It’s an arduous process arguing with people who support more gun control. Most of the time, it requires getting past layers of logical fallacies and flat-out untruths to get to the heart of the matter, which is that they wish the Second Amendment didn’t exist.

If you support the Second Amendment, you’ve likely heard the nonsensical argument about “need,” as if that is relevant in a discussion about constitutional rights. It doesn’t matter if I “need” a new Glock 17 or an AR-15. The question is whether the Second Amendment protects my right to have one, and it does. Naturally, some people disagree, and it’s worth having those debates, but only if they are willing to discuss the issue in good faith, and they often are not — hence the declaration that someone does not “need” a particular type of firearm. Ironically, it is an issue the Supreme Court will decide this year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. New York requires anyone wishing to carry a gun outside their homes to explain to local police why they “need” to have a weapon by showing “proper cause” to carry. Considering the court’s shift since the Heller decision in 2008, gun control advocates are rightfully concerned.