Cite The Battle of Athens (TN).Kythas wrote:When I make this argument, I'm invariably countered with "Your AR-15 won't do you any good against a tank or a jet, so it's worthless anyway."LSUTiger wrote: But also, we should not only be making valid but less meaningful arguments such as guns vs. cars etc. etc. Instead we should alway start off with making arguments that clearly state the real reason for why we need semiautomatic rifles with standard 30 rd magazines and why the 2nd Amendment exists at all. We need to have the ability to defend ourselves against tyranny (1. government-foreign or domestic, 2. criminals-self defense). To do that we need to have at least what the tyranical oppressors (military and police) have.
My counter to this is that they are apparently not paying attention to the difficulties we're having in Afghanistan, or had in Iraq, or had obviously missed the American History segment on Vietnam.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Why would anyone need an assault weapon?”
- Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:16 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Why would anyone need an assault weapon?
- Replies: 51
- Views: 7252
Re: Why would anyone need an assault weapon?
- Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:05 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Why would anyone need an assault weapon?
- Replies: 51
- Views: 7252
Re: Why would anyone need an assault weapon?
The only problem with those questions is that the answers depend on if that particular liberal has: 1) a fast car; 2) a big house. We have a saying in my industry: an environmentalist is a liberal who already has his house at the beach. The Sierra Club rep I know has a big ole' SUV. It's a "hybrid" SUV but if he's so concerned about the environment, how come he doesn't drive a Prius? Liberalism contains a lot of envy. So, if you ask a liberal with a fast car if fast cars should be banned, he'll say no. If you ask a liberal with a Chevy Volt, he may well say yes. If the liberal with the fast car lives in a small house or apartment and you ask him why people need mansions he may well say they don't, and agree that they should have to take in homeless people.JJVP wrote: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".
Liberals consider themselves to be superior beings, morally and intellectually, so, whatever they want must be good by definition, and therefore needed. Whatever they don't want, while not necessarily bad, certainly is not needed by anyone else.
- Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:52 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Why would anyone need an assault weapon?
- Replies: 51
- Views: 7252
Re: Why would anyone need an assault weapon?
You don't need those things? I do "need" them. My wife and I are the sole arbiters of what we need. If I decide I "need" a 30 round mag then I do need it, and no liberal wacko is going to change it.AEA wrote: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!
