My wife is a nationally recognized expert in her professional community, a community in which liberals are substantially more prevalent than conservatives. She travels the country quite a bit attending conferences and seminars, and many of her peers know she is a gun owner. She came home from one such conference recently, where someone asked her why anyone needed so-called “assault rifles” and high capacity magazines.
The problem isn’t coming up with an answer to the question, the problem is the question itself. Need is not the deciding factor when it comes to a Constitutionally protected natural right. I don’t have to list reasons why I need a firearm, or a certain type of firearm, or a certain number of firearms. As soon as we fall into the trap of arguing why we need something, we’ve already capitulated.
Who needs a backyard pool? More children die in drowning accidents each year than are killed by firearms. Yet in most states there is no license needed to have a backyard pool. There are no training requirements. There are no pool capacity limits… think how many children’s lives could be saved if we limited all personally owned pools to no more than 10 gallons! Sure, people enjoy swimming (recreation) and some even participate in athletic events (competition), but is that worth the lives of more than 700 children a year? And there’s no Constitutional right to own a swimming pool.
Who needs alcohol? According to the Centers for Disease Control, more people are killed in vehicular accidents than all gun-related deaths (accidental, felonious, and justified) combined. CDC also tells us that five times more children were killed in drunk driving accidents than drowned (so that’s seven times more children killed by drunk drivers than firearms). Furthermore, CDC reports that 1.4 million people are arrested each year for violating drunk driving laws in the U.S., and that almost one hundred times more people violate the law but are not caught. That’s almost as many drunk drivers as lawful gun owners! But what state would tell its citizens they can only buy one six-pack of beer a month, and outlaw dangerous high-octane “assault liquors” for the children?
Not convinced? OK, how many people among us need the protections of the Fourth Amendment? Are you hiding illegal contraband in your house? If not, then you don’t need the 4th. You’ve got nothing to hide, so you don’t need any protection against random house to house searches.
Don’t fall into the trap of debating need. The government doesn’t have the authority to restrict a Constitutional right based solely on need.
Train hard & stay safe! ToddG
Very well put.
Succinct and accurate as always, Todd.
I’d also add, why do cars **need** to travel in excess of 85mph, the highest speed limit in the U.S.?
Exactly. Too many gun rights advocates seem to think they have to “justify” why they own an AR-15, so they get caught up in a pointless discussion. The idea of “need” is utterly irrelevant. You could just as easily argue that no one “needs” a 650 horsepower Mustang GT-500, but as long as the owner operates if responsibly, NO ONE SHOULD CARE.
As usual, we need to get off defense and go on offense – attack THEIR positions on idiotic policies like “gun free zones” and other such nonsense.
Why do you “need” to sit in the front of the bus?
Vickie: Is that a Rosa Parks reference?
Vickie — Why do you “need” to sit in the front of the bus?
Mind… blown!
Very good article.
There’s a reason it’s called a “Bill of Rights,” not a “Bill of privileges that the subjects may be allowed should they articulate a substantial need…”
Well done. Mind if I post it elsewhere? No sense in trying to create something similar when you’ve already done the work 🙂 I’ll link to your blog and give you credit obviously.
Irish — Feel free.
Vickie- your comment is one of those wow moments. I WILL be using that!
Very well put. Thank you Todd.
Another argument I hear a lot is “guns are made for killing people”. I have a couple good counters to this, but want to know what you all thing (maybe I will make a post on the forums…)
think*
Well then why do we still need a constitutionally protected right to bear arms?
@Vickie Just an astoundingly awesome comment.
Excellent as usual, Todd.
I am glad you referenced the alcohol thing. We hear the comment of the ‘banners’–all the way to the top–“if it saves just one life, it is worth it”. Yet they enjoy their drink, so will never comment on the lives and families saved if there was no alcohol available. Not to mention the tax revenue. [-;
Thanks Todd. Shared on facebook.
Outstanding!
Excellent essay. I agree that as soon as you answer the anti-gun question of “need”, you’ve lost. Instead, force them to tell you why you, personally, should not have an AR or any other gun. You’ll have to keep hammering until they answer the question. In general, when arguing with Lefties, use three tactics 1) Don’t get emotional. 2) Don’t let them dodge a question with an analogy. 3) Make them answer their own questions. It takes a while, but it can be done.
Good stuff Todd.
I agree, enough of the defense already, stay on the offense.
Todd:
I agree, but it also doesn’t hurt to then explain why normal magazines tend to contain more than 10 rounds. Liberals tend to know absolutely nothing about firearms and educating them is a good thing. Explain about guns in actual use and why it is a bad idea to go dry; explain about Koreatown in 1994 (your average liberal has no idea that mobs were held at bay with semi-auto rifles and shotguns); post-Katrina;and all the rest.
Currently, most liberals believe that essentially no people are protected by guns, and many are hurt and killed. Explaining the truth can sometime cause them to start thinking about the issue for the first time in their lives.
Of course, so will Vickie’s awesome Rosa Parks point.
Todd,
Great article. Keep up the good work.
We had a similar discussion recently. The list of things folks do not actually “need” is staggering.
Just a few on my list;
Harleys
Air conditioning
the internet or any computers (too much chance of child porn, it’s for the children!)
GPS
any car that exceeds 70mph
your own home
TV
You get the point. Living with what other people think you need isn’t any way for free people to live.
Very well said, thanks!
What does Vickie mean by that comment? I’m all for gun ownership, regardless if its a “black rifle” or anything else, but making comments that insinuate that we are all some sheet wearing, cross burning, Jim Crow descendant fools does nothing for anyone.
Marvin, she didn’t insinuate that the way I read it.
I took it to mean we don’t need guns just like Rosa Parks didn’t “need” to sit in the front of the bus. Gun owners are also a minority, and one that is getting beat up on by society.
Marv,
My suggestion for the future would be to wait for the answer to your question rather than moving ahead with an assumption that is way off, especially when several people have posted (correctly) about how awesome the comment was.
Todd,
This is the best and most articulate response to the question that various non-gun friends and relatives have been putting to me since the events in Connecticut. I will definitely be forwarding it to people (with full attribution). And Vickie: that was an amazing addition!
Outstanding argument!