You Don’t Need That Kind of Gun! And Other Fallacies. [VIDEO]

You Don’t Need That Kind of Gun! And Other Fallacies. [VIDEO]

You Don’t Need That Kind of Gun! And Other Fallacies. [VIDEO]

Ever since the Parkland school shooting that took place on Valentine’s Day, we’ve heard these statements ad nauseam:

“You don’t need that kind of gun!” “No one needs an assault weapon!” And on, and on.

You can point out all sorts of scenarios where such rifles may be necessary for a citizen’s well-being. But let’s assume the Nanny State Overlords are correct here. Then why should we stop with firearms?

After all, according to the most recent figures on the leading causes of death in America, homicide by gun is the fifth leading cause of injury deaths for all age groups. Number one is poisoning — mostly from drug overdoses. Second is vehicle collisions, which is nearly triple the number of gun homicides.

So we need to . . . do something! And as a hypothetical Nanny State Overlord, I have a Great Idea.

First, ban sports cars, trucks, SUVs, and other large vehicles. And then introduce the Trabant.

The Trabant was a car that East Germans drove from 1957 to 1990 — until, of course, the Wall came down and they could buy BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes like their cousins in West Germany. But seriously, a Trabant is the best car to force people to drive safely. With its two-cylinder, two-stroke engine, the piece of crap car isn’t exactly a high-performance vehicle. You can’t put the pedal to the metal very well in a Trabant. And it’s absolutely not sexy. But who needs that, right? You don’t need a big powerful car. But if you absolutely must have a family truckster vehicle, here’s the Trabant version of the station wagon:

And speaking of cars, people under 21 shouldn’t be driving, anyway. After all, traffic collisions are the biggest cause of injury among the 15-24 age group. So if someone under 21 doesn’t need a firearm, then they don’t need a drivers’ license, either. So all the high school David Hogg groupies can just get mom or dad to take them where they need to go. Or public transportation. Suck it up, buttercups. It’s to save your lives. That’s what you’re all about these days, right?

And speaking of the teen crowd, I, as your Nanny State Overlord, have also determined that no child under 21 should have a smart phone with social media apps. It’s because suicide is the second largest cause of deaths among that 15-24 age group. And what’s one of the biggest culprits of teen suicide? Cyberbullying. So for teenagers, I now deem the Jitterbug phone as the only cell phone that they can legally carry, but only if texting and photos are also disabled. Hey, if it’s good enough for Grandpa, it’s good enough for them.

One more thing: if you share your life with a big four-legged hunk of love and loyalty — also known as a dog — you might have to find a new home for your pooch. There are too many dogs that fit into the category of “aggressive breeds.” In fact, one neighborhood in Kentucky is making sure everyone is safe from marauding canines. So they’re banning not only the notorious “pit bull,” but ten other breeds as well, including German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Great Danes, and St. Bernards. So if you thought that you don’t need a gun because your big buddy with big teeth would keep you safe from home invaders, you might rethink that. You don’t need that kind of dog; after all, they’re like the doggy version of the AR-15 — big and scary. Some of them even have (gasp!) black fur.

Obviously I exaggerate here. But do you see how freedoms can be taken away in the name of “safety,” and can turn citizens into compliant little sheep?

I don’t know this man, but I would love to shake his hand, and buy him a beer. The comments he made at a City Council meeting in Greensboro, NC, eloquently say what many of us believe with all our hearts:

Now a private citizen cannot own a rocket launcher, or a bazooka, or a fully automatic machine gun. We as Americans pretty much agree with those laws. But no good citizen should have their ability to protect themselves with a semi-automatic weapon taken away, whether they own a rifle or a handgun. It doesn’t matter. Free people don’t have to show “need” to exercise their inherent rights.

