Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

101 Reasons Why You NEED an “Assault Weapon”
Ammoland ^ | 26 July, 2012 | Evan Nappen

Posted on 07/27/2012 8:14:16 AM PDT by marktwain

Eatontown, NJ --( When I was Counsel to the NJ Coalition of Sportsman I wrote this piece for the April, 1991 issue of the THE GUARDIAN which was the group’s newsletter.

It was later published by Harper’s magazine. Here is an updated version as the issue is being pushed again by the blood dancing anti-gunners.

A question we are all tired of hearing in the so-called “debate” over so-called “assault weapons” is, “why does anybody need one?” Here is the answer once and for all.

You need an assault weapon—

* 1. to help continue the American tradition of citizen/soldier.

* 2. for recreation.

* 3. to collect military small arms.

* 4. to get quick extra shots at more game while hunting.

* 5. to get quick extra shots at the same game while hunting.

* 6. for more fun plinking.

* 7. to defend yourself against a street gang.

* 8. to defend yourself against mob violence.

* 9. to defend yourself against looters.

* 10. to shoot in a Civilian Marksmanship Program competition.

* 11. to shoot in an “Action Rifle” or “Practical Rifle” target match.

* 12. to assist the police in an emergency (e.g. 1966 Texas Tower Sniper incident, citizens assisted with M1′s).

* 13. to help defend the country from a foreign invasion.

* 14. to help defend the country from an internal takeover.

* 15. to help the firearms industry remain economically strong.

* 16. to pay the federal tax on guns that goes to aid wildlife.

* 17. to encourage further research into new firearm technology.

* 18. to save time while shooting

* 19. to have increased reliability in functioning.

* 20. to have a longer lasting firearm.

* 21. to have a less costly/ more affordable firearm.

* 22. to have an easier to manufacture firearm.

* 23. to have an easier to repair firearm.

* 24. to have an easier to take apart and clean firearm.

* 25. to have a more versatile firearm.

* 26. to own a highly weather resistant firearm.

* 27. to appreciate the evolution of firearm technology.

* 28. to defend your business.

* 29. to defend your home.

* 30. to defend your boat.

* 31. to defend your camp.

* 32. to defend your ranch.

* 33. to defend your farm.

* 34. to defend your family.

* 35. to have reduced recoil when shooting.

* 36. as an investment.

* 37. as a military souvenir.

* 38. as a hedge against inflation.

* 39. because criminals statistically prefer revolvers over all other firearms.

* 40. to have a more psychologically intimidating firearm. (often the mere presence of a firearm will stop a crime)

* 41. to own a firearm least likely to be used in a crime. (less than 1% are assault firearms.)

* 42. to own a firearm which purposely functions slower than other firearms thereby reducing recoil. (e.g. Remington 1100.)

* 43. to own a firearm used in Olympic competition.

* 44. to appreciate the mechanical genius of firearm designers.

* 45. to have a firearm which uses external magazines.

* 46. to shoot at the National Matches at Camp Perry.

* 47. to reject anti-gun bias.

* 48. to challenge “Big Brotherism”.

* 49. to protect yourself against a pack of feral dogs.

* 50. to own a firearm better for the physically handicapped.

* 51. to save all firearms by not giving in to “salami” tactics.

* 52. to do trick shooting (e.g. multiple aerial targets).

* 53. to shoot military ammunition. (Inexpensive surplus)

* 54. to be part of an armed populous, creating a tactical disadvantage for any potential enemies.

* 55. to familiarize yourself with your country’s military rifle.

* 56. to familiarize yourself with a foreign country’s military rifle.

* 57. because they are interesting.

* 58. to hang on your wall.

* 59. to shoot clay targets.

* 60. to shoot paper targets.

* 61. to shoot Metallic Silhouettes.

* 62. to exercise your constitutional rights.

* 63. to exercise a natural right.

* 64. to exercise a civil right.

* 65. to exercise a fundamental right.

* 66. to exercise an inalienable right.

* 67. to exercise a human right.

* 68. to defend yourself after a New York City-type blackout.

* 69. to defend yourself against a Miami-type riot.

* 70. to defend yourself after a St. Croix-type hurricane in which both officers and escaped prisoners have run amok.

