All the Dumb Arguments Gun-Grabbers Make to Restrict the Second Amendment

A gun-control march on Washington.

A gun-control march on Washington.

I’m putting together a list of all the dumb arguments gun-grabbers make in an attempt to deny us our Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms. It’s going to be a work-in-progress as just when you think you’ve heard them all, they dream up a new reason to tell us why the Second Amendment needs to be restricted.

I think I’m off to a pretty good start, but with your help I think we’ll be able to compile a comprehensive list that will hopefully serve as a reference for anyone who finds themselves locking horns with an anti-gunner.

As far as the format, my goal is to state the gun-grabber argument followed by a pithy rebuttal that is like a fall-away buzzer beater. Meaning, after one fires it off, it’s game over. Checkmate. The anti-gunner will have no come back, the argument will be over.

Of course, it’s hard to do in a few words or sentences, but I think it’s possible. I think that’s where I need the most help, in coming up with that zinger that closes out the argument. So jump in with your suggestions and I’ll continue to update and refine the article accordingly.

“You don’t need a ____.”

Rebuttal: It’s the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

“If it saves just one life.”

Rebuttal: Banning all hammers might save a life, should we do that too?

“Polls show that a majority of Americans favor…”

Rebuttal: Rights aren’t subject to public opinion.

“Gun control works in Europe.”

Rebuttal: Check the crime stats.  Violent crime in the U.K. is not much lower than violent crime in the U.S.

“We need to get weapons of war (assault weapons, high capacity magazines) off the street.”

Rebuttal: Actual weapons of war are heavily regulated by the NFA.

“Gun control is common sense.”

Rebuttal: Infringing on one’s right to self-defense is anything but common sense.

“Women are five times more likely to be killed by an intimate partner when a firearm is present.”

Rebuttal: How can that be when the exact number of defensive gun uses involving women is not recorded? Plus, how many of those victims were shot by prohibited persons (felons, domestic abusers, minors, and others who are not allowed to own firearms in the first place).

“Every day, 88 Americans are killed by gun violence.”

Rebuttal: True. Two thirds of them take their own life, sadly. And, tragically, the rest are mostly victims of drug and/or gang related violence. Where is the outcry for suicide control, gang control and drug control?

“The Second Amendment isn’t an individual right, it’s reserved for militia service.”

Rebuttal: Read Heller (2008).

“More guns equals more crime.”

Rebuttal: All 50 states have legalized concealed carry over the past decade or so, and the gun-related homicide rate, violent crime and property crime have all uniformly decreased. Explain that correlation?

We can’t change the past, but we can demand a safer tomorrow.

Rebuttal: You’re right, we can demand a safer tomorrow: End gun-free zones.

Mass shootings are on the rise.

Rebuttal: Wrong!  Research says otherwise.


What else am I missing? Also, do you have any witty rebuttals that I should consider adding?  Some of the ones I have seem a bit too long.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 27 comments… add one }
  • Evan Pallesen February 19, 2017, 8:08 am

    Actually you are wrong about speed vs safety. Driving slowly on good roads increases the “zone out” rate, leading to more accidents… Rather make the roads a lot worse so people are forced to pay more attention to what they are doing.

  • Whitster July 31, 2015, 12:44 pm

    When are the liberals ever going to learn the problem is the MISUSE of the gun…not the gun itself!!

  • paoman57 July 27, 2015, 7:13 pm

    I love the comment that the 2nd Amendment is limited to the muskets at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. If that is the case, there would be no modern mass media, since communication was done with simple printing presses. Also, there would be no contraceptive/abortion/women’s/gay marriage rights, since those did not exist at the time of the Constitution’s adoption. Television could be outlawed since that did not exist in 1789 (may actually be an improvement). A ‘militia’ was nothing more than that pool of able-bodied men, bearing arms, who could be summoned in a time of emergency. History shows that their weapons were the equivalent, and often better, than the military had.

    This comment is often just a stupid, snide remark and can easily be dealt with. Try suggesting that someone else’s cherished ‘right’ be dispensed with and watch the reaction.

    • Keith November 9, 2016, 11:46 pm

      The musket WAS the assault rifle at that time. If the military rifles were to be limited to the military, then the constitution would say the individual should be limited to rocks and sticks, and should NOT be allowed to carry one of them there scary muskets.

  • shootbrownelk July 27, 2015, 4:47 pm

    Restraining orders are made of paper and they don’t work to protect women, guns and training do protect women.
    If Federal gun laws and penalties were actually enforced and imposed, we’d all be better off. Stop lawyers from plea bargaining down these Federal gun charges by the gang members and druggies.

