The Arguement of Need: Firearms Edition

With the New Year less than a month away,need these". First of all, we have statistical
Democrats are poised to take control of theinformation which shows unarguable proof these
House and Senate. This change in power hasvehicles cause unusually high death rates in
begun the rumors of increased gun controlAmericans. To begin, all cars which have the
legislation among a host of other liberal agendacapability to exceed 80 miles an hour should be
programs. When it comes to gun control, thereprohibited. The top legal speed limit in United
are two hot button issues which are going to beStates is 75 mph, therefore, car manufactures
the focus; the re-instatement of the flawedare encouraging crime and creating unnecessary
Assault Weapons Ban and the complete removalrisk to society by making cars for the private
of privatized ownership of the 50 BMG rifles.public with the potential to exceed the mandated
There have been a host of intellectually challengedlegal speed limits.
justifications behind these but my personalHow about swimming pools or watersports in
favorites have been "Why do you need these?".general? According to the CDC 2003 fatality
That poses a very interesting concept on thereport, unintentional drownings ranked 2nd as
basis of lawmaking. Regardless of the endlesscause of death in children under the age of 14.
stream of data showing the decline of violenceWhy do children need to be near the water?
since the ending of the assault weapons ban orBesides the joys of recreating in pleasant
the statistical void of violence committed with 50environment, there really isn't a need for
bmg, gun banners are trying to justify draconianswimming pools or waterskiing. Bathtubs should be
regulations based on the need of gun owners andoutlawed in favor of showers. Children under the
on the potential of the firearm to wreak havocage of 14 should be prohibited from fishing since
on society. Unfortunately, these arguments arethere is no need to catch fish when the
often accepted by those who choose to takesupermarket can provide them at whim.
them at face value and never really dig into theI guess the real question then fall on who
potential such arguments make. Blatantly put, it isdetermines what is needed. What is the legal term
a full on assault on the rights of Americans notfor need? Really, to preserve life, all we NEED is
just the Second Amendment.shelter, food, and water. When we start basing
For those who would tend to favor such a ban,policy of law on the concept of need and not on
allow me to place the same arguments on somefact or statistical risk, we have in turn removed
of society's more common "household items".our legal claim to anything not defined as
Make no mistake, I am arguing absurdity bynecessary with the opinion of those who mandate
applying it other elements of daily life, no just thelaw upon us. The precedence of NEED is a
2nd amendment. Let us start with privateslippery slope rank with the potential of eroded
vehicles. The car is part of the American dream.rights and wet with drool of anticipation of those
We are literally indoctrinated with television, media,who would strip us of what we have fought for
radio, and countless other adds to the benefits ofand held so dear for over 2 centuries. FREEDOM.
private ownership of vehicles, however, the car isNot just freedom as defined by the needs of life,
one of the leading killers in America. According tobut FREEDOM as defined by the rights guaranteed
the national statistics as presented by NCSAby the Constitution and the bedrock foundation of
Fatality Analysis Reporting System, over 43,000this nation.
people were killed in car related accidents. TheThe assault on any individual right, no matter how
silence of calls to ban cars has been deafening."logical" it may sound has a prevailing legal effect
Let us apply the legal question of "why do youoverall the rights we have.