I've listened for days to the media talking heads, politicians and police chiefs expounding on what you and I  need or don't. The smug politicians and the wisened public officials would roll their eyes and answer every question with another question "Why do you need high capacity magazines?  Why do you need assault weapons to hunt? Why do you need this or that? Every time someone said something about "needing" this or "not needing that" I got an uneasy feeling.

Thinking about it for awhile I realized that they were right. Few of us need an assault weapon or magazines that hold over 10 rounds. We don't need a car that goes over 70 MPH either. You and I don't need a motorcycle, a boat, an RV, a TV, VCR, or a computer. As a matter of fact,  we don't even really need a house. We could live in a tent or a trailer or a government supplied apartment.

So what is so wrong about politicians and government officials telling us what we need or don't need? Aren't these people really just looking out for our best interests? Don't they have nothing but the best intentions?

I mean after all, these people are public officials in a free country. It's not like we live in a dictatorship or under a socialist/communist regime.

But then again, that uneasy feeling kept creeping back. It wasn't until I happened to be looking through some old college papers that I discovered the source of my uneasiness. Among my papers was a famous quote that explained it all.

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need."
-Karl Marx

Next time someone asks why you need your firearms, just think of Karl Marx's quote before you answer.

It's not about needs, it's about rights.

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

I rest my case.

The answer is obvious. We NEED these weapons to keep the .gov in line.

CW

I don't need an assault rifle...
I need lots of assault rifles!

Chairman Mao said

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun"

My 12 year old son while watching the congressional hearings of the AWB in 1994

"So why are we letting them do this, we're the ones with the guns?"

Well said.

It's just a shame that most americans don't get it.

And an even bigger shame that many gun owners don't get that it isn't about hunting or shooting sports.  


Good that some do though.



Zen




"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"

I do need an assault rifle.  How else will I defend myself against zombies?

BigDozer66

I like modern firearms...

I don't "need" Preparation H either but it sure is nice when my azz is on fire!

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I WILL...

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. WE WILL HIT...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will ever guard it against the ravages of weather and damage as I will ever guard my legs, my arms, my eyes and my heart against damage. I will keep my rifle clean and ready. We will become part of each other. WE WILL...

Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. WE ARE THE SAVIORS OF MY LIFE.

So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

Quoted: It's not about needs, it's about rights.

+1

Don't let anyone force you to justify what's rightfully yours to own.

down where I live there is alot of home invasions, the bloodiest was when they executed 6 guys in front of there mom, and a week before they had executed 4 girls in there early 20's(same gang).  these shithead bangers use assault rifles and i'm supposed to defend my home with a lever action, or better yet a bolt action.

What is there not to understand.

I'm talking to the media here guys

BigDozer  :  I like the pic you posted above, I'm still laughing my ass off

Sorry Monkeyman, but are you saying that you are a Marxist now?


It's not about need, it's about needing it when are "leaders" decide that they would rather make our government into a dictatorship. And unfortunately, as every democracy at it's end, we will end this democracy with a dictatorship. If we elect Hitlery as president, it will happen sooner than later.

Lets talk about NEED here for just a sec.......

They don't NEED to know what I do on my own F'n time.  They don't NEED to know my business.
They don't NEED to decide what I need or don't need.  They NEED to get outta politics and adopt a half dozen kids if they feel the NEED for parenting.  

You don't need an assault rifle!  
No, I don't. Since an assault rifle is capable of automatic fire and since I don't live in an NFA state I can't buy one either. However, since I might want a semi-automatic look alike version of one, the banners can kiss my brown eye. The ones in my head are blue.

Quoted: Sorry Monkeyman, but are you saying that you are a Marxist now? It's not about need, it's about needing it when are "leaders" decide that they would rather make our government into a dictatorship. And unfortunately, as every democracy at it's end, we will end this democracy with a dictatorship. If we elect Hitlery as president, it will happen sooner than later.

His point was the same as yours.  He just said it a little more eloquently.

Quoted: Quoted: Sorry Monkeyman, but are you saying that you are a Marxist now? It's not about need, it's about needing it when are "leaders" decide that they would rather make our government into a dictatorship. And unfortunately, as every democracy at it's end, we will end this democracy with a dictatorship. If we elect Hitlery as president, it will happen sooner than later. His point was the same as yours.  He just said it a little more eloquently.

He's from a different part of Michigan, they just say things more eloquently there... Their eloquent, we're blunt!

The Second Amendment isn't about shooting deer.  It's about shooting back.

