The Second Amendment, Pit Bulls, and Why My Gun Has Never Chased the UPS Guy

Every once in a while, I open social media before I've had enough coffee and immediately regret my life choices. This morning was one of those mornings.

I came across a post from Ian Carroll asking Matt Walsh how he could “square” his logic about pit bulls while still defending the Second Amendment. His argument was basically that, just like a gun, a pit bull with a responsible owner can be a tool of protection and safety, as well as a loving member of the family.

Link to Matt Walsh's post: HERE

And somewhere between my first and second cup of coffee, my immediate reaction was:

Sir... Are you slow? Your dog has a brain and pisses on random things.

Your Glock does not.

My Gun Has Never Made an Independent Decision

The fact that I am even writing this part actually makes me cringe. I apologize to the readers who "get it," but there are some out there who do not. Many of them are in the Gun Control arena, who are constantly giving inanimate objects "souls" and personalities to push restrictive legislation. That's why Ian Carroll's comment is annoying the snot out of me. He claims to be on the side of the political aisle that generally supports the Second Amendment, but has somehow twisted a topic into a gun control argument. Here's the deal...

Like many, I own firearms.

I've also spent years teaching people about them.

Not once has a single one of my firearms gotten irritated because somebody touched its food.

None of them have ever become frightened during a thunderstorm.

I've never had to tell a handgun to stop barking at the Amazon driver.

My rifle has never slipped out the front door because it saw a squirrel or a frog.

And, to the best of my knowledge, none of my firearms have ever looked across the room at another firearm and decided, “I don't like that son of a bitch.”

That's because firearms are inanimate objects.

Dogs aren't.

And before the dog people start getting their Milk-Bones in a twist, this isn't an anti-dog argument.

It's an anti-bad-analogy argument.

DOGS AND GUNS ARE NOT THE SAME!

Of course responsible dog ownership matters. Training matters. Socialization matters. Understanding a breed matters. Knowing your individual dog's temperament matters.

Just like responsible firearm ownership, education, training, safe handling and secure storage matter.

That's where you can make a comparison.

The analogy reaches the end of its leash, though, when you make them the same. They're not.

A firearm cannot independently decide to discharge itself because it's frightened, territorial, hurt, overstimulated or simply behaving according to instinct.

A dog can act independently because a dog is alive.

You can train an animal exceptionally well and still never turn that animal into an inanimate object. Responsible ownership reduces risk. It doesn't eliminate an animal's agency.

And that's not an insult to dogs, or their owners. It's literally part of what makes dogs... well... dogs.

Let's Drag the Second Amendment Into This to Make a DUMB Argument

This is where I started needing stronger coffee.

The Second Amendment isn't a constitutional declaration that every object capable of hurting someone presents exactly the same kind of risk.

It's a limitation on government power protecting a right of the people.

• You don't have to believe firearms and pit bulls are functionally equivalent to support responsible ownership of either one.

• You can love dogs.

• You can own firearms.

• You can believe people should train both themselves and their animals responsibly.

• You can even have strong opinions about particular dog breeds.

  
  

None of those positions requires you to “square” anything with the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment isn't a philosophical position about dangerous objects.

It's a constitutional right.

But There's Another Layer of Irony Here

This particular argument caught my attention for another reason and its one that is heavy right now in the 2A Sphere.

I've spent a lot of time lately talking about media literacy and the difference between evidence, inference, speculation and theory, particularly as social media influencers have turned topics like the Charlie Kirk case into an endless online detective convention.

And that's where I find the challenge particularly rich coming from Ian Carroll due to his "stances" on the matter.

Because I've made this point before with what I call the Candy Theories: the more I watch people push theories unsupported by actual evidence, especially while proudly displaying “Pro 2A” in their bios, the more I wonder whether they realize they're making the anti-gun crowd's job easier.

Think about what the Second Amendment community is doing right now:

We have lawsuits working their way through courts all over this country.

We're fighting to get evidence in front of judges so it can actually be examined, challenged, tested and weighed on its merits.

We're constantly telling people: Don't just accept the claim. Look at the evidence.

Don't let emotion substitute for facts.

Don't accept something as true simply because a politician said it, an activist organization repeated it, or the media ran with it.

Test the evidence.

And then some of y'all log onto social media and suddenly “evidence” is whatever got the most reposts that afternoon. GEEZE! COME ON, Y'ALL!!!!

We cannot demand rigorous standards of evidence when we're defending the Second Amendment and then toss those standards out the window the minute somebody posts a conspiracy theory we happen to like.

If a claim supports gun control, we want sources... we want methodology... we want context. We want to know where the numbers came from and whether the conclusions actually follow from the evidence.

But somebody posts a video about the Charlie Kirk case, points at something in the background and says, “DOES ANYONE ELSE FIND THIS SUSPICIOUS?”

And suddenly half the internet has solved the case before lunch.

THAT'S A PROBLEM!!!!

To be clear, you are NOT forbidden from asking questions.

Ask questions! Please!

• Question the government.

• Question investigators.

• Question journalists.

• Question official statements.

Hell, question me!! I love a good mind tussle!!

But the reality is this, questions are NOT evidence.

Suspicion isn't evidence.

A theory isn't evidence simply because a whole bunch of people believe it.

Social media popularity certainly isn't evidence. If reposts determined truth, we'd have to rewrite most of human history based on whatever was trending Tuesday afternoon on X.

THINK ABOUT IT! (Like... REALLY) How are we supposed to convince the public that evidence matters in gun rights cases when we're showing them that it only matters when it's convenient for us?

The people fighting against the Second Amendment already love portraying gun owners as paranoid, irrational people who believe anything that confirms what they already think.

For the love of God, stop writing their campaign material for them!!!!

And Just So We're Clear... Because folks love to twist words...

None of this means Ian Carroll, or anybody else pushing a theory I think is unsupported, somehow forfeits their Second Amendment rights.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

You have the right to say things that are complete nonsense. You can dive down all the rabbit holes and conspiracy trails you want and believe whatever, but... I hope you're more mindful when it comes down to your firearms training and education.

You still have the same Second Amendment right I will defend for every other American.

That's kind of the whole point of a constitutional right. It doesn't depend on whether I approve of what you said on X this morning. But having a constitutional right doesn't make your reasoning immune from criticism. Putting “Pro 2A” in your bio doesn't mean the rest of us can't point out when your public messaging is making serious Second Amendment advocacy harder.

Because here's the reality: Some of us are standing in front of legislators, talking to the public, educating new gun owners and supporting court challenges while arguing that facts, history, and evidence should matter.

We could really use the internet contingent to stop demonstrating the opposite.

You're not helping the Second Amendment. You're actually making the anti-gun crowd's job a whole lot easier.

If you're a responsible gun owner?

Excellent.

Responsible dog owner?

Also excellent.

Responsible consumer of information...

For the love of God, can we work on this one!?

My dog knows hand commands and even has her "own" whistle. Let me fold laundry in front of her, though. Point being... she may occasionally make questionable decisions despite everything I've taught her.

My firearms can't.

And I'll also say, neither one of them has spent enough time on social media to become an "internet investigator."

I'm praying we keep it that way if folks like Ian Carroll are the new norm! WOW!