Nursery Rhyme of ScholasticismWilliam of Occam, oh where have you been?"I've been out dancing on the head of a pin."What do you conclude, now your task is complete?"It's fine for the angels, but hard on the feet."—Sara Kreindler
Now we have Nick Leghorn buying into the off-into-the-weeds "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument about cosmetic features in a new AWB. All this does is help gun banners make their argument more comprehensive, as in, "Well, if the cosmetics don't matter, then let's ban the entire class of weapon."
As Herschel Smith points out, "it is unwise to argue that the stipulations of the assault weapons ban are merely cosmetic or incidental."
Gun control at its root has always been about gun control. Feinstein is a statist, and her laws and regulations will always and forever increase the power of the state. Feinstein sees through McArdle’s argument on cosmetics, which is why her proposed ban includes semi-automatic weapons. There isn’t anything cosmetic about the aims of the gun control advocates.Arguing that their bans don’t adequately distinguish between weapons leads them to refine their ban. Arguing that there is equivalent lethality between weapons denies aspects of utility and design, and only causes them to ban weapons that have specific utility for home and self defense. And arguing that their regulations were ineffective only embarrasses them to pass even more onerous ones.The correct way to argue against Feinstein’s proposed assault weapons ban is to argue that there is no constitutional basis for such a ban, and any new assault weapons ban would be at least as immoral and obscene as the last one was.
Exactly, Plus you can add the argument that another infringement will cause disobedience, armed resistance and civil war. That enough?