I write this somewhat reluctantly because I cannot recall the date this took place but what took place and what was said were indelibly inscribed in my memory. It was during the Clinton administration when yet another gun ban was being proposed. Clinton insisted his proposal would not interfere with the right of Americans to hunt ducks. Bob Dornan, a Congressman from California responded with a Special Order on the House floor and gave the most brutally honest interpretation I have ever heard for the existence of the Second Amendment. I must paraphrase since I don't recall the precise wording but Dornan said the Second Amendment "isn't about hunting ducks, it's about hunting politicians." Every politician knows this which is why proposed gun bans must be cloaked in rhetoric, deception, emotion and denial of a self-evident truth our Founders understood.

Governor Cuomo of New York recently repeated the Clinton ploy declaring you don't need 10 bullets to kill a deer. I'm still waiting for the Republican with the courage, character and understanding of our Second Amendment rights to remind the Governor that the Second Amendment is not about hunting deer and the number of bullets it takes, but hunting politicians.

We also have the mayors of New York, Chicago and Washington DC that surround themselves with armed bodyguards in cities that have been disarmed by gun control laws. Of course, they can claim guns are brought in from other areas and hence the bans need to extend to the counties, states, nation and eventually the entire world. With a world-wide ban on guns, they would not need armed bodyguards, murder rates would drop precipitously and gun related crimes would end. It is all nonsense but that is what it takes for naive people with the emotional maturity of a child to understand the gun control debate.

Power is a magnet for violence. Dictators live in constant fear of assassination. Multiple attempts were made against Hitler. Stalin frequently purged rivals to preempt any attempts to take his life. Pol Pot murdered millions of Cambodians for fear of losing power. All of these dictators had disarmed the populace but still lived in fear, perhaps a tad less than before disarmament. I am not arguing that political leaders have no right to self-defense. We have a breed of assassin that wants to live forever in celebrity status as the man who shot ... pick your leader or person of notoriety. But that being said, the best curb on power is an armed populace. Every dictator, and would be dictator, knows this, and so did our Founders. How many small town mayors have a contingent of armed bodyguards? They may carry a gun for their own defense, but so what? They are not the power craving lunatics that pass for mayor in our major cities and that puts them are far less risk.

Getting into debates about the type of weapons allowed under the Second Amendment is also a ludicrous avenue of rationale. In one Supreme Court decision, the majority opinion incorrectly concluded that sawed off shotguns are not suitable for military use (well regulated militia) and can be banned. In another case, the majority writes that the government can regulate automatic weapons (machineguns) which are entirely suitable for military use. In other words, if the government wants you disarmed it will invent whatever rationale it believes has public appeal, even if the rationale is contradicted by another decision. The Second Amendment does not say what kind of arms but the intent was clearly to provide citizens with a means to resist an armed government. The answer does not lie with the federal government or any federal laws. Any discussion of the proper arms for a well regulated militia belongs in the state. Infringe means what it says despite liberal efforts to redefine or ignore that word. If New York decrees only single shot, muzzle loading muskets legal and Montana approves of fully automatic AR-15s, it is none of the federal government's business.

The most disappointing remarks I have heard so far come from the NRA regarding the Newtown tragedy. Armed guards in schools? What does that have to do with a citizen's right to bear arms? What the NRA is advocating is that another government employee with a gun is the answer. Using that argument, why do citizens need guns when all we need are many more policemen with guns? The NRA fell for the "guns are a problem" hook and offered a solution in line with an agenda to disarm citizens; only the state should be armed.

Bob Dornan was right, and that scares the hell out of politicians, especially those who crave power to control the lives of the people they believe they rule. Sic semper tyrannis!