At this point, many self-defense activists respond that the need for guns has to do with the ability to defend against tyrannical government. Then gun controllers chirp, “but you can’t defeat tanks and nuclear weapons with rifles!” thereby demonstrating that they don’t keep up with the war in Afghanistan and skipped their history lessons about some difficulties the U.S. military ran into in a place called Vietnam.
But really, that’s all irrelevant. Because in free societies, you don’t have to justify owning things. You get to own them because you want them and have the means to acquire them. And you get to acquire more than just the basic necessities, if you so choose.
As I look around my office, I see a lot of stuff I don’t need. There are two dogs aggressively shedding on the upholstery, a hat collection (panamas and vintage fedoras), CDs and DVDs, a shit-load of books …If I owned only what I need, I’d be living in a spartan efficiency apartment, wearing a Mao suit and eating gruel. I have no interest in living that way.
The appropriate answer to “Who the hell needs … ?” is “hey, if you don’t want one, don’t buy it.” The right to own stuff without an explanation is the right to be free.
I disagree slightly, in that in order to maintain freedom, you need a modern rifle – it’s your homeland security rifle. Of course, you probably only need one, and as long as enough people maintain and fulfill that need, it acts as a deterrent to tyranny, and it never has to be used, as its mere presence is sufficient. Everyone benefits.
Alternately, Colion Noir explained it as well:
Self defense is a need, and self defense is a human right.