WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE?

[mac_hine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3uLTnzs60

This dude gets it.

[AGRP]

This topic is incredibly Orwellian. Theres nothing "assaulting" about the riffle.

[Dr.3D]

This topic is incredibly Orwellian. Theres nothing "assaulting" about the riffle.
Of course, it's a defense against assault rifle.

[mac_hine]

This topic is incredibly Orwellian. Theres nothing "assaulting" about the riffle.

I agree. I think we should flip the language and start calling these firearms "defense" rifles.

[staerker]

Why do I need to have access to entertainment? I don't. Ban it.

[sevin]

I agree. I think we should flip the language and start calling these firearms "defense" rifles.

Great idea. I'm tired of them using language against us.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Why? Why to feed the green and blue meanies their daily dose of minerals and nutrients, of course! You know, lead, copper, steel...

-t

[presence]

This dude gets it.

Yep, that dude gets it.

CLICK PLAY

[SilentBull]

I've been telling people who say this that they are asking the wrong question. The right question is, will shootings stop if we ban these weapons? No, because bad people will still get them just like they get drugs. Bring the conversation back to the kids. Will this saves lives? If not, then we have changed the conversation from saving lives to taking things away from people because we don't l like the fact that they have them.

[Acala]

When someone asks "why do you need a [insert type of gun]?" I respond as follows;

That is not a proper question in a free society. In a free society, we do not have to justify WHY we need our freedom. Freedom is always its own justification. Protecting freedom is the central PURPOSE of our government. So in a free society the burden is always on those who wish to RESTRICT freedom and the proper question is "what is your compelling reason for depriving us of our freedom?"

And since no argument for depriving honest people of their freedom holds water, we win!!!

[BuddyRey]

Tweeted!

[tangent4ronpaul]

I've been telling people who say this that they are asking the wrong question. The right question is, will shootings stop if we ban these weapons? No, because bad people will still get them just like they get drugs. Bring the conversation back to the kids. Will this saves lives? If not, then we have changed the conversation from saving lives to taking things away from people because we don't l like the fact that they have them.

There is another kind of "person". It's called "corporate personhood". While normally this is a bad thing, in this case it's good. It means corporations can buy guns and issue them to it's officers, employees, etc. Everything barring a person from purchasing a firearm does not apply to corporations. The background check is nice too. Corporations do not have fingerprints, or photographs and you can't interview them or do a background check on one or talk to their neighbors. OK, so setting up a corporation to do this is a pain, expensive and requires actually generating revenue and filing yearly paperwork, etc., which is a drag. But there is another type of "corporation" that gives the "corporate personhood" shield - it's called a trust.

If you establish a NFA trust, print out a few copies, sign them and get them notarized, there is no reason to decline a purchase. It also shields the property so you can't be sued for it or have to sell them due to bankruptcy, etc. This is a popular way to buy machine guns, etc. It also works with cars, houses, boats, etc.

In short, whatever (if anything) they pass is going to be aimed at individuals, and this little loophole makes it irrelevant. Remember, that a piece of paper can't be the subject of a psychological evaluation.

-t

[Confederate]

I need one because the government has them.

[Wallrat]

Word. The man is spot on. We need them to defend against a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

[sailingaway]

Also, the government doesn't have the right to ban people from having them just because they deem someone doesn't 'need' one. Who are they to make that decision?

[cbrons]

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


(Stolen from Mark Levin, who I rarely listen to b/c of neo-conism but he is right on this).

[jkr]

well...we ARE grossly outgunned by many factions but ill take a "shot"

tactile equity?

[heavenlyboy34]

This guy has access to badass weaponry. I'm mega-jealous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmOGVANph5o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAJN_8c_RKs&list=UUEPTp5WMAzjh9mOrKUwRLmQ& index=8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLFYvG6MsZU&list=UUEPTp5WMAzjh9mOrKUwRLmQ

Outgunning the State=liberty. :cool:

[Bossobass]

Why does anyone need an SUV?

Cars kill 40,000 Americans a year. There are 6 million auto accidents every year. Cars suck down 400,000,000 gallons of gas every day while spewing hundreds of millions of tons of toxic pollutants that kill an additional 30,000 Americans each year while piling a quarter of a Billion tires in the crap heap annually.

They make the least efficient cars on earth to market in the US by associating them with sex, luxury, individualism and other mind fuck bullshit while they prohibit all of the top efficiency vehicles from being sold here.

They run those ads ad infinitum while spewing the "guns are bad" rhetoric on what has become more of a corporate infomercial than news.

So, who are the real murderers?

[libertyfanatic]

Why do we need assault weapons is a trick question. In reality humans only need food, water, and shelter; everything else is extra. If we are to ban assault weapons because they are not needed, then by that very same logic we must also ban shoes, clothes, movies, cars, and everything else not necessary to survive.

[QuickZ06]

Truth.