* 71. to avoid a “Tiananmen Square” in the U.S.

* 72. to own a firearm in common use and therefore protected under the Heller decision.

* 73. to protect livestock from predators.

* 74. to show support for political ideals of the founding fathers.

* 75. to own a firearm designed to wound rather than kill (according to the Dir. Of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory).

* 76. to own a firearm not readily convertible to full automatic.

* 77. to own a firearm with that “shoulder thingy that goes up.”

* 78. to own a “state-of-the-art” firearm (e.g. FN SCAR).

* 79. to own a “turn-of-the-century” firearm (e.g. Borchardt).

* 80. which is more pleasant to shoot (lighter and less recoil).

* 81. because all of your other firearms will be banned next.

* 82. to own a firearm which is difficult to conceal.

* 83. to own a firearm which the media glamorizes.

* 84. to own a firearm which might be banned.

* 85. to own a firearm which is banned.

* 86. to own a firearm that is no frills and practical in design.

* 87. to own on of the most mechanically-safe firearms. (e.g. Uzi).

* 88. to own a firearm that is a “work of art”.

* 89. to own a Valmet M-76 which the BATF says has no sporting use.

* 90. to own a Valmet Hunter which the BATF says has sporting use. * 91. to own a firearm that made history (e.g. M-1 Carbine).

* 92. to shoot a firearm that made history.

* 93. to own a firearm that can be dropped and still function.

* 94. to own a firearm that can be coated in mud and still function.

* 95. to own a firearm that can be dunked in water and function.

* 96. to own a firearm that can be frozen solid and still function.

* 97. to own a firearm that can be buried in sand and still function.

* 98. to be a prepared member of the unorganized militia as defined in the US Code (10 US Code Sect. 311 (a)).

* 99. to distinguish between an object and its misuse.

* 100.because you believe in freedom.

* 101.if YOU say you need one. In America, an individual’s need should not be determined by the state. There are approximately 100 million firearm owners in the country. That’s 100 million more reasons for owning any firearm.

About: Evan Nappen ( is a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for over 23 years. He is the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Visit his website at


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: assault; ban; banglist; constitution; semiautomaticrifle; youwillnotdisarmus
Evan Nappen is a stalwart defender of the Constitution.
1 posted on 07/27/2012 8:14:28 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

For 25m to 300m. Shotgun close in......scoped rifle further out.

2 posted on 07/27/2012 8:18:16 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

With all due respect for the thoughtfulness of the 101 reasons, there is but ONE reason. It is precisely because the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees that a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Whether the arms are held by citizens for hunting, personal protection - whatever, the government does not have the right to infringe on the possession. I take this to mean the Federal Government, which is specifically prohibited from infringement as the rest of the BOR discusses free speech, religion, billeting, etc.

Our founders knew exactly what they were doing, saying and writing. The real reason they kept this right foremost (only below free speech) is because they knew a time might come when citizens would have to protect themselves from tyranny. The tyranny of a mutated Federal Government involved in lives they seek to subjugate.

The next time you hear a liberal tell you ‘that gun is an assault weapon and isn’t for hunting’ you tell them “it most certainly is, it is for hunting and defeating bureacrats who seek to enslave you.”

3 posted on 07/27/2012 8:26:38 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

4 posted on 07/27/2012 8:31:24 AM PDT by patriotUSA (Thank you Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

Exactly. I just need one, because I want to.

/To NSA minders, I don’t own one ..... stop checking on me.

5 posted on 07/27/2012 8:35:54 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

My answer to folks who remark that I don’t “need” an assault rifle has been...

“Maybe. But what if I ever do?”

6 posted on 07/27/2012 8:39:00 AM PDT by Chasaway (Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I don’t need any reason. It isn’t part of the criteria for a right. A right should come without restrictions.

7 posted on 07/27/2012 8:43:07 AM PDT by BuffaloJack (Repeal Obamacare, the CITIZENSHIP TAX)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chasaway

Perzackly. As with medical powers of attorney and wills, when you need one, it’s too late to get one.

