Nick DiCicco

by Nick DiCicco

Unlike our founding fathers, those of us born and raised in the United States have never experienced the oppression and bondage that inherently occur under such rule. And because of this privilege, authoritarianism has been treated as a fictional threat that we would never have to deal with. Sure, politically, “communism,” “fascism,” and even “authoritarianism” have been used as buzzwords during electoral campaigns, but even when the parties called such names, the country has never transformed into these forms of government. Our system has held, and democracy has reigned.

One repeated defense against tyranny and authoritarianism that Americans mention is the Second Amendment, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Whether it be Americans’ supposed fascination with war and guns, or the fact that our country was born from insurrection and violence, the Second Amendment, despite all its flaws, has long been defended, especially by Republicans.

What is often ignored is that the beauty and genius in the Constitution is not that we have the right to violently resist tyranny, but that the system outlined contains many safeguards and checks, which theoretically should stop tyranny. Although not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment is a last resort, only to be utilized if nonviolent methods do not succeed.

When looking at the founding of the United States, violence was largely a last resort. For roughly a decade before the Declaration of Independence, the colonies relied on nonviolent resistance. They formed early governing groups and committees to organize economic and trade protests. While taxation without representation initially ignited resistance, armed conflict only emerged after Britain used military force against colonists, sent troops to cities, restricted local governments’ power, and seized colonists’ weapons.

With this historical context in mind, it is important to look at the current state of the country and decide what role the 2nd Amendment holds today.

Over the past year, it’s gotten harder to pretend the executive branch hasn’t overstepped its power. President Trump has unilaterally imposed global tariffs, ignored court rulings, sent federal agents and the National Guard into cities without consent, weaponized the Department of Justice, and attacked the press. He has done all this with little to no pushback from any of the safeguards that were created to protect our democracy. If the first form of defense against authoritarianism (our own government) has failed us, then, like the colonists realized, more needs to be done. Peaceful protests.

Within the past year, the two No Kings Day protests took place, which turned out to be some of the largest coordinated protests in US history. The people make their voices heard through protests; however, because votes matter more than words in a democracy, (Republican) members of Congress have not pushed back against the administration. And until their chance of getting reelected is impacted, they unfortunately will not.

While many of the administration’s actions have gone under the rug, the country has reached a breaking point over the past month, as federal agents have shot and killed two citizens in Minneapolis. Renee Good, who was shot at least three times by an ICE agent while driving her car, and Alex Pretti, who was shot multiple times while being held down by several federal agents.

The justification of Good’s fatal shooting has been debated throughout the past few weeks, and while I do not see it as a justified killing, it is undeniable that the killing of Pretti is unjustified. Kristi Noem claims Pretti partook in “domestic terrorism” and Stephen Miller has referred to him as “an assassin,” all because he legally concealed carried a gun while interacting with border patrol agents.

If both the governing safeguards and peaceful protests have failed in fighting back against the rise of authoritarianism, according to staunch defenders of the 2nd Amendment, wouldn’t the only way to respond to government-induced violence be with violence?

Let me be clear, I am in no way advocating for violence or an armed rebellion against the government. Although our leaders are failing us, our system has not fallen, and if we continue to peacefully make our voices heard, our leaders will be forced to respond. What I am saying is that the same people who have for so long defended the 2nd Amendment, despite all its flaws, are the same people now justifying murder because of legal firearm carrying.

President Trump ran on defending the 2nd Amendment, but now says, “You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns,” when talking about Pretti’s killing.

Guns impact people. The United States experiences far more school shootings than other countries, and firearms have become the leading cause of death for children and teens. Not only this, but gun homicide rates and mass shooting incidents are disproportionately high in the United States compared with other nations.

Despite this, little has been done legislatively to try to reduce the number of gun deaths because of the Second Amendment. Are we going to keep ignoring the countless deaths of innocent people and children to protect the fantasy of self-defense against tyranny?

I have never been anti-gun. I think that there are good arguments to be had about the legality of guns in the United States, but I now feel misled. For decades, Congress has framed the Second Amendment as a last-resort defense against tyranny, and I accepted that idea. Yet the leaders defending it have consistently failed to use their power and nonviolent constitutional methods to limit the power of the President and to prevent such conditions from ever occurring. Instead, innocent lives continue to be lost, and our government’s safeguards continue to crumble.