Don’t Argue About Gun Control; Advocate Gun Responsibility


The Administration of Barack Obama remains hell-bent in its efforts to disarm American citizens, and the Administration’s gun-control efforts have benefited from a series of high-profile mass shootings carried out by deranged madmen. Still, the 2nd Amendment remains popular with a large contingent of the Nation’s population, which has helped thwart more than one legislative push for gun control.

The reason gun-control advocates have such a tough time lobbying for tougher gun laws is that they must base each of their arguments on flawed premises.

Guns can kill people; therefore, guns are bad.

More firepower translates to more potential for fatal outcomes in gun crimes; therefore, firepower must be restricted.

Guns are dangerous to our Nation’s children, so we must ban guns to protect children.

The reasons for advocating stricter gun laws are, in fact, so misguided that making a counterargument seems almost absurd.

And, make no mistake: Those advocating for stricter gun laws know that they are misguided in their efforts. That’s why, during a tour to push more gun laws, former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords appeared at a gun range in Las Vegas and fired a weapon for the first time since she was shot in the head more than two years ago. It was a bid to prove that she doesn’t hate guns.

Via New York Magazine:

The image is poignant, and even slightly unsettling, but serves a larger purpose: Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, firearm owners before and after she became a victim of gun violence herself, are out to prove that common-sense gun control and the Second Amendment can co-exist. As a spokeswoman for this concept, Giffords should be all but unassailable.

“Some might consider me an unlikely advocate for gun rights because I sustained terrible injuries in a violent shooting. But I’m a patriot, and I believe the right to bear arms is a definitive part of our American heritage,” she writes in a USA Today op-ed explaining the tour and encouraging the expansion of background checks. “But when children are gunned down in their classrooms, when families are slaughtered at a movie theater, when a little girl dreaming of running for office is shot dead standing next to me in a grocery store parking lot, we have to admit what we’re doing is not enough. We’ve all got to do more to reduce gun violence.”

Second Amendment supporters should take note.

No matter how idiotic gun rights supporters believe the arguments for more gun control are, there is no hope in making gun haters realize their folly through rhetoric alone. So the next time you find yourself in an argument with people who feel guns should be restricted as much as possible, don’t try to convince them that they are wrong.

Instead, make some new friends and invite them to the range. Show them what safe, responsible gun ownership is. Show them how much fun an afternoon of target practice can be. More likely than not, a person who views firearms as scary, destructive devices has never been around them in the company of a responsible gun owner.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • Numb3rTech

    Yes, be responsible around people with gun control preferences. Show them the website and let them know having a firearm does save lives. I do spend time trying to help the uneducated, but I will never force my opinion on them. I will not let them force their opinion on me either. That is my right of freedom in this country.

    • 5alive5

      go to the library and read the NRA’s rifleman magazine, especially the part titled ” The Armed Citizen.” there are usually eight to ten articles of people that have survived or saved lives due to OWNING A GUN!

  • Motov

    “The reason gun-control advocates have such a tough time lobbying for tougher gun laws is that they must base each of their arguments on flawed premises.”
    And worst part of it is you cannot reason with these people, they still think guns are animate objects that jump into people’s hands and cause them to go on killing sprees. They have no concept of people exercising self control, Just like they hate rich people because they don’t spend money foolishly like they do.
    (But don’t you dare try to reach into their pockets!!! They love to spend your money,….not theirs)

    “Guns can kill people; therefore, guns are bad.”
    So do cars, airplanes, cigarettes, trains, baseball bats, alcohol, beer bottles, etc,…. but no-one is declaring these items as “bad” So what’s their point? Oh that’s right they neglect the person using the inanimate object, again!!! They just cannot get the connection that people are the guilty ones who kill others, a gun is just a tool, remove it, they will use another tool, whether they kill with a gun, or use another tool,….doesn’t MATTER, The victim still ends up DEAD. So what are they really accomplishing here?

    “More firepower translates to more potential for fatal outcomes in gun crimes; therefore, firepower must be restricted.”
    One little match can kill more people in less time than a machine gun, mass murder will take another form. You are merely swapping methods of crime, AGAIN PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

    “Guns are dangerous to our Nation’s children, so we must ban guns to protect children.”
    So are toxic chemicals, Pediphiles, etc,.. ever heard of EDUCATION?

    “The reasons for advocating stricter gun laws are, in fact, so misguided that making a counterargument seems almost absurd.”

