While I do agree with that position, I also wonder if evading the question like that maybe does more harm than good, irregardless of it's correctness. Unfortunately people who ask why someone would need one usually are unwilling to listen to a reasonable answer, and if they are willing to listen to one they are very likely to disagree with it. For me, the reason is because the people need to be able to defend themselves from tyrannical government. I think that for all other purposes (other than recreation) a different kind of firearm is more effective. If someone is in favor of more government regulation they are unlikely to see the government as potentially being something that needs to be defended against. That means 2nd amendment supporters are faced with a choice of deflecting the question and being perceived as obtuse and intransigent or answering it and being perceived as paranoid and unpatriotic. The latter can be mitigated by better educating people; when the former stance is taken a line in the sand has been drawn. That strategy hasn't been working and is the primary reason people are so fed up with Washington these days, there's been too much "it's my way or the highway", on both sides of the aisle. Sure, that position may be the correct one but we do ourselves a disservice if we make it all about that. Sometimes you have to factor in what will better help us win.
