The blue Christmas the nation experienced has brought back an issue that once seemed to be written off by liberals as a loss on the political battlefield — gun control.

Many analysts said after the 2012 presidential debates and the election that Republicans should move past certain social issues such as abortion and gay rights, similarly to the way Democrats moved on from gun control.

However, through the grievous Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, politicians have refocused their agendas, seeking to amend our nation’s gun control laws.

Accompanied by schoolchildren, President Barack Obama released his ambitious gun control agenda Wednesday, including more extensive universal background checks, limited magazine sizes and banning armor-piercing bullets.

As a gun owner aware of the psychological effects a gun-in-hand creates, I find it hard to make a strong conservative argument. Firearm possession often develops into an irrational, false sense of entitlement, power and authority. I know this. I understand this.

But I’m afraid I am in the minority of gun owners.

I do not fear, like many do, we will lose our right to bear arms. Such a notion is driven by far-right paranoia and distrust of a government that is restricted by a democratic process. It has never failed to exchange power from one ruling regime to the elected predecessor.

The problem the U.S. faces is not controlling the gun. A gun has never committed a crime — it is only the tool. If a person is so inspired to commit it, he or she will with any tool.

How we determine who is able to own a firearm is what we should further scrutinize.

Extensive background checks and more requirements to prove gun-knowledge in order to purchase and carry a gun are fair requirements.

Why would I agree as a conservative?

Because I am confident I will pass all checks and tests.

But this gets hazy when we discuss the differences between rights and privileges.

The Bill of Rights establishes the ability for every citizen to bear arms. However, against my traditional nature, we have to be forthcoming and realize we have progressed past 1789.

When the Bill of Rights was created, it was written for white, educated men who owned property during a time when the young state had just been under foreign invasion. Furthermore, arms meant black powder muskets — not the sophisticated firearms of today.

So what would give a person the privilege to own a firearm?

Education and knowledge, I suppose.

I don’t mean a college degree. I mean an education on firearms — what a gun is, how to use it, when to use it and what it is capable of. It’s vital to know what a firearm means in terms of danger and what it does not mean in terms of power.

It’s the uneducated person bearing arms who falters to a false sense of power.

Accordingly, there are appropriate times and places for guns. A firearm should be utilized for sport and in a case of necessary defense. How drastically, though, would gun crimes be reduced if we were able to remove the gun from the ignorant and unstable? Fewer people would feel the need to carry a gun for defense.

Maybe civilians should be required to prove they have earned the right to bear arms, allowing for a more trustworthy gun-wheeling population.

Laws banning fully automatic assault rifles are agreeable. It is excessive to give Joe Blow the opportunity to fire 500 rounds a minute.

But the public has been confused by the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle. Anti-gun lobbyists fabricated the term “assault weapon” in an attempt to tie the image of semi-automatic but combat-resembling rifles, such as an AR-15 with fully automatic military rifles like the M-16.

A ban on what media describes as an “assault weapon” is entirely driven by the mere style or look of the weapon as being militaristic.

It simply does not matter how guns are styled — they are all capable of achieving the same end.

A ban on militaristic-styled weapons would seem more appropriate. But this is a literary technicality, and that would achieve nothing because a gun is a gun no matter how it looks.

As gun owners, we should be more realistic and come to terms with limiting the size of magazines as being fair. Though 30-round magazines are as cool as James Bond, they are unnecessary.

Regardless, knowledge of civility and a sense of morality is the best defense against crime. For this education, the government can only do so much.

The problem is not the gun.

The problem is, who can be trusted with the gun?