The Right to Bear Arms is good, actually. [IMO]

I'm mainly writing this because I've seen some hilarious hypocrisy with certain groups in the political sphere and I wanted to explain how average people owning weapons is actually good in the long run, and there's a reason it's written into our core ideals as a country.

Here’s the thing: a lot of people in the U.S. who are loudly anti-gun love to claim they’re fighting for the people — the workers, the majority, the everyday citizens. But stripping people of their right to bear arms doesn’t protect them; it just strips away one of the only real checks we have on a government that might lose its mind one day. The simple truth is that an armed population makes those in power think twice before trampling over everyone’s rights. Would my GOAT Luigi have been able to do what he did without this right?

The usual counter is, “Well, the government has drones and tanks, so what good are your rifles?” But that completely ignores how civil wars actually work. If a real civil conflict broke out, the military wouldn’t act as one monolithic machine — it would fracture. It always does. It happened here before, and it’s happened in civil wars throughout history. A revolution is defined as a majority populus rising up against an oppressive or unliked government. I promise you, if the MAJORITY of a 300+ million people rise up against the government, I'll bet that also includes the majority of the military.

There’s also this moral high ground routine I see all the time from that side of the aisle — a fixation on what’s “right” and “wrong” that ignores basic reality. Say you ban guns tomorrow — what then? How do you magically make 400+ million firearms vanish? Are they going to start kicking in doors at random? They only have records for the legal ones — good luck finding the rest. And let’s be real — if you ban guns, guess who’s turning theirs in? The law-abiding folks. Meanwhile, the criminals just keep theirs tucked away like nothing happened. Now the people who follow the rules are disarmed, but the people who don’t still have all the firepower. How does that help anyone?

Plenty of American leftists claim to be anti-authoritarian, but so many of their goals can only happen by handing the government more and more control over our lives — including the power to take away the right to defend ourselves. They don't hate authoritarianism; they just want THEIR flavor of it.

[obviously if you're a leftist but still pro-gun you're based as fuck because you actually read up on your history cough cough cuba]

The right to bear arms isn’t outdated — it’s exactly what keeps the balance of power in check. And that’s a good thing, actually.

“But what about gun crime?” I hear you ask. Well, when you actually look at all gun crime — not just gun homicides (which are inflated by including suicides) — the numbers are almost laughably low compared to how many guns exist in this country. We’re talking about hundreds of millions of firearms and a crime rate that’s nowhere near what you would expect. 

(I'm talking ONE gun-related death per 12,200 guns purchased - including suicides [2024])

At the end of the day, this whole debate comes down to morals. Is the number of people who die each year worth the security an armed populace provides against government overreach? What makes you draw your line where you do?