I am often amazed at the shit storm that surrounds the right of the people to bear arms. For the most people, that means to own guns. When I say “the people,” I am referring to the law abiding citizens. When I say “law-abiding citizens,” I mean those that have the mental capacity, and the legal right to possess guns. When I say “guns,” I mean those guns that have been approved by the United States Government. For those that don’t know how their government works, the United States Government is made up of branches, departments, committees, posts, bureaus, and so forth. Each of those is in charge of regulating certain laws, products, and so forth. If you want to know what each one does, either go back to school, or take a trip to the local library. You should have paid attention in middle, and high school civics class. The department that regulates guns is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF). Now that we have that covered, let’s examine why the arguments for anti-gun advocates don’t make sense on a basic level. Listed are several arguments that I’ve heard over the course of several years and why I disagree with them. I’ll start with my Favorite.

Argument: “You do not have the right to bear. Gun owners always leave off the first half of the second amendment, and that’s the part that says you can only bear arms when forming a militia.

Rebuttal: That is true, we as gun owners often leave off that part. Largely in part that it is not a necessary to point it out. I know what you’re saying already, “See gun owners like to twist the law as they see fit.” That is not at all what I’m saying. Let’s examine for a moment what the Amendment states. I have copied, verbatim, the second amendment as it is translated from the National Archives in Washington D.C.

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I guess in the minds of those that think I am twisting the law; a militia is a military trained group of people. This is not true. You can find in the dictionary that a militia is a group of citizens are of able body to be called to military.

mi•li•tia (m -l sh ) n. 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Thus, stating that ordinary citizens have the right to bear arms and stating that to form a militia you have the right to bear arms is redundant. A well regulated militia would be a group of citizens the United States government has deemed legally able to possess a firearm. Now that the definition part has been taken care of, let’s talk about the “free state” part of the second amendment. We live in a totalitarian, even dictatorial state, if the government is able to regulate or speech, our press, our religion, etc. The same goes with guns. It’s about checks and balances. The government shall not have more power than the body in which it represents. Our society was founded by ordinary citizens, a militia, if you will. These citizens were called to duty. The founding fathers fought in armies comprised of militias. We later formed a military body. But first, militias were formed to fight for a “free state.”

If you look at many countries in Africa, the only people to have guns are the police and military. Who protects the citizens from them. They are some of the most corrupt countries, because they have all the power. The right for citizens to own guns is a check and balance on the government that all of the power does not reside with them.

Argument:“No hunter needs an assault weapon to hunt deer.”

Rebuttal: That’s true, but define “assault weapon.” A baseball bat can be used as an assault weapon.

Argument:“Okay, no hunter needs an assault rifle to hunt deer.

Rebuttal: That’s true too, but define assault rifle. An assault rifle does not become an assault rifle because it looks like something a soldier uses. Prime example is the Bushmaster AR-15. It looks like the military M-16, but it’s not. It’s semi-automatic, and not fully automatic. I can hear you now. “But you can make it fully automatic.” You might, if you knew how, but that would make it illegal according to the BATF. Since 1939 it has been illegal except for special permits to have a fully automatic gun. Therefore that’s just stupid. I’m not saying we as gun owners should have the right to illegal firearms. But commonsense should tell us that not everything is as it looks. All firearms are dangerous if used improperly. But let’s not make it illegal because it looks more deadly then another one. Before you start in with the: “No one needs xxx.” Sawed-off shotguns, zip guns, silencers (except with special permit), are ILLEGAL.

Argument:“I don’t want the retard down the street going out and getting a gun.”

Rebuttal: Me either, which is why it is ILLEGAL to sell someone a gun if they have been institutionalized at any time, or is deemed unfit mentally to own one.

Argument:“There would be fewer children accidentally killed by guns each year if they didn’t exist.”

Rebuttal: No, there would be NO children accidentally killed each year if the gun owners have their guns stored properly. Just like anything else harmful to children, you must store them properly. Do you leave rat poison out for your kids to get to? I agree with punishing parents that are stupid enough to leave a loaded gun out for their kids to find. But the, “it’s dangerous, we should destroy it,” attitude people have is just plain ridiculous.

Argument:“Our country has the highest, per capita, violent crime rate then any other country.”

Rebuttal: Maybe, but I want to A) see where you get this data. It better not be from CNN. And B) what automatically makes you think that a gun was used in all of those violent crimes. Check your bureau of justice statistics, and not CNN, NBC, FOX, or other media for actual statistics. It is pretty even across the board at which type of weapon is used in the act of a crime. The highest statistic is actually a weapon other then knife, gun, or blunt weapon. Guns are used in crimes, but that does not mean that every gun owner is going to commit crime with their gun. If you want statistics, please tell me what the percentage of actual legal gun owners have committed crimes with their guns. And then tell me where you found this data.

Argument:“Guns, like Cars should be registered.”

Rebuttal: You don’t have to register your vehicle. As long as you never drive your vehicle on public traffic ways, and only on private property, you never have to register it. Should we then treat guns this way? You can have a gun but only if you keep it on private property. That’s the way it is for the most part anyway. However registering a gun does nothing for preventing crime. It only makes it easier to track down the owner of a gun following a crime. Most crimes, firearm related, are committed with a stolen weapon.

Argument:“Guns are only designed to kill.”

Rebuttal: No Shit! I love this argument. That was what it was designed to do. So were a lot of other weapons in history. Swords, Lances, Crossbows, Javelins, and many others. Just like all other hand held weapons, it takes a person to wield it. Take a loaded, cocked gun and place it on a table. It will not kill anyone until someone comes a long and pulls the trigger. Guns are not the problem, it’s criminally minded, and irresponsible people that are. There are many other arguments that I have heard over the years, but these are the ones that I keep hearing. The thing that I have noticed most about the people I talk to that are anti-gun is just how uninformed they are. For the most part, the only information they get is from watching CNN. They have done absolutely NO research on their own. They spout off statistics that they have either made up or heard on the news. They have never actually been around guns, or have never fired one. The old cliché, “you can’t judge a book by it’s cover,” stands true. Until you’ve tried it, I don’t want to hear it.

My big thing is not that we as gun owners should not be able to reign free in what we do. I believe that there should be some regulation of firearms. There has been some very solid regulation since the early 1900’s. The problem with firearm related crime is not going to be solved by passing more and more gun laws. It’s going to be solved by throwing the book at criminals, and enforcing even the most basic gun laws that we already have. If you believe that guns should not exist, that is your opinion. I think it is great that you have that opinion. I just want to hear that the facts behind your opinion are well researched, and not formed from the media, or listening to someone else spout myths. Do your own research, hands on, or through the right sources.