"why do you need" - Tired of it

[Dan 177]

All I hear on the news is "why do you need xyz" when it comes to guns and accessories. I just heard some anti-gun woman on ABC asking a pro-gun rights person "why do you need a large magazine that can shred to pieces 6 year old children?". I almost threw up my french toast that I was eating.

 

The sad part is the pro-gun person did not swing back in disgust. Most likely it was a lame duck put there to take a beating.

 

So anyway, the question of "why do you need" inevitably comes up in any discussion with anti-gun folks.

 

Here are some counter points, always stared with "the argument of need that you speak of is flawed"

• The "need" argument can be applied to any item , object, concept, or idea that does not involve the purest forms of survival such as air, food, water, and shelter. Why do you need to wear clothes, a television, or to have the freedom of religion? If they answer "but those things don't have the capacity to kill", I'd say "absolutely, for instance more people have died in the name of religion than anything else in the history of mankind". It is a very dangerous concept to give such freedoms to the people, so much so that countless governments work very hard to control it.
  
• People "need" the option to have access to firearms and their associated accessories for self defense. Creating frivolous laws that further limits access to these things is nothing but a pure attack against those people's ability to defend themselves. Are you an expert on using firearms for self defense? How do you base your so-called expert opinion that you know the limits of the thousands of types of firearms out there, and how many bullets, or what accessories can be on them before they are no longer effective for self-defense? Surely you want to make sure that you are not hindering a family's ability to defend themselves against a home invasion for say?
  
• The 2A was not created to protect hunters. It was created to make sure the government could not disarm "the people" , and to guarantee the rights of "the people" to have arms commensurate with those used by the government, just like back in the days of the drafting of the Constitution. Of course they will use the "nuclear bomb" thing, so I just say, of course people should not have access to WMD's, and we are speaking of common firearms that are held in the hands. If they try to bring up rocket launchers, etc refer back to "common types of arms held by the public for the past 200 years". Therefore, basing laws around the "needs" of hunters alone is flawed.
  
• And most importantly , please explain why do we "need" the rest of the individual rights based in common law and of those in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Why do we "need" the freedom of speech, why do we "need" the right to a speedy and fair trial? We could easily use your argument of "need" coupled with the "for the greater good" to craft some clever words to abolish the rest of the bill of rights. After-all, isn't a society "safer" if the government could outlaw vicious words and hate speech, or restrict what types of religions people are to follow that are deemed "safe" religions? Perhaps we would all be safer if we allowed the government to indefinitely detain dangerous people; we trust their judgment right, no need for a trial?
  
• Your argument of "need" is not what our country was based on. It was based on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, coupled with the rights to defend those things. Millions of people have been safely using firearms for sport, hunting, and protection, including the types and accessories you speak of here for over a hundred years. Because of mentally disturbed and deranged individuals chose to perform heinous acts with firearms, does not give the authority or "green light" to our government to be able to hamper, restrict, and trample on the rights of those millions of firearms users in our country. We "need" to focus our ideas and energy around stopping these kinds of people from harming others in any capacity with any object.
  

Sorry, kind of long, but it's been really bothering me!

[when_shtf 4]

Simple answer; its called a Bil of Rights, not a bill of needs.

[MarkWVU02 47]

I just answer with there's only 4 things a human needs....food, water, air, and shelter, owning an AR15 is my right though.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Best response I ever heard.

 

 

Did Rosa Parks NEED to sit in the front of the bus?

[Babyface Finster 45]

Never respond to a loaded question asked by a person who doesn't really want an answer.

[Red Solo Cup 11]

Never respond to a loaded question asked by a person who doesn't really want an answer.

+1

It would be nice to blindside them with a snappy retort, however,

[Dan 177]

Never respond to a loaded question asked by a person who doesn't really want an answer.

 

Not trying to convince the person that doesn't want an answer, it is more for the benefit of the viewing audience watching. Also, not responding makes it look like they won the argument or that you conceded the point.

[Shane45 807]

I usually answer New Orleans and LA Riots when citisens were left to defnd themselves. You dont here many reports of "he was shot 9 times and lived" in the case of a rifle like you do a handgun. So when they open the doors to a prison and walk away like in New Orleans, you can sure bet someone is going to face a group of criminals with bad intentions on their mind because it has been proven to be the case.

[Shane45 807]

And another case close to home. I guess Cuomo doesnt think this person needed more than 7 rounds....

 

http://newyork.cbslo...ome-with-ak-47/

[blizzzarddemon 0]

 

This says it well

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

 

 

[papercutninja 24]

If they use the musket argument, use the horse and buggy instead of cars argument.

[Texas Shooter 35]

Why do you need a 4000 lb vehicle that goes 120 MPH and can plow into a school bus full of children? Why do you need a cell phone that distracts you so that you don't see that school bus full of children?

[Texas Shooter 35]

If they use the musket argument, use the horse and buggy instead of cars argument.

 

Since telephones, television and the internet didn't exist either, then the First Amendment does not apply to the Internet, telephone conversations or broadcast television.

[Babyface Finster 45]

Not trying to convince the person that doesn't want an answer, it is more for the benefit of the viewing audience watching. Also, not responding makes it look like they won the argument or that you conceded the point.

 

Actually, by addressing the question of need you are legitimizing it. Once you start listing "needs" you are telling everyone listening that your right must be tied to a need. This is complete and utter horseshit. The 2A is very clear about the peoples' right and explicitly states that it will not be infringed upon. This is the line in the sand.

[Tango Charlie 0]

I ran into an argument similar to this and at the time I wasn't ready to rebut it. The question is: Why do you need all of these tactical gears and accessories? All you need is just a little .38 revolver to defend your life.

 

During the conversation, he did give me the answer to his question, which was an issue of training. If anti-gunners to moderate anti-gunners want responsible, legal gun owners to be trained to use their firearms then why can't they use tactical gear as a holistic SYSTEM while training with their firearm? Of course, you don't really think of these answers until AFTER the fact.

[Joeyd6 0]

I saw the same interview as she tried to beat down a pro-gun politician. He made a few great points:

 

1) years ago, you could open a Sears catalog and order guns to your house, with no rules, laws or regulations.

2) at that time, we had no mass shootings or killings.

3) everyone is blaming the guns when in fact, we now have all these rules and regulation......we should be blaming society

4) not a single law proposed by anyone addresses the real problem....society and the issues that let folks think acting this way is OK.

 

She didn't like that and argued she and cut him off stating he didn't newer her question about the mags an he yelled right she was "diverting" and not looking at the real cause of the problem.

[Dan 177]

Joeyd6, yup, I heard the same thing. The problem I had was that he wasn't addressing this "need" bullcrap. Just by pointing out that things were OK in the past, but aren't now is not good enough in my book. The anti's will continue using this "need" argument along with their distorted and subjective ideas of "reasonable and common sense" to wrap enough restrictions around 2A that we may as well not have it at all.

 

All pro-gun and pro-constitution folks need to band together and provide clear and consistent responses to these trap questions.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

"Why do you NEED an iPhone/Android Phone/iPad/Kindle/etc.?"

[Dan 177]

"Why do you NEED an iPhone/Android Phone/iPad/Kindle/etc.?"

 

They would just say that "I don't need it, and also they are not designed with lethal features, and are not being used by lunatics to kill innocent people". Have to be careful with this one, along with the automobile comparative. I prefer to argue that my right to own and use firearms is analogous to other rights we have as Americans both inalienable and constitutionally protected (freedom of speech, religion, assembly, due process, etc).

 

One of the main uses for firearms in defense and hunting for instance, are their ability to exert lethal force at a distance. There is no disputing this fact. We must fight for our right to have this ability with our firearms for use in our own defense, along with the myriad of other legal uses for firearms such as competition, collecting, target shooting, etc.

[CageFighter 236]

And another case close to home. I guess Cuomo doesnt think this person needed more than 7 rounds....

 

http://newyork.cbslo...ome-with-ak-47/

 

my bro is a cop w/ Suffolk Co Police, MS-13 is a HUGE problem in his sector.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

[O-gre 7]

I think the response "it's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs" is the only response we should every supply.

[NicePants 58]

If they use the musket argument, use the horse and buggy instead of cars argument.

 

Actually, if they use that argument, tell them that Lewis and Clark were among many people of the Late 1700s to own a rifle capable of holding and shooting 20 shots in quick succession. Their brains nearly collapse inward upon hearing that. Also, cannons.

[NJCK 5]

"Why do you need to concern yourself with my business."

[Johnny 0]

They would just say that "I don't need it, and also they are not designed with lethal features, and are not being used by lunatics to kill innocent people". Have to be careful with this one, along with the automobile comparative. I prefer to argue that my right to own and use firearms is analogous to other rights we have as Americans both inalienable and constitutionally protected (freedom of speech, religion, assembly, due process, etc).

 

One of the main uses for firearms in defense and hunting for instance, are their ability to exert lethal force at a distance. There is no disputing this fact. We must fight for our right to have this ability with our firearms for use in our own defense, along with the myriad of other legal uses for firearms such as competition, collecting, target shooting, etc.

How many kids have committed suicide because they were bullied over the phone and internet? There are many ways to hurt a person. Remember the college student who jumped off the GWB because his personal business was put all over the internet. In my opinion phones can be just as deadly in the wrong hands and anyone who wants to own one should pass an extensive background check.

[Dan 177]

 

Exactly. This is it in a nutshell.

[Shane45 807]

Wheres the need? At least a firearm can save a life. Pain meds can not.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/rxbrief/

[Shane45 807]

Do we need alcohol?

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities-national-statistics

[Shane45 807]

My personal fav! Do we need cigarettes? Gotta pull a quote form this one. Of course the govt MUST protect its proffit centers so these will remain legal.

• The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.^2,3
  

^{http://www.cdc.gov/t...ts_cig_smoking/}

[jackandjill 683]

Many child molesters, murderers and scumbags dodged punishment due to "Due Process".

 

Why do you need Due Process when

 

- You know its putting criminals back on the street

- Prosecutor is elected official who would only charge if the person is really guilty

 

A closed door hearing between guilty, prosecutor and a judge should be good enough, right ?

 

<sarcasm> for those who need extra indication.