The Second Amendment preserves our right to keep and bear arms. A lot of lawmakers want to restrict your right to own certain kinds of firearms, a move which would likely lead to restricting your right to own any firearms.

As some say AR-15s aren’t needed for hunting, Rep. Mo Brooks notes that the Second Amendment has a much different reason for existing.

Rep. Mo Brooks said this weekend that he would not support any new gun control restrictions, arguing that people would need their guns if they ever had to take back power from a “dictatorial” government.

“The Second Amendment is designed to help ensure that we, the citizenry, always have the right to take back our government should it become dictatorial,” he said during an appearance on Fox News Sunday.

Sandra Smith, the show’s host, had asked Brooks if he was open to changes being made to existing gun laws in the wake of last Tuesday’s mass shooting at the Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas.

“As long as we enjoy un-infringed Second Amendment rights, then we don’t really have to worry that much about the government ever becoming dictatorial,” Brooks said.

“But the moment that we take from our citizenry our ability to take our government back is the moment that the ability of dictatorial forces increases to the point where perhaps they will try to implement a dictatorial government at the federal level,” he added.

Brooks is, of course, absolutely correct.

Look, let’s think a bit about the direction of the government over the years. Every side is convinced the other is ready to seize power at the drop of the hat. Every election, folks who don’t support the guy in office state they’re convinced the president will refuse to give up power if they lose.

So far, everyone’s been wrong, but will that continue?

Regardless of one’s prognosticating skills, the truth is that we can’t trust that no one who gains power won’t try to seize more of it. It’s just how things work.

With that in mind, how can you simply trust that the guys you don’t like will eventually concede power willingly time after time after time indefinitely? You simply can’t.

Not if they’re as bad as you believe.

Brooks basically said that you need guns to deal with dictators and he’s right. The thing is, no one knows who the first true dictator in American history will be. We’ve had a few that came close over the years, but they also had fairly public support for their worst policies to provide cover.

Sooner or later, we’re going to have a problem.

So yeah, I agree with Brooks. He’s completely right about the purpose of the Second Amendment.

What most anti-Second Amendment types need to remember, though, is that if they’re convinced people like Trump are tyrants in the making, why would they have been so willing to allow him to have a monopoly on guns?

If you think the other side wants to rule you, it behooves you to take steps to make sure that you have the means to resist that rule. It’s just common sense.

From the people who keep talking about “common-sense gun control,” you’d think they’d exercise a little common sense of their own for a change.