8 posted on 07/27/2012 8:43:48 AM PDT by jagusafr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

102. Because it liberals democrats off.

9 posted on 07/27/2012 8:46:17 AM PDT by agooga (Struggling every day to be worthy of their sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agooga

Try again:

102. Because is PISSES liberals off.

10 posted on 07/27/2012 8:47:44 AM PDT by agooga (Struggling every day to be worthy of their sacrifice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

While I can appreciate what Nappen is trying to do, he failed even before his list of reasons started. Why? Because he adopted the terminology of the enemy (domestic enemies, actually), which is to call a semi-automatic firearm that takes a box magazine an “assault weapon.” For those that do not know, and “assault weapon” is properly defined as a select-fire weapon that fires an intermediate-sized rifle cartridge. “Select-fire” means “capable of fully automatic fire” i.e. more than one bullet will leave the barrel per trigger pull. By definition, a semi-auto requires one trigger pull per round fired, so NONE of them are “assault weapons” no matter how much they may cosmetically look like a real “assault weapon.”

I wish that Nappen and others on our side would stop using the language and assumptions of our domestic enemies. He who sets the terms of a debate wins it, because the other guy is always on defense.

For the record, if the evil Schumer addition to the cyber security bill is approved by the House, I can guarantee that there will be a LOT of otherwise solid Republican voters that will find it far more convenient to go to the range or reload a bunch of ammo than to vote. YES, that’s a threat to the Republicans in the House - KILL THIS BILL OR RISK LOSING YOUR SEAT!

11 posted on 07/27/2012 8:51:34 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
because every one of our founding fathers said I should have one to preserve and protect the freedoms that they fought and died for. Hell yes they meant for us to have assault weapons and they meant for us to be well practiced with them and ready to use them against our government should the need arise. That is what they meant and that is all that they meant and our supreme court justices have recognized this. IT WAS NEVER ABOUT DEER HUNTING!!!!!

ANTONIN SCALIA (Supreme Court Justice) "It would be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated 'Militia.' Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that . There is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant." A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton University Press "[T]hey [the Founders] feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights." A Matter of Interpretation

JOSEPH STORY (Supreme Court Justice) "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally...enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p.3:746-7, 1833)

CLARENCE THOMAS (Supreme Court Justice) "The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. If the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protections" (U.S. v. Printz, 1997)

12 posted on 07/27/2012 8:52:10 AM PDT by RC one (this space intentionally left blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuffaloJack
I don’t need any reason. It isn’t part of the criteria for a right. A right should come without restrictions.

Exactly - that is what "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed" [emphasis added] means. We don't have to justify it, just like no one has to justify attending a house of worship (or NOT attending a house of worship).

13 posted on 07/27/2012 9:21:16 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer

1) Cuz’ I want one.

That’s all the reason I need.

14 posted on 07/27/2012 9:26:26 AM PDT by super7man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

This is stupid and plays right into the hands of liberals. We’re still trying to play their losing game of answer the charges. They’re controlling to conversation and language. Its our RIGHT to keep and bear arms period, end of discussion, debate over. Its inalienable. Theres no need to justify it.

15 posted on 07/27/2012 10:14:09 AM PDT by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: agooga

Same thing...

16 posted on 07/27/2012 10:46:56 AM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Northwest Indiana Times

Bystander killed in shooting of 2 officers near Indianapolis
3 hours ago • By The Associated Press

PENDLETON, Ind. (AP) — A man opened fire as police arrived to investigate a reported disturbance at a central Indiana home, killing a bystander in a nearby car and wounding two officers before apparently taking his own life, police said Friday.

Pendleton Police Chief Marc Farrer said the suspected gunman, 59-year-old Jim Kenneth Bailey of New Castle, was found dead Friday morning outside a residence in the town about 25 miles northeast of Indianapolis.

Farrer said police believe Bailey fatally shot himself at some point during an hours-long manhunt that followed the Thursday night shooting, which left the two officers with injuries that were not considered to be life-threatening. The chief said Bailey had been armed with an AK-47 assault rifle.

police dog was struck and killed in the shooting.

17 posted on 07/27/2012 10:52:01 AM PDT by KeyLargo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

To maintain the security of the FREE STATE!

18 posted on 07/27/2012 10:59:53 AM PDT by meyer (It's 1860 all over again - the taxpayer is the new "N" word)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson