What the Elites Think Americans 'Need' Has Nothing to Do with Individual Rights

You may have noticed that all advocates of federal gun control are arguing for the same end result, which is federal limitations upon the individual right to own firearms. But the underlying arguments as to why they believe that the federal government should be allowed to do so can vary, and often pretty wildly.

There are some who argue, for example, that the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee any individual right, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently argued. Some others may argue that the Second Amendment only protects guns owned for the purposes of hunting or sport. That’s all intellectually indefensible, given the precise words of the Second Amendment and ample facts which provide the historical context for its inclusion in the Constitution. As such, these examples are rarer than the other, more honest argument among gun control activists that I’ve encountered.

Generally, this latter group of gun control advocates rightfully concede that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to own firearms, but that the Founders just never imagined weapons as deadly as an AR-15, for example. They argue that it was never meant to protect those kinds of deadly firearms, despite the fact that the deadliest firearms on the planet at the time of the Constitution’s ratification (the same used by regulars in the British army, for example) were clearly meant to be legally kept in law-abiding American citizens’ homes.

But in the end, all these arguments boil down to one thing -- what gun control advocates think Americans “need.” Irrespective of the mental gymnastics needed to philosophically get there, the closing statement in these arguments for gun control invariably goes something like this: “Why does anyone need a [insert any arbitrarily chosen gun, or gun accessory, of some specific caliber, muzzle velocity, rate of fire,

It’s because the left are “collectivist” in their thinking. They start with the question, “what is in the best interests of the COLLECTIVE?”. From there, they decide, for everyone, that guns aren’t in the best interests of the collective because they believe, simply, that if you get rid of guns you get rid of gun crime.

This is monumentally stupid on multiple levels. First, and this is what makes the USA unique, we believe the best interests of the collective are INDIVIDUAL rights, that the rights of the individual trump the collective. This is what European’s, along with our Canadian friends, don’t understand. Second, criminals will be the only people with guns. Third, it’s a right to protect from a tyrannical government. Fourth, we can also organize militia - this is hugely understated. No other western nation comes close to contemplating an armed populace and allowing them to organize as an armed militia.

In the UK, the concept of individual rights has been completely eroded. You can now commit the crime of ‘offending somebody’. Of course the offended are Muslim’s that demonstrate they’ll become violent. Instead if arresting those that will be violent due to being offended it’s far easier to arrest the person speaking offensive remarks. This means speaking truth is now illegal, supported by the social media platforms.

The world is starting to notice what makes the USA special, be it the UK or Hong Kong. It’s the same reason why the left here have become so rabid, they’re losing and they know it. Their only recourse is to drown out all voices other than their own in an attempt to brainwash everyone. The problem is, for the most part, everyone already sees their game - they’ve already lost but don’t know it.

There are some who argue, for example, that the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee any individual right, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo...

Fredo's a fool who lives in a safe (gated) home with massive security. HE doesn't need to protect himself - he pays others to protect him...

I'm willing to talk to these phony elites when THEY agree to outlaw all bodyguards and PAID security.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.