The Orlando shooting’s deflection and devolvement into yet another gun rights debate has, predictably, brought bobbing to the surface the same old arguments and tropes in favor of infringing on citizens’ rights, including simultaneous arguments that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect individuals’ gun rights and that the Second Amendment protects individual’s gun rights only as far as the weapons that existed at the time of its drafting i.e. that 2A does not protect so-called “assault weapons” because the founders never envisioned that such “weapons of war” would exist.
The former point is refuted both by the historical record and the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions. The latter is countered by the foundational premise of 2A i.e. that an armed populace is the final bulwark against a tyrannical government, and that “weapons of war” is exactly what 2A is intended to protect. I won’t debate that point here, other than to note that the historical record’s clear on that as well. Today, I want to focus on dissonance.
In short, one cannot argue that 2A is not an individual right AND argue that 2A is an individual right up to a point. One has three choices. Argue the former, argue the latter, or simply declare that one doesn’t care what the Constitution says.
A few months back I made a similar observation regarding arguments about Hillary Clinton’s email controversy. Her defenders and supporters are insisting there’s nothing wrong with what she did, because others did it too, because no classified info got onto the server, because it’s a giant Republican plot, and so forth. Based on what’s already been released, none of those arguments hold water, so her defenders are left with two options: They can continue to embrace willful ignorance, or they can simply declare that they don’t care.
So it goes with a long list of divisive issues. While some disconnects are rooted in fundamental philosophical differences (abortion comes to mind, as does public accommodation theory), others involve one side embracing a position that doesn’t stand up to the facts. I can already hear the howls of outrage over that statement, but lets not mince words. With regard to gun rights, history strongly supports the pro-gun side. If you don’t care, that’s fine, you have this thing called free will, which enables you to believe whatever you want. Just choose to be honest about it. If you think that 2A needs to be changed, say so. Just don’t pretend it supports your side of the argument. It doesn’t.
In short, don’t argue an issue from multiple angles if those angles are conflicting or contradictory. Choose. Choose a set of arguments that are internally consistent, OR, choose to simply declare your preferred conclusion and admit/accept that you don’t care about whether facts and rational arguments support it. I can accept the former, and I can accept the latter. Both are intellectually honest, no matter if they are right or wrong. Trying to play all the angles is not, and that I won’t accept or respect.
Loading ...
Active Comment Threads
Most Commented Posts
Universal Background Checks – A Back Door to Universal Registration
COVID Mask Follies
When Everything Is Illegal…
An Anti-Vax Inflection Point?
“Not In My Name”
The Great Social Media Crackup
War Comes Through The Overton Window
The First Rule of Italian Driving
Most Active Commenters