The Problem With Saying ‘Because It’s My Right’ – Bearing Arms

“Why do you need an AR-15?”

It’s a question that Second Amendment supporters have heard countless times. 

Oftentimes, the answer is “It’s not a Bill of Needs” or some variation.  

That’s a perfectly legitimate response, and one that I happen to agree with. But if you’re trying to persuade someone who’s skeptical of the Second Amendment, simply pointing to the Constitution isn’t likely to change their mind. After all, they’re questioning whether owning an AR-15 should be a constitutional right in the first place.

That’s why a recent exchange between a gun-rights advocate and a student at Texas A&M caught my attention. Jerah Turner had a golden opportunity to explain why millions of Americans choose to own AR-15s, and why protecting that choice should matter even to people who would never dream of buying one themselves.

Instead, she offered an answer that probably earned her some applause from the folks who already agreed with her, while doing absolutely nothing to win over the person who asked the question… or to those skeptics who were within earshot. 

I spoke about #2A Rights at Texas A&M University tonite and I was talking to some students outside after the event. A student walked up to me who is anti-Gun and asked me why anyone needs an AR. I said, “The best reason is because it’s my Constitutional Right.” She replied “So that’s the hill you’re gonna die on?” Me: “ I’m not dying on any hill. I’m the one with the gun.” #boop

— Jerah Turner (@ctcguntraining) November 13, 2026

Turner hasn’t received much pushback for either her initial or follow up response, though Second Amendment Foundation’s Kostos Moros wasn’t that impressed with her answer. 

Respectfully, this is a bad answer. It does not make the person asking the question say “oh ok I need to respect this right.” It makes them want to either repeal 2A, or stuff courts with judges that will “reinterpret” 2A into a watered-down form. We can win the policy debate too and dont need to stop at “muh rights.”

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) November 13, 2026 

Moros makes a good point. We can talk about our God-given rights, natural rights, human rights, or inherent rights all we want. But every protection of an enumerated right in the Constitution can be repealed, and courts can (and have) deemed rights to be limited in scope or utterly irrelevant. 

The policy debate isn’t just an important facet of defending our rights. It’s a fundamental part of ensuring those rights remain in place. 

My old friend Andrew Wilkow used to have a catchphrase on his show. Maybe he still does. I haven’t had the chance to listen in a while, unfortunately. I remember it as “We’re right, they’re wrong, end of the story,” but Google tells me it’s actually “We’re right, they’re wrong, and the arguments on this show cannot be broken.” 

Either way, it’s a good catch phrase for a talk radio host and a great slogan for rallying people who already agree with you. It’s just not going to do much to persuade someone who doesn’t. 

Turner’s answer kind of reminds me Wilkow’s slogan. It seems to have gone over well with most of the folks responding to her on X, but I doubt it changed the student’s mind, or even gave her much to think about.

Is “Why do you need an AR-15” even a legitimate question? Not to most of us, but to someone who doesn’t own a gun, or who only hears about AR-15s when they’re used by a cowardly killer to target innocent victims in “gun-free zones,” it might very well be sincere. And I happen to think that sincere questions deserve a sincere response. 

And it’s not as though Americans haven’t had this argument before. Back in 1884, a Wyoming newspaper scoffed at cowboys who thought it was necessary to carry a revolver, calling the idea absurd.

Sound familiar?

The revolver was hardly a new invention by then, but the notion that ordinary citizens might need to carry one for protection was still controversial. Today, nobody seriously argues that the Second Amendment protects only single-shot pistols, but we’re still arguing over whether Americans should be allowed to own rifles that have been commercially available for generations.

The technology changes. The question of whether ordinary citizens really need access to it keeps coming back, which is just one more reason why we should be prepared to answer that question with something more substantive than “Because the Constitution says I can.”

There’s a time and place for preaching to the choir. I do plenty of it myself. But when someone who disagrees with us is willing to ask a genuine question, we should recognize the opportunity in front of us.

So here’s what I would have told that student. 

First, I’d ask her a sincere question of my own: why does she think I shouldn’t be allowed to own one? Is it because she thinks AR-15s are uniquely dangerous? Because they’re used in mass shootings? Because she believes nobody needs that much firepower to defend themselves?

Her answer would tell me a lot about where to take the conversation.

I’d explain that the AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in America for good reason. It’s accurate, reliable, relatively easy to shoot, and can be adapted to fit people of different sizes and physical abilities. It’s useful for target shooting, competition, hunting, and yes, self-defense.

I’d also point out that the overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners will never use their rifles to threaten or harm another human being. Millions of Americans own these firearms without posing any danger to their neighbors, and the fact that some deranged killers have used them to commit atrocities doesn’t make those peaceable gun owners any less responsible or their reasons for ownership any less legitimate.

And then I’d ask her another question of my own: If I’ve never committed a violent crime, never threatened anyone, and have no intention of doing either, why should I be prohibited from owning a rifle simply because someone else might misuse one?

Would any of that change her mind? Maybe not. But at least we’d be having an actual conversation instead of trading slogans and snappy comebacks.

We don’t have to apologize for exercising our rights, and we certainly don’t have to convince everyone that they should buy an AR-15 themselves. But if we want the next generation to respect and defend the Second Amendment, we need to give them reasons to do so. We can’t assume that the Constitution will always protect our rights if we can’t persuade our fellow Americans that those rights are worth protecting.

The student who asked Jerah Turner why anyone needs an AR-15 might never become a gun owner. She might never even become a supporter of the Second Amendment. But I’d much rather have her walk away from that conversation questioning her assumptions about gun ownership than feeling like Turner thought she was asked a stupid question that didn’t deserve a serious answer.

We don’t have to win every argument. But we should at least try to win over the person we’re arguing with. Otherwise, we may eventually find ourselves with a constitutional right that fewer and fewer Americans believe is worth keeping.

Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.