179 votes

Why do I need an assault rifle?

Why do I need an assault rifle you ask? I don't need it for hunting. I don't need it for home protection from a single invader, or even two. So I echo the sentiment of many gun control advocates; Why do I need an assault rifle, with a high capacity clip no less?

Here is why. I need an assault rifle because I live under the rule of a government who thinks it has the right to take away my assault rifle; a government who dictates who I can marry, what I can eat, drink, and smoke; a government who uses force to take my money away from me, who charges me rent (property tax) to live in my own home: a government who commits acts of war without the consent of the people, who murders it's own citizens witout probable cause or due process; a government who has monopolized the currency with which I can trade my goods and services, then devalued that currency through inflation and taxation; a government which uses the tyranny of democracy rather than the freedom of a republic.

To put it bluntly, I need an assault rifle in the event that I might have to declare my independence from a tyrannical government. I'm statistically unlikely to ever shoot an intruder in my home. I'm statistically unlikely to ever be in the position to stop one of these rare mass killings at a school, as these things happen far less often than the media would have you believe. However, whether you are Democrat or Republican, you can easily find countless instances of the government stepping all over your rights, whether it be on social issues (marriage, gay rights, religious rights, etc.) or fiscal issues (taxation, property rights, business regulations, etc.)

So, how likely is it you will use your assault rifle to prevent a school shooting? Not very likely at all. However, how likely is it that you will need your assault rifle for the purpose of protecting your rights from a tyrannical government? Well, the fact that we are having this conversation not only shows that it is increasingly likely, but it also clearly demonstrates the reason why the right to bear arms is unalienable.

When a tyrannical government uses it's assault rifles to take away my rights, it would be beyond immoral to expect me to defend those rights with my grandpa's shotgun. That is why I need an assault rifle.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

a handgun is what you use

to get to your assault rifle

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

deacon's picture

Those are called "ARMS"

You have the right to keep and bare arms
Does the 2nd mention what type of arms,or,does it specifically state
any names for them?
Keep labeling them,it gives others a reason to take them away

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

In case this happens to you


Actually, I'm on the cat's side on this one. No kitty should get it's tail pulled and then kicked.

It's called a DEFENSE Rifle

It's only used for Assault purposes when in the hands of the government.

At their inceptions, the #Liberty, #OccupyWallStreet and #TeaParty movements all had the same basic goal... What happened?

...to repel assaults

as Gollum would say...

Because they wants it. I need my AR as a last-line of defense against any sort of Mob or other bully who wishes to harm me or my family. I'm 20 minutes away from law enforcement and i'd be dead before they show up against someone who wishes to steal my property and harm my family. I can protect myself from 500-1000' away w/ a scope and some 3000 ft/second .223 or .556 nato ammo.

Our government bullies have the bullets w/ hollowpoint and the m16 w/ full auto. I should have at least something comparable of leveling the playing field, and a handgun or 410/12 gauge shotgun is not that answer. I don't need my AR to hunt deer or squirrels. It's my SHTF preparation gun and AMMO is expensive.

Peace, Freedom and Prosperity. Not War, Welfare and Bankruptcy.


If anyone is looking to

If anyone is looking to buy..... get the FNC SCAR 17S. I have sold my M1A's and have gone to this. Amazing accuracy. .308, with the recoil of an AR15.

My HOA sent out a letter saying the neighborhood is

being targeted by burglars arriving in two rental cars with tinted windows, 2-4 per car. During the day - suggested that if a stranger comes to the door don't open it but to let them know you are home otherwise they go to the back of the house and break in. What else is a girl to do but be prepared to defend herself against a gang???

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know Peace." - Jimi Hendrix

For The Same Reason

...I need an "assault pencil", an "assault toothbrush", an "assault bicycle", an "assault chair", etc...

Remember when?

Remember when snakepit22 used to sing to the choir?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Here's another reason...

LA Riots. Imagine trying to defend your wife or children against this type of mob with a pistol or shotgun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxBRyygMmTs

It's not an assault rifle if

It's not an assault rifle if it isn't Selective Fire.

Its not an assault rifle if

Its not an assault rifle if you intend to use it only for defense, hunting or some purpose other than...assault.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

We need assault rifles

for the same reason our Government needs a couple hundred million hollow point bullets.

If not us than who?

Sounds more like you need a

Sounds more like you need a Defense Rifle, not an Assault Rifle.

"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence

Spot on

Time to quit dancing with the communist.
Time to quit using euphemisms.
Time to say what we mean.

We are armed to KILL anyone that would take away our God given rights. Up to and including our own government.

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
~George Washington

“ANARCHY is the radical notion that other people are not your property.” ~Lysander Spooner

In case you need to shoot

In case you need to shoot someone. Or, particularly, more than one.

here is three good reasons:

Kent State, Waco, Ruby Ridge


Be careful with the "need"

Be careful with the "need" argument. In a free society, one need not prove need of anything. One simply needs to want and as long as you aren't violating anyone else's rights that's all there is to it. When you argue need, you provide the gun grabbers traction to make a counter-need argument. Don't get caught in that trap.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I use Firefox and Duckduckgo (SSL)

Duckduckgo is a search engine that does not save any of your searches like most others. I have had no problems accessing the Site. But DP starts trembling and shaking all crazy-like and the words bounce all over and fall to the bottom of the screen. Wild, it is.

