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

[Elderberry]

American Thinker by William Sullivan 8/20/2019

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, cosmetic accoutrements, magazine size, etc., here]?”

We proponents of limited government and individual rights can, and often do, present substantial arguments as to why such firearms might be necessary to protect ourselves against evil neighbors or government agents who might choose to infringe upon our right to life and liberty, and why the gun control proposals being offered would be ineffective.

More: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/guns_and_property_what_the_elites_think_americans_need_has_nothing_to_do_with_individual_rights.html

[txradioguy]

That "we know what you need better than you know what you need" attitude where guns are concerned is on display several times a day here.

These masterminds that want to control every facet of our lives whether we go along with their schemes willingly or by force are proving to be the ruin of this nations.

[Bigun]

That "we know what you need better than you know what you need" attitude where guns are concerned is on display several times a day here.

These masterminds that want to control every facet of our lives whether we go along with their schemes willingly or by force are proving to be the ruin of this nations.

That "we know what you need better than you know what you need" attitude is most egregious when it comes to our primary elections IMHO.  But that by-no-means discounts what you said above @txradioguy.

[txradioguy]

That "we know what you need better than you know what you need" attitude is most egregious when it comes to our primary elections IMHO.  But that by-no-means discounts what you said above @txradioguy.

It's horrible wherever it's applied and it's applied by more and more people who think they know what we need in our lives better than we do.

It's disgusting.

The election of people who think they know what we need is directly tied to the current battle over the 2nd Amendment topic of this article.