The most reviled firearm in America right now is the AR-15. Modern sporting rifles like it have been used by a handful of bad actors, which is all some people need to try and justify taking them from the hands of law-abiding citizens.
Obviously, gun rights advocates oppose this move.
This opposition absolutely baffled many gun control proponents. They just can’t seem to understand why we wouldn’t give up such a deadly firearm.
Yeah, they’re not very bright.
Anyway, over at Newsweek, Colion Noir decided to educate some of these people.
The reason we have the Second Amendment is to keep our government in check. This country was established by people who had to deal with a tyrannical government and had to come together with their own arms to fight that government. As a result, they preserved that ability within the Constitution. So we had to deal with a tyrannical government, and the people needed to protect themselves, their property, their lives, their families and the country—they had to do that readily. If the government has control of all the guns, you may have a “right” to own a gun, but you would have to go and ask them for the guns to stop them from being tyrannical.
The reason we defend the ability to own the AR-15 so vehemently is because back when the Second Amendment was established, both the government and the people had muskets. Fast-forward to today: Our government doesn’t have muskets, they have machine guns. And we can barely hold onto our AR-15s as it is. If the Second Amendment was designed to keep the government in check, why can’t we have the arms necessary to do that?
Of course, the refrain from there would be all about how the government has tanks, jets, bombs, and so on. You know, the old F-15s and nuclear weapons bit.
In other words, their argument is that it’s futile to try and resist a tyrannical government now, so why try and preserve the last couple of tools one might use for such a purpose?
However, folks forget that we’re currently pulling out of Afghanistan. It’s too costly to stay there anymore. The Taliban resisted us with our F-15s and our tanks with little more than AK-47s. The Viet Cong did the same thing back in the ’60s and ’70s. Iraqi insurgents gave our troops merry hell with essentially the same equipment.
You really only need enough people with a good rifle to resist a tyrannical government.
As bad as things are, we’re not there. I pray we never are. However, our Founding Fathers made it clear that a central government was something to view with suspicion. Yes, it’s effective and arguably necessary, but it should be treated with a great deal of trepidation. You should just assume that it’s always on your side.
Because of that, an armed populace is a necessary check on that government growing too powerful and trying to overstep its mandated bounds too far.
Some say that it already has. That’s fair, though I still think so long as we can work to bring about change at the ballot box, there’s no need. However, that doesn’t mean we should toss those rifles aside as unneeded. Especially after the way the last election happened. Yes, I have questions.
Anyway, Noir wrote it and I agree with it.
The question is, will anyone else even bother?