Written by

Kim is a pint-sized patriot who packs some big contradictions. She is a Baby Boomer who never became a hippie, an active Republican who first registered as a Democrat (okay, it was to help a sorority sister's father in his run for sheriff), and a devout Lutheran who practices yoga. Growing up in small-town Indiana, now living in the Kansas City metro, Kim is a conservative Midwestern gal whose heart is also in the Seattle area, where her eldest daughter, son-in-law, and grandson live. Kim is a working speech pathologist who left school system employment behind to subcontract to an agency, and has never looked back. She describes her conservatism as falling in the mold of Russell Kirk's Ten Conservative Principles. Don't know what they are? Google them!

  • Scott says:

    Kim, I liked most of the post, as usual, but i’ve gotta disagree with a couple points. First, you say you exaggerate, but you’re actually just stating the facts.The second is where you say “Now a private citizen cannot own a rocket launcher, or a bazooka, or a fully automatic machine gun.” that’s not true, a citizen can own a machine gun, if they jump through lots of hoops, pay a special tax (can afford lots of ammo), and the machine gun in question was made before 1980. and lastly, you state “Americans pretty much agree with those laws” and certainly, many do, but those of us who understand the second amendment, and why it was put in place (reading the Federalist papers, and other writings by the founding fathers really helps put this in perspective, too bad it’s not taught in schools anymore, by design of the leftists of course) do not agree with this at all. Banning such things is the first step on the slippery slope that you argue against in the rest of your piece. Prior to the 1930’s, a citizen could buy any or all of these things and could do it at Sears! Even back then, leftists used the actions of a very few outlaws (Bonnie and Clyde, Dillinger, Capone and the like) as an excuse to pass the law limiting ownership of them. The real reason that many of those types rose to power was the fact that the nanny state you so accurately describe banned alcohol… and just like a gun ban would, it caused far more problems than it fixed, and not surprisingly, criminals ignored that ban as well…
    Sorry for the long post

  • Jon says:

    Dude, I am not worthy to buy a cup of coffee, let alone a beer. Should you be in Indianapolis, well give me a shout….

  • David Landini says:

    ‘You don’t need that type of gun.’

    Is this an echo of Karl Marx and his infamous slogan ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’?

    The left claim that we are allowed to have what we need, or more particularly, what they think we need, and no more.

    Having a leftist deciding what we can have and do is anathema to free men and freedom.

    As the examples of Marx’s disciples (Lenin, Stalin, Moa etc) have shown, the left will use any action, including prison, murder and war, to defeat their opponents.

    We need the arms capable of securing and preserving our life and liberty; and any politician that wants to prohibit this necessity is the politician we need arms to defend ourselves from.

  • Mike Rentner says:

    Giving in on the machine gun and bazooka has led us to where we are now. There is no legal justification to infringe the right to own a machine gun or a bazooka. The second amendment is to allow the people to form armies, and the founders fully intended the unorganized militias to take on the largest, most powerful military in the world, the British.

    Once you concede that machine guns are bad, then it’s only a matter of degree to ban rifles.

    • BikerDad says:

      Sigh, this hoary old chestnut of misinformation again… the British were NOT the “largest, most powerful military in the world.” They had the most powerful NAVY. Their army was so undermanned that they had to hire in some of King George’s distant cousins. They were, in large part due to lessons learned during the Seven Years War, known locally as the French And Indian War, transforming their army into a professional service, one of the first of the European powers to do so.

      Britain was a great power, but not the greatest. The strongest case for holding that title in 1776 was France’s, but even that was clearly disputable. Britain secured the Top Dog position in 1815 with the final defeat of Napoleon. In a straight match-up between the colonies and the Empire, we didn’t stand a chance. Fortunately for us, there was far, far more going on than just our little dust up.

      Now, aside from that niggling bit of pedantry, the point regarding the military application of the arms protected under the 2nd Amendment is correct. I would venture that any arms short of weapons of mass destruction, i.e. Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons, are protected under the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd is to insure that Americans have the ability to change their own government, including over the objections of said government. (See: Declaration of Independence for supporting documentation.)

  • MrSatyre says:

    Kim, you picked cars as something else “no one needs”. Unfortunately, that’s exactly one thing that liberals would love to ban because “greenhouse emissions”. They’d love to force universal mass transit on us all.

