Virginia Delegate Tom Garrett Jr. delivered an extended statement arguing that efforts to restrict firearms represent a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the historical basis of self-defense, asserting that the right to bear arms is inherent and not granted by government.

Garrett framed his remarks around what he described as repeated misinterpretations of the Second Amendment and broader constitutional principles, opening by questioning the motivation behind gun control proposals.

“Why would a government wish to disarm law abiding citizens?” Garrett asked. “I asked AI, Mr. Speaker, if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were reduced to 12 point font, single spaced, how many pages they would take up? The answer is 11. And so our founders were brilliant in their brevity, but alas, we torture and misinterpret those words as a result.”

Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?

Garrett argued that the framers’ concise language has been deliberately misconstrued over time, particularly with regard to the Second Amendment.

“If James Madison wanted to be a little bit more wordy, the Second Amendment wouldn’t read the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” he said.

“It would read the right of the people to keep and bear arms to defend themselves from tyranny, shall not be infringed.”

He emphasized that self-defense is not a government-granted privilege.

FREE Gun Law Map: Laws Don't Pause During Social Unrest

“Mr. Speaker, the government did not give me the right to defend myself, to defend my family or to defend my freedom, and the government cannot take it away,” Garrett said. “Try, though it may.”

Garrett also cited religious and historical references in support of the right to self-defense, expressing surprise at religious organizations that support gun control legislation.

“I was absolutely awestruck when a prominent religious advocacy organization for the largest Christian faith on Earth got behind some of these particular bills,” he said. “They must be reading a different Bible than me.”

He referenced Luke 22:36, stating, “Luke 22:36 says Jesus told the disciples, I’d sell you now if you must sell your cloak and buy a sword,” arguing that the context reflected the necessity of self-defense.

Garrett further said, “Indeed, in the garden, Jesus didn’t tell Peter to throw away his sword. He told him to put away his sword.”

Garrett expanded his argument to include other religious traditions.

“The Quran, the Torah, the Talmud, very, very prominent in Sikhism and Buddhism and Hinduism is the right of people to defend themselves,” he said.

Turning to modern policy implications, Garrett criticized what he described as inconsistent legal standards.

“It boggles the mind, Mr. Speaker, that this party will vote on party lines to eliminate mandatory minimums for rapists and child predators and murderers, and then, along the same lines, in reverse, vote to make an 80 year old veteran who shed his blood to defend our nation a criminal because he possesses an 11 round magazine,” he said.

Garrett provided a hypothetical scenario involving an elderly veteran and enforcement of magazine capacity limits, concluding, “This man who bled and watched his friends die for this country as a criminal, having never committed a crime in his life, because we said so.”

He argued that such policies reflect either ignorance or disregard for constitutional protections.

“Sadly, those who vote this way either do not understand what the Bill of Rights means or do not care,” Garrett said.

Garrett also discussed the historical use of gun control laws, stating, “Gun control started in the United States with the slave codes.”

He added, “You were not allowed to sell a firearm to an African American. You were not allowed to sell a firearm to an indigenous person.”

He cited public broadcasting as a source for that history.

“What’s my source? NPR, interestingly,” Garrett said.

Garrett referenced international examples, including Syria, Iran, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Cambodia, and Maoist China, to argue that disarming civilians often precedes government violence.

“10s and 10s of millions of people in the 20th century alone were murdered by their government,” he said.

He concluded by returning to his central argument.

“So why would a government wish to disarm law abiding citizens?” Garrett asked.

“Maybe the government is afraid that the laws that they wish to pass are so horrifically oppressive and freedom denying that they have cause to be afraid of law abiding citizens, and that’s just as our founders would have had it, Mr. Speaker.”

In closing, Garrett reiterated his position.

“The government did not give me the right to defend myself, defend my family or defend my freedom,” he said.

“And contrary to what you may think, you can’t take it away. Thank you.”

WATCH:

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Objectivist. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.