A Lesson for the Left on ‘Needs’ and ‘Rights’

Having given up on trying to persuade Americans that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens will reduce the murder rate, Democrats have turned to their usual prohibitionary argument: “Why does anyone need (an assault weapon, a 30-round magazine, a semiautomatic, etc., etc.)?”

Phony conservative Joe Manchin, who won his U.S. Senate seat in West Virginia with an ad showing him shooting a gun, said, “I don’t know anyone (who) needs 30 rounds in a clip.”

CNN’s Don Lemon, who does not fit the usual profile of the avid hunter and outdoorsman, demanded, “Who needs an assault rifle to go hunting?”

Fantasist Dan Rather said, “There is no need to have these high-powered assault weapons.”

And prissy Brit Piers Morgan thought he’d hit on a real showstopper with, “I don’t know why anyone needs an assault rifle.” Of course, where he comes from, policemen carry wooden sticks.

Since when do Americans have to give the government an explanation for why they “need” something? If that’s the test, I can think of a whole list of things I don’t know why anyone needs.

I don’t know why anyone needs to burn an American flag at a protest. The point could be made just as well verbally.

I don’t know why anyone needs to read about the private lives of celebrities. Why can’t we shut down the gossip rags?

I don’t know why anyone needs to vote. One vote has never made a difference in any federal election.

I don’t know why anyone needs to bicycle in a city.

I don’t know why anyone needs to have anal sex at a bathhouse. I won’t stop them, but I don’t know why anyone needs to do that.

I don’t know why anyone needs to go hiking in national parks, where they’re constantly falling off cliffs, being buried in avalanches and getting lost — all requiring taxpayer-funded rescue missions.

I don’t know why Karen Finley needs to smear herself with chocolate while reading poems about “love.” But not only do Democrats allow that, they made us pay for it through the National Endowment for the Arts.

In fact, I don’t know why anyone needs to do any of the things that offend lots of people, especially when I have to pay for it. I don’t mind paying for national monuments and the ballet, but if “need” is a legitimate argument, there’s no end to the activities that can be banned, forget “not subsidized by Ann.”

Democrats are willing to make gigantic exceptions to the “need” rule for things they happen to personally like. Their position is: “I don’t know why anyone needs to hunt; on the other hand, I do see why your tax dollars should be used to subsidize partial-birth abortion, bicycle lanes and the ballet.”

They’ll say that no one died in my examples (except abortion) (and bicycling) (and bathhouses) (and national parks), but the victims of mass shootings weren’t killed by gun owners. They were killed by crazy people.

How about keeping guns out of the hands of crazy people?

Liberals won’t let us do that — and yet they won’t tell us why anyone needs to live on sidewalk grates, harass pedestrians and crap in his pants. Those are precious constitutional rights, straight from the pen of James Madison, and please stop asking questions.

“I don’t see why anyone needs …” is code for: “I don’t do it, so let’s ban it.” The corollary is: “I enjoy this, so you have to subsidize it.”

Environmentalists say: “I don’t know why anyone needs to shower once a day — my French friends and I take two showers per month. We think we smell fine.”

That’s the difference between a totalitarian and a normal person. Liberals are obsessed with controlling what other people do.

As Sen. Dianne Feinstein said this week, so-called “assault weapons” are a “personal pleasure” and “mothers and women” have to decide whether this personal pleasure “is more important than the general welfare.”

The “general welfare” is every tyrant’s excuse, going back to Robespierre and the guillotine. Free people are not in the habit of providing reasons why they “need” something simply because the government wants to ban it. That’s true of anything — but especially something the government is constitutionally prohibited from banning, like guns.

The question isn’t whether we “need” guns. It’s whether the government should have a monopoly on force.

In liberals’ ideal world, no one will even know you don’t have to wait 22 minutes for the police when someone breaks into your home, there are toilets that can get the job done on one flush, food tastes better with salt, and you can drive over 55 mph and get there faster.

Meanwhile, we’re all required to subsidize their hobbies — recycling, abortion, the “arts,” bicycling, illegal alien workers, etc.

Liberals ought to think about acquiring a new hobby: leaving people alone.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Mary Sue

    The Left only considers something a "need" or a "right" (and often confuses or conflates the two) if it fits into their agenda.

  • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

    Leftists have a main goal, to impose their views on others, regardless of their opining – they are the guardians of liberty!
    However, American leftists fail to intuit that they have no right (no pun intended) to tell law abiding citizens what their "needs" entail. In fact, such warped thinking is the anti-thesis of freedom and liberty. You get the point.
    In any case, patriots are starting to push back – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/02/americans-the

    The left should be careful what they wish for, even as "mama Janet", perched atop DHS, does the bidding of a regime gone wild. Things are about to get even dicier, at least according to my contacts.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

  • davarino

    Ya, and no more large soda drinks. What you lefties dont realize is you are digging your own graves with this FASCIST attitude. What happens when your guy goes off the rails and becomes the next Stalin? Now you have no recourse because you have no guns, no freedom of speech, no right to privacy…..ect. All those went away in the attempt to create your utopia, which doent exist.

