Advertisements

(N)o (R)ational (A)rguments

With Wayne LaPierre popping up in the news again, it seemed like a good time to remind people why they should not listen to the NRA. While many people have taken a stance to declare the obsolescence of the right to bear arms, I am not ready to go that far. Likely, I never would go that far. I would say, however, that at least the wording or our modern-day interpretation of the Second Amendment is obsolete. Also, I would like to add that the NRA is obsolete (at least as a lobby), though it and its members would disagree. Regardless of what the NRA and its members want you to believe, few, if any, people want to take away your guns or your Second Amendment rights. Most advocates of gun control simply seek to place certain restrictions on certain fire arms. So what I am trying to say is that the NRA needs to stop shooting off its mouth. You can find additional support for my title here. When has fighting violence with violence ever worked in the long run, people? Do you want a more rational argument? Go here. These ladies in the snarky comments and satirical tones offer far more wisdom than LaPierre could ever hope to bag with any firearm.NRA_prop

I could go on and on, but I know it will not do any good. The NRA and many of its members remain consistently irrational, so why would they listen to reason? If anyone decries guns and threatens even the slightest tightening of restrictions, the NRA cries, “foul.” Why? Again, no one is threatening to take away your right to bear arms. I will close by addressing the included meme. I once encountered it on Facebook with the following caption, written by the person who shared it: “Funny how nothing that those in Washington say do they actually want to do themselves.” This is why you cannot have a rational discussion with many gun advocates and many NRA members. If you looked at that meme and read the caption and didn’t immediately realize at least half a dozen illogical claims, you are likely a part of the problem.

Advertisements

Approaching Justice on Facebook

Comments

  1. In terms of regulations that entail no substantive re-interpretation of the Constitution, simply insisting that the 2nd Amendment be read and applied in its full wording, so that the keeping and bearing of arms is understood entirely within the context of THE WELL REGULATED MILITIA, would be a significant and positive step.

  2. As one who has lived around the world, I would only say that civilization is a fragile veneer. Be careful what you wish for.

  3. Clark Goble says:

    Regardless of what the NRA and its members want you to believe, few, if any, people want to take away your guns or your Second Amendment rights. Most advocates of gun control simply seek to place certain restrictions on certain fire arms.

    I think enough want to eliminate enough guns and put severe enough restrictions that it’s not too far off. Were the aims only limited to things like trigger locks I don’t think most people would complain. However few gun control advocates I’ve encounter only want things like that. They might realize they can only get a little of what they want and then portray that as reasonable. While I think the NRA goes a little too far overboard, there is some rationality to worrying about the slippery slope of regulation here.

    Gary, the problem is that there is considerable evidence that the meaning of “well regulated militia” entailed all able bodied white males of that era. Given our rejection of a lot of sexism and racism it seems fair to extend that to all people. Now we may dislike that meaning or want to shift the meaning of how people in 1770’s understood militia to how people today understand that term. That’s fine. But let’s be honest about what we’re doing.

    As for gun regulation, there already are quite a few in place. I’d be quite open to discussing what is or isn’t reasonable. For instance I’m fine with instant background checks even for private sale of guns. I do wish those who favor severely restricting guns would make similar restrictions to the far more deadly threats of tobacco and alcohol though. (As I noted in a blog post last week)

    Anyway I think the original post might be a little easier to understand if what the author counted as reasonable restrictions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: