Comment Doodlings: What does “Why to you Need that?” have to do with Freedom?

by Skip

Over at Bloomberg, Ramesh Pnnuru has piece on “Sensible Gun Legislation”.  A ‘fair enough” piece that brings up some items that an uncle of one of the slain kids at Sandy Hook Elementary that included a legal requirement to report a imminent threat (or suffer jail time for remaining silent), a standard for how guns are secured in the home (disregarding it could result in a felony conviction / large fine), Federally paid for security reviews and upgrades and a national team of grief counselors.

This post is not about the above (other than to point out “why the heck is it the duty of the Federal Government to pay for a local school – especially the grief counselors”? If it is THAT important, why isn’t the more local level of government doing these things?  But there was one comment that I did respond to:

Asked by “Leo”:

I just have one question for Matt A: Why?

Why do you own an AR-15 and 30-round magazines?

This is a 100% serious question. I’d appreciate a frank and full response. In legal terms, “the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Since “Matt A” had not left a reply, I left one:

Your “worthiness” evaluation of my Need is irrelevant in a Free Society.

If we truly live in the “Land of the Free”, then the phrases “why do you need that?” or “I have no idea why anyone needs <insert whatever here>  are based on an irrelevant premise.  In a Free Society, perceived “need” is only based on the what the acquirer believes to be a need – or even a want.  Not anyone else’s perception of such.

In other words, my freedom to have or to do something has (or should have) nothing to do with anyone else’s notion of what my needs should or should not be as long as I act responsibly, within the law, and cause no physical harm.  Whether you are offended or not by my possession of an AR is not my concern, and nor do I care about such retorts.

I am no lawyer, but I that is MY full and frank response.  I can, and do, and enjoy the use of my ARs, without respect to someone’s perception of THEIR need to deny me of the fulfillment of my need regardless of whether they believe it to be “worthy” or not.

True Freedom can be measured by the number of choices we can make for ourselves – not by the number that others “allow” us to make (or that have already been made on our behalf).

I should also add – the reverse is also true.  I may not be able to fathom your “need” for something, but as long as you also act lawfully and have no financial impact on me for you acting on your need, my perception is of no relevance at all from the aspect of Freedom.  Yes, I can opine and speak about it, but that should not stop you from fulfilling “your Need”.

And yes, it is a whale of a good time to concentrate on shooting rather than reloading when at the range (I do not hunt) – range time costs and I’d rather not pay to have to sit there refilling magazines, so I see nothing wrong with “large” capacity” magazines.

“Matt A” did respond to the question when I went back for a refresh:

Matt A in reply to Leo 4 hours ago Collapse

Hi Leo, thanks for posting your questions. The other replies more or less sum it up, but I’ll put it in my own words.

#1: Because it’s really fun to shoot. I don’t hunt, but I really enjoy target shooting, and an AR is just plain fun to shoot. Why 30-round mags? Well, because blasting through 30 rounds in as many seconds is also a lot of fun.

#2: Because my friends enjoy shooting it. I’m fortunate enough to have had the resources to acquire one; some of my friends are not so fortunate.

#3: I consider myself “independent”. By that I mean that I take pride in being able to build things, fix things, and handle situations that life throws at me on my own, without assistance from the local, state, or federal government. One of those potential situations is a need to defend myself or my family from harm; whether it’s a home invasion scenario or earth being invaded by aliens from Mars. :-)

I suppose I also fit the cliche of a person being wary of government overreach, and therefore wary of “tyranny”. I know that’s a bit vague, and in modern times it seems like an antiquated (and therefore irrelevant) concept; however, I enjoy studying history, and history is riddled with examples of the encroachment of tyranny upon civilizations in which the citizens did not even realize what was happening. Most of these civilizations collapsed upon themselves. Based on my reading, I firmly believe that tyranny is alive and well in the United States at this very moment, and that, if we do not alter our current path, we too will succumb to self-imposed collapse. How does having an AR-15 fit in? Well, I at least feel like I have a fighting chance of protecting myself and loved ones from whatever adversity comes our way.

Bottom line for #3: Better to have and not need than to need and not have. Or, in other words, for a feeling of security. Some people feel safer with more cops; I feel safer with a gun and more ammunition.

#4: I believe in exercising Constitutional rights. Rights not exercised will eventually disappear. The Bill of Rights was implemented because the colonists wanted to make sure that “Live, and let live” was built into the culture. If more people practiced this philosophy everyone would be a lot happier.

That’s pretty much it.

 Works for me!  I did like this question from the comments as well:

Why did Rosa Parks “need” to sit at the front of the bus?  She didn’t need to, nor did she need a why.  She sat at the front because it was — or should have been —  her right to.  No other explanation is necessary

One of the few times in life when I find the answer of “because” to be acceptable.

Leave a Comment

  • http://www.facebook.com/GreaterNashuaTea Gntp NH

    The Rosa Parks comment hits it…

  • C. dog e. doG

    Why does Ramesh Ponnuru “need” to spell his name with two “n’s” when one would do?
    – C. dog, Dept. of ABC’s, Bureau of Nomenclature

Previous post:

Next post: