Every once in a while, an article is written by a blogger or journalist that demonstrates exactly how idiotic gun control talking points can be. Much to my surprise, this morning I came across such an article on The Blaze, one of my go-to news sources at the start of each day.

This article, Four Gun Rights Arguments We Need to Stop Making, is so full of idiotic drivel, that it quite literally hurt my head to read it. There are so many things wrong with Alasdair Denvil’s position piece that I was momentarily silenced at the level of derp I had just intellectually ingested. His incoherent meandering drivel wanders back and forth between lucid realizations and maddening lunacy, which only serves to make the head hurt more and confuse the readers into a trance-like state of madness.

While I do acknowledge that Alasdair claims to be a supporter of gun rights in his article, I don’t know one single pro-Second Amendment citizen who would ever say anything like he does in this nauseating diatribe. It has literally taken me two hours to even begin to be able to break down all his asinine points in an effort to show just how crazy gun control advocates really are. Heaven help me, here we go.

Point #1 “Gun control isn’t a solution, because evil people will find a way to kill even without guns.”

Alasdair claims “it’s easier to kill with a gun than a kitchen knife”. Actually, it’s easier to grab a knife and stab someone in the heart than to get a gun, load it, and track down the person you wish to harm. It’s also cheaper and widely available without a background check or hundreds of dollars, but I digress.

His backup point is “that’s why we spend hundreds of billions of dollars outfitting our military with firearms and other violence enhancing technology when it would be far cheaper to spend a few million bucks on cutlery.” First of all, wow. We actually spend money on firearms and long range weapons because we do not (primarily) engage in hand to hand combat as we once did. In the beginning; wars, battles, etc. were fought with (pause for gasp) hands, knives, then swords, battle axes, and other hand held weapons. As technology advanced, so did our weapons. Not so much our cutlery, but a mad shoutout to the spork and spoonula just the same.

Cases like Carol Bowne‘s in New Jersey, Michele Davis‘ in Goodyear, AZ, the Brown brothers in York Township, MI, and the gruesome beheading in Moore, Oklahoma prove that people will kill with whatever weapon they choose and yes, even knives.

Point #2: “Gun control advocates are blaming and inanimate object – a gun – for violence rather than the person who uses it.”

The follow up point Alastair makes on this one is that “the United States and a host of other countries are trying to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons”, then tries to hammer home his opinion by claiming ‘it is a fact it’s easier to kill with a gun then without one’. Okaaaay.

First of all, let’s try to stick to the topic of guns. Nuclear weapons aside, you can kill someone with your bare hands, never mind a gun or kitchen cutlery. If a person wishes to harm you, they will harm you. While 31% of homicides use personal weapons other than firearms, the main point people fail to take into account on gun homicides is that 93% of guns used in violent crimes are obtained illegally, so to think that if an offender did not have access to a gun they would not harm their victim is utopian hogwash.

Point #3: “If there had been another person with a gun in the church, the shooter wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people.”

The follow up point Alastair attempts to make on this one is truly face palm worthy. He claims this point is true… “unless that person had been killed by Roof before they even realized he was a threat.” While he does acknowledge that having a gun increases the ability to defend yourself, he goes on to say that “it also increases the ability of an attacker to kill a victim before they can think to defend themselves.”

Let that soak in for a minute. This self-proclaimed gun rights supporter is actually saying that having a gun increases the ability of an attacker to kill a victim before they can defend themselves. How does having a gun for self-defense increase the ability of an attacker to kill you? Personally, I would rather go down knowing I had the opportunity to defend myself rather than having no fighting chance in that same situation. I’m quite sure Carol Bowne would agree with me if she had the chance. Maybe Deputy Vaughn could weigh in on this one.

Point #4: “The Second Amendment clearly says I have the right to own a handgun.”

The follow up question posed by Alasdair on this one was the kicker for me. Not only does he claim the Second Amendment is unclear on ‘a couple of counts’, but (leaving aside the “well-regulated militia” clause) he actually asks: “what does ‘arms’ refer to?” and then proceeds to bolster my argument from Point #1 that ‘arms’ once included everything from bayonets to cannons, mortars, and howitzers. Also adding that today, ‘arms’ includes a far greater variety of weaponry including tanks and missiles. What a realization: weapons have advanced with technology!

Touching back on that “well-regulated militia” clause, guess what, Alasdair: we are be militia. We are the oath keepers. We are the well-regulated citizens, being necessary to the security of a free State, to keep and bear arms and that shall not be infringed. Our forefathers knew that in order to keep the wolves honest, the sheep needed a few sheepdogs.

Alasdair goes on in his piece on The Blaze to try to convince his readers that he does support gun rights, then immediately contradicts that by saying he doesn’t think the kinds of self-defense arguments second amendment supporters give are correct since “it’s not at all clear that gun proliferation decreases the rate of homicides” (guns or otherwise). If you look at the stats, that is fundamentally untrue. Additionally, look at what ‘gun free’ cities like Chicago have for violent gun stats.

Attempting to drive his point home, Alasdair ends by saying “I’d like Americans to stand a fighting chance.” Just kidding, that’s only in his fantasy world where he imagines the United States military turning inward on it’s own citizens! Unlike Alastair, I would like to give every American a fighting chance against any enemy they should encounter. Only in a delicate snowflake-filled utopian society will there ever be zero violence, equal love of man and country, and no need for a military or police force.

Sorry snowflake, that’s not the world we live in.

I would like to circle back to each one of the “gun rights arguments” Alasdair turned from common sense filled talking points to counteractive drivel because they need to be put into context for him, since he obviously doesn’t get it.

First of all, evil people will find a way to harm/hurt/kill, even without guns and while that is sad, it is true. I would like every American who wishes to carry a gun for self-defense to be able to do so because evil exists, just ask Dale Parker.

Secondly, when a citizen is armed and able to stop a shooting, it is a clear example of “the good guys” we aim to be. Sadly, that’s not what the media likes to splash across their headlines because heaven forbid they admit that legal concealed carry and gun owners ARE carrying for the right reasons. Whether it be at a fire station in rural Wisconsin, on a street in downtown Chicago, or a liquor store in Georgia, concealed carry citizens are proving that the good guys are still watching and ready to protect their fellow Americans.

Finally, the Second Amendment does, in fact, say I have the right to keep and bear my (hand)gun and although that point has been argued by gun control advocates, it is still our legal right to keep and bear arms. If that needs to be put into context, I’m willing to do so. Feel free to click on every link in this article for proof that the right to armed self defense is the most basic of human rights, for without them, we may cease to exist at all.