  • cxt


    Great point

    Problem is that many Lefties admire Stalin–and Mao and most other murderous tyrants. They like the idea of forcing their agenda by fear and power–they certainly can't do it by logic and persusaion.

    They also seem to have a deep need to give up their will and their choice to what ever "strong man" they can find. They seem to yearn for "somebody else" to make the decsions, for "somebody else" to tell them waht to do.

  • tagalog

    In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the need for safety comes right after what he calls the Physiological Needs, i.e., those needs we have in order to stay alive, such as air, water, food, etc. Next is safety. That's where weapons come into the mix. We need firearms for safety's sake.

    So when people ask, "Why do people need assault weapons? Why do people need high-capacity magazines?" the answer should be (assuming we want to dignify those phony questions with an answer) "for safety's sake."

    It was safety our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free (FREE, mind you) state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That pretty well says why we need arms, to defend ourselves from aggression so we can continue to be secure and FREE.

    The need for freedom of speech and privacy probably comes well down the line from the safety needs.

  • mcmorrowpc

    As usual, Ann does a great job of pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left. Good job, Ann.

  • Alex Kovnat

    Given the extent to which Islam appears to be taking over Europe, here's one reason why we need weapons such as AR-15's:

    To prevent our country from being taken over by the kind of people who might ask any of the following:

    Why does a girl or woman NEED to wear a skirt that exposes her knees? Why do men and women NEED to socialize together in bathing suits on beaches and at swimming pools? Or how about this zinger: Why do we NEED for people to follow any religion other than I****?

    • patron

      “I don’t know why anyone needs an assault rifle.”

      Fort Hood
      A squadron of Mexican special forces invading your home, armed with machine guns from the DEA, wanting to behead you and your family because you blogged about drug cartels on the internet.

      • Jay Wye

        the 1992 LA Riots are a great example;Korean shopkeepers used "assault weapons" to fend off the rioting mob that came to torch their shops,that their families live above. that's a great reason for 30 round mags,too,not that we need any reason.
        the Second Amendment is not about hunting or sporting,it's about retaining power over our own government,as set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

    • tagalog

      Why do fairies NEED to have the protection of law under the aegis of the right to privacy to sodomize one another (Lawrence v. Texas)?

  • ltcdmward

    In the 1980s I worked with an Army Captain who displayed on his office wall a realistic full size replica of an M-16 rifle in a red bordered glass case, the same kind of case where fire axes or fire hoses used to be mounted in corridors or stair wells. As with the fire fighting tools, the M-16 case displayed the following in bold letters: IN CASE OF WAR BREAK GLASS. In keeping with the Second Amendment, I'm thinking about making a similar glass fronted case for my home that says: IN CASE OF TYRANNY BREAK GLASS (with perhaps a real rifle inside). That's why the Democovets hate the AR-15 (AR being ARmalite) variants and the, now, standard 30 round magazine..

    • Jim_C


  • JacksonPearson

    I understand, that the people of West Virgina are fed up with senator Joe Manchin, and this may be his first, and last term. Besides doing nothing for the state's coal industry, he's back peddling on gun control:
    "As a hunter with an A rating from the National Rifle Association, Mr. Manchin gave advocates for new weapons laws reason for optimism after he said last month that gun firepower and magazine capacity might need to be limited.

    But now, Mr. Manchin, who affirmed his support for gun rights by running a campaign commercial in 2010 showing him firing a rifle into an environmental bill, says he is not so sure. One of his local offices has been picketed, and even some of his most thoughtful supporters are cautioning him that stronger background checks are about all the gun control they can stomach.

    And Manchin doesn’t have to run for re-election next year, like a number of Democrats in the Senate do. The NYT mentions Jean Shaheen (D-NH), whose state produces Rugers and Sig Sauers. There’s also Kay Hagan of North Carolina, who has to be rather cognizant of the Democratic collapse in her state last November. Survey USA polled voters in North Carolina on the gun-control issue, and found that 54% believe it’s more important to protect the right to own weapons than to restrict access to them. While there is some support for limiting magazine capacities, almost two-thirds (63%) want better enforcement of existing legislation rather than new laws. In a multi-answer question, a large plurality said that better security (41%) would better address school shootings, while only 18% chose making access to guns more difficult. Almost the same percentage (16%) chose better access to mental-health resources.