Indeed, these are the REAL

Indeed, these are the REAL and most important reasons - but unfortunately the reasons least likely to be used in an argument in favor of gun rights. People more readily accept the idea of defending themselves against a common criminal .
But most people just do not want to face the reality that government is historically the most threatening criminal gang of all. They want to believe that government is their friend, because the idea they might have to be responsible for their own lives scares the crap out of them. This critical error has cost hundreds of millions of people their lives in the last century when their own governments disarmed and murdered them.
We better start talking about this historically proven threat, because if our only justification for owning a 30 round magazine is to fend off a home intruder, we are going to lose the argument.

It's call the Bill of Rights,

It's call the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

(Stolen from mark levin, who I hardly listen to, but it was def. a good one).

The Chris Bronson Show
www.cbrons.com (support libertarians on radio; checkout the podcasts)

My Current Post

I have engaged in some posts on other sites regarding the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, gun control, and being a responsible firearm owner, of which I am one. I cannot believe some of these anti-gun liberals or whomever. Their one track mindset is incredibly strange. I have no doubt many of them are suffering from something. No logic, unwilling to have an honest debate and exchange ideas, some get downright angry. I have finally just resorted to posting this, and they still don't get it. Amazing.

If the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government? There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not "brainwashed" about gun ownership and had been well armed.

- Theodore Haas, former prisoner of Dachau concentration camp

1935 will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future!

- Adolph Hitler, 1935.


Gandhi was a practitioner of non-violent opposition.
He did not believe in teaching violence.
However, he was not opposed to violence.
Those who wish to be defended should defend themselves,
but not expect others to do the work for them.

"Cowardice is impotence worse than violence. The coward desires revenge, but being afraid to die, he looks to others, maybe to the government of the day, to do the work of defense for him. A coward is less than a man. He does not deserve to be a member of a society of men and women."

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."
– Mahatma Gandhi

Gun Control Debate

Battle lines are being drawn in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre over the right to bear arms and no one should be surprised if, as and when some kind of change comes about. Where the rubber meets the road, the debate seems to hinge on whether Americans should be allowed to own high capacity magazine assault weapons. Come what may I think the best line of defense lies with the meaning of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States which simply 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. "

I will go out on a limb and float a trial balloon or proposal if you will, on gun control that both sides of the debate may potentially accept. Simply said, this proposal would require all American citizens who want to own automatic military assault weapons to belong to a well regulated militia. Of course, the debate then switches to who regulates the militia? Local police? State national guard? Any suggestions? Criticisms?

Ed Rombach

We do not need to be in a

We do not need to be in a militia in order to own guns. I think a militia is a good idea though. We need a militia that does not allow any police or politicians to be members. The members could all swear to get their guns and come to the aid of other members any time the government tried to take their guns just like at the battle of concord when paul revere spread the word that they were coming for the guns. If the police were surrounded by thousands of armed militia within minutes, I think their gun confiscation would come to an end very quickly. Keep in mind Paul Revere was a hero and a patriot and so would be any member of a militia that performed the same mission that he did.

What is the impication?

Lately, I've started to really turn my view on the meaning of the 2nd amendment from "I need a rifle in case I need to be part of the militia", to "I need a rifle to protect myself from the militia". I think that any regulation which implies that only government sponsered agents (militia, military, police)can own weapons only succeeds in furthering the police state, and thus, my incapacity to defend myself from that police state. So I guess I'd have to disagree with this idea and say that any citizen has the right to own a weapon for the purpose of defending themselves from a potentially tyranical government, regardless of wether you are in the militia or not.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

What is the meaning of "Well Regulated Militias"?

I'm not suggesting that any citizen shouldn't have the right to own a weapon for the purpose of defending themselves, their family and their property. However, I think the hysterical ranting and raving from the left about assault weapons needs to be countered with a Constitutional argument and what better way than to abide by the letter and law of the second amendment? Is there any firmer ground on which to stand? If so, then there needs to be a robust debate about the meaning and intent of "Well regulated militias".

For example, would it be a bad thing if a group of people in my town who either already own or want to own assault weapons want to form a local militia under the supervision of the local police department? I don't think so, but I'd like to hear some more feedback from other people on this forum. I think I would rather have my local police department regulating my local militia than the state national guard or God forbid the Defense Dept or FBI. This could be a proactive way to take control of the situation.

Ed Rombach

Well Regulated Militia

The well regulated militia of each state is its Natl Guard. The Federal Government has some control on them, but they belong to each state. The reason for the comma and saying the right of the people, is to allow for what is considered the minuteman. Minutemen are citizens who own weapons that have the ability to join with the militia at a minutes notice if needed. This is why the founders did not want the individual to have their right to bear arms infringed. To say that you have to join the militia to own arms is just another form of state and federal gun control and is against the Constitution.