When the current gun-control debate morphed into full-fledged hysteria, I assumed some gun-control legislation may pass, but don’t kid yourselves, kids, the government will never take guns away from law-abiding citizens the way Australia’s did in 1997.

The rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns is enshrined in the Constitution after all.

This is not just an academic debate as marching students and their left-wing enablers gain strength and media notoriety and support.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens joined the gun-control debate in his recently published New York Times column: "[t]he demonstrators should seek more effective and lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."  

He writes off the Second Amendment as a relic of the 18th century, not only unnecessary but dangerous today.

I’ve got a Constitutional lesson for him.

The Second Amendment was not put in place to protect the rights of hunters or even citizens defending themselves against violent criminals, important as those things are. Its purpose is to prevent oppression by a hostile government, one that disregards individual rights, as King George III’s did in 1776.

And I’ve got another news flash, the rest of the Bill of Rights and even the entire Constitution aren’t worth a damn without the right of citizens to bear arms. All of the rights we hold dear can be taken away in a heartbeat if the central government has no fear its citizens could rise up and replace it.

No one wants to facilitate mass murders such as Nicholas Cruz, but in our haste to “do something” we’re missing the most critical point of the gun control debate. Your gun may be all that stands between you and an oppressive dictatorship one day; just (rhetorically) ask those murdered by dictators in the past if citizens should be disarmed…

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” - Mao Tze Tung: 1938

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms.  History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.  Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty…” Adolf Hitler, 1942.

However, George Washington stated, “From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”

The ultimate man of peace, Mahatma Gandhi, defended every individual’s right to bear arms. Recalling how Indians were disarmed by the Arms Act of 1879, Gandhi wrote: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

So the founders did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George. The second amendment is only to vouchsafe our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to ensure all of the other rights given unto us by our Creator.

The wisdom of the framers of the Constitution once again is found consistent with the lessons of the Bible they used as their bedrock for civil law.

The people’s individual protection should always be a primary concern of government “of the people”. In a righteous country, self-government reigns by the constraint of Christian morals. The government of a free society cannot have a monopoly of force. If only the government has guns, then it is a threat to the lives, liberty, and property of its citizens, for that government ceases to be “of and for the people.”

Don’t kid yourself, many on the left now favor limiting or eliminating the First Amendment as well. They don’t want to allow any speech which contradicts or disputes their party line. If you don’t believe me, research what’s been said about silencing opponents of global warming/climate change or gay marriage.

The idea that we should correct an absence of responsibility by the few through empowering the government to strip rights from the many is more medieval than modern – a license to lawlessness, not a defense of legal and moral rights.

The hidden argument in Stevens’ pitch is this: An individual’s sacred right to self-defense, to the defense of innocents and against the government, boldly embodied in the Second Amendment, is not an individual right but a collective one and thus is transferable to the government.

Alas, life of a free citizen is hard.

It is not about repealing rights, but about learning to use our God-given, constitutionally protected freedoms responsibly. That is why the retired Supreme Court justice is wrong. The fault is not in the Bill of Rights, but in ourselves. We must not only take responsibility for our actions but hold others accountable as well.