Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

There have been many good rebuttals written by other conservatives when liberals have made the claim that person does not need an “assault rifle” to _______.  In most cases one fills in the blank with the term “hunting,” but it can even be “self-defense,” such as Vice-President Joe Biden stated, when he argued that all a person needs for self-defense is a shotgun.

One line of conservative argument has been to rebut the specific instances where one might need an “assault rifle” to do x, y, or z.  Another line is to challenge the whole terminology of what an “assault rifle” is, as Glenn Beck, and others have done. Most Liberals have no idea what an assault rifle is and can not posit a single unifying definition of what they are talking about.  I would like to argue from two different areas: need and expertise.

What is a need anyway?  The essential definition of a need is something that is necessary or requisite, but that is still highly subjective.  What is necessary?  How does one apply the term “necessary” to any human endeavor?  That depends on the situation and the technologies available.  You probably don’t need a heavy coat in Hawaii, but in Eastern Nebraska, where I am from, you better have one from December through April.

If we take the term “need” to mean “that which is essential,” then we have other problems.  Most of us have an abundance of possessions, would be seriously handicapped if we have to survive with just the items we could carry on our backs.  Most of us could not function if we operated on a strictly essential level for survival.  Most of us operate on the level of a want, or we define need so loosely that one cannot tell if someone is a want or a need.

Authority is another problem.  Who decides what someone else needs?  Do they have the expertise and wisdom to make those judgments?  When Liberals make pronouncements about guns, more often than not, they are not experts in firearms, self-defense, or ethics.  That is quite evident from many of their statements that they don’t know what they are talking about.  They are not intimately involved in the lives of the people they make pronouncements for.  How do they know what kind of a firearm someone needs?  As others have noted, the .223 or 5.56 Nato round in the AR 15 is actually a very good hunting round for coyotes, feral hogs, badgers, and other smaller size game.  How do they know what a person needs for defending their home?  How do these “experts” know all the situations in which a firearm could be needed?  Based upon the rhetoric so often used by the liberal media and liberal politicians, they don’t have that kind of competency to make the pronouncements they do.  They are not competent to tell anyone what they need, and they don’t know enough about what is going on in individual’s lives to say what they say.

The person does know best what they need is the individual themselves. They are the ones living their lives.  They have the right to own whatever they want and do not need to justify that to anyone.  The politicians do not have the moral authority to meddle in the lives of others.  It is not the prerogative of some politician to tell a citizen what they need.  Those decisions belong to the individual, and the next time a politician says “you don’t need that gun” we are best to tell them to mind their own business and leave the rest of us alone.

iPatriot Contributers


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?