Anti-Gun Control Arguments 2024: Facts Gun Control Lobby Suppress

  • The Supreme Court consistently rules that U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms.
  • Madison, Hancock, and Washington all support the need for a well-regulated and disciplined militia.
  • Homicide rates in the U.S. reached new highs after sweeping Federal gun control acts.
  • The gun control and gun rights industry is a multi-million dollar industry that has little impact on firearm-related deaths.
  • 64% of Americans think that firearms make homes safer despite firearm-related deaths.
  • 56% of Americans supported stricter gun control in 2023 as opposed to 78% in 1990.
  • 12% of Americans supported relaxed gun control in 2023 compared to only 2% in 1990.

Anti-Gun Control Arguments - Report Highlights

Arguments Against Gun Control

Anti-gun control arguments are in no short supply. From the historical tradition of firearms in America to the threat of violent crime, there’s something for everyone on this side of the aisle. Let’s discuss some of the more compelling anti-gun control arguments happening today.

Second Amendment Arguments Against Gun Control

There’s much debate about the original intent of a fairly straightforward statement; “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Plainly put, some Americans place credence on the first part of the sentence, and others only on the second part. However, after reading several founding documents, letters, and Supreme Court cases, it’s obvious: the first statement explains why the 2A is necessary, and the second limits the government’s power over the right to keep and bear arms.

Supreme Court Cases

The Supreme Court consistently upholds that U.S. citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Second Amendment does not apply to all firearms and all individuals.

Supreme Court Cases

Supreme Court case rulings on the Second Amendment largely support U.S. Citizen’s rights to bear arms.

Exploring a Well-Regulated Militia

Rather than arguing semantics or sentence structure, let’s review a few founding documents written before the Constitutional Convention.

John Hancock’s Boston Massacre Oration 1774

In John Hancock’s speech on the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, we see that the well-regulated militia is comprised of the citizens of states and not controlled by the government.

A well-disciplined militia is a safe, an honorable guard to a community like this, whose inhabitants are by nature brave, and are laudably tenacious of that freedom in which they were born. From a well-regulated militia we have nothing to fear; their interest is the same with that of the State. When a country is invaded, the militia are ready to appear in its defense; they march into the field with that fortitude which a consciousness of the justice of their cause inspires; they do not jeopard their lives for a master who considers them only as the instruments of his ambition, and whom they regard only as the daily dispenser of the scanty pittance of bread and water. No; they fight for their houses, their lands, for their wives, their children; for all who claim the tenderest names, and are held dearest in their hearts; they fight pro aris et focis, for their liberty, and for themselves, and for their God.

George Washington to John Hancock 1776

George Washington expressed to John Hancock that an unregulated and undisciplined militia would not adequately protect the colonies from foreign threats.

“– added to a consciousness of my inability to govern an Army composed of such discordant parts, and under such a variety of intricate and perplexing circumstances, induces not only a belief, but a thorough conviction in my Mind, that it will be impossible unless there is a thorough change in our Military System for me to conduct matters in such a manner as to give Satisfaction to the Publick, which is all the recompense I aim at, or ever wished for.”

Exploring the Right of the People

James Madison - Federalist Paper #46

James Madison wrote Federalist Paper #46 in 1788. One of his many contributions to the Constitutional Convention (and, ultimately the Constitution) was that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would greatly benefit the States’ liberty.

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of - James Madison Federalist Paper 46

When we put these pieces together, we can see the founders intent: that a well-regulated militia would be necessary to maintain a free state, and therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ethical Arguments Against Gun Control

The gun control debate isn’t only trending headlines and state house rallies, it’s also a multi-million dollar industry.

As evidenced by years of data (shown below), gun control is largely unsuccessful. In fact, the United States has had federal gun control legislation since 1934. Yet, homicide rates have increased 26% since this time.

Furthermore, there is no correlation between firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide, unintentional, and law enforcement) and gun lobbying (for or against gun control).

Essentially, feel-good legislation is ineffective, but quite profitable.

Lobby Donations and Firearm-Related Deaths

Gun control and gun rights lobby groups’ spending have no impact on firearm-related deaths in the U.S.

Why We Don’t Need Gun Control

Gun control legislation only serves to disarm those who choose to comply. Per the Supreme Court, even if an officer of the law is present, they have no duty to protect civilians. Coupled with the fact that violent crime and homicide rates continue to climb, the best defense afforded to American citizens is the ability to adequately protect themselves.

  • In 2022, 477,053 violent crime victimizations occurred within a residence. 203,165 occurred on a street, highway, alley, or sidewalk.
  • 370,118 of the 647,523 violent crimes reported in 2022 were assailants unknown.
  • 4,271 women, 18,192 men, and 2,402 children were murdered in 2022 (all methods).

Arguments for Gun Control in the U.S.

The gun control debate dates back to prohibition in the United States. After alcohol was prohibited, crime rates increased due to a new market for underground liquor. As rates climbed, the federal government reacted with the NFA.

In 1934, the NFA (National Firearms Act) added a $200 tax stamp to certain firearms, making them less appealing. However, gun violence continued to rise. In 1968, after the assassination of JFK and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the federal government passed more gun control.

Today, the argument is still ongoing - “If there were no guns, there’d be no gun deaths.”

It’s a simple and seemingly logical statement. So, let’s dive in.

How Many People Die from Guns Each Year?

Basic logic dictates that more guns equals more shootings. Naturally, you can’t shoot someone if you don’t have a firearm. However, this simple understanding of firearms in the U.S. misses critical points.

First, firearm confiscation is not possible in the U.S. for numerous reasons. Second, the data shows that when firearm restrictions prevent lawful gun owners from purchasing or carrying firearms, overall homicide rates increase.

Here are the stats:

  • The national homicide rate before the 1968 Gun Control Act was 5.3.
  • The decade following the act had an average national homicide rate of 8.9.
  • The decade following the 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act saw an average national homicide rate of 8.69 (this included the decade with the 1990 School Zone Safety Act, 1993 Brady Act, and 1994 FAWB).
  • The decade following the expiration of the FAWB saw national homicide rates drop to 5.07.

Average National Homicide Rate and Firearm-Related Laws

Are Mass Shootings on the Rise in States with Loose Gun Control Laws?

We’re only one month into 2024, and already there have been a few mass shootings. It seems the U.S. is continuing the same pattern as 2023 regarding violence. Of course, another trend we seem to carry over each year is that mass shootings occur in many states.

Despite gun laws and restrictions, the top ten states for mass shootings contain a variety of the strictest gun law states and some with more relaxed firearm legislation.

Mass Shootings by States

Mass shootings occur at higher rates in these ten states, despite strict and relaxed gun control laws.

Over Half of Americans Support Gun Control

A commonly cited statistic from pro-gun control advocates is that over half of Americans support gun control. While the obvious retort is that Americans’ rights can’t be voted away (thanks to our founders), we can still look at these stats to determine how gun control support aligns with homicide rates in the U.S.

Fewer Americans supported gun control in 2023 than they did in 1990. Furthermore, violent crime rates were lower in 2023 than in 1990.

Crime Rates vs. Gun Control

Sources

Anti-Gun Control Arguments 2024: Facts Gun Control Lobby Suppress originally appeared on Ammo.com

6 Likes

image

Whats changed?

3 Likes

1/2 the people support gun control.
Thats the 1/2 that knows NOTHING about guns.

Here in washingrad the state is getting rid of FFLs though so much regulation, the stores are closing. In fact the feds are going to sue the state for over riding federal authority.
The feds dont care about the guns, they care that their power is being negated.

5 Likes

Gettysburg address Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

—Abraham Lincoln

Emancipation Proclaimation
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.(Its 5 pages long so I cant post all of it .) Dont think I can find an link to its entirety)

It may not mean anything to some people after all it was written by a white guy… oh whats his name . .oh yeah Abraham Lincoln I

5 Likes

The banksters incorporated the USA in 1871, finalized it in 1933.
Everything before that is history. Does not count any more.

5 Likes

So how is this article wrong?

4 Likes

Tough to argue as it seems to be a red herring, what I see reading it is the question should be does DC have any authority outside of DC based on the act

Established: Effective June 1, 1871, by an act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat. 419), abolishing the Corporations of the City of Washington, DC, and Georgetown, DC, and the Levy Court of Washington County, DC; and replacing them with a municipal corporation known as the District of Columbia.