All the talk about keeping the goverment in line with assault weapons (even if true to an extent) and needing them to shoot back and shit like that. That is what helps fuel the anti's so much. Why say it... Self defense is one thing but keep it in a better context than that.  I feel it just hurts our cause in the long run. I remember when I was younger and the machinegun ban was inacted there was a bunch of NRA members protesting it and they all looked like trash wearing the "cold dead hand" tee shirts and shit like that in Washington. All the anti's were there in suits and dressed nice. That had quite an impact on me even at 11 years of age. I thought "why not try to look professional, more people will take you serious" well why not try to sound professional also. Just my $0.02 take it or leave it.

Some comments from the limp wristed bed wetting liberals:

"The right to bare arms was granted during the Revolutionnary War at a time where British invasion was still possible and the when there were still numerous conflicts with native indians.

Today, these conditions do not apply anymore. No civilian needs an assault weapon in his home. The fact that this ban was not reniewed is a sad event.

There are more then enough guns in the States as it is. Who needs some Yahoo with a Uzi or an M-16 in his home? "


"With all due respect, I think owning something like an AR-15 (whatever that is) DOES instantly make you a gun nut and a threat to society. By the very act. Because the machines are designed only to do one thing."


I try never respond to trolling like that, but fucked up people like this give me headaches.

We should worry antime personal freedoms are in danger of being taken away. Why shouldn't law abidng citizens own firearms, more specifically semi-automatic rifles? Is fear of lawful people so justified? Is fear so overwhelming that stripping lawful people of their constitutional rights make those folks sleep more peacibly in their beds at night. Fear. Spread it far and wide enough and convince enough people of it, and they will rise to ban personal freedoms. The question is applying equal logic to the crusade of outlawing anything which causes enough people to fear it.

I'm afraid of drunk drivers. Outlaw alcohol.
I'm afraid of heights. Outlaw tall buildings.
I'm afraid of child molesters. Outlaw child molestation.

Banning a type of firearm to reduce crime is akin to banning automobiles to reduce drunk driving.

HS1

Quoted: Sorry Monkeyman, but are you saying that you are a Marxist now?

I read it as politicians who know what we "need" are just taking us down the Communist path.  Hence the quote.

Quoted: down where I live there is alot of home invasions, the bloodiest was when they executed 6 guys in front of there mom, and a week before they had executed 4 girls in there early 20's(same gang).  these shithead bangers use assault rifles and i'm supposed to defend my home with a lever action, or better yet a bolt action. What is there not to understand. I'm talking to the media here guys

People using assault rifles in repeated home invasions and executions?    10 people killed execution-style in a week??   Where the hell do you live?  (I'd suggest moving )

You have a link or source for that?  It sounds scary

I'm no scholar guys but this is another liberal posting on this:


The far left:  

...."guns n general ...

The wise men who crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had something in mind when they specified the right to keep and bear arms ... and do you know what it was they were thinking of?

They were worried that the government which they were creating might one day become as powerful and tyrannical as the one in England which they had just finished many long and bloody years fighting to be free of - in short, their purpose was to insure that if revolution might one day again be necessary, then it would also be possible for an armed citizenry to revolt and refute the divine right of kings and assert that modern governance occurs by the consent of the governed and by no other authority.

The image below is from a series of proganda art produced by the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea, commemorating the fact that their first dictator (father of the present one) was a resistance fighter against Japanese colonial rule prior to and throughout the years of the Second World War.

I wish to suggest that it conveys the actual spirit and intent of what the American Founding Fathers had in mind with this clause in our foundational documents. (I'm not a fan of the North Korean govt, by the way, just so you know ....) "


Then he posts this photograph:

.

Well if YOU don't need an assault rifle don't buy one - DUH!

Quoted: I'm no scholar guys but this is another liberal posting on this: The far left:   ...."guns n general ... The wise men who crafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had something in mind when they specified the right to keep and bear arms ... and do you know what it was they were thinking of? They were worried that the government which they were creating might one day become as powerful and tyrannical as the one in England which they had just finished many long and bloody years fighting to be free of - in short, their purpose was to insure that if revolution might one day again be necessary, then it would also be possible for an armed citizenry to revolt and refute the divine right of kings and assert that modern governance occurs by the consent of the governed and by no other authority. The image below is from a series of proganda art produced by the Democratic People's Republic of (North) Korea, commemorating the fact that their first dictator (father of the present one) was a resistance fighter against Japanese colonial rule prior to and throughout the years of the Second World War. I wish to suggest that it conveys the actual spirit and intent of what the American Founding Fathers had in mind with this clause in our foundational documents. (I'm not a fan of the North Korean govt, by the way, just so you know ....) " Then he posts this photograph: img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Bobster27/1pg026.jpg

You got any link that explains the story of the painting with a little more detail?  Thanks.  

Quoted: "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." I rest my case.

Yup...THAT 'splains it all!