The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 9, 2013, 02:36 AM   #1
skeeter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 1999
Posts: 883
How to answer Piers Morgan's question "why does anyone need to own an assault rifle"

Piers Morgan is always saying we have no right or need to own an assault weapon that was only made to kill people. I would like to ask him the following question. If he planned to rob someone's home what would he rather face, a 6 shot revolver or an assault rifle? I would much rather protect my family with an assault rifle.
skeeter is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 04:05 AM   #2
Ignition Override
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Posts: 1,758
That's a very good question.
If anyone can also present responses in the broadest, practical context, it will be even more effective.

Have you guys/gals watched the recent Piers Morgan interview of the young Marine veteran who wrote a popular letter about gun ownership to Sen. Diane Feinstein?
This young man's level-headed ability to prevent Piers' attempts to distort his responses into different meanings were excellent.

This young veteran kept his ego detached, allowing himself to remain calm, and was prepared to outmaneuver Piers' sleazy tactics.
Piers is so obsessed with private citizens' ownership of the AR-15 and its supposed source of inbred evil, he has abdicated his responsibilities as a journalist.

Last edited by Ignition Override; January 9, 2013 at 04:14 AM.
Ignition Override is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 07:52 AM   #3
Rifleman1952
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 234
There are lots of reasons for owning an AR-15 type of firearm, but the most important is for self-defense in the aftermath of a Katrina like break down in civil society. The best defense against a mob of looters, is a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine.

While thankfully, these scenarios don't occur very often, they have happened often enough, especially around major cities, that a high capacity semi-auto rifle, such as an AR-15 or AK-47 makes perfect sense. I'm old enough to remember the many serious riots that occurred in major cities throughout the US during the 1960s. Mobs don't generally respond well to pleas for reason or mercy.

But even today, if one lives in or near a virtually lawless area, like the city of Detroit, a high capacity semi-automatic firearm also makes sense. Anywhere that gangs are a serious problem IMHO, necessitates the ownership of a firearm, capable of fending off mobs until law enforcement can arrive. In a city like Detroit, that could be the next day.
Rifleman1952 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:03 AM   #4
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,448
Many rural towns can be lawless in an instant
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:51 AM   #5
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,373
Quote:
How to answer Piers Morgan's question "why does anyone need to own an assault rifle"
A crude gesture with the middle finger works for me.
Until three days ago, I didn't know what a "Piers Morgan" was, let alone where it was from or what it thought about anything.
Now, I know, and I have no desire to waste another second of my life on it...
Hal is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:11 AM   #6
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
Why does ANYONE need to own a dog?

Do you realize how many CHILDREN are mauled by dogs every year.

And a dog can go off by itself.

I am a responsible dog owner, I have a little dog that jumps on the bottom of my bed at night. You have a big scary dog that's dangerous.

Lets do it for the children.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:21 AM   #7
Ridge_Runner_5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 8, 2008
Location: Castle Rock, CO
Posts: 1,841
Because the 2nd Amendment allows for the individual citizen to acquire the same firepower as an individual soldier.
Ridge_Runner_5 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:26 AM   #8
UtopiaTexasG19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2011
Location: S.E. Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 740
"Piers is so obsessed with private citizens' ownership of the AR-15 and its supposed source of inbred evil, he has abdicated his responsibilities as a journalist."

Let's put this in perspective.
Morgan is not a journalist. He is actually a arrogant game show host.
UtopiaTexasG19 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:29 AM   #9
Carry_24/7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2011
Posts: 795
Piers Morgan needs to be answered in a strategic, academic, planned manner. Anger and finger pointing at him can be an effective part if the plan, but it must be planned, tactical, and under control....passionate "going off" is a win for him.

