Why Leftists Keep Lying About The Second Amendment

In a world where Democrats can read and understand the plain text of the Heller decision elucidating the fact that the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,” we wouldn’t the following video. Sadly, so powerful is the Democratic Party’s lust for complete civilian disarmament, that doesn’t seem to be the world we live in. Hence this succinct Nick Freitas video.

- “Why, in a country founded on the principles of individual liberty and rights, is there such a huge debate over the second amendment?”
- “Critics argue that the founding fathers never intended for the Second Amendment to apply to individuals, and today many politicians and political activists try to claim that ‘well-regulated’ means government regulation, and that the word militia means that only those serving in a state militia have the right to keep and bear arms.”
- “But when we look back at the debates over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, a few things show up.”
- “For starters, the American Revolution was fresh in the minds of the founding fathers. They knew that an armed populace was instrumental in securing America’s Independence.”
- “The notion that the Second Amendment was solely about militias doesn’t quite hold up when you dig into the writings of the time. Take James Madison, the father of the Constitution and one of the chief writers of the Federalist Papers. In his own words, he explained that the right to bear arms was an individual right essential for the personal and collective defense of America.”
- “And he wasn’t alone. George Mason perhaps said it best when he said ‘Who are the militia? They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers.’”
- “And what’s more, there are literally dozens of similar quotes from the men who debated and ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Virtually all of them recognize that the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to keep and bear arms.”
- “The reason for this is actually quite simple: Because the founding fathers recognize that rights are, by their nature, something that only individuals can exercise.”
- “Because many of the same politicians who claim that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms also believe that some rights only belong to groups of people. But the concept of group rights runs into some major problems, because it suggests that a group collectively holds rights or privileges that an individual cannot have.”
- “But this just begs the question if a group of people can collectively hold rights that an individual doesn’t have any claim to then. Where on Earth did the right come from in the first place?”
- “Consider this when we talk about the freedom of speech, religion, or assembly, we don’t frame them as group rights. These rights belong to individuals and their exercise within the law doesn’t infringe on others rights. The Second Amendment should be no different, but still some claim that these rights need to be restricted or even abolished due to the undeniable fact that many have abused these rights.”
- “But this begs the question: Are your rights forfeit the moment someone else abuses theirs? If so, we might as well just stop calling them rights and accept the fact that you don’t have rights as much as you do privileges which can be granted or take away as soon as a political elite decides you don’t need them, or it’s too dangerous for you to have them.
- “But ironically, that’s exactly what the Second Amendment is supposed to prevent, and maybe that’s why certain politicians would like to see it gone.”

This loses style points for overuse of “begs the question” but is otherwise accurate.

Replacing individual rights with collective is of course precise poison social justice warriors want to force down America’s throats…