The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!
186 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.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

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.


Well regulated in the founders lexicon mean't well supplied. The Militia consisted of all able bodied men. The national guard is NOT the state militia and hasn't been since they federalized it about 100 years ago. Get your education before spouting misinformation.


United States Code:

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 312
§ 312. Militia duty: exemptions
(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

USC › Title 32 › Chapter 3 › § 313
32 USC § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

....Militia continued....

Good stuff ibdeeter! Thanx for digging this up!

Ed Rombach

And In This Era Of Dumbed-Down Students...

.....Who haven't a clue as to ...


It's no wonder that the abovementioned "COMMA" is as mystifying as
WHY we possess the RIGHT to bear arms.
The comma speaks volumes to those who are intelligent enough to discern its all important usage in the 2nd Amendment wording.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

And In This Era Of Dumbed-Down Students

Hmmmnnn...... Your point? Can you elaborate?

Ed Rombach

Everyone who is physically

Everyone who is physically able to get in the fight is part of the militia.

"to defend the Constitution

from all enemies, foreign and domestic."

I heard that line somewhere before... lemme think...

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

remember when

you and I used to agree on stuff?

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

We don't have to agree on everything

SSRIs damn near killed me, I am not backing down on that one. It is the "proof" I cannot deny, but cannot provide for anyone else. They damn near killed me, I try to warn others. They listen, or they don't.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I agree...

...on the not agreeing. I was just having fun looking through some of my more popular articles I've posted, and seeing familiar faces who have been very against my current posts.
At least you are not one of the people who loved what I used to write, but now assumes I'm a troll or government disinfo agent.

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

Very well-said!

I normally wouldn't post something like this on facebook, but it's so well-said I can't help it. Here goes.. :-)

I hope you don't mind

if I steal part of this! I thought this line was brilliant:

"Why do I need an assault rifle? Because I live under the rule of a government that thinks it has the right to take away my assault rifle."

I truly never thought of that before...

I don't mind at all.


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


Because in some 'unheard of' parts of this dying republic, as far as statist liberals/RINO morons are concerned, some bad motherf*ckers actually invade your home... with an AR15. That's why.

The only way to put down a bad murderous motherf*cker with a gun, is to be a GOOD peaceful motherkisser (on the cheek of course, ya sick bastaz! lol) with a gun.

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Assault rifles with large clips are vital for home defense.

Gun Myth 101: Your pistol can turn a man into a pink mist with one shot.

I don't care if its a .45 mag or anything else. The laws of physics leave little room for argument: If the gun is powerful enough to send a human target flying, the kick is also going to send the shooter flying.

Most people when shot fatally will take a considerable amount of time to die, in the meantime they will either be running away, or shooting back. If you are armed with nothing more than a pistol, you better unload your whole clip into the target if you don't feel like being shot yourself.

So lets take one of the most popular forms of crime these days: Home invasion. Here is where multiple criminals storm your house, armed and dangerous. They are there to kill, rape & rob you and your family. First, unless you are heavily trained, you're probably going to miss a lot. It would be reasonable to expect the average casual shooter to use their whole clip just trying to neutralize a single target. What are you going to do about his buddies? Switch clips? Unless you're heavily trained, you're probably going to die while your family gets raped and murdered long before you switch your clip against multiple invaders.

Enter assault rifles, you know, those evil guns the gov and their collectivist drooling idiot supports think we don't "need." An assault rifle fires a shot with enough muzzle velocity that it kills NOW. You hit an intruder, you will drop him most times and render him either dead or incapacitated. You WILL miss several times, but because your rifle has a 20-30 round capacity, you can afford to miss. There is no reason a casual shooter cannot use an assault rifle to successfuly defend himself and his family against multiple armed attackers without needing a reload.

As an added bonus, assault rifles, due to their high velocity rounds are more likley to fragment and disperse in a wall whereas a pistol or shotgun pellets will go through far more walls and potentially into your neighbors house.

Assault rifles are ideal weapons for home defense for the casual gun owner. You don't need to be a veterin soldier put serious hurt on a group of invaders with one of these. If all you've got is a pistol or a low capacity clip on the other hand... good luck.

So the next time some dipshit liberal tries to tell you that you don't "need" a weapon that will give you an edge up against the monsters trying to break down your door and rape/murder/rob your family, let him know where he can put his lips.

