Why Liberals are Dead Wrong on Gun Control

Despite the Opposition of Liberals, the 2nd Amendment is Clear that Lawful Gun Control is for All American Citizens




Lee Enochs (B.A. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary), is a graduate student in Princeton New Jersey and is the Managing Editor of Liberty Conservatives Magazine. Lee writes in defense of the Liberty Movement. To help Lee  fight for liberty please donate  (here)


Despite another mass shooting incident in America yesterday, I strongly believe in our right to keep and bear arms.

In fact, I believe the U.S. Constitution allows for unlimited and unregulated gun ownership without background checks and permits.

I personally believe in the principles of “open carry,” or the right to openly carry a firearm in public spaces and places at all times and “concealed carry,” where a person can carry a firearm that cannot be seen by the casual observer.

I believe any restrictions on firearms ownership is unconstitutional and grossly unwarranted. I believe that the U.S. Constitution is clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed on in any way.

The Second Amendment is very clear on our Constitutional right to own firearms without qualifications, restrictions and limitations. I personally believe the gun ownership should be as common as breathing air and that we have an innate right to protect ourselves.

The Second Amendment says,

 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


Here are some strong reasons why gun control does not work and does not square with your Constitutional rights:




*Regulation won’t work… and you can’t regulate it to perfection. There’s about one gun for every citizen inside the U.S. already. It would be impossible to collect this massive trove of guns. Even if the government wanted to, they could not control guns already present… or guns that would find their way into those hands who want them.

*Laws don’t apply to criminals. This is simple enough. Gun control does not address the issue of gun-related crimes. In 2010, gun sales in Chicago were verboten. There were 432 murders in 2010 and 500 in 2012. The FBI named Chicago the nation’s murder capital. If a criminal is going to break the law, they will find a way.

*Prohibition didn’t stop alcohol… gun control won’t stop guns. The people who prospered during Prohibition by importing and supplying alcohol were gangsters like Al Capone. If gun control were in place, the people we’d really have to worry about would be the modern-day Al Capone supplying guns.

*Rampage shooters like soft targets. They’re targeting elementary schools, churches, and theaters… not places where you’d think guns are likely to be… Hell’s Angels’ bars, Scarface’s house in Miami, or a police station.

*Gun rights will protect you from a police state. Edward Snowden brought our diminishing constitutional rights to light. “Big Brother” is not a myth. It’s a violation of the constitution. If the government doesn’t protect your right, what will

*Shooters will get access to a gun, even with strict gun laws in place. In 2009, a German high school student went on a rampage and killed 15 people. He did not have a gun. He used his father’s 9 mm. Even in a country with strict gun laws, a shooter was able to find one and use it.

*Armed civilians help take out the bad guys. I’m referring to the first modern mass shooting in Austin, Texas in 1966. A sniper in a tower shot at University of Austin students for 90 minutes. The police who reacted had help. Students went to their trucks and grabbed their rifles and shot along side of the police. It was enough to pin the shooter down and allow the police to take the shooter out. Police then thanked the civilians for helping them fire on the shooter.

*The Second Amendment is not intended for just ordinary home defense. Its intent was to guarantee the nation could never be overcome by any military power, foreign or domestic. If the military was not available… say a nuclear holocaust or a synchronized Pearl Harbor occurred… you would have to protect yourself. If you were limited to non-assault rifles, any invader with an AK-47 would have an easy day.

*Limiting assault rifles limits your Second Amendment rights. If the government restricts types of rifles or limits the amount of rounds, there’s no limit to what else they will restrict. The infringement of your constitutional rights won’t just stop at the type of arms you can bear. Who knows what other rights they’ll take away… free speech, freedom of religion.

* There’s still murder in countries where handguns are banned. The United Kingdom banned handguns in 1997 after a man shot 16 elementary students and then shot himself.

Let’s look at the UK’s homicide rate before, during, and after the ban… In 1996, the murder rate was 1.12 per 100,000 people. In 1997, it rose to 1.24. In 1998, the rate rose even further to 1.43. And in 2002, it peaked at 2.1 homicides per 100,000. Just because you ban guns, doesn’t mean people won’t find other ways to massacre other human beings.

See: http://thecrux.com/ten-powerful-arguments-against-gun-control/








There are some people who try to rationally defend “sensible gun control.” While I vigorously oppose gun control arguments, I have permitted, for the purpose of free speech, Kadin J.G. Williams to give the following arguments for what he believes is “Sensible gun control.” Again, I reject these arguments 100% and in full…

Kadin J.G. Williams on “Sensible Gun Control”

Yesterday’s attack in San Bernardino, California is a tragedy that should grieve us all. While both the nature of the suspect’s motives and their acquisition of firearms is still under investigation, this type tragedy has become all too common in our country. In fact, this type of calamity has become an almost daily phenomenon. Soon after this most recent shooting The Guardian published an article entitled, 1,052 Mass Shootings in 1,066 Days: This is what America’s Gun Crisis Looks Like. The truth is really quite simple. We need to be more thoughtful about how easy it is in our country to acquire firearms.

Although many people may believe that liberals are out to take away everyone’s guns, this is simply untrue. There is a sharp distinction between the seizure of everyone’s guns and the implementation of laws that address access, safety, and commerce issues. I believe that we need stricter regulations surrounding those issues.

I, like many other progressives, have owned firearms. There are many reasons why gun ownership can be great. However, there are also many reasons why our current policies have failed us. To demonstrate this, I’m going to cite some of David Hemenway’s findings.

The presence of a gun in a home increases the risk of suicide.The presence of a gun in a home increases the chance of a woman being a victim of homicide. In fact, 85% of women killed by firearms in the world’s wealthiest countries happen to be Americans. Permissive gun carrying laws do not reduce crime rates. Strong gun laws reduce homicide rates.

Finally, 80% of all firearms deaths in the world’s wealthiest countries occur in the United States. Even Fox News has reported that increases in school security have failed to reduce the growing number of school shootings. It is obvious that our country is facing a huge problem. We need to reevaluate how accessible firearms are to people with criminal records, documented mental health issues, and children.

Guns should not be easier to acquire than cars; and yet, in many cases they are. I believe that States, in conjunction with the Federal government, should pass tougher laws regarding the purchase and sale of firearms. Rates of gun violence are understandably related to the differences between city and rural life. If States are given the opportunity, they can protect rural hunting cultures and simultaneously address urban gun violence with stricter regulations. Nevertheless, in both instances I think that it is high time for us to address how people with criminal records acquire firearms legally.

“Our paranoia has contributed to deaths we’ve seen on the news” –Kadin J.G. Williams

Our paranoia has contributed to the deaths we’ve seen on the news. We are responsible and we need to take a stronger stand on gun violence. I would hope that Americans of all stripes would find it alarming that known and suspected terrorists can easily acquire firearms within our borders.

As The Washington Post reported in November, suspected terrorists were able to purchase firearms in 91% of the cases they tried to. In hard figures, they were successful at least 2,233 times. I would hope that all Americans find that to be an unacceptable figure. It’s okay to own firearms and it’s perfectly fine to practice sports like hunting. I wish every American could embrace Teddy Roosevelt’s admirable combination of conservationism and sportsmanship. Unfortunately, we also need to make a more concerted effort to prevent the escalating rates of mass shootings in this country. We need to make it harder for criminals, terrorists, and the mentally ill to acquire firearms.



Kadin J.G. Williams is a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary and is presently pursuing graduate studies within Temple University’s Philosophy Department. As an undergraduate, he served as the Captain of the Debate Team and graduated sigma chi pi and magna cum laude. His employment experience includes non-profits, schools, public policy research, and churches.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s