When President Trump said of protesters, “you can’t have guns,” and his FBI director echoed the sentiment, it sounded like a simple public-order remark. But the language brushes against a deeper constitutional argument that has shaped modern conservative thinking: that an armed citizenry exists not only for self-defense or hunting, but as a safeguard against government overreach. Hearing federal leaders speak in categorical terms about citizens not having guns in a political setting brought back a 2015 conversation I had with Ben Carson, who laid out that theory of the Second Amendment explicitly — not as a current emergency, but as a structural guardrail meant to deter tyranny before it begins.

DICKERSON: I want to talk to you a little bit about your book that you have got out now, and some comments you made this week. There's been a lot of talk about some comments you made where -- in which you said the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed.

I want to talk about the context of that statement. In your book, there's a passage in which you say confiscating the guns of American citizens would violate the Constitution, as well as rendering the citizenry vulnerable to criminals and tyrants. So, I want to ask you, who wants to confiscate all the guns of the American citizens?

CARSON: Well, what I'm talking about is the reason that we have a Second Amendment in there.

This is a book about the Constitution. And the Second Amendment is part of it. And it's there for the reasons that I stated in the book, specifically, in case of an invasion by a foreign power, the people will be able to aid the military, and also, if we have a time when we have the wrong people in office, and they want to dominate the people, the people will be able to defend themselves.

As Daniel Webster eloquently said, the people of America will never suffer under tyranny because they're armed.

DICKERSON: In the book, it suggests, though, that there is -- and I just want to make sure I read this right. When you talk about confiscating the guns of American citizens, do you think that's a present threat, the notion that guns would be confiscated from American citizens?

CARSON: No.

It is something -- many of the things that are in the Constitution are to help to prevent horrible things from happening. So they're in place to make sure that the people maintain their liberties, and that the government remains constrained. Those are the two purposes.

DICKERSON: I think a quote that speaks to what you're talking about, also, in your book, you say that you were once a supporter of a ban on assault weapons and armor-piercing bullets.

But then, as you say in your book, you realized, recognized the intent of the Second Amendment, which is to protect the freedom of the people from an overly aggressive government.

It sounds like you're saying that the idea of an overly aggressive government that would require that kind of a resistance is a clear and present danger. Do you see it that way?

CARSON: I didn't say that it was going on right now.

I think the implication is quite clear, that it is something that can happen. And I listed a number of countries where that kind of thing happened. The fact of the matter is, if you go to those countries well before it happened, and you had asked the people if that's going to happen in their country, they would have said, oh, no, no, no, it wouldn't happen here.

DICKERSON: Yes, that is what interests me, because so many people are distrustful of the government. They're angry at the government. And you mentioned some countries. But this is also the context in which you said the people in Germany didn't speak up when Nazism was on the rise. And I guess, what I wonder is, do you think it's that close here? Or is that just hyperbole, to use the Nazi analogies?

CARSON: It's not hyperbole at all.

Whether it's on our doorstep or whether it's 50 years away, it's still a concern, and it's something that we must guard against. That's one of the real purposes of having a Constitution. I think the founders were really quite insightful into looking at possibilities and understanding what has happened in other places and trying to put together something that would prevent that from happening here.

You know, there are a lot of people in the media who will take anything you say and try to make it into hyperbole and try to make it into controversy, but the fact of the matter is, when you talk to average American citizens, they know exactly what I'm talking about.

DICKERSON: But the extermination of an entire race, which was the Nazi goal, that's a pretty big thing to compare our current situation to. I guess that is what has people a little confused.

CARSON: You do not want to get there.