Why do I need an assault rifle?

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...

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.

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.

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.

Odds are your life will never be saved by a seatbelt, but you still wear one, don't you.

If you don't have a weapon, who are you gonna call if your life is threatened? Well, if you don't die first, you're most likely gonna call a police. That's the most logical action too, because the policeman has a....gun.

Because all able-bodied men are part of the militia and required to answer the call for help with their own weapon.

I think our military has pretty much defined what kind of weapon is suitable for deployment. That said, anything less than an assault rifle is probably a moral violation of one's obligation to be prepared for militia duty.

Notice I said militia and not military. Militaries are used for unhealthy conquests, militias are the people defending their healthy nation.