    • Chuck O'Donnell July 27, 2015, 6:00 pm

      Fully agree. The vast majority of criminal cases today are plea bargained by prosecutors along with the blessings of judges as it’s the Easy thing to do. Going to trial puts the risk of losing, and more importantly a blemish on a prosecutors record, and doesn’t even consider how many truly innocent people who can’t afford decent legal defense wind up going to jail by taking a lesser plea. The entire criminal justice system is corrupt and justice has been lost. I wish I knew what the answer is, but don’t think things are going to get any better soon…

  • Bill Rodriguez July 27, 2015, 4:08 pm

    My favorite argument closer? “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

  • Steve C July 27, 2015, 1:47 pm

    “They were referring to muskets, not fully automatic machine guns”

    1) The average citizen doesn’t have a machine gun as there are less than 200k machine guns that are legal for a private citizen to own in the US and those are HIGHLY regulated with applications and background checks every time they change hands.
    2) Our founding fathers lived during a time of great change in terms of firearms. The Puckle gun was invented in 1718 more than half a century before the Revolution. So they were familiar with more than a single shot musket.
    3) If that is the case and the 2nd Amendment must be limited to the arms of 1776, then all other rights must be similarly limited as you can’t suggest that they couldn’t imagine the weapons we have now but think they’d imagine a magic snuff box that allowed you to speak to someone in England as if they were standing next to you. So: 1st Amendment? Only applies to public gatherings and print. Radio, TV, Internet, Email? Not covered, you have no 1st Amendment rights using those mediums. 4th Amendment? Only applies to your house and written communications. Your phone, cell phone, car, email and other internet communications have no protections from unlawful search and seizure. And let’s talk about abortion. Abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution. It is generally covered under the 14th Amendment but not specifically. But, that doesn’t matter, if we can only interpret our rights against the norms of 1776, then abortions should only be able to be performed using the methods used in 1776. Which were: dunking in hot baths, punching women in the stomach or pushing them down stairs, giving them dubious home remedies and poisonous herbs. You cannot argue that they’d have the vision to believe muskets were the end of the evolution of firearms but we’d come up with ever more inventive (and safe) ways to abort a pregnancy.

    • Chuck O'Donnell July 27, 2015, 2:42 pm

      Fully agree with this, especially the ‘muskets vs machine gun’ gun control idiots espouse. At the time British troops marched on Lexington and Concord to disarm the colonists they Had the exact same type of weaponry that the Brits carried so any liberal point is moot. But I suppose the liberal mind always has a way of changing history to support their distorted view of it, no doubt it’s why they’ve taken over the Federal Re-Education Boot Camps called public schools..

      • Steve C July 27, 2015, 5:01 pm

        “Do you really think you can fight our government with tanks and planes and drones with those guns?”

        Love this one too. Then I remind them of the almost 7,000 Americans killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 15 years or so by goat herders with less weaponry and training than exists in the American populace. This also assumes that 100% of the armed forces are going to fight against their own countrymen. Which we all know isn’t true. And I also like to mention how badly the Russians got their asses kicked by those same goat herders.

  • Chuck O'Donnell July 27, 2015, 9:08 am

    I used to argue with liberals when I lived in NYC but soon learned that Never do they have an opinion based on facts or reality, Ever! One told me that there’s “A God given right to health care” as if doctors are put on the earth and spend the money for the education to serve people like her! And laughably she had an education at a leading liberal university. If there is a “God given right” to Anything, it is to defend yourself, your loved ones, your possessions and the innocent! For the liberal, who has no concept based on anything but emotional psychobabble, trying to wake them up will never happen, it’s impossible for the liberal mind to form a free thought on their own even if their lives depended on it. They truly are the reason we have become a Nation of Sheep. They Will Never be convinced of statistics or the cold hard facts of life, they basically are children wanting to be taken care of and protected, and will always live in a feel good ‘rainbows and unicorns’ fantasy world. They’re Still waiting for the “Hope and Change” they were promised by their ‘Lord and Savior’! Hahaha

    • jstert July 27, 2015, 10:13 am

      you nailed it. im past the point of reasoning with the anti 2a left. i would be happy to show them how to properly handle a firearm but alas most places to shoot in unfree states are members-only, and most leftists are willfully closeminded and scornfully ignorant.

      • Chuck O'Donnell July 27, 2015, 11:20 am

        I fully agree. Here’s another example of an argument I once had with one concerning a woman’s right for free health care at Planned Parenthood (and this theme of ‘free’ is a consistent uninformed one they ignorantly believe as if “the government” actually pays for anything) she was screaming about the conservatives are going to take away funding of PP, and this is ‘a woman’s right’ and they believe the founder of it, Margaret Sanger, is a Goddess. Sanger was a Eugenicist who first started PP as a way to control the ‘breeding of undesirables’, financed by the Rockefeller Foundation and highly admired by Adolph Hitler. But sincerely none of the typically urban liberal women, a majority as self declared feminists, have a clue about the real history of this organization or anything else related to Real history either.

