Make an argument against gun control.
Opponents of gun control argue that it does not address the problem of illegal weapons. If you make it harder for people to obtain guns legally, they claim, then it simply increases the demand for illegal guns, with potentially deadly consequences.
American citizens have the constitutional right to bear arms, and they should not have to resort to breaking the law in order to exercise that right. Yet that is precisely what would happen, so the argument runs, with any system of gun control. Far better to allow people to obtain weaponry legally, at licensed gun stores, than to encourage, albeit inadvertently, the dangerous practice of buying them on the black market. Apart from anything else, the illegal gun trade creates a huge business opportunity for organized crime, not to mention terrorist groups eager to get their hands on some ready cash to fund their various operations.
There are two major arguments against gun control, one based on rights and one on safety.
We can argue against gun control on the basis of the Second Amendment. The Constitution protects a very limited number of rights. The fact that the right to bear arms is one of them shows that this is an important right. We should not go against this, particularly since the possession of weapons helps keep us (so the argument goes) safe from the possibility of government tyranny.
We can also argue that we need guns so that we can protect ourselves and our families. Criminals all over the US have guns. If we do not let law-abiding people have guns, we put them at a disadvantage and make them easier prey for criminals.
Uy...if I have to:
The Constitution of the United States allows for it, therefore it is simply one's right to own a gun.
If we are not permitted to own a gun ourselves, government has a monopoly on coercive force, and they can use that force to repress the ordinary citizen.
We have a right to self-protection, and owning a gun is simply a part of protecting ourselves.
Cars, it could be argued, are just as dangerous, and kill people just as easily, perhaps even more frequently than gun-use. So, if I can own a car, why can't I own another thing that could potentially kill someone?
I'm not getting a license to kill someone, I'm simply getting a license to own a gun. In fact, the gun could have no bullets.
That's all I can think of for now. But I'd say each argument is flawed.