Assault Weapons: America’s Final Barrier to Tyranny

In what has become a grim routine, some sickeningly look to capitalize on the mass outpouring of anger and grief following mass shootings to push a political agenda – namely, the implementation of so-called “common-sense” gun control.

Debates on the issue, much like the recent town-hall discussion hosted by CNN, regularly devolve into kangaroo courts where those who oppose “common-sense” reforms are interrogated, bullied, and demonized.

“If you’re not with us, you’re with the child murderers,” is their slogan of choice.

Specifically, their calls for “reform” refer to a total ban on civilian ownership of “assault weapons” – a poorly defined label casually tossed around by gun control proponents – as well as a limit on the capacity of magazines.

At best, the term “assault weapon” refers to a semi-automatic rifle with cosmetic features similar to those used by the military.

Effective arguments can be made as to why restricting the size of magazines, as well as banning an entire class of weapons, would put law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage to criminals who seek to do them harm – all more than enough on their own to justify opposing such bans.

The foundation of the Second Amendment, however, goes beyond merely providing the ability to defend yourself against another person. Rather, the Founding Fathers rarified the Second Amendment to give Americans the ability to defend themselves against the oppressive actions of a tyrannical government.

Throughout history, dictators from Hitler and Stalin to the Communist Chinese government savagely oppressed and murdered millions of their own citizens – only after first ensuring those likely to oppose them were disarmed.

Closer to home, American colonists in areas deemed rebellious to King George III were disarmed – such an act directly led to the famed Midnight Ride of Paul Revere, the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and the start of the American Revolution.

Having witnessed firsthand the efforts by a distant government to enforce its tyrannical will on a disarmed populace, the Founding Fathers ensured future generations of Americans would have the ability to deter the rise of tyranny.

An assault weapons ban and limits on magazine capacities will eviscerate the core purpose of the Second Amendment, creating such a gap in firepower between the populace and the government that private firearm ownership would no longer be enough to deter tyranny.

Unfortunately, many Americans have such faith in the government they view the need to maintain a force capable of deterring overreach by said government as outdated and unnecessary – a view best described as naive.

“That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller.

“This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights.”

The campaign waged against the Second Amendment by the far-left, the mainstream media and the global elite, is a concerted attempt to deny Americans the ability to defend themselves from the tyrannical government they seek to impose.

It is the duty of Americans to deter, resist and ultimately overthrow an oppressive government, and the ability to own assault weapons and large capacity magazines gives us the means to do just that.

Clifford Cunningham is a freelance writer from Massachusetts. He served two terms as a City Councilor in his hometown near Boston, leaving office in January 2016. He also contributes to Infowars.


  1. I think to realistically to look at this debate is study the 1944 Warsaw uprising. You know that our Second Amendment and my of the ideas of our government come from John Locke, he really needs to be studded to understand what he meant. Which was political realism where government is so bad that people are willing to die to change it. Both the civil war and the revolution relied on government willing and able to wage war.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Politics