How to answer Piers Morgan's question "why does anyone need to own an assault rifle" - Page 4

357 Python · February 1, 2013, 06:34 PM

Why does Morgan need to wear a $1000+ suit when a $200 or $300 suit from Men's Warehouse or S&K will work just as well?

Tinner666 · February 2, 2013, 12:35 PM

I'd refer him to this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmin...about-america/

sigmund · February 2, 2013, 02:21 PM

There is a very good article addressing this by David Mamet at the Daily Beast. Essentially, he says that defining "need" is not any business of the government, and that any attempt to do so leads to repression and violation of rights.

Carried to its logical extreme, legislation of "needs" leads to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." We don't want to go there.

RickB · February 2, 2013, 04:46 PM

I shoot with a guy who's a former cop, and who now runs a shooting school. He wrote a great piece that focused on the "resisting tyranny" aspect of the argument, and when confronted with the "assault weapons are only for killing", his unapologetic response is, "Exactly, and that's why we need them!"
Another shooting buddy is a liberal high school teacher, and he is much less likely to be preaching to the choir when discussing gun control with friends and co-workers.
He warns that the resisting-tyranny argument holds no water with libs, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so why would anyone oppose it?
His pragmatic argument is based more on the lack of justification for the government's restricting the ownership of something that has almost no impact on pursuit of life, liberty and happiness of anyone, whether they own the object or not.
Ask a lib if they'd spend cubic millions of dollars enforcing enforcing any law that addresses an object that is almost never used in crime? What reasonable response can they offer?

mrbatchelor · February 2, 2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickB

He warns that the resisting-tyranny argument holds no water with libs, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so why would anyone oppose it?

The point I make to unreasonable liberals, and I make that distinction to separate them from rational liberals with brains, is that John Ashcroft started warrentless wiretaps under Dick Cheney using George Bush as his dupe. That brings them around quick.

Don't try that with people who can think. Won't work. But with the second group you can have a rational discussion.

mrbatchelor · February 2, 2013, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickB

He warns that the resisting-tyranny argument holds no water with libs, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so why would anyone oppose it?

The point I make to unreasonable liberals, and I make that distinction to separate them from rational liberals with brains, is that John Ashcroft started warrentless wiretaps under Dick Cheney using George Bush as his dupe. Those kind will get elected again one day, and if the pathway is clear they'll just march right through to dictatorship. That brings them around quick.

Don't try that with people who can think. Won't work. But with the second group you can have a rational discussion.

Glenn E. Meyer · February 2, 2013, 08:01 PM

Nighty - nighty for the dreaded liberal/conservative debate.

One can find liberals who agree with the defense against tyranny and conservatives who find it ridiculous.

Thus, we are closed.

February 2, 2013, 12:35 PM	#77
Tinner666 Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2012 Location: Richmond, Va. Posts: 353	I'd refer him to this article. http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankmin...about-america/ __________________ Frank-- Member, GoA, NRA-ILA, SAF, NRA Life Member

February 2, 2013, 02:21 PM	#78
sigmund Senior Member Join Date: July 16, 2000 Location: Urbandale, Iowa Posts: 346	There is a very good article addressing this by David Mamet at the Daily Beast. Essentially, he says that defining "need" is not any business of the government, and that any attempt to do so leads to repression and violation of rights. Carried to its logical extreme, legislation of "needs" leads to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." We don't want to go there. __________________ If you find yourself in a fair fight, you have not prepared properly.

February 2, 2013, 08:01 PM	#82
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	Nighty - nighty for the dreaded liberal/conservative debate. One can find liberals who agree with the defense against tyranny and conservatives who find it ridiculous. Thus, we are closed. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 1, 2013, 06:34 PM	#76
357 Python Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 2007 Location: Charlottesville, VA Posts: 941	Why does Morgan need to wear a $1000+ suit when a $200 or $300 suit from Men's Warehouse or S&K will work just as well?

February 2, 2013, 04:46 PM	#79
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,517	I shoot with a guy who's a former cop, and who now runs a shooting school. He wrote a great piece that focused on the "resisting tyranny" aspect of the argument, and when confronted with the "assault weapons are only for killing", his unapologetic response is, "Exactly, and that's why we need them!" Another shooting buddy is a liberal high school teacher, and he is much less likely to be preaching to the choir when discussing gun control with friends and co-workers. He warns that the resisting-tyranny argument holds no water with libs, as they think of the government as a benevolent nanny, so why would anyone oppose it? His pragmatic argument is based more on the lack of justification for the government's restricting the ownership of something that has almost no impact on pursuit of life, liberty and happiness of anyone, whether they own the object or not. Ask a lib if they'd spend cubic millions of dollars enforcing enforcing any law that addresses an object that is almost never used in crime? What reasonable response can they offer?