    When banning guns comes up on occasion with liberals I know, I mention cars needing to be banned, add add that guns are inanimate objects, incapable of killing anyone unless a person uses it. By their logic, the gun is at fault; so because cars are also inanimate objects, they must be at fault for killing no vastly more people than guns, and should also therefore be banned. The liberals always smugly reply “But cars aren’t designed to kill people like guns are.” “And yet,”I tell them, “according to your logic, they do. Why doesn’t that disturb you? Something designed not to kill people is killing tens of thousands of people every year. What if your lawnmower or blender started killing people? Or your TV remote control? Wouldn’t that alarm you?”

  • Surellin says:

    When people say, “You don’t need that” they really mean “I don’t think you should want that”. But that sounds a lot less authoritative and more whiny. And another thing – Bernie said that we don’t NEED 23 different kinds of deodorant. True enough – since deodorant is neither food, nor water, nor shelter, we don’t NEED any at all. Whenever we hear some tin pot tyrant use the word “need”, we should do a quick reality check.

  • thesgm says:

    Alright, let me explain up the automatic weapon and bazooka ban in a way that supports my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment; a person has a right to own personal weapons for defense of self and community. A personal weapon is one that a person can carry and maintain as an individual. Traditional machine guns, like the M249 SAW or the M240B or the M2 are crew served weapons. One guy carries the weapon, one guy carries the ammo, one guy carries tripod (M2) and another guy carries the spare barrel. Same thing goes for any type of rocket launcher; a person cannot deploy or maintain the weapon effectively as an individual. They don’t fit my definition of the 2nd Amendment.

    Machine pistols like the Thompson are a little different. The constraint there is the amount of ammo they will burn through. The OughtaGetems are a huge waste of ammo and is the precise reason that the select m4 and m16 are not fully auto but rather 3 round burst. So while SMGs are able to be deployed as an individual, I contest that they would be effective for personal or community defense. I can envision when the black helicopters are coming, some moron with a full auto M4 will be begging me for ammo early in the fight. I would say that full auto is not sustainable for a local militia with limited supply lines. And I wouldn’t support the spray-n-pray method of home defense in a crowded community.

    I am not butthurt about the full auto ban at all.

    Now, the process of banning and confiscating weapons, the ultimate liberal goal, is undefined. Somehow, we don’t have the resources to deport 20 million illegals but we have the resources to no-knock search 150 million homes…? I don’t get it. My point is, without home searches, the government will NEVER get all the weapons. Bans and confiscations are not feasible. But the lives!!

    So, why don’t we save some lives? How about drunk driving? It is still a problem but there is an actual solution that is readily available…intoxilocks.

    If we want the government to SAVE JUST ONE LIFE! lets pass legislation mandating that by the year 2020 every new car must have an intoxilock installed and by 2022 every car must have one. That would save lives and the technology already exists. And damn, imagine the graft available for the Dems!

    While I would hate the intrusion of having to blow every time I start my car, I would love that it requires the stupid liberals to have some skin in the game. Right now, they only want to ban shit they don’t use; guns, meat, pickup trucks. The goal of most liberal policies is to make their enemies give up something they love or do something they hate while they sit smug and superior.

    Installing intoxilocks places an imposition, a personal cost, on them. That will be new to them, and shocking. And that, like Michelle Obama’s school menus, will do more to create future conservatives and libertarians than any Republican in congress ever will.

    • BikerDad says:

      a person has a right to own personal weapons for defense of self and community. A personal weapon is one that a person can carry and maintain as an individual.

      Except that definition does NOT conform to the reality on the ground that the Framers dealt with. THEY did not implement any sort of “crew served weapon” control, and there WERE crew served weapons in private hands. Not only were they in private hands, but they knew about them.. How do we know this? The Framers SPECIFICALLY addressed those hands in the constitutional provision on letters of marque. Nowhere did they say that privately owned American ships couldn’t sail around with cannons blowing stuff up. No, what they said was that ONLY Congress could authorize them to blow stuff up in the name of America. No governor, no ambassador, and no ship captain could grant a letter of marque.

  • Steve S says:

    Why not a “rocket launcher, or a bazooka, or” despite what current law says “a fully automatic machine gun”? Our Colonial forebears had cannons and grenades and launchable explosives. The most powerful firing platform was the armed merchant ship – privately owned, more powerful than anything the government had: indeed, Article I showed the government welcomed such ownership and was keenly interested in being able to bring them into service of the Nation. So, why not rocket launchers and bazookas?

  • I R A Darth Aggie says:

    You know what else you don’t need? that big fancy house. A 750 square foot efficiency apartment should serve. But Senator Sanders having 3 homes? totally cool.

    Surellin is right about the impulse of “I don’t think you should want that” = “you don’t need that”. But there’s another impulse: they don’t consider you a citizen but rather a serf, a wholly owned and operated resource of the “Government”, to be protected only as much as you are of value to the “Government”. Another belief of those folks is that they are an invaluable asset to said “Government” and no resources will be withheld from them.

  • Scott says:

    Thanks again, I should have figured you knew the details (you ladies at VG miss very little). And as always, spot on with the quotes from Heller. Justice Scalia is one of the best justices of all time IMO, and Heller was overall a great decision, I do disagree with some of that opinion of his. We need to remember that the British marched on Lexington and Concorde were doing so to confiscate privately owned ARTILLERY…

  • GWB says:

    You totally missed the deodorant/sneaker market when talking about needs:
    You don’t necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers
    So said Bernie Sandernista.

    There are LOTS of things I don’t need. The biggest one is someone telling me what they think I do and don’t need and trying to control my life on that basis. Guess which thing that I have, but don’t need, that I will get rid of first?

    BTW, when the Wall first came down, accidents increased significantly on the Autobahn. Because all those Trabants didn’t have the skill or speed necessary to fit in with high-speed, well-trained traffic. They quickly learned, however – out of need.

    Now a private citizen cannot own a rocket launcher, or a bazooka, or a fully automatic machine gun.
    Well, they damn well oughta be allowed to. When the 2d Amendment was written, private citizens owned cannon and well-armed ships alongside their muskets, swords and occasional automatic weapons. No, I’m not being facetious.

  • GWB says:

    Of course, the other possible answer is:
    Oh, yes, I *do* need that kind of weapon. Because there are an awful lot of you totalitarian fools and I don’t want to have to reload frequently when you stupidly come for my rights, my property and my life. As a matter of fact, I need even more potent weapons than a piddly medium-caliber semi-automatic. I wonder how your ilk will respond to a whiff of grapeshot?

  • Doug Purdie says:

    “Now a private citizen cannot own a rocket launcher, or a bazooka, or a fully automatic machine gun. We as Americans pretty much agree with those laws.”

    I’m not 100% sure I agree. An extremely liberal, progressive, anti-US Government friend of mine once said something very pro-2nd Ammendment: “Anybody ought to be able to own any weapon the government has”. I had no counter argument to that since the reason for the 2nd Amendment is to protect yourself from an oppressive government.

    Let’s say the government tries to take away a constitutional right like my right to bear arms. If the government parks a tank in my front yard, how am I supposed to defend my right If I don’t have a bazooka? If they send fighter jets, can I defend against them with my semi-automatic rifle, or would a surface to air missile launcher be a better option?

    I know private citizens owning such weapons seems crazy, but do you really trust the government with them?

  • Chris in N.Va says:

    Loved the car reference.
    When on the saber fencing team in college back in the *ahem!* late 1960’s, a fellow teammate had an old Renault Dauphine which we nicknamed “Essie” (short for escargot).
    It’s two-speed automatic transmission matched to an asthmatic 4-banger engine had the poor thing spastically thrashing back and forth between the two gears whenever we hit the mildest of hills. A real whiplashing thrill ride!
    Sound like that and the Trabant are a match made in —- some socialist worker’s paradise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner