The Second Amendment: Liberty, Responsibility, and Consistency

The Second Amendment is one of the cornerstones of our Constitution, yet it is often misunderstood or misrepresented. Its purpose was never about glorifying violence or creating a society defined by firearms. Instead, it ensures that citizens retain the ability to protect themselves, their communities, and their liberties from any government that might overstep its authority.

A Historical Warning and Modern Relevance

Before the American Revolution, the British crown attempted to disarm the colonists, seizing weapons and gunpowder in Massachusetts and other colonies. These confiscations were not trivial—they sparked the battles of Lexington and Concord and demonstrated how a government can dominate its people when it holds a monopoly on force.

James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution, explained this principle in the Federalist Papers:

“The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” (Federalist No. 46)

Noah Webster echoed this view in 1787:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops… raised in the United States.”

Richard Henry Lee reinforced the connection between liberty and an armed populace:

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

In 1791, the average citizen’s musket or rifle was functionally equivalent to the weapons used by soldiers, allowing ordinary people to participate in the defense of their state. Today, semi-automatic rifles commonly owned for lawful purposes serve as the modern equivalent of those militia arms. Removing access to these firearms weakens the balance of power between the government and the people—a balance the Second Amendment was specifically designed to preserve.

George Washington made the connection between freedom and responsibility clear in his First Annual Message to Congress in 1790:

“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined.”

Washington understood that liberty is not just about possessing weapons; it is about exercising that right with knowledge, training, and responsibility.

Personal Responsibility and the Modern Citizen

I personally own firearms that some might label “assault weapons”, and it is precisely because of that ownership that I understand the importance of the Second Amendment. To support a blanket ban on these firearms would not only contradict my own experience and rights, it would directly conflict with the intent of the Founders. The Second Amendment was written to ensure that law-abiding citizens, equipped with the tools of their era, could defend themselves and maintain the balance of power with the government. Supporting a ban on modern equivalents of those tools undermines that principle and places me personally in conflict with the very constitutional right I am entrusted to uphold.

Freedom is never absolute without responsibility. Citizens must train properly, store their firearms securely, and handle them thoughtfully. While I am not advocating that the government mandate these actions for every individual, laws, programs, and initiatives that encourage responsible ownership—such as voluntary safety training, secure storage incentives, and educational outreach—strengthen the Second Amendment.

When citizens exercise their rights responsibly, they safeguard freedom itself. When they do not, it provides a reason for others to argue that disarmament is necessary. Just as a free press can only function responsibly, and voting is meaningful only when citizens engage thoughtfully, firearm ownership carries a duty to uphold the principles it embodies. Freedom without responsibility is fragile, and careless behavior can erode the rights we seek to preserve.

Why I Oppose Blanket Weapons Bans

The principle behind the Second Amendment is clear: citizens must retain the means to defend themselves and ensure government accountability. Blanket bans on commonly owned firearms undermine that principle. They do not simply regulate weapons; they concentrate power in the hands of the government and ask the people to trust that power unconditionally.

Every citizen must consider this question seriously: Do we want the government to have a monopoly on force, or do we want the people to remain sovereign?

Supporting the Second Amendment is not about politics; it is about civic responsibility, liberty, and accountability. Lawful, responsible gun ownership ensures that citizens retain the power to protect themselves and their communities while preserving the constitutional guarantee for future generations.

Liberty Demands Both Arms and Wisdom

The Second Amendment exists to preserve the balance of power between the people and the state, ensuring that liberty is not dependent on the goodwill of those in power. Owning modern firearms lawfully and responsibly is a continuation of that principle. Freedom must be handled with care, exercised with responsibility, and protected through civic virtue. Only then can we ensure that the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our communities remains intact for generations to come.

With respect for all Arkansans,

Joshua Irby

Paid for by Joshua Irby