Defending the Second Amendment: Eight Anti-Gun Claims and Pro-Gun Answers

Contact Your Elected Officials

During the current administration, the Second Amendment has consistently been under attack. Especially recently, with the way the Kyle Rittenhouse case has been treated by the political left, every American’s right to self-defense—not only the right to keep and bear arms—is in danger.

Have you heard these claims from an anti-gun individual?

1. Gun-control will help everyone by making our nation a safer place in which to live.

Gun-control will only make matters worse by disarming the law-abiding citizens, making the nation even more dangerous. Will criminals really pay attention to gun-control laws even though they already disregard other laws? Criminals can be even more successful where gun-control is enforced since they can affront defenseless citizens though they (the criminals) are armed. And if weapons are not available in the U.S., then criminals will resort to the black market to obtain them. Gun-control will only increase criminal control.                                                                       

2. The government will protect us.

President Gerald R. Ford once said that “a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” The individual should take care of himself because it is his duty. The government’s duty lies in the protection of the nation. If the government were so anxious to protect the individual, it would leave the people with the most effective means to do so, instead of taking it away.

3. Guns do not save but take lives.

Though every citizen has the right to own and use firearms, they also have the responsibility to properly use them. Just like a car cannot cause an accident without a driver, without a person in control of the firearm a gun does not take a life. A responsible citizen has the inalienable right to defend himself. What matters is not the control of the firearms, but control of the criminal intent.

4. Our leaders are only thinking about the good and the safety of the nation.

The leaders that promote gun-control just want more power over the people. If they were genuinely concerned about the good of the nation, they would investigate different ways to control crime, such as stricter punishment for people who transgress the law. Also, if the leaders were concerned about the good of the people and the nation, they would uphold the U.S. Constitution as originally designed. All our leaders take an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution.” Since gun-control is not a defense of but an attack on the Constitution, those leaders who promote gun-control are violating their oath, and thus their office. Gun-control, which is an infringement upon our right to keep and bear arms, is not upholding and defending the Constitution.

5. “Due process” justifies gun-control.

Some argue that “due process” justifies gun confiscation. (See the U.S. Constitution, 5th and 14th Amendments.) Due Process is defined as a full hearing as provided by law. But the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” and states plainly that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” This is a specific right and needs no interpretation. Should freedom of speech be curbed by “due process”? If the government uses “due process” to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, it can also curb other rights just as easily.

6. Many innocent people have been killed in shootings, and gun-control will put a stop to this.

Shootings usually happen at places where firearms are prohibited. Take for example, most schools, where even the teachers are not allowed to carry. This is basically the equivalent of putting a sign in front of the school saying: “Welcome, criminals! We are unarmed.” If schools permitted the carrying of firearms, it would discourage criminals from attempting a shooting. The government uses shootings to incite fear in the people, and then imposes more gun-control, giving the government more and more power over the people.

7. Guns should only be used by the military.

This would turn the government into a military dictatorship. The government could then use the armed military to enforce draconian laws and measures on the people, so this is another reason why it is important for civilians to be armed.  

8. At least we should make certain types of powerful rifles illegal to own.

Consider carefully that no type of gun-control whatsoever is allowed by the U.S. Constitution, as stated in the Second Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

9. Gun-control does not concern me.

It concerns everyone in the nation, although those who do not own firearms may not feel the effects immediately. When the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is taken from us, we the people have one less freedom. If the government succeeds in taking away our means of defense, they certainly will be quite capable of taking away other rights, including freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press. The government wants to act as if it were all about guns, so that this will not seem important to those who are not gun owners. But it is important to understand that the question of gun-control is not strictly about guns, but about rights. When we are disarmed, we will have no way to protect ourselves or our God-given rights.

Now, please ask yourself these questions:

  1. If law-abiding citizens are not allowed to arm themselves, how can they protect/defend themselves?
  2. Why should we let the government protect us if we can do it ourselves?
  3. Does it make more sense to control the law-abiding citizens or the criminals? Is it fair to restrict the law-abiding citizens?
  4. If the leaders are thinking about the good and the safety of the nation, shouldn’t they uphold the Constitution, which was created for that purpose?
  5. If due process is used to curb our second amendment rights, would it be just as easy to curb freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, etc.?
  6. Would the shootings be a problem if teachers/students could arm themselves?
  7. If guns were restricted to the military, would the government be able to enforce any law they wanted on us since citizens were unarmed?
  8. Is gun-control even constitutional?
  9. Is gun-control a restriction merely of guns or of our rights?
Natalie Morris
Natalie Morris
Almost monthly, Natalie Morris opens up her laptop to write about issues affecting average Americans (such as herself). She enjoys discussing things that we all come into contact with daily, such as people, culture, the online world, and our citizenship. Morris, who serves Christ as her Lord and Savior, joined the list of TTC columnists in 2021.

James Franklin’s contract fallout

Penn State’s decision to fire head coach James Franklin after a disappointing 22–21 home loss to Northwestern will cost an estimated $56 million buyout. 

Trump’s Middle East Trip Led to Historic Breakthroughs

Trump’s bold, unconventional strategy helped end the Israel-Hamas war and set the stage for a more stable, prosperous Middle East.

Pretending Really Hard

The world is real and so are its problems, too. Reality is the enemy of liberals, even though they are pretending, really hard, that it is not.

Trump 2.0’s Eurasian Balancing Act Has Failed

Trump's Eurasian balancing act has failed due to his arrogant and aggressive approach towards all three countries.

Should Palestinian clans rebelling against Hamas be given Gaza?

Hamas’s October 7 attack exposed its violent ideology, showing cruelty toward its enemies and also against the Palestinian people it claims to defend.

Trump, Patel Confirm FBI Special Agents Will Get Paid During Shutdown

FBI special agents will receive their paychecks despite the government shutdown, according to President Donald Trump and FBI Director Kash Patel.

Trump Admin Withholds $41 Million From California Over English-Language Trucking Rules

Trump admin withholds $40.6M in California transportation funds, citing failure to meet federal English proficiency rules for truck drivers.

An Inconvenient Study – Feature Film

Journalist Del Bigtree challenged a top infectious disease expert in 2016 to a vaxxed vs. unvaxxed study. The long-hidden results are finally revealed.

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump Admin’s Shutdown-Related Layoffs

A federal judge on Oct. 15 temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to lay off certain federal employees during the government shutdown. 

Trump Posthumously Awards Charlie Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom

President Trump posthumously awarded Charlie Kirk the Presidential Medal of Freedom in the White House Rose Garden on Oct 14, Charlie's birthday.

Trump Names Longtime Adviser Dan Scavino to Key Personnel Position

One of President Trump’s longtime advisers, Dan Scavino, is going to be in charge of selecting and appointing key positions within the executive branch.

First Lady’s Effort Helped Reunite 8 War-Displaced Children With Their Families

First lady Melania Trump said 8 children impacted by the fighting between Ukraine and Russia were reunited with their families on Oct. 9.

Trump to Impose New 100 Percent Tariff on China on Nov. 1

President Trump said that the US will impose an additional 100 percent tariffs on Chinese goods and export controls on critical software starting on Nov. 1.
spot_img

Related Articles

Popular Categories

MAGA Business Central