Article: How big a gun does anyone need

[Mulay El Raisuli]

How many "rank and file" grunts participated in the Japanese Internment here in the US?

ALL of the ones that were in the area at the time.

Funny this topic was brought up. I had a conversation with a good friend, and she brought up the idea of need.

Her premise: One does not need guns. Guns have only one purpose: to do harm to others. Given the security afforded by the police, one does not need to have a gun in this modern age. Your enjoyment of shooting comes at too high a cost to others and therefore, it must be curtailed.

My response:
- The classic "locking the door" took care of the police argument.
- Cigarettes are used solely for enjoyment, and there is no doubt they are deadly. Why have we not banned cigarettes? In fact, there is one huge difference between guns and cigarettes: A gun used in a responsible manner will harm no human (allowing for the hunting scenario). A cigarette used in a responsible manner (smoking outside, not around kids, etc) will still kill at least one person.
- Alcohol are used solely for enjoyment. Enjoyed in a safe, responsible manner, it brings joy to the user (talking about taste, not getting drunk...). However, if misused (DUI), harm to others can result.
- In both cases, harm only comes from misuses. When enjoyed responsibly, it is a socially accepted action. When there is a DUI, no one blames the alcohol or vehicle. Indeed, if we apply the gun-control logic to DUI, then we should be required to take a breathalyzer, eye-sight, stress-hormone, etc test before driving.

I didn't push it for personal reasons, but if you ever face up against a militant anti-2A person who uses the need or sole-purpose argument, feel free to use the cigarette and alcohol retort and see what they say. Also, I would love it if someone took apart my argument so I can learn for future conversations.

I like to use what I call the "Dirty Harry" response:

"Nothing wrong with shooting as long as the right people get shot."

I want an M1A2 Abrams. However, as a compromise, I'll settle for a Stryker Mobile Gun System. (After all, it is street legal....

And with MUCH better MPG. That's important, too.


The Raisuli

[Joewy]

I want an M1A2 Abrams. However, as a compromise, I'll settle for a Stryker Mobile Gun System. (After all, it is street legal....

But But But....Bidden said you cant own a tank or a fighter jet or a machine gun in the US already. That is why we need to restrict all guns.
Is there anything this guy does know??

[johnny_22]

Well...

He did start using the word "magazine" instead of "clip" all the time.

[wazdat]

My wife and I were in a gun store in Nevada where I was drooling over a Barrett .50 BMG.

She turns to me and says, "Why would you ever need something that big?"

I respond with, "There's a truck coming... It's half a mile away..."

[Wherryj]

Mexico has very strict gun control laws. And crime is running rampant.

DiFi, are you listening?

...and the government can literally do pretty much anything it wants to the people of Mexico without fear of reprisal. Yes, DiFi IS listening.

Government doesn't care about YOUR security, they care only about their own.

[Casual_Shooter]

She turns to me and says, "Why would you ever need something that big?"

Sig material.....

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Great article.

I *need* an unfair advantage over my attacker.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

A.W.D.

[sl0re10]

Hope it's not a repost, if it is my apologies.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/how_big_a_gun_does_anyone_need.html

In discussions with friends the question often comes up... Do you really need an AR15? I enjoyed this article as it goes over the relevancy of that question as pertains to the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

I hear ya; but small guns are illegal in California.

[sl0re10]

No offense to the OP's, but none of these "cars, restaurants, etc" examples hold water.

The response is inevitably- "but cars and restaurants weren't designed to kill people".

I don't know what the answer is other than there isn't one because the topic of the conversation does not need to be justified.

Designed or not, they still kill or have a hand in killing more people.

Car accidents and obesity*... much bigger threats than rifles with evil features... Really; if you want to save lives you need to regulate hammers. They are used to kill many many more than all rifle types combined...

* and notice some of them are actually noticing this and trying to regulate it...

[Sauced]

What suprises me is that their is little dissent on this forum to the american thinker article, I would argue that less than 20% of the people that posted a response, actually read it and those that did read it, have no retort? the 10th amendment is a bookend amendment to the Constitution, it does not supersede the other 9 amendments to the bill of rights. the state does not have the authority to violate the 3rd amendment for example, it cannot quarter troops in homes, just like it does not have the authority to violate the first amendment. the federal government is therefore charged with the protection of the bill of rights against state encroachment, this is also made very clear by the language of the 14th amendment. in upside down world, like the one we have today, we are begging our states to nullify and interpose federal encroachments.

[Tyrone]

The 10th Amdt is more than just a "bookend" Amdt. While is does not supersede the actual text or other BOR, it is fundamental to federalism and the original intent and purpose of the Const. Key is that the Founders were so concerned about an overreaching central govt that they wanted to ensure that only those powers specifically delegated to this new central govt would be the ones exercised. Whether decided correctly or not (I think not), Barron v. Baltimore held that the BOR restricted only fed govt action and not actions by the state. It was not until the 14th Amdt selective incorporation process that the BOR was applied to the States. Under selective incorporation only certain of the BOR have been applied to the states. The most obvious example for this forum is that it was not until Heller 2008 where an individual RTKBA was identified for the 2nd Amdt and not until McDonnald in 2010 wherein it was determined that such right applied to the states not just the federal govt. This is why the 10th is so so important. It reaffirms the understanding that the fed is only to operate with powers specifically delegated, it prohibits certain actions by states which are also to be read with specificity, anything else remains with the states and then to the people.