    Murphy’s Law: Do not argue with a fool, listeners cannot tell which is which.
    And even after posting this They will still tell us to ban guns!
    As long as they keep drinking “Fool’s Aid”

  • Don 2

    New WHITE HOUSE Study Finds…..Guns Save Lives – Consistently Lower Injury Rates Among Gun Using Crime Victims

  • aztex2010

    How about advocating Justice for all, and start by standing up for everyone you witness is treated with injustice. We must stop looking the other way when one of our friends, neighbors or family members are on the receiving end of injustice. I personally see there is NO JUSTICE in the United States Of America and that is the only reason anyone resorts to gun or any other violence.

    Currently, if you have a badge you can fabricate and lame statement of Probable Cause or be subject to the loss of your right to bear arms due to the opinion of any number of psychopathic “mental health professionals” with nothing more than a similar “statement of probable cause” and land you in some psycho hospital, forced to strip all your cloths off in front of an audience, and held in an empty frigid room completely naked with no mattress, sheet, blanket, pillow or towel.

    Bottom line is .. our COnstitution sounds good but when your civil rights are violated, and these rights are violated so often the statement of “Under Color of Law” is a joke. We surely do need to demand more Justice because the number of incidents of violence with guns shows a huge amount of responsibility and tolerance is very high already. The same is true with regard to the “blow back” we are experiencing from all the havoc we are reeking world wide.

    Americans are now experiencing Biblically predicted “What ye do unto the least of these my brethren, so also will be done unto you. :(

  • me

    i’ve said this a few times before, I’ll say it again. why go after the law-abidding gun-oowner. Get the criminal. Make the laws against gun crime so harsh it would discourage gun-crime. maybe the death penalty for shooting of innocents. forget prison. get it over quick. give them the same chance as their victims. Nowadays criminals have too many rights.

    • chocopot

      Because, as has been pointed out so many times, the key word in the term “gun control” is not “gun,” it is “control.” The proponents of more and stricter gun control laws are not interested in public safety, they are interested in disarmament. It is very hard to create a totalitarian dictatorship when you have to deal with 80-90 million very pissed off gun owners on the loose. So they are going to disarm us, one step at a time. Am I making this up? Not hardly. Just go on the internet and read comments made over the last 20 or so years by such great defenders of freedom and the Constitution like Bloomberg, Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, Obama, Clinton, Holder, Reno, and the rest of the treasonous scum called Democrats.

      • 5alive5

        you mean bloombag the molester????

    • vicki

      When you try and make a crime worse because of the tools used you play right into the false rhetoric of the gun prohibitionists that claim “the gun made him do it”. Don’t fall for it.

  • dan

    compromise and they’ll beat you to death with it….
    the police state is ALL about being guilty until being proved innocent

  • Dave

    If we had “gun responsibility” in this country, we would have little need for gun safety laws.
    Its not the gun itself, but the person using them.
    I keep hearing, go after the criminal, leave the law abidding citizen alone. I would like to know just how law enforcement passes a gun safety law that just applies to the criminal or someone that will commit a crime.
    I know how to drive a car well, I have never been in an accident. But to use the gun “nuts” arguement, it makes me angry that I have to adhere to speed limits, stop signs, traffic lights etc when I know what I am doing behind the wheel. Why can’t they just have these speed limits and traffic laws for the people who don’t know how to drive well? Huh?

    • Wiley2

      There’s a huge difference between laws that hold people responsible when they harm others, and laws that restrict and punish people because they potentially might do something to harm others. One leaves people free to make mistakes, pay for those mistakes, and thus learn to act more responsibly. The other keeps people in the role of children and imbeciles not allowed to exercise and develop their own judgement. It’s the difference between a free society and the nanny state with arrogant, power-seeking individuals lording it over everyone not in their exclusive, aristocratic club know as the government.

      Concerning traffic laws, there’s a good argument for a uniform set of rules set by those who own and maintain the roads. If you want to use their roads, follow their rules. But the owners of those roads go far beyond their authority when they presume to dictate whether I can buy a car, what kind of car I can buy and how I can use it when not on their roads. The same applies to guns; government can restrict guns on their property, but they go too far when they try to say whether I can have one, what kind I can have and how I can use it when not on their property and when doing no harm to others. Only if you subscribe to the notion that the entire country and everyone in it is the property of the government does the idea of universal gun control make sense.

    • David169

      Your right on target. The NRA has had the EDDIE EAGLE program for many years. It is a program in which a certified firearms safety instructor is invited into schools to teach firearms safety. States like California, Illinois and New York forbid the safety instruction because they feel familiarity with firearms will make the people want to own them later when they are of age. The primary lesson for children is, “If you see for find a firearm, do not touch or play with it; get an adult to take care of it.” Those states that forbid firearms safety instruction in schools have a higher incidence of firearms accidents.
      This boils down to a policy like “Fast and Furious” for school children. The anti-gun crowd is willing to let children get injured or killed to enhance the numbers of injuries to support their anti-gun rhetoric.

      • Dave

        The NRA should be working with the Gov to make sure that EVERYONE who purchases a firearm receive shooting training, safety training and a class on how to properly secure their weapons.
        I don’t think HS is the right place given we don’t have kids learning to balance a checkbook, or manage money or to make things in shop class, cooking class or even civics.
        The NRA has an impressive facility in Fairfax VA and many responsible gun owners take advantage of the training they offer. But its the idiots that treat guns as toys, are quick to pick up a gun when there is a disagreement that need this and it is the subject of these gun laws. Unfortunately, we have a different culture than Canada, Switzerland and Israel. We see owning a gun as a “right” and not enough people see it as a “responsibility”.

        • Don 2
        • 5alive5

          I HAD training from the time I was about seven years old up to now! That includes seven years in the military! Are you trying to say the military doesn’t know how to train in firearm SAFETY???? The rookie cop on the beat has less training in firearms than I do yet you trust HIM to protect you??? Get real Dave!!!

    • independent thinker

      The Second Amendment explicitly says we have the right to “keep and bear arms”.
      Show me where in the Constitution it explicitly says we have the right to possess and use an automobile or any other form of transportation.

      • Dave


        The second Amendment also said “well regulated” too…

        So IT, since the use of an Auto is not in the US Constitution, why do you violate the constitution by driving? The Constition does not say you can drive. You must be one of them thar leberals that are responsible for all the evil in the world.

        • independent thinker

          You are the one who admits to driving in as you say violation of the constitution.

        • vicki

          Dave. Read Amendment 9 and remember that the Constitution is a specific set of limits on GOVERNMENT and not on the people.

          Your rights (including your right to take your private property with you from place to place) come from your Creator and not from a piece of parchment.

          • Dave

            The Supreme Court in 1939:

            U.S. Supreme Court (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: “To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years”

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 14: “To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces”

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”

            Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”

            The President has a role too. Article 2, Section 2: “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;”

          • vicki

            You may have noticed that the SCOTUS 1939 comment was quite clear that they would indeed have found the NFA as applied to short barreled shotguns to be unconstitutional had anyone bothered to bring to them the evidence.

            Now in 2008 SCOTUS correctly translated English grammar and determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL personal right not connected to military service.


        • independent thinker

          well regulated–The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
          As to the ownership/use of an automobile, that is a privilage not a right.

    • Don 2

      Hoplophobe Dave, as a Democrat anti-gun liberal attack dog troll, your assignment, if you choose to accept it, will be to go after the Second Amendment on PLD throughout the day. However, your attacks will continue to self-destruct on their own within 5 seconds due to certain stupidity.

    • Wiley2

      “I would like to know just how law enforcement passes a gun safety law
      that just applies to the criminal or someone that will commit a crime.”

      The purpose of law is to hold people accountable when they harm others. Law defines acceptable behavior and says that if we choose to behave differently AND we harm others as a result, that is a crime and there is a penalty to pay. For someone who commits a crime with a gun there is a penalty to pay; that’s how you make gun laws apply only to criminals. Punish people only IF they commit a crime.

      Our legal system used to operate on the principle that people could not be punished for what they might do, only for what they have done. Increasingly, arrogant would-be dictators turn that principle upside down, advocating forcing everyone into a straightjacket to insure that no one can do anything that MIGHT harm others or themselves. How do you know who “will commit a crime” with a gun or any other tool? Restrictions based on a prior criminal history have some merit, but in the absence of such a history no one has the wisdom and foresight to reliably predict how every other individual will act or react in every situation, and it’s incredibly delusional to think that laws can be passed to preemptively control others’ behavior all the time or even a significant percentage of the time. That’s the kind of thinking that leads to total slavery and the destruction of the human spirit.

    • vicki

      you might notice that you still get to keep and carry (be carried by) your car. How about we return that right for gun owners too.

      • Dave

        Yes, my car is registered by the state, I have to take drivers tests to get a license and to keep my license every so often to prove I can be on the road safely, administered by the state.
        If I sell my car, I have to let the state know i sold it and to whom

        The “gun nuts” won’t even talk about such measures with their guns.

        • Don 2

          Somebody please explain to Hoplophobe Dave that “driving” is a privilege.

          • Average_Joe56

            You are wasting your time and effort…Dave is a shill….and a troll . He is only here to cause discord. Don’t waste time or effort…. feeding him…..

          • Don 2

            I know, but you must admit, annoying liberals is fun, especially a dufus like Hoplophobe Dave, who couldn’t muster a credible anti-gun argument if his life depended on it.

