The Unnecessary Argument Against Gun Control

With all the recent events we have been so busy arguing reasonable, logical points against the gun control agenda and discrediting the anti-gunner’s lies that we forget that this debate is unnecessary in the first place.

We have the 2nd Amendment as a part of Constitution of the United States of America.  It was written long ago, by our Founding Fathers who wanted to secure our liberties and freedoms.  Their first act in the Bill of Rights was freedom of speech, religion and worship without government interference (NOT the misused phrase “separation of church and state).  The second God given right they wished to secure was protection against tyranny and oppression by declaring the government would not be able to stop the citizens from organizing into armed forces (militias) or from keeping and bearing the same arms that the federal government had access to.

I’ll keep this short and to the point.  The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, sport shooting, or target practice.  It has everything to do with defense of our liberties from a tyrannical government.  The argument of banning a type of gun just because someone deems that firearm has “no sporting purpose” or questioning “why anyone would need an AR15?” is completely unconstitutional.  The 2nd Amendment has already been infringed upon so much in the recent century that we are already at a disadvantage that the founding fathers were trying to avoid.  Since 1934 we have been restricted from owning “assault rifles, machine guns, suppressors, and ‘destructive devices'” despite what the national media wishes you to believe.  Then add on the 68,000+ gun laws we have on the books and you have proof of further infringements.

The 2nd Amendment is a part of a system of checks and balances to keep the government in it’s place and not force us into slavery under it’s power.  Any attempt to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms should be charged as tyranny.

Now I know the constitution means little to our current administration, but we need to remember the real purpose of our secured rights and the foundation of our freedoms in order to fight and preserve our liberties.  If we do not resist we will only become subjects and slaves.

After the recent “Gun Free Zone” massacres I wish to conclude with this short clip of Texas Representative Suzanne Hupp as she shares her experience from a “Gun Free Zone” massacre in 1991.  Hear her as she testifies the fallacy of gun control and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to Congress:

For me, the argument is settled.  We have the 2nd Amendment and I will not “compromise” any further for further infringement.

Read more:

Tips to Terminate the 2nd Amendment

Aftermath of Australia After Banning Guns

Obama’s Antigun Agenda

The New Assault Weapon Ban Plan – “Turn Them In!” ~ Sen. Feinstein 

What is an “Assault Weapon”?

Switzerland – “We are free because we are armed” – video

The Truth About “Assault Weapons” – video


Leave Comment
  1. Barry Failor

    Even the term “Gun Control” is inaccurate. I believe we, as lawful gun owners, should use the term “Freedom Limiting” or “Liberty reduction” or even “Citizen Control” as it’s obvious this has little to do with guns.

  2. Jeremy Cooper

    Very well said Dustin. I am shocked to see how many supposed “pro-gun” politicians are willing to compromise with our liberties, in the name of “common sense regulation.” This is a contradiction in terms really…every citizen should be well aware by now that the government has no concept of what “common sense” means! Need I give examples like “Fast & Furious scandal,” “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” ” Fiscal cliff debacle!” Sorry for the rant!

  3. Mimi Anto

    Thank you for such a concise article, Dustin. I am bombarded daily by friends who have been led to belive that our Constitution is ‘outdated’ and that because of it we are such a ‘bad’ place.

    • Thanks. Those type of folks who believe we are “outdated” are the same ones who refuse to take responsibility for their actions or put responsibility on the heads of the criminals. Seems as if it’s easier for them to believe there is no “evil” in the world and bad things happen because of inanimate objects. It’s absurd.

  4. Tony

    Sure glad someone finally brought that up. While we are at it, lets ask why we don’t require the President to do his job. According to Article II Section 1, Clause 8 the president must take this oath “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Sounds like a pretty simple job description to me. Why aren’t we holding them to it?…Seems to me, all he tries to do is CHANGE it. He’s got the wrong job for that doesn’t he? We need to hold these elected officials accountable and require them to do (only) the job they were elected to do.

  5. Randall Dunning

    Why do I need a handgun? I need it to fight my way back to a military grade rifle. Why do I need a military grade rifle with high capacity magazine? Because those who would deprive me of liberty are so armed and as an American I have a God given right to parity of weapons.

    Here are some historical court rulings on the Second Amendment over the years. Note that these rulings show the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as an “absolute” right that is organic to the people and not a privilege or immunity that the government can extend or withdraw at governmental pleasure.

    ” `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

    “The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

    “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]