Why Are Anti-Gunners Still Using These Argument

So the BBC has a writeup on America’s liberalization (term used in the classical sense not modern sense) of gun laws. Obviously being the BBC they give more time to anti-gunners such as Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik:

“They’re hell-bound to try and put guns in schools,” he says of Mr Gould and his Republican colleagues.

“If they’re successful in my opinion at some point in the future there’s going to be a ‘Gunfight at OK Corral’ in some classroom.”

Emphasis mine. Anti-gunners have been claiming there will be “blood in the streets” since right to carry laws started being enacted. The problem comes from the fact this still hasn’t happened and we’ve had right to carry laws for quite some time now. Continued use of this argument is a side effect of the fact anti-gunners have no argument to stand on. They’ve been proven wrong time and time again yet are so scared of inanimate objects with triggers that they refuse face reality and admit they are wrong.

I’m still baffled at the fact that anti-gunners don’t get the fact that criminals ignore laws. Saying a place is a gun free zone doesn’t stop shootings as noted by school shootings. The best thing we can do is give people a fighting chance and that can only be done by allowing them equal force to the criminals.

Of course Brady Campaign shill Colin Goddard has some input on the subject at hand:

He says he’s not opposed to the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, but he doesn’t like the idea of concealed weapons, especially on campus.

“That is not a right, that is a privilege that we grant to certain people who meet certain requirements,” he says. “And I’m saying those requirements are very low.”

Of course he mentions the United States Constitution:

“The second amendment is the only amendment with the word ‘regulated’ in it. And I’d say that’s there for a reason.”

The Second Amendment states “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.” Notice that regulated appears in relation to the militia but there is a comma which delineates a separation of thought. The amendment then says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed means what it states. Another thing Mr. Collins completely ignored is the Arizona constitution which is covered in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) article:

Article II, section 26 of the Arizona Constitution guarantees the following: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.”

No mention of “well regulated” even appears in Arizona’s Constitution. Too bad so sad Mr. Brady shill. Until you anti-gunners can demonstrate a gun control law actually preventing murders your argument is completely irrelevant due to the fact we can demonstrate liberalized gun laws haven’t increase violent crime rates.