I get that not everyone is pro-Second Amendment. Some people, particularly in the media, are always going to be anti-gun.

Yet laws are what they are, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of what the Constitution says is what it is.

But some people think matters of our rights are really up for emotionally-based arguments.

Take this piece from Inside NJ. For most of the piece, it’s actually a good recap of why the judge issued an injunction about the “sensitive places” provisions in the state’s new concealed carry law.

But then we get to this:

It is here where we must point out that the court’s literal interpretation of past firearms regulation in light of last year’s Supreme Court action may be solid.

But in the real world of New Jersey in 2023, one runs the risk of running afoul of basic common sense. That may not be a concern of the courts, but it is a concern for everyday people.

People carrying guns at entertainment centers?

Think MetLife Stadium where skirmishes among rowdy and often tipsy football fans are not uncommon.

Would some of those applauding Monday’s ruling really feel safe knowing that an untold number of fans at a Jets or Giants game may be armed?

One answer, of course, would be that those who feel unsafe can bring their own guns.

That hardly seems like a sensible solution.

Except, there are a lot of other places where people can get tipsy and rowdy while technically being permitted to carry a firearm lawfully and guess what?

Nothing happens.

Further, people who feel unsafe being able to bring their own guns are the epitome of a sensible solution to a perceived danger.

This entire anti-gun portion of the piece hinges not on cold logic or harsh reality, but on feelings. It doesn’t “seem” sensible. Would some of us applauding the ruling “feel safe” at an NFL game knowing some of them had guns?

The thing is, it’s bold of the author to assume that I somehow don’t trust my fellow man with a firearm.

See, anti-gunners often trust themselves with guns all day long. It’s your being armed that’s an issue. For most of us on this side of the debate, though, I’m not so much worried about it.

Don’t get me wrong. I know there are bad actors out there who really shouldn’t have a gun, even though they have a right to have one.

But I can’t preserve my right to keep and bear arms if I don’t preserve theirs, at least until such a time they show they shouldn’t have any rights at all.

Plus, if I’m armed, I can take care of myself and others should someone try to use their gun irresponsibly.

Laws that keep guns out of places like the MetCenter are all fine and good, but laws don’t stop people from doing bad things. If they did, we wouldn’t be discussing whether or not we should be able to carry guns in various places. It would be a non-issue.

But emotion-based anti-gun arguments aren’t going to change a lot of minds.