  • Jim Jadwin July 27, 2015, 7:37 am

    If gun control laws start approaching those insane alcohol laws of the 1920’s, like those citizens back then, I will start to look at the ILLEGAL purchase of weapons out of the trunk of some ghetto hood rat, just like current gang members. There is only one thing an individual can count on when the police are involved. A glazed donut.!!!!

  • Jonathan July 26, 2015, 5:59 pm

    What response would be best for.
    Less guns less criminals.
    Guns make people commit crimes.
    And, there are other ways to defend yourself.
    I know they’re pretty much common sense but what’s the best way to comeback with.

  • Jonathan July 26, 2015, 5:58 pm

    What response would be best for.
    Less guns less criminals.
    Guns make people commit crimes.
    And, there are other ways to defend yourself.
    I know they’re pretty much common sense but what’s the best way to comeback with.

  • Michael July 26, 2015, 3:36 pm

    To counter the “The 2nd Amendment is meant for the militia” drivel. Show them a picture of the everyday Americans who saw the need to arm themselves and stand guard of our military centers. Then explain that their argument is dead as it appears the militia is currently using its firearms to protect the Republic.

    • Oliver Klozzoff July 27, 2015, 6:02 pm

      The United States Code defines the militia:
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
      (b) The classes of the militia are—
      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
      I happen to be over 45, but I do not consider myself to have been discharged.

  • Aaron July 24, 2015, 10:22 am

    No one needs to live. No one needs property.

    It’s common sense that we all die, why are you arguing you need to live right now?

    Your organs could give life to so many other people. You’re greedy for using them when they could help others.

    Progressives do not use logic. They use emotions. All of these topics are valuable but useless.

  • Will Drider July 24, 2015, 3:27 am

    Rebuttle: Guns work as advertised and that function is protected by Law from Civil Suit.

    Rebuttle: Guns enable people of all sizes to protect themselves and their oved ones from dangerous violent criminals.

    Rebuttle: I have a Right and responsibility to protect myself. Police have no responsibility to protect every citizen 24/7.
    Rebuttle: Do you see any Police? Who is protecting you right now? Like it or not, some civilian in this room with a gun has the potential to save your ass if someting bad happened.

    Why do you need a AR 15 OR AK WITH A HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE?
    Rebuttle: The same reason you drive a car instead of riding a bike.

    We don’t need all these guns on our streets!
    Rebuttle: With all the criminals and terrorists on the streets we need more good guys with guns there to level the field.

    Rebuttle: They need to buy a gun, get training and replace politicians who don’t support that.

    Guns are just tools. Your scared because you know nothing about them. Criminals think there scary when you stop them in their tracks.

    Rebuttle: You are a real dumbass aren’t you?

    • Ron July 28, 2015, 6:39 am

      I think your comments are better than the original column. Perhaps they should offer you the author’s job…..

  • Tom Stelene July 23, 2015, 11:10 pm

    Great idea! I have my own rebuttals I’d like to share:
    To those who ask why do I need whatever kind of gun my reply is: who are you to decide what I need and don’t need? It’s not your business.
    “We need to get weapons of war of the streets” I reply with, “what kind of weapons, according to you, would be acceptable on the streets?”
    “Gun control is common-sense” is equivalent to seeing that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and concluding the sun revolves around earth – and calling that “common-sense astronomy.” Observe, learn, widen your perspective and see how wrong you initially were. Fearing, restricting and banning inanimate objects is superstition, not common sense.
    To “if it saves one life…” reply: “And if gun control costs one life?”

    • Joe July 26, 2015, 5:24 pm

      I love ‘we support background checks’ I do too – we already have them and when a purchaser fails the background check they are rarely punished – start enforcing the law(s) (some 10,000 and counting)

    • Infidel7.62 July 27, 2015, 9:00 am

      They are not “Gun free zones” they are self defense prohibited zones. There is no magic machine that removes all guns as you enter.

    • Infidel7.62 July 27, 2015, 9:00 am

      They are not “Gun free zones” they are self defense prohibited zones. There is no magic machine that removes all guns as you enter.

    • Infidel7.62 July 27, 2015, 9:00 am

      They are not “Gun free zones” they are self defense prohibited zones. There is no magic machine that removes all guns as you enter.

    • Glockster July 27, 2015, 5:37 pm

      If a person is really in favor of enacting laws that save lives, reduce the hiway speeds nationwide to 55mph. Studies show that is guaranteed to save lives. See how much the anti-gunners really care about laws that save lives.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend