Liberals and other know-it-alls assume that our arguments for defending our Second Amendment rights, no matter how rational, are totally worthless.  Trying to change their minds is a fool's errand.  Unfortunately, for that to happen they will have to experience a personal tragedy and/or grow up. Lawyers are trained to challenge every argument presented by the opposing counsel in their quest to sway jurors.  Prosecutors, in particular, know that they must destroy the credibility every defense argument or there is a high probability that the jury will have reasonable doubt, and reasonable doubt is grounds for acquittal. That's exactly what Brett Joshpe did in his article in today's American Thinker.  With one exception, he listed some of the most compelling arguments for protecting our Second Amendment rights, and then he tried to tear them apart. Joshpe's "Gun Rights are Inalienable and Natural" argument is the exception.  It's different from the others...(Read Full Post)