    The Obama gun-control package will go nowhere, especially if these red-state Democrats go home and start talking to constituents." The clock is running for Mr. Manchin's pink slip!

  • JoJoJams

    The thing that kills me about "the left" is their insistance (despite 230+ years of U.S. history that proves them wrong) that those on "the right", and specifically "Christian Conservatives", want to impose a theocracy on this nation – all the while that they themselves impose an even worse ideology of control on our lives – "for our own good".

    • Jim_C

      "Impose even worse…?" than a theocracy? Such as…?

      One thing about theocrats: no matter the denomination, they're always trying, and free societies keep them in check. Even if it's just the dangerously stupid creeps trying to push Creationism in schools.

  • pierce

    One of the many faults the left has is they think they have all the answers.

    • Jim_C

      As opposed to the right?

      • tagalog

        The virtue of the right is that they want to leave people alone to work out their own answers without the government getting involved.

        Unfortunately, our culture has trained -and tricked- far too many people into believing that they can vote a risk-free system into operation where they can work without government involvement but still get taken care of if their answers turn out not to be good ones.

  • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris_Shugart

    "To each according to his needs," has been a long standing left wing mantra ever since Karl Marx popularized it over a hundred years ago. Just leave my stuff alone. I don't think it's too much to ask.

    • tagalog

      When we allocate social benefits according to need, everyone will eventually become needy.

      That is the reason why socialism and communism will never work.

  • Jim_C

    Obesity is epidemic in this country–and that is not an exaggeration. It's not just a health problem, it is a national security issue. You guys are aware of the level of obesity in the country, right? Therefore, you understand what sort of a drain it stands to put on our resources and what a problem it would be if we needed to be in a state of emergency readiness.

    At some point, it needs to be addressed with a policy. What policy, I don't know. Bloomberg puts out a soda regulation. Big deal. So, do any conservatives have any ideas? Yeah, didn't think so. But things like seat belts, air and water regulations, anti-smoking campaigns and regulations–ALL of which conservatives whined and pouted over–they've all saved lives, en masse. That's "totalitarian?" Your @ss, it's totalitarian.

    • tagalog

      As Chris Rock once said, "America is the only country where the poor people are fat."

      How do we get a governmental policy on fat without extraordinarily intrusive government involvement in private decisions? What kind of law would deal with that? If your BMI exceeds some predetermined amount, you don't get Obamacare?

      • Jim_C

        tagalog, I don't know. I do know that putting our heads in the sand and punting problems down the road seems pretty par for the course for our society.

        The examples I gave–seatbelts, anti-smoking campaigns: they've had a measurable effect. So what allowing wellness programs to be covered by HSAs or insurance? Or incenting employees to enroll in these types of things through lowering rates? Many businesses are doing just that for their employees. Things like that aren't necessarily "intrusive" though they require policy change.

      • Jim_C

        There's a lot more Yogi Bear-shaped kids than there were even 20 years ago.

    • Kevin Stroup

      We have an epidemic of unwanted pregnancies. Should we need government permission to have a lover and to get pregnant?
      Tell me Jim_C, why are your lifestyle CHOICES my financial OBLIGATIONS? Where is the quid pro quo in that? If someone is fat, its not my problem. Oh wait……it is because we have socialized medicine which punishes me financially for what someone else chooses to do. I don't care if your fat, smoke dope, are unemployed and have zits. As long as you are not asking me to fund your lifestyle its none of my business. But COERCING me to fund your lifestyle is what you fascist are all about, isn't it?
      I have no problem with socialism for the mentally ill or the physically infirm. They cannot take care of themselves even if they want to. But millions of Americans who have nothing wrong with them live off the government dole. This B.S. needs to cease. Now.

    • Mary Sue

      are fat cells running off to north korea to tell them our nooooclear sekrits?

      • Jim_C

        "Pssst. Here's how fission works and here's where we keep the bombs."

        North Korea. Please.

    • http://shugartpoliticalaction.shugartmedia.com/uncommonsense/ Chris_Shugart

      Up against the wall fatso!

  • JCS

    I don't why anybody needs busybody, self-righteous, do as I say not as I do liberals.

  • BS77

    Thanks to Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Brigitte Gabriel and Frontpage for keeping the spirit of '76 alive.

  • tagalog

    Why does the left NEED to have laws that limit magazine capacity?

    Why does the left NEED to limit ownership of semi-automatic rifles that look like military rifles (but don't function like them)?

  • Barakus abomidas

    Whites have zero cred and no federal protections. They are not in the protected and 'preferred class'. What did i white person ever do for this country anyway? Nothing. but leach off of the hard working blacks and mexicans who pay all the taxes.

    • UCSPanther

      STFU and GTFO, low-life. You ain't getting any handouts from us.