We don’t know about you, but we’re pretty tired of having the same conversation every time the mainstream media hypes up a mass shooting.
We’ve been sick of this conversation for a while, because it seems to go the same every time when talking to gun grabbers. They bring up statistics that often include things like suicides or accidents, we retort by saying how faulty those statistics are. They ask us why we need semi-automatic weapons, we respond by pointing out that, without the Second Amendment, there really isn’t a U.S. Constitution at all.
Gun owners understand that the Second Amendment is the very backbone of the Constitution. Without the right to keep and bear arms, our rights don’t really exist, because the government has no reason to fear its citizens. Without going too far into “tin foil hat” territory, it’s true: a disarmed populace is easily trampled by tyranny.
Here’s the problem: arguments like these go no where, and they’re even less productive when we fall back on things like the Constitution — which essentially state that any gun control is unlawful. In other words, we’re arguing with people that fundamentally disagree with our right to defend ourselves — and we have to deal with that.
Like it or not, these are conversations that we need to have. If we don’t, we continue to allow millions of people to believe that anyone who owns a weapon is a mass shooter in waiting. We can’t let the media control the narrative like that. If we do, the gun grabbers will win, and there will be no way to stop them. After that, the Constitution becomes irrelevant, and the rest of our rights will chip away too.
So, where do we even begin when these debates inevitably arise? How can we effectively make the case for upholding the Second Amendment and our right to defend ourselves when the same tired arguments fall flat?
Here’s Jon Patton with a winning strategy.