In perhaps a telling window into the mind of anti-gun activists, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) recently stated that those who wanted high-capacity magazines were more interested in “arming against the government.” The statement was in support of a bill proposed by Democrats in Congress that would limit such equipment.

Murphy’s statements are eerie in that they reek of an implication that the federal government is a ruling class that shall not be questioned or challenged. Indeed, the Second Amendment was written strictly for purposes of protection from government tyranny, much like the rest of the Bill of Rights. No one of repute in the liberty movement has suggested a violent government overthrow, but without such a safeguard, rights violations by the government would be all the easier to enact without much resistance at all.

Needless to say, the Second Amendment has become about a lot more than just defense from government tyranny. The right to bear arms is also a way to prevent “tyranny” of sorts by other individuals. Any time that a prospective criminal attempts to rob, kill or rape a potential victim, the success rate undoubtedly skyrockets when the perpetrator has a monopoly on force through his possession of a weapon. When it is an even playing field, and victims are able to adequately defend themselves, the tables can be easily turned.

These facts point to the undeniable fact that law-breakers become such by breaking the law. Creating a law against guns, or particular types of guns, is not going to protect a citizenry from the horrors that they could inflict. In fact, it is the law-abiding citizens who will, as mentioned above, be placed at a distinct disadvantage if criminals are armed with weapons which outmatch those of their desired victims. While there is always the likelihood that criminals, being in the business of crime, will always find a way to obtain the biggest and baddest artillery, we should at least grant to the innocent the opportunities to possess the same weapons. Additionally, perhaps this would instill in criminals the slightest bit of hesitation before they act, if they know that any person they approach could have an arm of the same (or higher) caliber that they do.

As on nearly all policies, I have no doubt that liberals have the best of intentions when they propose new legislation on guns. They are doing what they feel will keep us safe from those who wish to harm us. However, as with nearly every other government intervention that has ever been proposed, their solutions do more harm than good.

It is easy to have an impulsive reaction when horrific tragedies occur like those in Columbine, Tucson, Aurora or Sandy Hook. But it is more difficult, and in the end more beneficial, to side with principles and realities. If we let fear win out following these shocking massacres, we have given to the actors involved all that they wished to obtain: power.

The Second Amendment is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution (indeed, perhaps this is why it is listed second only to the freedoms of religion, speech, press and assembly). In order to preserve the foundations of what our republic has been built upon, we must always defend those rights that we hold dear, even in times of inconvenience. Retreating in the name of safety has never, and will never, be an adequate solution. When we stand up to the forces that threaten our way of life, we maintain control over our fate while preserving our conscience. It is for this reason that we must always rest on the side of liberty, even when it appears that such a concept may be unrealistic.