The Democrats and Republicans in Congress are nearing a consensus on
disarming those 18 to 21 nationwide.

Many supporting this legislation have in the past pretended to be
supporters of the Second Amendment. They are about to reveal their true
colors — or, perhaps, their astonishing ignorance of the intent of the
Second Amendment and our inalienable, God-given right to bear arms.

First of all, let’s look at this from the government’s point of view.
Who is it that the government arms when it wants to use force to achieve
its own goals? Whether through conscription or volunteer military
recruiting, the government always targets those 18 to 21. Why?
Obviously, history demonstrates this is the age group from which the
most effective fighting forces in the world have been built. These young
men are most physically equipped for the job, and they tend to have less
to lose in the way of wives, children and other obligations and
responsibilities, so they are willing to take greater risks.

This has always been the case. As far back as the American
Revolution, the average age of a soldier in the field has been between
18 and 21. Think about that. Had the British been savvy enough or
powerful enough to ban colonial young men from bearing arms, the course
of history might have been different.

And that’s the point. Washington is about to approve another law far
more oppressive and tyrannical than anything for which our brilliant and
courageous Founding Fathers chose to revolt.

Why is this seemingly innocuous proposal so dangerous? For many
reasons, but the principal one is that it permits the U.S. central
government to further monopolize force and terror. Force is an
absolutely essential ingredient to maintaining power or overthrowing it.

Americans are rapidly losing sight of why the Second Amendment was
drafted in the first place. It was not to protect hunters. It was not to
allow sports shooting contests. It was not even, principally, to foster
self-defense from our hostile neighbors. The main reason the American
revolutionaries believed, to a man, that it was vital to countenance
explicitly this inherent right to bear arms was to keep the government
honest, accountable and responsive to the will of the people.

An armed populace is impossible to subjugate. It is a more important
measure of freedom than free expression, free press and free assembly.
In fact, all of those rights can be rendered meaningless in a moment by
government force if the people are not armed and capable of imposing
their own will and responding with force themselves to repressive
measures instituted by government.

On a more practical, common-sense and fairness level, why should
Americans between the age of 18 and 21 accept such an arbitrary and
unconstitutional edict from government, prohibiting them from enjoying a
God-given right? These young men and women are now asked to fight for
their country in foreign wars. They are considered responsible enough to
vote in elections. They are actively recruited and trained to become
gun-carrying law enforcement officers. Yet, the Congress of the United
States is about to deprive them, based solely on an arbitrary
age-discrimination basis, from exercising their constitutional rights.

Can somebody explain this to me? Is there any rationale I am missing?
Is there a loophole in the Constitution I don’t know about? Do Americans
no longer assume their God-given, inalienable rights until the age of

I know what Clinton says: “We ought to make it unlawful for children
to possess these weapons; we ought to make it unlawful for people to
sell them to them or to transfer to them; and we ought to close the
loopholes in the law. And, as we do that, we will make a difference.”

But Clinton considers all of us children. And he considers government
not Big Brother but Big Daddy — there to take care of all of us and
prevent us from harming ourselves in our ignorance. We’ve all known that
about Clinton. Yet, there is virtually no organized opposition to this
latest outrage in Washington. This is one more giant tumble down the
slippery slope toward, for all intents and purposes, disarmament of the

That is not the prescription that made America the freest and
greatest nation in the history of the world. It is not a prescription
that will permit us as a nation to rediscover our freedom and renew our
greatness. It is a prescription, instead, only for tyranny — for
slavery to government.

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.