Why do you need an "assault rifle"???

The smugness, it just oozes from this question when asked by some self-righteous liberal. It's supposed to be a loaded question, the person asking it thinks they've painted you into a corner where any answer you give will only support their argument. But the true answer brings the core of this issue into sharp focus: I need a military style semi-auto rifle just like Rosa Parks needed to sit at the front of the bus. I know that comparison is going to make a lot of liberal heads explode, but it's an honest and valid comparison. 

Rosa Parks didn't need to sit at the front of the bus. See, that bus was taking the same route regardless of where Ms. Parks sat, front, back or anywhere in between. It wasn't getting there any faster with her up front. Fuel economy would be the same. Maybe Rosa was in a hurry that day and it would have helped if she could exit the bus a little faster? No, Rosa's bus had a second set of doors in the back for the convenience of rear seat passengers so they could exit just as quickly as someone seated up front. 

Did Rosa Parks "need" to sit up front. No, Rosa Parks wanted to sit up front, and as an American, that makes her a free woman to sit where she chooses. She had every right to choose her seat on that bus. Rosa's actions that day led to much protest and civil disobedience. As a direct result many were sprayed with fire hoses, attacked by dogs, police, beaten, and even murdered, all totally unjustified. Had she sat to the rear as she was told, many African Americans would not have suffered at the hands of angry whites fueled by bigotry and rage. Should Rosa Parks have sat in the back seat like she was told? Hell no. Screw anyone that tries to intimidate and criminalize an honest America for exercising their constitutional rights. 

But I digress. Back to the original question: "Need" an assault rifle? I'm an American, that makes me a free man to own and possess military style semi-auto firearms if I choose. Rosa Parks made her constitutionally guaranteed choice, I've made mine. 

UPDATE: The most common response I get to this comparison is this: "It's not the same thing, it's not the same thing!!!! Rosa park's bus seat didn't kill 26....." 

No, a bus seat is not the same as a semi-auto firearm, but that's not what's at the core of this issue. This is a debate regarding the Second Amendment of the Constitution and whether we will continue to recognize what it says and what our founding fathers intended for it to mean. In the end it will find it's way to the Supreme Court, and over there the only thing that matters is the Constitution. They've very recently ruled on two cases regarding the Second Amendment, and ruled in favor of handgun ownership as it relates to self-defense, Heller v. D.C. and McDonald v. Chicago. The Second Amendment is quite simple and specific in it's language. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Let's review, shall we: 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "may be infringed a little bit", or "feel free to disregard". No, "shall not be infringed " is pretty specific language. You don't like what the Second Amendment says, well the Constitution has protocols for changing the amendments. So go ahead, get started. Until then, the second amendment stands as written. And in the same manner the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to Rosa Park's actions that day on the bus, the Second amendment applies to private firearms ownership.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is a debate about constitutional rights, nothing more. So yeah, it is a valid comparison.