Random thought of the day

While I agree with the sentiment “Because F*$k you!” when asked something along the lines of “Why do you need X?” where X is a firearm, ammo, book, religion, speech, encryption, or any other freedom I think there may be a more productive answer.

I think my answer would be:

That is a totally inappropriate question. The proper questions are:

  • Where does the government get the power for infringing upon this right?
  • What justification does the government have for infringing upon this right?
  • Where is the evidence that this infringement will be a net benefit?

Make them prove their case. It’s not up to us to prove ours.


16 thoughts on “Random thought of the day

  1. Pingback: SayUncle » I think he’s talking about me

  2. “It’s not up to us to prove ours.”
    Exactly. We end up distracted from the point when we’re trying to prove our “need” or justify our choices. That’s not the point at all. The instant we begin down that road we have elevated our questioner/accuser to the status of judge. “F@&k You” may be an emotionally satisfying and even justifiable response but it does nothing to bring any understanding to the other person. To the contrary it will reinforce their negative opinions.

    Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something, and in some of these cases I believe that nothing may be the the very best thing thing to do. “Who died and made you king?” might work so long as it’s followed up with one of your examples or something similar.

    The really big problem is that the average American, the “default mentality” as I’ve been calling it, is essentially communist, and such responses will usually just incite heightened anger in the self-appointed judge of humanity and of world standing before you. They’re angry to begin with, as they’ve been implanted with it. They’re playing a role written for them long ago. Theyre a walking, talking ego. Simple, quiet discernment can be very disturbing to such a person. You may not need to utter a single word or raise an eyebrow.

    If you get upset though, you’ve lost. That was the judge/king’s goal. Once you’re upset you’ve been diverted. You’re no longer yourself. If you have to fight a war, and you probably will at some stage, do it calmly. Something the “peacenicks” (the war protesters who never seem able to recognize the necessity of national defense or defense of life and liberty) will never understand is that peace is not the absence of war, but a state of mind.

  3. The non-ideological folks aren’t communist, they are apathetic. Start broad and generic, get them to agree that if you aren’t doing anything wrong or hurting anyone else, you should be left alone. If they have a pet issue, even if you disagree, use that as a point of commonality.

    Most Americans will agree with that concept. You can burn down from there in detail, step by step, to the idea that, until you act, mere possession is harmless and if you are determined to act, laws can only punish you after the fact. If they are a lefty, pick a lefty cause du jour.

    I’m a salesman by trade, you get the sale by mirroring the other person in style and showing them how what you have to sell is something they want and need. Leading them, not convincing them.

  4. Another reason that I’d like to be able to use but I know will get as a screw you is “because this is AMURICA dammit”. There was a time that meant something.

  5. Pingback: Quote of the Day: Idaho Wisdom | The Truth About Knives

  6. Hmm. Let’s Role-Play this out.
    “Why do you need an Assault Rifle?”
    “Because I do.”
    “What do you mean, you do?”
    “I mean I do because I do.”
    “But what’s your reason?”
    “Because it’s the Tool I need.”
    “What do mean it’s the Tool you need?”
    “Exactly what I just said. It’s the Tool I need.”
    “But, how can you say a Gun is a Tool?”
    “Because ALL Guns are Tools. Some are used for one purpose, some for others, some for many purposes. Like other Tools, it depends on the Job, but in the end they are just Tools.”
    “But what possible Job is there for a Gun?”
    “The same Job that a Policeman uses, to end the Threat of Danger.”
    “But what Danger is there?”
    “The one that YOU use your Tool to Stop.”
    “My Tool? I don’t use Guns as Tools!”
    “Yes you do.”
    “No I don’t! I hate Guns! Why should I need a Gun?”
    “Do you ever see the possibility that you might have to call 911, which is a Tool, BTW, to call the Cops to save you from Danger?”
    “Well, yeah.”
    “And who shows up? Someone with a Gun, correct?”
    “Well, yeah.”
    “So we BOTH might “NEED” the SAME Tool for the SAME Job. The ONLY Difference between You and I is the fact that I don’t want to waste Time, and I prefer to do it myself. YOU want to call in the Handyman to Fix your Problem. But we BOTH end up using the Same Tools for the Same Job. My way is just Faster, and in those Problems where Guns are “NEEDED,” Seconds count, just like when a Fire Breaks out. And sometimes, there may be more than One Problem that needs to be dealt with. So I prefer to have the SAME Tools as the Police use. So the ONLY difference between You and I is that I DON”T have as much “NEED” for the Police as You do, because I have the Tools NEEDED to Fix the Problem. Think about it, and Have a Nice day.”

    Yeah, it takes awhile, and who knows if they “Get It,” but at least it’s More Polite. “Vinegar and Honey”, you know.

