Gun owning Law-abiding Citizens


Alright people, you need to explain me something… I’m sure I don’t need to explain the context.
And by “people”, I mean mostly gun lovers and gun owners from the United States of America.

The argument is always the same:

Law-abiding citizens will never hurt anyone, nor use their guns for violence, so they should be allowed to own guns.”

(This totally overlooks the “accidents happen” part of the problem, but it’s OK, let’s overlook it, it’s not our topic today)

And then, usually, a few lines/seconds later:

If they try to take our guns there will be a bloodbath.”


Er… If you are law-abiding citizens, you’re willing to follow the law, right? So, if the law tells you to give up your guns, as you’re law abiding citizens, you will follow the law and you will give up your guns, right? You probably won’t be happy about it, but you’ll do it nonetheless, as you’re law-abiding citizens and all that…

So, where does this promise (or is it a threat?) of a bloodbath come from? Does it mean that you’re not actually law abiding citizens? I mean, by “bloodbath”, I assume you mean that anyone coming to take your guns will be gunned down. Are you talking about killing federal agents? That’s some pretty serious law-non-abiding, don’t you think?

Please, explain. What does this mean? Are you lying? Are you not actually law-abiding citizens, but really criminals-in-waiting? Is that what you are? And apparently, you’re also OK with criminals-in-waiting owning guns.

Or are you just really hypocrites? You’re only “law-abiding”, when the law suits you? Is that it?

Unless you’re lying, but in the other direction? You are indeed law-abiding citizens and if they come to take your guns, well… you will give them away. Reluctantly, sure, but you’ll do it. And all this talk about bloodbath is just to sound scary and badass because you’re a gun owner, so you’re badass and we should fear you (and you have some serious ego problem in my opinion).

Which one is it?


While we’re at it, may I invite you to read this short and interesting piece about the Second Amendment?

And in case, you want to know my opinion, here it is in short: “gun” and “rights” in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Owning a gun should be a duty, a responsibility, a big one… It should never be a right.


We the people


Note: with such a controversial topic, it goes without saying that comments will be moderated more than ever. If you plan on insulting or threatening me, or regurgitating NRA propaganda, don’t expect to see your comment published here during this lifetime. 🙂



About David Billa

David was born and raised in the French South West. After a few years in the US and a few more in Paris, he finally settled down in Japan. He blogs here about his various experiences and travels, with an emphasis on his home country, France.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

One thought on “Gun owning Law-abiding Citizens

  • Natalia

    First, I support firearm control, but not disarming the entire populace. To own a firearm, a person should be able to prove proficiency and understanding in operating and storing firearms, just like we must do for vehicle operation. Some types of firearms should not be allowed, like machine guns. No one needs a machine gun. Or a grenade launcher, that’s just silly, and I don’t care if you’re a collector. Age limit for sure, 21. I know there is the argument that 18-year-olds go to war, but those people are already covered under the “well regulated militia,” piece of the Second Amendment.

    Second, let’s face it, the “well regulated militia” piece is now the US military. Once the state militias started taking orders from the Federal government, sorry to say, but they can’t really be considered state militias. However, this does not mean the general populace is blanketed under the “militia” part, which would null their right to keep and bear arms.

    Third, Hamilton is a founding father, not the only founding father. Basing one’s interpretation on only one founding father’s opinion of the Second Amendment is not looking at all the information, especially if that founding father was a Federalist. Hamilton was a Federalist and supported a powerful central government, but other founding fathers did not feel the same. Antifederalists include Sam Adams and John Hancock, two very distinct founding fathers. Antifederalists fought the ratification of the Constitution, and certain states only agreed to ratification if certain amendments would be made. The antifederalists made sure the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, which are inalienable, individual rights; were added to the Constitution at the behest of Antifederalists. These rights are for the people, the individual, not a government funded and operated entity.

    The Second Amendment reads, “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. – See more at:

    Even the Supreme Court believes the part “well regulated militia” does not rule or supersede “the right of the people.”

    The “Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well.” – See more at:

    Also, “The Court reasoned that the Amendment’s prefatory clause, i.e., “[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” announced the Amendment’s purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Moreover, the prefatory clause’s history comported with the Court’s interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists’ concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.” – See more at:

    The belief that an individual has the right the keep and bear arms is very American, and I’m sure that people who grew up in immensely gun-regulated countries cannot understand why so many Americans feel they have a right to own a firearm. These Americans are not just redneck backwoods-living Americans, these people cover a diverse demographic. No amount of explaining, no matter the veracity of the information, will be able to convince some people that the Constitution stipulates the right for the individual to keep and bear arms.

    Owning a firearm, to many Americans, is a right, an inalienable right, and a responsibility. However, like the First Amendment, a limit can be reached. You can say what you want, but you cannot slander the character of another. You can scream fire, but not when you are risking the lives of others for no reason. There is freedom of the press, but the privacy of others needs to be respected. This also applies to the Second Amendment. While I believe the mass shootings in America arise from underlying societal issues, increased regulation of firearms would have greatly limited the ability for some of those people from accessing firearms. Not all, but some. Yes, criminals will always find a way to access firearms. France is the perfect example of this, with the terrible shootings in Paris. However, allowing everyone under the sun to own a firearm is not helping the situation. Some people should not have access to firearms, and I think that’s common sense.

    Please excuse any errors. Typed on my phone…