In my opinion, any "lawmaker" who drafts a law that restricts our right to self defense is guilty of attempted murder. If anyone dies as a result of this law, such as the 28 people in Sandy Hook, that lawmaker's charge becomes murder.

'As an added bonus, assault

'As an added bonus, assault rifles, due to their high velocity rounds are more likley to fragment and disperse in a wall whereas a pistol or shotgun pellets will go through far more walls and potentially into your neighbors house.'

I have not heard this before. I was always been of the opinion that shotguns were better for home defense because the high velocity rounds would over-penetrate walls etc. I will have to look into the ballistics, do you have any articles on this? I am not trying to disprove you, I just love to read about guns.

Personally a pump action 12 gauge is my weapon of choice for home defense simply because that is what I am used to and I have been unnaturally good at shooting shotguns from the first time I picked one up. On that note, people should be aware that a weapon system is only as good as the person handling it. No matter what you use you need to practice frequently. If you have the space, Run and Gun exercised are awesome practice as it trains you to be steady during heavy breathing and adrenaline which is how your would be in a real firefight. A gun, like any tool, should never feel unnatural in your hands...

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.


Sorry to be a terminology Nazi, but you must mean "magazine" when you say "clip." I do not know of any pistol that takes a clip. Most semi-automatic rifles also take magazines, not clips, though the M1 Garand is an exception. The clip, however, is not large by any standard (8 rounds). They are quite functional, and every American should probably take the time and expense to become proficient with them if only for the historical experience. If you tried one, however, I'll guess that you would much prefer to stick with magazines. (One case of M1 thumb should do it.)

Rifle marksmanship, the gateway drug to the love of liberty.

The Appleseed Project, turning this land back into a nation of riflemen, one American at a time.

Thanks I was cringing as I

Thanks I was cringing as I read my own thread again. I don't say clip or "assault" rifle anymore. :)

jrd3820's picture

I asked a question along these lines this weekend

really, I was asking what the difference is between an assault riffle and other types of weapons. I like your post. It makes sense and lacks a certain amount of knee jerk rhetoric that I found here in some cases. These more rational responses to these questions are what will work with the other side.

I don't mean this to be

I don't mean this to be critical, but this 'need' thing is something that's been irritating to me as of late. As far as I am concerned 'need' is an internalized thing, not something to be justified to others or argued. Anyway to the rant :) :

Why argue need? Arguing need is to allow those who want to restrict others have control over the debate. They talk about need. Arguing need is playing their game. What if they start asking if we 'need' a car? 'need' a computer? We cannot allow those who enjoy the power of government, to start dictating to us what we may own based on need.

Let's say the debate on 'need' is won with firearms. What then? Another battle on the need for a car with 400hp? Or a car at all? There will be on going political fights with control freaks who think everyone should be forced by the government to live as the control freaks say they should. They want to argue need, because then it allows them to impose their opinions, their chosen way to live, on others. There's no freedom on the road of 'need', just someone's idea of how people should live.

I am not into guns, but if I were, I would not defend my choice in firearms because of need but because it's my choice. Because I wanted it. Just like I don't defend my choice in cars. Just like everything else. It's what I wanted, what I liked, what best suited in my view what I wanted to accomplish with whatever it is. It's none of their business what I buy with my money.

I don't "need" an "assault rifle", I don't need any particular possession. I may some day want a rifle, I may someday feel it is a tool I can use, and when I do I'll buy it. And that's that. Need is irrelevant. There's no justifying need to other people, it's none of their business. I would no sooner try to justify the need of a firearm to someone who thinks they can tell me I can't own a gun that I would spend my time justifying a need of an automobile to someone who thinks we should all take public transit. It's not their choice and it's not their business. My money. My life. My property. My choice.

It's time to stop arguing on their playing field and expose them for the narrow minded control freaks they are.

Phxarcher87's picture


You might just want to own one of these tools if you plan on living for another 20 years. Your freedom may soon depend upon it.

James Madison

it is not "unalienable" it is "in-a -lienable"

yes it is necessary for a free society to have guns. it also makes for a polite society. which we do not have right now.

No it isn't.

When I was young, I always said "inalienable" as well, but if you look at the actual docucument, it is "unalienable". I attached a link with the image of the document. Zoom in and look at it. Then I attached an article explaining why it is important that it says unalienable rather than inalienable.

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

I stand corrected, Thank You.

it is nice to know that there are signs of intelligent life out there.....

Thank you!

That is all.