Over the past few months, our right to own nasty rottweilers has come under attack.  Liberals who claim that nasty rottweilers are “dangerous,” “kill people,” and “should be banned” don’t understand a few fundamental truths: I need my nasty rottweilers for self-defense; just because many nasty rottweilers do bad things doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be allowed to have mine; it is my God-given and constitutionally-protected right to own nasty rottweilers; and this right is unlimited, meaning that the government may not attempt to regulate my ability to own nasty rottweilers in any way.  That is why I am a lifetime member of the Nasty Rottweiler Association, because they are one of the few organizations that recognize these key truths.

Without my nasty rottweilers, I would be completely unable to protect myself in case of a home invasion.  My 20 nasty rottweilers are fierce, loyal, strong, and alert, making them perfect for self defense.  Knowing that my nasty rottweilers are prowling around my house all day gives me priceless piece of mind.  To those who claim that owning 20 nasty rottweilers is excessive and unnecessary, I pose this question: what if 20 people were to simultaneously rob my house?  One nasty rottweiler is roughly enough to take out one intruder, so if I did not own all 20 rottweilers, I would be like a sitting duck if 20 criminals were to ever rob my house.  (I have recently considered purchasing another nasty rottweiler for protection in case my house were robbed by 21 robbers, but I’ve spent all my money on gourmet dog food).  Because I own my 20 nasty rottweilers, I am able to sleep easy at night without worrying about home intruders.  If the government were to limit the number of nasty rottweilers I’m able to own, it would strip me of my peace of mind.

One statistic that anti-nasty rottweiler people often like to bring up is the fact that nasty rottweilers kill tens of thousands of people per year.  These deaths, they say, justify the government regulating peoples’ ability to own nasty rottweilers.  While these deaths are unfortunate, they do not justify the government restricting our right to own nasty rottweilers.  There are two key reasons for this.  The first is that it takes a good guy with a nasty rottweiler to stop a bad guy with a nasty rottweiler, unless the bad guy’s nasty rottweiler happens to kill the good guy’s nasty rottweiler.  The second is that the number of people saved by nasty rottweilers far exceeds the number of people killed by them.  Do you have any idea how many times my house would have been robbed by now if not for my 20 nasty rottweilers?  Neither do I, but it’s probably a lot.

Finally, the Constitution of the United States of America explicitly states that citizens have the right to protect themselves with nasty rottweilers.  As with all constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to own nasty rottweilers is unlimited in scope.  For instance, my right to freedom of speech means that I am allowed to tell profane jokes at the Children’s Museum without being kicked out; in the same way, my right to assembly means that I am allowed to hold an assembly for why Jack Daniel’s is clearly the best type of whiskey wherever I want, regardless of what the Alcoholics Anonymous guy says.  Just like these rights, the right to own nasty rottweilers is boundless and unrestrictable.  The fact that the Supreme Court recently ruled otherwise is simply irrelevant.

In conclusion, I have a right and a need to own my 20 nasty rottweilers.  My right to do this has recently come under attack, which directly threatens my mental well-being and my liberty as a citizen of the United States of America.  For nearly 150 years, the Nasty Rottweiler Association has protected the right of the people to own nasty rottweilers.  This is why I have supported them for the past 20 years, and why I will continue to support them until I die.