Until we get the above, we should leave him alone. So far Piers 2, us 0 IMHO.
Carry_24/7 is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:33 AM   #10
BPowderkeg
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2011
Posts: 382
assault rifle i am so sick of reading about those horrible assault rifles, WE.., here and now need to stop using that term, i am reasonably certain we here know that "assault rifle" refers to full automatic firing with one squeeze of the trigger and holding it in that position until the magazine is empty !!

actually, in my OPINION there is no "NEED" to own an assault weapon, it is a "want" item and they are very closely regulated by our .GOV, besides, i do not believe we can buy an assault rifle for less than $10,000.00.., i know i can not afford one, can you ?
BPowderkeg is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:41 AM   #11
Moby
Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Posts: 89
Owning assault rifles reminds our representatives that "we the people" will NOT be controlled, but rather will do the controlling.

Our forfathers did not have hunting or home defense in mind. It is important that assault rifles be allowed to be owned and further more important the government does not know where they are.

The 2nd ammendment was never about hunting or self defense. It's about our leaders understanding they better not push the limits.
AS THEY'RE ABOUT TO TRY AND DO!
__________________
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” ~George Washington
US Coast Guard 76-86 Semper Paratus
Moby is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 09:42 AM   #12
dahermit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near Ohio, Indiana.
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Because the 2nd Amendment allows for the individual citizen to acquire the same firepower as an individual soldier.
This is the real reason for the 2nd Amendment. There is no apparent "need" today for a military weapon, just as there was no immediate need for a "...well regulated milita..", when the Second Amendment was included in the constitution, they were looking forward in the event there would eventually be the need for men and arms to counter some "need" in the future. The USA will not be a super power forever...no country lasts forever, not even ours. Borders are drawn, re-drawn since recorded history. When ours are in flux, that is when we would need not only semi-autos that look like assault weapons, but full-autos that are assault weapons. Or, are you unaware of what has happened in Yugoslavia, Syria, Egypt, Uganda, etc. let alone the Warsaw Ghetto? Is he completely unaware of the "need" for military weapons in his own country after Dunkirk? British naivety almost cost them their freedom then. This is how you answer him.
__________________
Sometimes you get what you pay for, sometimes you only pay more for what you get.
Three shots are not a "group"...they are a "few".

If the Bible is the literal, infallible, unerring word of God...where are all those witches I am supposed to kill?
dahermit is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 10:05 AM   #13
Double J
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2007
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 547
Back in Grandpap's day he was given land from a greatfull nation for killing loyal British subjects. He probably used one of those British assault muskets with the bayonet to sqewer those nasty Redcoats. It wasn't about hunting then anymore than it is now. Back then, it was not even legal for a Colonial to own a shovel with a metal blade for fear it could be used as a weapon. I think when the time comes to pick up arms, I hope we don't have to fight with wooden shovels. This is why we need "assault" rifles.
Double J is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 11:59 AM   #14
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 514
This question drives me nuts.

I need to own an assault rifle because NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:56 PM   #15
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,460
Quote:
I need to own an assault rifle because NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS.
I shouldn't have to prove a need to own one any more than I should have to do so to own a car that gets less than 30mpg, or a collection of garden gnomes, or the whole Franklin Mint collection of state shot glasses.

Rights are not codified by need.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 01:07 PM   #16
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Location: Mesquite Jungle Desert, West Texas, USA
Posts: 2,448
The government is like a bad parent; Jimmy doesn't do his homework and misbehaves, so we'll punish little sister honor student instead.

Cheaper than sending Jimmy to private tutors
__________________
Navin R. Johnson: "He hates these cans!!!! Stay away from the cans!!!!"

Last edited by rickyrick; January 9, 2013 at 01:16 PM.
rickyrick is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 01:23 PM   #17
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,568
I think the current problem is more accurately reflected in Reagan's quote:

Quote:
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.
We have a lot of people who can't see an armed man standing beside an unarmed one without coming to the conclusion that the armed man is a threat.
zukiphile is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 01:49 PM   #18
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,104
The fat man had too many Big Gulps which is why they should be banned - Mayor Bloomberg.

Anyway - Piers wouldn't accept any guns. If someone goes into a place - God Forbid with a six shooter and speed loaders - he would ban them.