    • Nice fantasy, excellent actually, but you know it will degrade into ad homonim. It always does, because the motivation for the confrontation in the first place is hate. You’re going on pure reason.

  7. Those first two points are great. “Why do you need a car” — “It’s not up to anyone else, least of all the government, to require me to answer that question”.
    The third point is a different matter entirely. I would avoid that one. It opens the door to the notion that it’s ok to infringe on your human rights if people can put up an argument why “the greater good” would benefit from this.
    Would the greater good benefit from no cars? Maybe so — fewer car accidents. Fewer drunks driving over innocent bystanders. Would the greater good benefit from no newspapers, or no blogs? Maybe so — fewer people reading things that might cause them to object to what the government is doing to them.
    But those arguments are flat out invalid. The fact that someone might misuse something — and even the fact that many people might misuse something — has nothing to do with my right to own or use that thing.

  8. It’s a waste of time arguing with morons. “Because F&#K you” is the only response that actually makes any sense when someone trots out the old “Why do you need …” question.

  9. What do I need an assault rifle for?

    I need it because there are people out there who think they get a veto on what I determine to be my need, even if it has no bearing on them whatsoever. If you allow them that veto on any particular thing, they are never satisfied. There’s always something else they want to stick their grubby fingers into. They think they are doing ‘God’s work’, for whatever it is that fills the god-shaped hole in their minds. In pursuit of their holy mission to make a heaven on Earth, they will countenance theft, assault, slavery, detention, maiming and death, especially if they can get someone else to do it where they can’t see it. In the end, history has shown that they will fill mass graves. Their first priority, in every circumstance, is to make sure the people they want to impose their veto on cannot effectively resist.

    You can identify these people easily. They have a common refrain. It starts “Why do you need…” The rest of their statement doesn’t matter. The offensive part is in those first four words.

    And that’s why I need an assault rifle, ‘high capacity’ magazines and whatever else goes with them.

    But, damn it, the Why-Do-You-Needers got there first and I can’t get an actual assault rifle because of the 1934 NFA. So I’ll just have to make do with an AR-15.

  10. You should see the look on the face of a moonbat that asks me why I have a gun, when I answer “to shoot people”. You can almost hear the gears clashing and grinding. It’s an answer totally outside their box, no prepackaged response available, and derails them so badly that a conversation may be possible. “Who do you want to shoot?” Well, nobody, but if someone needs it, etc. Seriously, it would suit me fine if I never fire a shot at a human, but if I need to, I want to be able.

    • I like this response the best for it sums up the worst case scenario, where the grim necessity of having firearms to protect innocent life from evil, just trumps all. From this context, the waiting periods, ID cards, magazine limits, gun free zones and all manner of other gun control infringements on our firearm use stand out as pure stupidity.

      I have the trump card to every mass shooting in history. They were a mere drop in the bucket compared to the genocides of history by governments who disarm their citizens. So, I will keep my weapons to discourage this government from ever thinking that concentration camps will be acceptable.

      Never Again!
      Molon Labe!

  11. I need a Multipurpose Sporting Rifle with lots of standard capacity 30 rd mags for when the economy goes poo poo and the the people who thought we were crazy for not drinking obama-aid don’t have anything to eat and think I should feed them. I might even have to get some high capacity mags.

    • I wouldn’t call that “sporting” then. I’d call it a fighting rifle, unless you consider shooting people who are attacking you to be “sport”. Lets not fall into the “sporting purposes” trap. The second amendment has nothing to do with sport. You could call it a Multipurpose Fighting Rifle, or simply a Multipurpose Rifle. Why do you feel the need to include “sporting” unless it is an appeasement to the communists who claim that the only acceptable reason for having the firearm is sport? Lets not play their game.

  12. Mr. Evilwrench is doing it right. There’s no point in stipulating to ethical cripples; hit them with the clue-by-four and the redeemables might figure it out.

  13. I view it this way. My stating “Because !@#$ You That’s Why!” is merely stating that just because you or others may disagree or be uncomfortable, you have no right to say what I can and cannot do.

    To me it’s merely a statement need has nothing to do with it. If need was a necessity for the free exercise of inalienable rights, I’d want everyone’s mouth duck taped shut while in public. What reason do they have to spout their drivel, they might offend someone right?

    I’ve mainly devolved to that statement because frankly I got tried of dealing with idiots and arguing with their BS.

    “Oh, you want to trivially infringe my rights, where by screwing me and then ask why I need to exercise them, well in this case I need to exercise them because !@#$ you that’s why.” In all honesty I would exercise them anyway, but I’ll go out of my way when it causes someone to devolve into PSH over it. Just the same I’ll applaud a gay couple that kisses and sends someone into PSH and they proceed to do it more anyway.

    In the word’s of George C. Scott from Angus, !@#$ ’em!

Comments are closed.