          • 5alive5

            He only tries because guns SCARE him!!!! Poor Dave!!!

          • Dave

            Guns in the hands of idiots do scare me. Because its those morons that are responsible for the push for more gun safety laws. But I will be thinking of your ignorance when I go to the gun club I was invited to shoot. .45 Cal and Tommy-guns fully auto.
            Guns don’t kill people, its person with the gun.

          • Average_Joe56

            ” But I will be thinking of your ignorance when I go to the gun club I was invited to shoot. .45 Cal and Tommy-guns fully auto.”

            You mean a Colt model 1911 and a Thompson model 1921..or possibly a Thompson Model 1928A or maybe it’s a Model 1928A1(all of which are also .45 ACP)? Or, are you simply showing your ignorance by not knowing what you’re shooting…anymore than you know what you’re talking about 95% of the time?

            If you truly knew anything about firearms, you probably wouldn’t have to go somewhere to shoot someone else’s firearms…you’d have your own to shoot. I know I do….A WASR 10/63 (AK-47) Select fire/ full auto and a Caspian Arms custom match .45 ACP…and I shoot almost daily…in my own back yard…now that the neighbors have gotten used to the full auto (on occasion).

            Good luck on the shoot…I hope you get over your fear of inanimate objects…Have fun…but, first and foremost…Listen to the instructor and….BE SAFE.

          • Dave

            I don’t pretend to know firearms as well as you apparently do. I typically do not seek out the activity. I could take shooting or leave it. But since I work with people who are members of a gun club, they invited me to shoot. I have not shot fully auto since the FBI range in Washington DC. I forget the model Thompson but it was a fun shoot

          • Average_Joe56

            I am betting that the more time you spend around firearms, the more you will start to change your views about them, for the better.
            Once again have a safe and enjoyable experience.

          • Dave


            I have no issue with guns themselves. Guns in the hands of people who understand what a gun is and the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with ownership. That person is fine.

            But the people who treat guns as toys and something for them to waive around as proof of the their 2nd amendment “rights”, the people who walk around packed just because “they can”. Those people are idiots. As are those who quickly pick up a gun when there is an argument. Again, complete idiots. We are trained to think that we need to live in fear in this country and to have a gun to protect yourself. That is all NRA marketing so the gun manufacturers can make more money.

            As I said either, if people understood responsibility when it comes to guns, minimal gun safety laws would be required. But we have too many idiots here. Those idiots are why we need gun safety laws.

          • Don 2

            Uh-oh, you’re going to the range Hoplophobe Dave? Speaking of guns in the hands of idiots…..Yikes!

          • vicki

            Guns in the hands of idiots don’t scare me overmuch. They can’t hit the broadside of a barn. Just have to avoid the poorly aimed muzzle while returning very accurate fire.

          • Dave

            Yes, common sense doesn’t play well in these parts.
            Its either freedom or their coming for your guns and your freedom. The ignorant play in absolutes.

          • vicki

            remember it is not dave to whom we speak. It is to those who are actually willing to learn.

          • vicki

            Ummm. Driving is a right. States have brainwashed people into thinking it is a privilege. (see my comments to dave above.)

          • Don 2

            Ummm. So, if a 10-year old is given an automobile, are you saying that he has a “right” to drive it on the highway?

        • vicki

          You register your car like a good little subject. You take tests to get a permission slip from your king which he revokes every few years unless you pay him. When you sell your private property you dutifully tell your king that you did so and you tell him who you sold it too.

          You are indeed a good subject fit to serve any earthly king.

          • Dave

            And you don’t of course Vicki because you are a “rebel”

            Nice ad hominem… though.

          • vicki

            It would indeed have been an ad hominem however since you had no point to make and were claiming that you were a good little subject the definition of ad hominem doesn’t quite apply.

          • Dave

            But it does,
            I had a point but of course you ignore it. so the moral here is that you are allowed to make ad hominem attacks but I cannot do the same in kind.
            Who made you the “law” here? Do you have a sense of entitlement here?

      • Don 2

        I’d like to know what planet Hoplophobe Dave lives on where “law enforcement” passes laws?

  • Average_Joe56

    15 year old girl leaves anti-gun politicians speechless


    No pre-emptive dictator is going to feel secure as long as there is a law like the 2nd amendment and a huge chunk of the population ready to defend themselves and the rule of law….the right to carry and bear arms is prolife and anti slavery.

  • 5alive5

    Russia, with its total control of guns has a murder rate five times HIGHER than the United States of America!!! gun control DOES NOT lower crime rates!!!