It frustrates me that the best argument to be made for our case still hasn't been made by any of the talking heads that go out and do battle on our behalf. There is an unassailable position we could take that would 'stop the mouths' of the opposition, but I haven't heard it yet. For us, it's as simple as "shall not be infringed..." but that doesn't fly with the left. There is a paragraph though -- a brief, pithy argument -- that would leave no question about our right to defend the one life we have (and those lives for which we are directly responsible) with whatever tool was best; the tool that may have been more than needed, like car liability insurance can be more than we need. They keep asking "Do you really need an AR-15?" and the answer is "It depends." It depends on what comes at me. And that's where we need the Unassailable Paragraph.
For example, no one would dream of asking a GI in Afghanistan if he needs an AR. Of course he does. He needs more than that -- he needs an M1A1. He needs all there is and more. But that's because he's under fire. Cops are routinely in harm's way, and we don't question what's in their holsters. Technically, it's no different for us -- read the news any day of the week, and somewhere, someone is in harm's way and needs an AR-15. The rub is that you don't know who, or on what day, it will be. But car insurance is the same way --we carry too much of it not knowing whether we'll need it, but like a gun, if we do need it, we'll really need it.
I think the answer to the quesiton of why anyone needs a defensive firearm is the same as why a cop needs one. A cop is just a citizen with (a) special training, and (b) a specialized responsibility. But he's just a guy that can reasonably expect to deal with bad or dangerous people, so we arm him for his own defense. We're no different. Unlike the cop, who goes to the bad guys with some pre-knowledge that they're bad, the bad guys come to us, who have no knowledge they're coming, which logically makes us more deserving of the right of self defense.
It occurred to me that while we have several brave Sheriffs who want to consider us 'allies' in the fight for our own safety, someone might consider deputizing permit holders. Obviously you would need real, ongoing, specialized training, but it's an interesting option. A giant countywide posse made up of people who have cleared specific hurdles -- to standards at least as high as sworn officers have to clear them. I'm somewhat surprised at how low the bar can be for a permit -- I got my first because I had a DD-214, and all the rest were based on the first. But I was in the Navy, and didn't really undergo 'training' in the sense that would make a jumpy civilian comfortable. Don't tell.
