Second Amendment is ‘tyranny insurance’

Surely liberals in the U.S. Senate do not think Minnesotans and Iowans are gullible enough to accept “trust us” assurances that their rights are not being violated. We know better.

Senate Democrats hope to propose legislation to prevent tragedies like the massacre last month at a Connecticut school. The focus may be restrictions on firearms. It is possible the plan will include a ban on ownership of so-called “assault weapons.”

Senators and President Obama may say that any debate over gun laws should not be viewed as a fight over the right to keep and bear arms. But it is the issue. Obama and Senate Democrats know it – or they ought to.

Restrictions on gun ownership by law-abiding Minnesotans and Iowans eat away at the Second Amendment, which is a no-nonsense prohibition of government interference with the right to keep and bear arms.

Again, no one has specifically proposed banning certain types of firearms or the types of ammunition magazines that can be sold for them – in Minnesota or Iowa. But New York legislators have approved such provisions, and President Barack Obama is calling on Congress for a federal ban.

Many may agree with that. But others, understanding why the Second Amendment exists in the first place, will not. It exists because citizens are the ultimate check on the power of government, and potential tyranny.