Six of the most annoying words on the planet are, “I support the Second Amendment but…”

However, anti-gun Democrats are famous for doing precisely that. It’s because they know admitting they want to either repeal or ignore the Second Amendment won’t play well with Middle America. So instead, they pretend to appreciate the Second Amendment while showing just how little they understand it.

A prime example comes from a gubernatorial debate in Tennessee on Monday night.

Democratic gubernatorial nominee Karl Dean doubled down Monday on his opposition to passage of a “constitutional carry” or permitless gun carry law, saying that while he supports gun rights, he also believes Tennessee’s existing “common-sense regulations” for permit holders are needed.

“I know most Tennesseans support the Second Amendment. I support the Second Amendment, too. I’m not trying to take anybody’s guns away,” said Dean, a former Nashville mayor and before that Davidson County’s longtime public defender.

But drawing a contrast with Republican rival Bill Lee, who backs permitless carry, Dean said during an early voting swing through Chattanooga that “if everybody can carry a weapon, how can there be any control?”

Mr. Dean, that’s the freaking point.

The Second Amendment doesn’t carve out exemptions. It doesn’t give the government any authority to control it. Why? Because our Founding Fathers were justly terrified of a government that could control the people’s means to resist that government. Once you have gun control, there’s almost no way for the people to fight back if that government starts becoming tyrannical.

Control is the opposite of what the Second Amendment is about.

But that’s not the case for anti-gun Democrats. For them, as long as some people can have guns–most likely the wealthy elite who can afford to jump through all the hoops required to have one–they think the Second Amendment is being respected. So long as they have control, they seem to think they’re in the clear.

They’re not.

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

They always forget that last part. They get so focused on the opening clause of the Second Amendment that they completely ignore the last four words. That explicitly illustrates that control is insufficient grounds to do a damn thing regarding guns.

Yet Dean is merely illustrative of anti-gun Democrats on the whole.

They have a major disconnect when it comes to the Second Amendment. They can’t grasp or understand that their sensibilities are irrelevant, their need to control the American people is irrelevant. What is relevant are our God-given rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Constitutional carry, in this case, is merely returning us to what our Founding Fathers intended to be our status quo. It’s not radical, it’s restorative, and anyone who argues otherwise is simply trying to undermine our natural rights as men and women.

But Dean’s comment about how there won’t be any control is telling. He’s basically admitted to precisely what all gun control is about. Control.