So, the bold terms explain there’s now a new “local government”

Functions: Exercises the executive, legislative, and judicial responsibilities of a municipal government; provides special services, as required, for those elements of the Federal Government occupying space within the District of Columbia.

That government has jurisdiction within that ten mile square only

The same is said of state police posts, they have a small post and jurisdiction within that space only.

Outside of that

3 Likes

So the answer is …no it’s not wrong?

I thought/hoped you would latch on the all CAPS thing in ‘We the People’.

3 Likes

I don’t see the US corporation argument successful here, just a municipality known as DC

So the article is correct to say the argument is wrong

I did not see that and just went to find the text for the act which is when I found the link with quotes I posted, not 100% sure its exactly whats being discussed but think so

3 Likes

the issue is someone assuming a legal term of “civil joining” means the formation of a corporate business entity and uses it to justify their sovereign citizen argument.
in·cor·po·rate

verb

verb: incorporate; 3rd person present: incorporates; past tense: incorporated; past participle: incorporated; gerund or present participle: incorporating

/inˈkôrpəˌrāt/

    1. take in or contain (something) as part of a whole; include. “he has incorporated in his proposals a large number of measures”

Similar: embody, include, comprise, contain, embrace, build in, encompass, absorb, subsume, assimilate, integrate, take in, swallow up, engulf, consolidate.
Opposite:
separate

  • combine (ingredients) into one substance.,“add the cheeses and butter and process briefly to incorporate them”
    Similar:
    blend, mix mingle, combine, put together, merge, fuse, unite, unify, join, bring together. amalgamate,integrate, fold in,stir, whisk, meld, marry, mesh, compound, alloy,coalesce, homogenize, emulsify, intermingle, intermix, blunge, commingle, commix

constitute (a company, city, or other organization) as a legal corporation. “limited liability companies could only be incorporated under the 1930 Act”
adjective
adjective: incorporate
/inˈkôrp(ə)rət/

another term for incorporated.
2. 2.
LITERARY
having a bodily form; embodied.“through an incorporate resilience, slighted confidence restores itself”

4 Likes

Well they sure act like they are a different country

3 Likes

I grew up in the country still live in the country .

3 Likes

Lets see… white, Christian, a patriot and rural… Therefore you and all our ilk must be done away with, one way or another.

4 Likes

Roman Coliseum/The Hunger Games, same thing different times or is it coming soon.

5 Likes

Ok, I’ll play

My dictionary did not have a

But, it has

Civil fraud. In taxation, the specific intent to evade a tax which taxpayer believes to be owing is an essential element of civil fraud.

The operative word there is

“believes”

Assuming civil joining is a legal term it would in fact require belief to manifest it into a legal reality.

To say of an act that it is “lawful” implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.

Belief is the technical required manner to have the civil joining.

Lex. In Roman law, a law; the law. This term was often used as the synonym of jus, in the sense of a rule of civil conduct authoritatively prescribed for the government of the actions of the members of an organized jural society.

That legal term

The term “jural society” is used as the synonym of “state” or “organized political community.”

is what I’d use in place of your term civil joining, and belief is required to make it legal

When you condemn as you do

you merely condemn those who have begun to, or do see this artificial construct, the matrix

They only want you also to see it

Because collectively is how it operates, in the shadows of illusion, which is fine, it has to, how could it operate if everyone woke up?

Redress. Satisfaction for an injury or damages sustained. Damages or equitable relief. See Recovery; Restituti on.

If you found you were a battery in some cosmic system, using you and your soul, what would you want?

4 Likes

She sure was purty :rofl: a very confident walk :joy:

4 Likes

Thats all I really got outta that :rofl:

4 Likes

Klause Schwab, WEF & Bill Gates and the lunatics that are part of Agenda 21.

4 Likes

We’ve moved on, I’d say Covid was part of that, we’re on to agenda 2030 now and I believe its accelerated

4 Likes

Oh so there is a agenda 30 now ? Geesh these creeps never give up @Robert

4 Likes