So Do You Really Need an AR-15?

ar15Patriot Post – by Scott Treichler

In the mist of the heated debate on banning what the liberal media describe as “assault weapons” and the equally maligned “high capacity magazines” I have read many wonderful articles defending the American right to bear arms and the Second Amendment. Although on the surface these would seem to be the best way to deflect attacks on gun rights by liberals, I think most people are missing the liberal thought pattern which is the biggest threat to our Liberty.

The liberal argument to ban these or any weapons is based on two and only two arguments. First argument is that “no one really needs a rifle like the AR-15.” The second is that “for the safety and common good, it is necessary to remove the right to own a weapon with military type features or a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.”

So let me make something perfectly clear, at no time are we required to justify our “need” of anything to the federal government.

As big of a threat to individual liberty that a ban on some particular weapons is and as bad a president that it sets for further gun grabbing by the federal government, it pales in comparison to the concept that the government can begin to base policy on the government deciding what the American citizen “needs”. It would be wonderful if we could depend on the government to make the proper call in these decisions. But looking at how the liberal’s prioritize what should be banned for the public safety, it seems like there may be more to their agenda than just saving lives.

If the liberals currently in control of the federal government were really concerned about saving lives by banning things we don’t “need”, there are a number of areas that would have a much greater effect.

Maybe the President could start by banning alcohol; no one can defend the “need” for intoxicating liquor and with 15,000 people dying in alcohol related auto accidents, the effect of lives saved would be immediate. This experiment did not work out very well the first time the government tried it but liberals have never had a problem with repeating failed policy.

Harry Reid could introduce legislation to ban all tobacco products. Again, there is no “need” for that product. Recently a federal court ordered the tobacco products manufacturers to apologize for a product that according to the federal government kills more people than AIDS, accidents and all murders combined. You would think the liberals first priority would be to do away with a product that kills more people than all not only all gun deaths but all murders total yet, this product remains absolutely legal and no permit or background check is required.

Or, how about football? The game most love to watch every Sunday for months at a time. We have heard a lot of talk from the left about “keeping the children safe”. Yet, an average of over a dozen children or young adults die every year from football injuries. While we may enjoy watching the game and some love to play the game, no one “needs” to play football — ever.

The list goes on and on — there is no need for auto racing, motorcycles, sky diving, trampolines, roller skates, bicycles . . . And once we have relegated the right for the government to define our “needs”, why would the government stop with a plastic box that holds 30 bullets? To save the environment who needs a 2000 sq/ft house or a personal car or to go to the movies?

I think that the banning of weapons might have more to do with disarming the American public than about public safety. Otherwise, the self-appointed government elite that seem to be determined to act as our nanny would be targeting products that are statistically killing our citizens year after year. Obama and his liberal allies sound like Castro or Chaves when they talk about eliminating rights “for our own good”.

Really, when you come to think about it, removing a citizen’s rights based on government defined needs is about as good a description of socialism as you can find and in reality, is the best explanation why citizens need the ability to defend themselves.

History has proven time and time again that in a free democratic society the one thing that is NOT needed is the government deciding what IS needed.

Mr. Treichler blogs at

7 thoughts on “So Do You Really Need an AR-15?

  1. Actually they’re not “liberal” anything; they’re merely statists pursuing an evil agenda. Obviously they don’t care about things like public safety, general well-being, etc., because if they did, they wouldn’t be murdering innocent people all over the world, staging false-flag terrorism, trashing the economy, shredding the Constitution, pushing the world toward WW3, etc.

    Of course they want to disarm everyone because you cannot run the world from any kind of a political platform remotely resembling a “Constitutional Republic”…thus we no longer have one.

    As their agenda for world domination and control becomes so obvious that even the most morally cowardly people among us can’t rationalize it away, our Masters really have no choice but to try to disarm us.

    IOW, as they lead us down the path to self-destruction, no doubt we will get to a point where lots of people have nothing left to lose, and they will start pushing back…and that’s what our Masters are afraid of. Thus it’s only logical that they will do anything and everything in their power to limit the availability of “hardware” with which the oppressed peasantry can fight back – when we finally get to the tipping point.

  2. WAKE UP!!!!!!

    It’s not the freekin “liberals” or the equally freekin “conservatives”.

    That’s how they have so far gotten away with the endless march of tyranny on the sovereign US citizens – it’s all the same with a different label.

    First it was Bush senior, so we voted in Clinton.

    That didn’t work so we voted in Bush Junior.

    That didn’t work so we voted in Obama.

    And that didn’t work either – each of them just codified the previous tyrannical power grabs, and added to them

    The 2 party system is a bust. We need a third and forth party, and absent that, we need what Thomas Jefferson advised us of, a Revolution.

  3. The premise is good, but blaming so-called “liberals” is a ruse. I have liberal friends who own guns, and they are just as protective of them as are conservatives. The big divide is between the haves and the have nots. It’s really that simple. This whole right vs left paradigm is an invention to keep us fighting against each other instead of fighting the real enemy.

  4. What doug said.

    Here is the definition (Mirriam-Webster’s dictionary) of a “Liberal”…do you see anything there about being anti-US Constitution? Anti-Second Amendment?
    adjective \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
    Definition of LIBERAL
    a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts
    b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
    a : marked by generosity : openhanded
    b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way

    c : ample, full
    obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
    : not literal or strict : loose

    : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
    a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
    b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives”

    Personally, I like being generous, open-minded with ideals of individual economic freedom, broad-minded and especially not bound by authoritarianism and a man of free birth. Because that is exactly what I strive to be. Pelosi? Feinstein, Obama and Biden? Anti-constitutional fascists/extremists. Hardly liberal by definition. They voted for every invasion of innocent sovereign nations Bush and Obama wanted to invade…there is a difference??? How so??

    Exactly where did you go so incredibly misinformed, Scott Treichler? Did you fall asleep wearing earphones while listening to the fascist Rush Limbaugh? Do you embrace the fascists/conservatives attacking Americans like Chuch Hagel over his non-genuflecting of Israel?

    Define Liberal for me, Mr. Treichler, and why you reject George Washington’s “fervent wish we have established a LIBERAL NATION”, please. Thank you. They were LIBERALS, and THEY WANTED US TO OWN GUNS.

    Come join the Light, stop embracing the Darkness of ignorance and allegiance to propaganda. We have ONE party now: The American Fascist party, with two “branches” Overt fascists and covert fascists…but more and more, the covert are coming out of their fascist closet, and those with eye open see them for what they really are: Anti-America, Pro-Oligarchy/fascists.

    Open or shut Mr. Treichler? Open or shut? I am growing very weary of those trying to drive wedges between Americans with falsehoods…VERY weary.

    1. Our founders were liberal in their assertion of our absolute inalienable rights. But to call the cabal we have today fascistic defies reality.
      Here, I will clear it up for you.
      Republicans = national socialists, neo-cons.
      Democrats = soviet socialists, communists.
      The bottom line is they are all international socialist insurgents and to support either in the smallest degree is to support socialism which is to support constructive treason as socialism in any form is collectivism, which is repugnant to and the absolute opposite of the individualism dictated in our Bill of Rights, which is the first ten articles in our Constitution, which has been subverted over and over again to the point that its meaning has been turned around 180 degrees.
      Now if this contention fits in with your liberal philosophy, I agree. If not, just who are you and what do you believe?

  5. Question: Should Obama Ban Guns?
    YES! For all TSA,DHS,ATF,FBI,NSA,CIA,Secret Service & all other abc soup agencies SHOULD BE GUN FREE!

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.