So Easy, Even a Proggie Can Understand It

The answer to why you must have an assault weapon, delineated so logically even a progressive can understand it (though they will never concede such).  While it argues within the paradigm of the left – on “need” – it works. We don’t have a Bill of Needs, we have a Bill of Rights; but debasement to their terms appears to be the only hope we have to penetrate with these people. When your entire world view is based on relativism, empiricism is lost.

Via The American Thinker:

“Because the Constitution says so” or “It’s my right” will not convince anybody whom the enemy is deluging with images of dead children, while the Glorious Leader uses children as human shields to support his so-called reasoning. Our argument must instead be as compelling as the inarguable statement that two and two make four, and therefore impossible for any honest and rational person to contradict.

The first step is to challenge the other side with a very simple question: “Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?” Even people like Barack Obama, Andrew Cuomo, and Dianne Feinstein will not dare to answer in the negative. They will, however, demur that nobody needs an “assault weapon” to exercise this right. Cuomo said quite correctly that nobody needs ten bullets to kill a deer, but he knows full well that the Second Amendment is not about shooting deer. The question, and the other side must not be allowed to evade it or equivocate, is “How many bullets might a person reasonably need to stop one or more violent specimens of the most dangerous animal on earth?”

Police departments apparently believe the answer to be 13 to 17 rounds of 9 millimeter, as shown by their use of Glocks with these magazine capacities. A .45 caliber sidearm has far more stopping power, so seven rounds (the maximum now allowed by New York) may be adequate to end a life or death confrontation that somebody else starts. Most women, however, along with small men, find the 9 millimeter’s lesser recoil far easier to handle. New York’s Legislature and governor therefore seem to think that the right of effective self-defense should be reserved for healthy and fit men, as opposed to women and senior citizens.

When it comes to rifles, police departments believe the answer to be no less than 30 rounds of .223, as shown by their deployment of AR-15s. The onlydifference between a police officer and a private citizen is that the former has the authority and duty to intervene in situations that the ordinary citizen should, or even must, avoid. If either needs a firearm for any non-sporting purpose, though, he or she needs it for exactly the same reason. The definition of a weapon that is “reasonable” for legitimate self-defense is therefore, “Any weapon that is routinely available to law enforcement agencies.”

I tried this on a talk show host who supports the proposed “assault weapon” ban, and he had no viable answer. Neither will anybody else against whom we deploy it in letters to the editor, talk radio, the Internet, and other media.

I would humbly add one more salient point: Wouldn’t a frightened woman cowering in a closet need more shots than a trained officer? Duh. Of course she would. These proggies watch too much t.v. Normal people, with just enough training to lawfully obtain, and competently secure, aim, and shoot their weapon, can’t shoot with the accuracy of uniformed personnel with regular time at the range, and extensive training in panic situations… Yes, the bad guy might get a really, really bad boo-boo. Perhaps a disfiguring or fatal one…

…So he shouldn’t have broken into my house and threatened me or my children.

F*ck him.

Cue the moral outrage from the left…