Many people would like to use the outrage over the Newtown massacre as an impetus for stricter gun control laws. Sometimes it takes a tragic event to mobilize support for major changes in public policy. The new labor laws passed in New York in the wake of the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire that killed 146 trapped workers readily comes to mind.

As a general rule, however, it probably isn't a good idea to legislate hastily in response to a tragedy. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the federal government has assumed broad new search and surveillance powers. It was a legislative kneejerk response that many wish could now be undone.

It is not even clear what the best legislative response would be to Newtown. Perhaps it should be made a lot easier to institutionalize the mentally ill. Maybe school employees should be permitted to carry concealed weapons.

My impression of people that reflexively advocate strict gun control laws is that they lack an historical understanding of the reasons for the Second Amendment and therefore don't properly appreciate its importance.

My favorite critical thinking exercise when teaching civics was to ask students to identify the most important freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Imagining that I was the president, the students were asked to defend their choice, which invariably would be freedom of speech.

I would tell the student that I disapprove of his advocacy of a particular cause and am throwing him in prison. When the student protests that he has the right to free speech, I say that I've branded him a subversive, and he no longer has rights. I remind the student that Abraham Lincoln did it on more than one occasion, and he's now a hero.

The student then contends that many others will echo his opinion and hold demonstrations to demand his release. To which I respond that I will disperse any demonstrations, arresting hundreds if need be.

The student protests that the media will take up his cause, to which I respond that I will shut down any television station or newspaper that does so. Today I would have to include Facebook and Twitter in my threat, of course.

Finally, the usually exasperated student asserts that people will take up arms in protest. At which point, I have to remind the student that the populace was disarmed a long time ago because there was no Second Amendment to prevent the government from doing so.

The point being that the right to bear arms is the most important right because without it any other alleged rights ultimately can collapse at the whim of the government. Two hundred years ago people understood this, which is why the Revolutionary War started at Lexington when the British attempted to disarm ordinary citizens.

Today many people have the mistaken belief that the Second Amendment has something to do with hunting, or protecting oneself against a burglar or mugger. In truth it was enacted as insurance against tyranny by the new federal government, as were the other enumerated protections in the Bill of Rights.

It may make people uncomfortable to think of needing protection from the government, since most view government as benign, if not benevolent. Americans today are cut from a different type of cloth than their ancestors. I have no doubt that many Americans would welcome a termination of our democratic form of government if it meant economic prosperity and little disruption to their daily routines.

Fortunately, enumerated rights such as the right to bear arms are immune from the desires of a majority. Rights, after all, are designed for just that purpose, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

A supermajority could amend the Constitution to ban gun ownership, but as a practical matter it will never happen. Even if two-thirds majorities are mustered in both houses of Congress, three-quarters of the states would never ratify such an Amendment. Gun owners would migrate to enough states to block approval.

But can the government legally ban only "assault" rifles and leave other gun possession alone? If the reason for the Second Amendment is now properly understood as giving the citizenry the power to oppose unlawful government by force of arms, then the answer is clearly no. Assault rifles would be necessary to give the citizenry a reasonable chance of success.

Lest anyone think my intent is to sow the seeds of an irrational fear of government, quite the opposite is true. Thomas Jefferson put it best when he observed "When governments fear the people, there is liberty."