So Do You Really Need an AR-15?
The liberal argument to ban these or any weapons is based on two and only two arguments. First argument is that “no one really needs a rifle like the AR-15.” The second is that “for the safety and common good, it is necessary to remove the right to own a weapon with military type features or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.” So let me make something perfectly clear: At no time are we required to justify our “need” of anything to the federal government.
In the mist of the heated debate on banning what the liberal media describe as “assault weapons” and the equally maligned “high capacity magazines” I have read many wonderful articles defending the American right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. Although on the surface these would seem to be the best way to deflect attacks on gun rights by liberals, I think most people are missing the liberal thought pattern which is the biggest threat to our Liberty.
The liberal argument to ban these or any weapons is based on two and only two arguments. First argument is that “no one really needs a rifle like the AR-15.” The second is that “for the safety and common good, it is necessary to remove the right to own a weapon with military type features or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.”
So let me make something perfectly clear: At no time are we required to justify our “need” of anything to the federal government.
As big of a threat to individual liberty that a ban on some particular weapons is and as bad a president that it sets for further gun grabbing by the federal government, it pales in comparison to the concept that the government can begin to base policy on the government deciding what the American citizen “needs”. It would be wonderful if we could depend on the government to make the proper call in these decisions. But looking at how the liberal’s prioritize what should be banned for the public safety, it seems like there may be more to their agenda than just saving lives.
If the liberals currently in control of the federal government were really concerned about saving lives by banning things we don’t “need”, there are a number of areas that would have a much greater effect.
Maybe the President could start by banning alcohol; no one can defend the “need” for intoxicating liquor and with 15,000 people dying in alcohol related auto accidents, the effect of lives saved would be immediate. This experiment did not work out very well the first time the government tried it but liberals have never had a problem with repeating failed policy.
Harry Reid could introduce legislation to ban all tobacco products. Again, there is no “need” for that product. Recently a federal court ordered the tobacco products manufacturers to apologize for a product that according to the federal government kills more people than AIDS, accidents and all murders combined. You would think the liberals first priority would be to do away with a product that kills more people than all not only all gun deaths but all murders total yet, this product remains absolutely legal and no permit or background check is required.
Or, how about football? The game most love to watch every Sunday for months at a time. We have heard a lot of talk from the left about “keeping the children safe”. Yet, an average of over a dozen children or young adults die every year from football injuries. While we may enjoy watching the game and some love to play the game, no one “needs” to play football – ever.
The list goes on and on – there is no need for auto racing, motorcycles, sky diving, trampolines, roller skates, bicycles … And once we have relegated the right for the government to define our “needs”, why would the government stop with a plastic box that holds 30 bullets? To save the environment who needs a 2000 sq/ft house or a personal car or to go to the movies?
I think that the banning of weapons might have more to do with disarming the American public than about public safety. Otherwise, the self-appointed government elite that seem to be determined to act as our nanny would be targeting products that are statistically killing our citizens year after year. Obama and his liberal allies sound like Castro or Chaves when they talk about eliminating rights “for our own good”.
Really, when you come to think about it, removing a citizen’s rights based on government defined needs is about as good a description of socialism as you can find and in reality, is the best explanation why citizens need the ability to defend themselves.
History has proven time and time again that in a free democratic society the one thing that is NOT needed is the government deciding what IS needed.
Mr. Treichler blogs at http://www.governmentvsliberty.info/
Start a conversation using these share links: