Need help with a FB response

[atctimmy]

tell me, tim, why you need that kind of weapon in a capacity outside of a military setting? i'd love to hear a reasonable answer from a gun advocate like yourself. i am not against carrying, but i think military assault weapons belong, well, in the military. not on our streets. and i certainly think alot of other things need fixing too, such as our mental healthcare system & access to that rather than access to semi automatics.

I'm hoping to respond to this friend with a good, solid, fact based response. I'd like some help refining my argument. Also some fact checking as well please.

My argument is as follows.

Dear Ann,

My response is three fold.

1) The first reason that "We the People" need these so called "military assault weapons" is the same reason that the Founding Fathers needed their muskets. It's the same reason that the founding fathers penned the Second Amendment in the first place. That reason is the defense of liberty, be it from an invading army or from our own Federal Government. Many people laugh at this but I'll remind you that since my grandfather was born more than 200 million people have been slaughtered by their own governments. All of those people were "conveniently" disarmed before their wholesale slaughter. Anyone who thinks it can't happen here is ignoring history and human nature. There is a genocide/mass murder in progress today in the country of Syria. It may not happen here in America for 50 or 100 years but I'm not going to sell out my children or grand children's ability to defend themselves.

2) Last year more people were murdered with knives than with rifles (all rifles, not just "assault rifles"). Last year more people were murdered by hammers and clubs than with rifles (all rifles, not just "assault rifles"). Last year more people were murdered with bare hands and shod feet than with assault rifles. People who are not deterred by laws against murder will not be deterred by laws against guns. "Military style assault weapons" cannot be magically eliminated. We can't put the genie back in the bottle and we can't un-ring the bell. The only people who will turn in their guns are the good guys. The bad guys will keep them. Laws only restrict the good guys and gun control laws are proven killers.

3) Lastly, this is America, land of the free. We don't have to justify a "NEED" for alcohol, fast cars, large cokes, milkshakes and fast food. All of which kill tens of thousands more Americans each year than so called "military assault weapons". Yet no one is asking if I "need" that double cheeseburger or that extra desert.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[suntzu]

I don't do politics, religion. sports, or discussions about guns on FB. Discussions like that with friends and family I do on the phone, face to face, or not all.

[buckeye .45]

There was an armed home invasion down here last week (or maybe the week before), with 6 intruders.

Edit: also, we don't have military style weapons, those are select fire.

[GeorgiaDawg]

Other than maybe defining what a real assault rifle is (minor point, IMO), it's spot on. I need more FB friends like you!

[rigel42]

You arguments are fine, but frankly it's none of your friends dam business why you want to own them. As far as legal "Assault Weapons" being a Military grade weapons, why is it no army equips their troops with AR-15s or semi-auto AK-47s??

[wmhawth]

Need help with a FB response

You don't need help. It would be hard to improve on what you have written. I especially liked paragraph # 3.

[TX expat]

You might want to consider adding large scale civil unrest and personal protection. Some people may live in sheltered, small communities where this is very far fetched, but anyone who lives in, or near, any large population center could be one social, biological or ecological disturbance away from an event that could easily require something more than 7 rounds just to survive. Is it likely? I'd say not really, but simply the possibility of it is enough to justify a "need" that doesn't really require a justification.

[accessbob]

I would also suggest to them, in support of argument #1, that they read the Federalist Papers #46 by James Madison (one of the framers of the Constitution) and how he points out EXPLICITLY that it is imperative that citizens have the ability to throw off tyranny should it appear. And that will only be remotely possible with having the best arms they can acquire.

[atctimmy]

I don't do politics, religion. sports, or discussions about guns on FB. Discussions like that with friends and family I do on the phone, face to face, or not all.

Then you didn't really need to respond then did you?

If at a later time you choose to step down from your high horse and contribute I'll be happy to listen.

[mcp1810]

4) ZOMBIES.

I think you covered it very well.
I think the key to dealing with folks like this is to give them a measured and rational response like what you have written. Properly written examples like the Korean shop keepers defending their stores during the L.A. riots, post hurricane looters etc. can be persuasive. The problem is that poorly written they can get you written off as part of the tin foil hat crowd.

[mg27]

Show her the graphic video called "The History of Gun Control" That video may be old but it sure made my reasons valid! Just a suggestion.. Good luck.

[mulle46]

I would add, why should my rights be restricted because of the actions of a lunatic? And what buckeye said, what the MSM calls military grade assault weapons are no such thing. The few civilians who do have legitimate legal assault weapons, are already highly regulated under NFA, with the class 3 license

[AngryBadger417]

You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. #3 was a pretty good point. I may use that sometime. Honesty I agree with what a few others have said. The only thing to add is what a real military assault weapon is.

[suntzu]

Then you didn't really need to respond then did you?

If at a later time you choose to step down from your high horse and contribute I'll be happy to listen.

Want me to go back and see if you have ever made any snide replies to anyone or made a comment not related to a thread?......If you had PM'ed me to clarify I was just making a comment and in now way was meant to offend you or anyone. But since you chose to take this to the forum I am replying here.
Prior to reading your "reply" I had already given a Like to Rigel for his comments which is "participating" in a thread.

[aus71383]

Needing the weapon outside of a military setting is the question - and that they belong in the military, not in the streets.

I would say that any person in a society should be able to support their military or act in its absence if needed. That doesn't mean rifles need to be "in the streets" - but then, nothing is really "in the streets" - that is just a scare tactic phrase used to coerce people and influence their thinking. If the need arises (for whatever reason) for a local group to form a militia and use force to defend their liberty - they must be able to do so. This means owning (responsibly) military type weapons. They don't need to be used every day by every person - maybe not even every decade - but they need to be available, and they need to be owned by free people, not just government agencies. What is responsible gun ownership? It is not accidentally shooting your friends and family, and not "losing" your guns or allowing them to be easily stolen. This is an individual's responsibility and no one else's business.

As for being "ok" with carrying, but not ok with rifles - where do you draw the line? A person can be one of two things - armed, or unarmed. Now take an armed person - one has a military style rifle, and one has a single action revolver from the mid 19th century. They are both armed - but they are not anywhere near being equally armed. This proposed legislation is clearly an INFRINGEMENT on the rights of the people. There are existing laws which many would argue are infringements as well. My opinion is that anything the military and police have, a person should be able to buy for themselves.

For me the grey area starts at rocket launchers, mortars, missiles, explosives, etc...

I didn't proof read this. Just rambling....

Austin