NEED IS NOT RIGHT: “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.
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.
We might point out, for example, the data showing that there is absolutely no evidence that “assault weapon” bans and gun confiscation programs (like the much-touted Australian “buyback”) do anything at all to reduce homicide rates. We might mention that violent crime and murder rates have fallen sharply since the National Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004 (as I did in 2013, here), despite the number of firearms owned by individuals in this country growing dramatically in the years since, and the prevalence and expansion of concealed and open carry laws in many states.
We might also point out that the CDC has observed that guns are used as a means of self-defense in “about 500,000 to more than 3 million” instances annually, clearly signifying the value of gun rights in protecting Americans’ lives and preserving their liberty. Or, we might argue, as David French does at National Review, that “for the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt.”
But you might notice that all of these arguments, however correct and practical they may be, are not effective in moving gun control advocates’ away from their quest to rob us of our individual rights. That is because they are clearly arguing on the grounds of raw emotion, and they are therefore incapable of adequately appraising facts and reason. They are making what they believe to be a moral argument -- if you don’t “need” the thing that they surmise you shouldn’t have, then why should you be allowed to legally own it?
Our moral objection to that question should be abundantly clear. If it is, indeed, my legally protected “right to keep and bear arms,” and it’s true that this right “shall not be infringed” by the federal government, then the question about why I might need an AR-15, or any other arbitrarily maligned firearm, is inconsequential. The more appropriate question to ask is why anyone else believes that he has the right to demand that the federal government take that explicitly defined right away from me, or any other law-abiding citizen.
We are constantly besieged by variations of this argument about an American’s “need” being required to justify the most fundamental of American rights, and these arguments exist well beyond the debate around gun rights. Leftists incessantly entreat Americans with the question, for example, “why should someone need X millions” of legally acquired dollars? Our response shouldn’t be to ponder or address why someone else might need that amount of money. That question is utterly irrelevant. What we should be asking is, what right of mine do I own to demand that the government take their individual property rights from them?”
NEED IS NOT RIGHT: “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.
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.
We might point out, for example, the data showing that there is absolutely no evidence that “assault weapon” bans and gun confiscation programs (like the much-touted Australian “buyback”) do anything at all to reduce homicide rates. We might mention that violent crime and murder rates have fallen sharply since the National Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004 (as I did in 2013, here), despite the number of firearms owned by individuals in this country growing dramatically in the years since, and the prevalence and expansion of concealed and open carry laws in many states.
We might also point out that the CDC has observed that guns are used as a means of self-defense in “about 500,000 to more than 3 million” instances annually, clearly signifying the value of gun rights in protecting Americans’ lives and preserving their liberty. Or, we might argue, as David French does at National Review, that “for the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt.”
But you might notice that all of these arguments, however correct and practical they may be, are not effective in moving gun control advocates’ away from their quest to rob us of our individual rights. That is because they are clearly arguing on the grounds of raw emotion, and they are therefore incapable of adequately appraising facts and reason. They are making what they believe to be a moral argument -- if you don’t “need” the thing that they surmise you shouldn’t have, then why should you be allowed to legally own it?
Our moral objection to that question should be abundantly clear. If it is, indeed, my legally protected “right to keep and bear arms,” and it’s true that this right “shall not be infringed” by the federal government, then the question about why I might need an AR-15, or any other arbitrarily maligned firearm, is inconsequential. The more appropriate question to ask is why anyone else believes that he has the right to demand that the federal government take that explicitly defined right away from me, or any other law-abiding citizen.
We are constantly besieged by variations of this argument about an American’s “need” being required to justify the most fundamental of American rights, and these arguments exist well beyond the debate around gun rights. Leftists incessantly entreat Americans with the question, for example, “why should someone need X millions” of legally acquired dollars? Our response shouldn’t be to ponder or address why someone else might need that amount of money. That question is utterly irrelevant. What we should be asking is, what right of mine do I own to demand that the government take their individual property rights from them?”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/guns_and_property_what_the_elites_think_americans_need_has_nothing_to_do_with_individual_rights.html