Serpico, to meet that needs test, what with sworn enemies within the NYPD who want to take you out, organized crime having a contract out on you, and enemies in the prison systems who also have a bone to pick with you, how could he be denied.
 
My question is this....is everyone of these mass shootings had happened with a lever action, shotgun would we still be facing this kind of nonsense? What if someone buys a blowgun, make some homade poison skittles up a tree and starts playin Mr/Ms/Mrs Amazon warrior, then are bowguns next? Funny that you never hear about the individual that went into a school and killed/injured 28 - 30 (cant remember the exact number) kids with a KNIFE... and this nonsense of magazine capacity....ok say they make them 10 instead of 25/30, so some whack job buys them in pairs secures 2 together and it takes him what 3 seconds more to effectively fire off 20 rounds instead of 25? Seriously are our elected officals using any kind of rational and putting any thought into any of this? Preachin' to the choir I know!!!!!!!!!!!! To answer the OP...Its not a need but a RIGHT to arm and protect ourselves how we see fit. If we want to use a single shot rifle so be it, if we want to use a Semi Automatic rifle so be it. Pointshoot said it well.....Tyranny....Evil does exist in the hearts of men, whether one acknowledges it or not. The American founders were realists, who understood this....That is why we have the RIGHT
 
Last edited:
Why do so many politicians need multiple putters, sets of golf clubs, so many armed people protecting them, so many staplers, so many cars that drive over the speed limit....I can go on for hours. This is the USA, I only need a few things but choose to buy what I can afford and use legally.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top