Gun ownership serves as a check on tyranny

If you’ve never moved in guns rights circles or been exposed to libertarian philosophy, you could be among those who wonder why citizens would ever need powerful firearms, despite what the Second Amendment says. You may wonder why someone who wishes to protect their home or hunt deer would need a weapon like an AR-15 or AK-47. Or accompanying magazines that hold so many rounds.

The answer is: Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, the holier-than-thou anti-gun crusader who has conflated school shooting tragedies with legal gun ownership. At the recent debate, O’Rourke said: “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

The witless O’Rourke probably thought he was sounding tough. He was actually unwittingly flirting with civil war. Not that he stands any chance of being elected president. Thankfully. But are his ideas on the rise?

If the anti-gun crowd ever gains control of our country, they and everyone else will soon find out what it means to tell people they are going to lose their gun rights. When they start sending government agents to people’s doors to confiscate weapons, there will be a response, to say the least. The Second Amendment exists because citizens have an inalienable right to protect themselves, including from their government. Tens of millions of armed citizens are a de facto check on tyranny.

If a government takes away citizens’ guns, nothing can then prevent it from doing whatever else it chooses. In the history of mankind, governments — by far — have unleashed the worst horrors, usually on their own people. It’s worth remembering.


Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)


Starting at $4.75/week.

Subscribe Today