So Thirdpower makes a post about how the anti-rights bigots have latched onto some more poorly thought-out rhetoric, which is “Why do you need a 30 round magazine?”. This of course is a re-run of “Why do you need an ‘Assault Weapon?'”, and the most basic “Why do you need a gun?”
Let’s step back from the guns for a bit. The wife and I have emergency savings. In the event that one of us loses our job we can cover all expenses for about a year before the money runs out. If it happened to be both of us (God Forbid) It would be closer to 8 Months.
Now we don’t NEED this money, and right now its just gaining interest at a modest rate. It would likely earn more if we invested it in stocks, or used it to pay down our mortgage, or it would give us more enjoyment if we spent it on a luxury item.
But we have it for an emergency when we might need extra cash either for some emergency (like installing a sump pump at 10:00 at night) or one of us loses our job.
When an Emergency or a job loss happens, we won’t be able to save up the money THEN, we need to do it BEFORE.
There are lots of other things that work like this. First aid kits, and the training to use them. Fire Extinguishers. Insurance of any type. AND GUNS!!!
My home is currently secure, and I am not in danger. But if I were to suffer a home invasion RIGHT NOW, I would much rather be reaching for a shotgun (tho in this current situation I’d be likely grabbing the FAL or my 1911) than heading to the local gunshop…or going over to my neighbor’s house and negotiation a price on one of his guns.
No I don’t NEED a gun right now, but there ARE situations where I would NEED a gun and need it in such short order that unless I am without a gun I’m in a world of hurt. So in that sense its pretty stupid NOT to have a gun. I don’t fault people for stupidity, but I’d rather not participate.
And of course now that I have my “Working Guns” (In my case its two 1911s, a Mossberg 590, and an FAL…Caleb has pointed out that that puts me in Heavy Metal Class), I should have a few training guns in .22, so I can spend more range time for less money. And with all those guns, what’s the harm in some collector’s peices and family Heirloom.
So no, you anti-freedom jerks, I don’t need to justify my rights or my possessions. I have no NEED for a Blue Ray DVD player and a widescreen TV, but I damn enjoy them! But when it comes to my guns, I just justified them RIGHT there.
Ready to give up yet?
And with all those guns, what’s the harm in some collector’s peices and family Heirloom.
For a given value of harm the gun collecting thing isn’t always what it might be. 🙂
I refuse to play into their game. I don’t have to validate a “need” to be “allowed” to have something. They have no authoritarian rule over me. As I commented on Joan’s post (for which she did not see fit to allow), “need” is subjective and there is nothing in the Constitution that says I must prove a need before I am allowed to have. On the contrary, government “needs” to prove there is a compelling reason to restrict my rights.
Hm. Time to dredge up a rather old post of mine.
In other news, the only appropriate response to the “need” argument is, “I reject your premise that I must explain or rationalize my needs to anyone but myself.” That is the initial position at which pro- and anti-rights individuals diverge, and that is the only point worth discussing.
Pingback: i do not need this, again | walls of the city