Why Does Anyone Need an Assault Weapon?

In previous posts I’ve expressed a deep frustration with the Left’s inability to effectively expose the specious and fallacious nature of many of the arguments conservatives use to promote right-wing ideology and attack liberals. Over the years we’ve seen the left lose arguments that they should have won. The right has managed to push policy way over toward their own preferences even when the majority of Americans don’t agree with them.

In the aftermath of the horrific Newtown shootings I expected to see the same ineptness that I’ve seen in the past regarding the debate about gun control. However, I’ve been heartened by the way the pro gun-control side has finally begun to give the gun ‘rights’ side’s arguments the scrutiny that they deserve. And that scrutiny has resulted in those arguments beginning to crumble under the weight of logic and reason.

A couple of weeks ago I came across an article on Reason.com (the web site of the libertarian magazine Reason) titled:
 Why Does Anybody Need an Assault Weapon? Because They Want It. - Hit & Run : Reason.com
http://reason.com/blog/2013/01/17/why-does-anybody-need-an-assault-weapon

In my last post I made the following observation:

“… guns are a double edged sword. In some instances they can do good. They can prevent crimes and even save lives. They can diffuse dangerous situations. Of course in other instances they can do great harm. They can make dangerous people and situations exponentially more dangerous. And the more dangerous and lethal those guns are, the more dangerous and lethal those people and situations become.

The biggest obstacle, that I see, preventing us from achieving the healthiest and safest society we can is the refusal of the most passionate of us, on both sides of the gun issue, to see and acknowledge the reality of guns’ double edged nature.”

Well,  J.D. Tuccille, the managing editor of Reason 24/7 and the writer of the 'very thoughtful' and 'reasonable' article about why we need assault weapons demonstrates the mental block that most conservatives and libertarians have on the topic of  'free' societies and guns:

“Because in free societies, you don't have to justify owning things. You get to own them because you want them and have the means to acquire them. And you get to acquire more than just the basic necessities, if you so choose.

As I look around my office, I see a lot of stuff I don't need. There are two dogs aggressively shedding on the upholstery, a hat collection (panamas and vintage fedoras), CDs and DVDs, a shit-load of books ...If I owned only what I need, I'd be living in a spartan efficiency apartment, wearing a Mao suit and eating gruel. I have no interest in living that way.

My ability to acquire pets and stuff that I want without having to justify the acquisitions is an expression of my personal freedom. If I had to go, Stetson Stratoliner in hand, to some puffed-up bureaucrat to beg permission to purchase the boxed set of Firefly DVDs or a mutt rescue dog, I would very obviously be living in a state of severely constrained liberty. I would be unfree, even if that hard-working civil servant ultimately signed off on my acquisitions without extracting too hefty a bribe.

The appropriate answer to "Who the hell needs ... ?" is "hey, if you don't want one, don't buy it." The right to own stuff without an explanation is the right to be free.”

Here he is displaying little thought and no concern whatsoever with the idea of ‘the people’ taking on ‘the government’ whenever ‘they’ decide that it’s being ‘tyrannical’:

“At this point, many self-defense activists respond that the need for guns has to do with the ability to defend against tyrannical government. Then gun controllers chirp, "but you can't defeat tanks and nuclear weapons with rifles!" thereby demonstrating that they don't keep up with the war in Afghanistan and skipped their history lessons about some difficulties the U.S. military ran into in a place called Vietnam.”

Guerilla warfare! Sounds like fun! Where do I sign up?
How dare the Government take away my freedom by regulating my light bulbs! Hitler Fascist Commie Kenyans! Will the NRA train me how to hit a jack-booted government thug with a well deserved gigantic high-velocity bullet to the head? Maybe the thug will be related to me!
I can stand to lose some family members in the crossfire, too. They’re such a burden. My Mom is 93, it's time for her to go. Those Medicare cuts will only be eating up my inheritance just when I won’t have to pay any taxes on the money I did nothing to earn.

So, anyway, this article irritated me enough to leave the following comment:

“As a flaming liberal who grew up with a strong bias against guns (being how the bullets they fire tend to rip holes in people's bodies whenever they are headed in that direction) I still always valued the ability to reason well. That is why I always try to listen carefully to both sides of an argument so that I'm sure that I'm thinking in an orderly, rational way and not letting my emotional biases interfere with that process. This is why I eventually changed my opinion from a preference to ban all guns to an acknowledgement that in some instances guns can help to defend against and/or prevent crimes. So, I now favor relaxed concealed carry laws along with much stricter gun control laws. My motto: Less guns, less lethal guns, more of those fewer 'safer' registered guns in the hands of more trained and licensed law-abiding citizens and much less crime than any wild, wild west strategy you gun lovers propose.
However, according to you, the only thing that can safeguard my 'freedom' and 'liberty' is having to worry about some gun nut like James Yeager who wants to kill me because of my ideas. Thank God this guy hates tyranny that much. It's so comforting to know that there are many more people like him running around armed to the teeth just itching to use all of that fire power they've been stockpiling for all these years. It makes me feel so free -- I'm using irony of course, that's the opposite of how I really feel.

If only my freely elected government officials, who are obligated by the Constitution to promote my general welfare, could do something about this. Oh, wait. That's right. They can't be trusted because I’m told by well reasoned thinkers like you that they are hell bent on taking away my 'liberty.' Only right thinking, heavily armed patriots with hair-trigger tempers like James Yeager can be trusted. He just wants to take away my life. I can see it now, that’s the price I have to pay for my freedom. Finally, I can relax.

Speaking of 'reason' and the ability to do it well, it doesn't seem like you thought your positions out very much, because if you did I can't see how you overcame the numerous logical fallacies and problems they run into.

Comparing guns to dogs, clothes, CDs and books? Come on man, you can do better than that. I suppose you don’t see any difference between nitroglycerin and bleach. They’re both just chemicals, right? And bleach can be dangerous too! Ironically, your dogs need to be licensed (and 'shot' with vaccines) but your guns don't. Your clothes, CDs and books are regulated too. What an intolerable abridgement of your freedoms! Aren't you going to do something about that? Maybe James Yeager can help you with that. You can trust him; he's a gun loving patriot!

And, yeah, the ability to defend against tyrannical government. That's, by far, the soundest reasoning in your entire arsenal. (More irony)
Have you ever thought that concept through? Because it's riddled through with as masny holes as those Newtown children's bodies were from a magazine load of 2nd Amendment 'freedom' bullets.
Not enough room for me to go through those problems now but you should give it some thought and see if you can find some. That's what reasoning is all about.”

If you don’t know who James Yeager is, check out this charming video he put out on YouTube:
Video: Tactical Response CEO James Yeager Threatens to “Start Killing People” If Obama Strengthens Gun Laws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv4E7eDdVzg