Every now and then, we see some person who thinks they’re clever, only to trot out a tired, debunked argument that they’re sure is a “gotcha” moment.

That’s especially true with anti-gun arguments, of course.

I recently came across an op-ed written by a Los Angeles high school student that treads a particularly tired argument.

Titled, “Opinion: The 2nd Amendment requires gun regulation,” you already know it’s going to be good.

How can we decrease gun violence?

According to the 2nd Amendment, since “[a] well regulated Militia [is]…necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Although people have the right to bear arms for their own protection as stated in the Constitution, the Second Amendment also clearly states that this is based on the need for a “well regulated Militia”, not based on random people being able to have guns.

This can be interpreted to mean that no one except for law enforcement should have more than a number of guns or ammunition, because the right to bear arms is for a “well regulated Militia”. People do not need 10 guns to protect themselves from danger, and they certainly won’t need a gun that can shoot 600 bullets per minute either, like the AK-47 as detailed in Britannica.

If we limit a certain amount of guns per person, making sure that gun owners are “well regulated”, then the chance of a mass shooting will be less likely as a gun owner could only own a specific amount of guns and also have “regulated” ways to use them.

I’m sure the author and her teachers are very proud of her for this argument. Too bad it’s an anti-gun argument debunked ages ago by people far better versed in constitutional law than she is.

First, the phrase “well-regulated” means “properly functioning.”

Second, the militia refers to the whole body of free people who can be called upon to defend our nation. While many argue that this means the National Guard today, if you take a look at the Militia Act, you’ll see the unorganized militia is still people within a given age range who aren’t currently serving in the military or eligible for call-up.

Further, the young author here is illustrating just how poor the American educational system actually is, because she clearly didn’t grasp the totality of the Second Amendment.

See, she’s doing what many anti-gunners do, which is focus on the militia clause. Yet the rest of the amendment read, “the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

“[S]hall not be infringed.” That part alone debunks the entire premise on which the author based her work. It doesn’t say the right to keep and bear arms shall only be for militia purposes. It explicitly states that it shall not be interfered with by lawmakers.

I don’t blame her, though. I blame her teachers.

It seems no one adequately educated her about the context surrounding the Second Amendment. She likely was never taught about our Founding Fathers’ innate distrust of standing armies, or how they believed any government had the potential to become tyrannical unless held in check by the citizenry.

They never taught her how the Bill of Rights came to be, how many of the amendments were a direct response to actions carried out by the British, and how the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure their new nation wouldn’t go down that same road.

That includes removing arms from law-abiding citizens.

“But you don’t need 10 guns,” she argues, yet the Second Amendment doesn’t call for such anti-gun regulation as she claims. It explicitly precludes any such regulation by saying our right shall not be infringed.

It seems clear that this young woman hasn’t been taught by her teachers. Not about history and likely not even how to think for herself.