anchored
Member
I decided this weekend that the problem with defending our gun rights vs. liberal idiots is that they aren't so dumb. Somehow, they've gotten us all to allow them to define the problem, and when you define the problem you can always win the debate. But, if the problem is defined incorrectly, winning the debate is irrelevant. Unfortunately. few people look past the "win" to the actual substance of the problem.
They way they've defined the problem is by couching the question in terms of "need." However, no other civil right is dependent on "need." No goverment would be allowed to decide if you "need" to say something before allowing you your first amendment freedoms, nor whether you "need" to pray allah instead of God before allowing you to go to a mosque instead of a church. In every other case, you choose whether to exercise your rights, and would be astonished if someone asked you, "Why did you need to say that?"
Next time someone asks why you need to carry a gun, don't buy into their implied proposition. Just say, "It's not a question of need. I carry a gun because I can and I want to." Nobody can debate what you want to do.
[/diatribe]
(edited to fix typos)
They way they've defined the problem is by couching the question in terms of "need." However, no other civil right is dependent on "need." No goverment would be allowed to decide if you "need" to say something before allowing you your first amendment freedoms, nor whether you "need" to pray allah instead of God before allowing you to go to a mosque instead of a church. In every other case, you choose whether to exercise your rights, and would be astonished if someone asked you, "Why did you need to say that?"
Next time someone asks why you need to carry a gun, don't buy into their implied proposition. Just say, "It's not a question of need. I carry a gun because I can and I want to." Nobody can debate what you want to do.
[/diatribe]
(edited to fix typos)