Assault rifles or semiautomatic military style assault rifles are the flavor of his current antigun stance.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 01:55 PM   #19
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,766
You know, I can and have provided objective, logical reasons as to why a person might "need" a so-called "assault weapon" in the past. I am increasingly coming to the conclusion, however, that such an argument is beside the point and comes down to a red herring designed to distract us from the true issue at hand. The real question is why we should have to justify our rights not being taken away. It seems to me that our system of government was purposely designed to place the burden of proof upon those who wish to take rather than those who wish to keep. Morgan and his ilk cannot win a debate in which they must defend their own position, so they attempt to make us defend ours instead.

What we should be arguing is that Morgan and other people who wish to abridge our rights bear the burden of proving that their proposed restrictions represent a great enough benefit to public safety to justify the loss of liberty that they entail. Of course, Morgan and his ilk don't want to debate on those terms because the facts are not on their side.

Credible studies including those by the National Institute of Justice have found that so-called "assault weapons" are very rarely used in crimes to begin with and that their prohibition has no significant effect on violent crime. It is for this reason that gun banners resort to emotionally fueled arguments like "if it can save just one child, then it's worth it" but even that doesn't fly because we can just as easily show examples of children whose lives have been spared because either they or someone who cares about them was able to stop a violent criminal with a firearm.

Rather than trying to justify to Piers Morgan why we should be able to own an AR-15, Piers Morgan should be trying to justify to us why we shouldn't be able to own said gun. Because Piers Morgan wants to take away our rights, the burden of proof lies upon him rather than us.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 02:23 PM   #20
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,945
In pure Constitutional terms, the United States does still officially have a militia, and ALL of us who are male and between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of it. And the intent of the 2nd Amendment and of the Founding fathers (as was VERY clearly and explicitly laid out in contemporaneous writings by many of them) was that the militia -- in other words, the People -- should be armed sufficiently to overpower ANY standing army.

That's all out there, in black and white, and can easily be researched. The quotes keep popping up in these threads and can be copied and assembled into a single document full of supportive quotations. And the Militia Act (current version) is found at 10 USC 311 & 312: http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

To faithfully follow the logic and intent of the Founders, it would appear that the Army should be getting the AR-15s and we, the People, should have the M16s and M4s ...

But to faithfully follow the logic and intent of the Founders, we would not have a Federal Department of Defense, and we would not have a standing Army (or Air Force, or Marine Corps).
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 02:26 PM   #21
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,446
"Need's got NOTHING to do with it."
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is online now  
Old January 9, 2013, 02:49 PM   #22
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 4,696
Ever hear of the Bill of Needs?

Me, neither.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 05:04 PM   #23
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,084
What do I need?

Only food, water and shelter from the elements. I see these as no better the 3 hots and a cot, one gets in prison. Life would barely be worth the living if only the needs are met.
To derive pleasure from life there are many things I want and shooting my AR15 is but one of the pleasures of my life. No I have no need for an assault weapon. I do find target shooting, reloading, and maintaining my rifles a pleasure that I will not be deprived of because another used one to do harm to others. My life should be for my enjoyment, not a prison of minimal needs.
P5 Guy is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 05:11 PM   #24
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by skeeter View Post
Piers Morgan is always saying we have no right or need to own an assault weapon that was only made to kill people. I would like to ask him the following question. If he planned to rob someone's home what would he rather face, a 6 shot revolver or an assault rifle? I would much rather protect my family with an assault rifle.
Piers Morgan is a subject of England as were all his relatives going back over centuries. He says these things because he has always been ruled over and his fellow subjects have become accustom to this. As Europeans alike they do not understand our BoRs and so always fall back on needs. So my answer I don't have a need, I have a right in this country just like anyone else has a right not to own an AR 15.
mayosligo is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 05:44 PM   #25
Vermonter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2010
Posts: 948
My answer

The weapons I have chosen to hunt with and to protect my family with were chosen because they are the best tools for the job at hand. My job might be different than your job and my living circumstances might be different.

An AR is an example of a lightly recoiling weapon that is capable of being adjusted to fit a myriad of shooters and is realitivly easy to place consistent hits on target with.

If you live in a home where a variety of family members may need to use the same weapon to defend the family and the home not many better options come to mind.
Vermonter is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15229 seconds with 9 queries