Intellectual Ammunition Pt 2: The Constitution and Founders

This multipart series eviscerates some of the Left’s biggest lies and fallacies of Liberty Control
In the second of a multipart series, Gardner Goldsmith @gardgoldsmith of MRCTV addresses the issues surrounding Liberty Control, destroying some of the prevalent mythologies in the process.
Intellectual Ammunition Pt 2: The Constitution and Founders

This part looks at the ‘rulebook for the federal government, the US Constitution’ and quotes philosophers and the founding fathers in decimating the arguments for controls on our freedom. He begins the discussion on the individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes:

This concept goes back to Aristotle, who believed in the inherent Natural Right of people to fight oppressive government and who greatly influenced the Founders. 350 years B.C, he said:

Those who possess and can wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to continue or not.

History is replete with the sequence: Registration, Confiscation, Annihilation.

Human history is clear on the disastrous effects of civilian disarmament. Just recall:

Lenin and Stalin, starting in 1918, seized firearms in Soviet Russia as the first step towards multi-nation property seizure, incarceration of dissidents, suppression of free speech, forced relocation, and a command-and-control system that saw tens of millions die during their regimes alone.

Hitler used a pre-Nazi German gun registration law to target firearm owners and seize guns, leading to results similar to those instituted in Soviet Russia and its captive nations.

Mao followed Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler, leading to the extermination of between 60 and 120 million people.

Human Rights are Individual Rights:

As Antonin Scalia wrote about the Second Amendment in his opinion for the majority in the 2007 “District of Columbia v Heller” decision:

The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Of course, we don’t need Scalia or anyone else to explain this. It’s simple logic. Rights are inherent to individuals, and groups are just assemblages of individuals. Each person has his own right to self-defense. In fact, even putting the question to agents of the state, as conservative as Justice Scalia was, leaves our rights open to threats.