How many gun-control angels can dance on the head of a citizen disarmament pin? Helping gun banners make their argument more comprehensive.
Nursery Rhyme of Scholasticism
William 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?
8 comments:
While I agree that the constitutional argument is more logical, logic has been declared moot and void by the comprehensive answer already provided by the State:
"Are you kidding? Are you kidding?"
And if you pushed the question further, there are all those armed guards to punctuate the State's political philosophy...
I don't think he's "buying in" to any argument. It's useful to point out that the AWB "cosmetic" argument is incoherent. The argument is used to trick people who don't know much about firearms into supposing that the AWB isn't ultimately an argument for confiscating all firearms. Shredding this argument is a legitimate part of fighting gun control.
Diane friends already know that their ultimate goal is total disarmament of citizens. There's no reason not to help them tip their hand.
Meanwhile, sales of black rifles continue to skyrocket; dealers are stocked out everywhere. I don't think people are going to be willing to give up the rifles they just bought. While many folks will attempt to hide them if this law is passed, many of us will consider this what it is, treason, and use them.
While you are correct that we must make it clear that passing such a ban is unconstitutional and justification for resistance, there is a reason to keep making the cosmetic argument and other such arguments.
These are the arguments that can be used in court to strike down such bans--the last ditch effort that shows us whether all three branches are lost, or if one will stand with us.
The Media Matters article is so bad (and the majority of the comments so correct in pointing out the author's ignorance) that it prompted this complaint to the editorial board:
My comment here is related, in this instance, to the following article by Timothy Johnson:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/26/daily-beast-writer-mcardles-faulty-cosmetic-att/191515
but is applicable to most, if not all, of the articles I have read on MM. Ignoring the fact that you obviously don't require the minimums of good editing such as spelling and grammatical checks, your editorial policies apparently also waive the author's familiarity with the subject matter.
My comment:
"I won't repeat all the points the vast majority of the comments make about your ignorance of weapons, but will ask this one critical question:
WHY does MM insist on allowing so-called "journalists" to repeatedly demonstrate their ignorance of subject matters they're writing about on this website?
This only serves to discredit the entire website, as I've read quite a few articles on other subjects and they were also just as demonstrative of the author's ignorance of the subject, merely relying on casual use of emotional shockwords, fallacious reasoning and wild extrapolations in a not-so-subtle attempt at eliciting knee-jerk reactions from readers. Most of it reminds me of what, in my day, would earn someone a barely passing grade in 7th grade english composition, with many red marks and corrections upon return to the student.
Your thinking, Johnson, is about as shallow as the truly cosmetic (molehill) differences you are trying to make into a mountain."
This article is just the latest in a long line of references/links from other sites which are easily used as examples of the unreasoning - and unsupportable - bias your website demonstrates many times a day. It's become so bad that this last article has prompted me to do something I've never done before: complain to an editorial board - assuming you have one.
In short - don't you people care about the image you're putting out for the whole world to see? By repeatedly publishing articles by people who are so obviously ignorant of the topics covered, you have become the laughing stock of the internet, in my opinion.
regards,
G M
(note to Sipsey readers: not that I expect them to actually take notice of this, being the hoplophobic, liberal ostriches they are. But I could no longer just sit here and say nothing.)
I guess the next ridiculous argument will be the most cosmetic difference of all: they'll say that the color black or OD makes a weapon more concealable and that anything other than a wood stock and blued barrel is banned.
Ah, folks, can you spell red herring? 'Cause that's whit this surely is. Dear Leader has shown no compunctions about boldly going where Congress fears to tread. If Dear Leader can order the EPA to implement Cap-and-Tax and regulate CO2 without any enabling legislation, what makes you think he would scruple to order ATF to regulate semi-automatic weapons and "high capacity" magazines? The mechanics of it would be ridiculously simple. It would only take one more executive order and PRESTO! instant assault-weapon ban! And if it were challenged in court, odds are that statist judges would be the ones hearing the challenge and SCOTUS need only fail to grant cert for it to stand.
Hell's Bells, people! A law need not be either constitutional or even formally a law so long as some government thug is willing to enFORCE it. Until and unless a popular insurrection starts, the government can do whatever it damned well pleases. You can take it to the bank that the lapdog media will paint any insurrection as utterly immoral and unlawful. Since the media are the only way the vast majority if sheeple get their news, it's a cinch that they will swallow whatever the media present hook, line, sinker and half of the pole. It's damned hard to get your message out when the other side completely controls the organs of information dissemination and thus control the narrative.
Please note: I am not saying to give up or give in or lie back and "enjoy" it since it is inevitable. I just want to remind everyone of the obstacles insurrectionist would (will?) face.
Phuck Diane Fineswine, and all her turncoats..I am willing to bet, Obrownmao, will just deem this Passed(AWB) EO and we will be on the Road to Civil War II...Damn I just hope they Hurry, I"am not getting any Younger!
Semper Fi
Post a Comment