View Single Post
Old January 12, 2013, 08:00 PM   #13
simonov jr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 17, 2000
Posts: 398
This is interesting (and telling in some ways)- most of the responses so far seem to proceed from the assumption that setting aside the 2nd Amendment argument (which I agree with) for even a moment in order to challenge a separate and facetious argument by our opponents is somehow the same as ceding it to them. That is a false choice, though one our opponents hope we'll continue to make I'm sure, as there are plenty of undecided voters who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. Many of these people are sympathitic to the RKBA in general but susceptible to just the kind of "divide and conquer" strategy (eg duck hunters vs evil assualt weapon owners) presently being employed by our dishonest opponents unless the counter-argument is made, and made aggressively. I would argue that the opposite true, that by failing to challenge the false premises and statements made about various types of firearms (in this case that so-called Assault Weapons are without merit and unsuited to the needs of average Americans, a la "Why do you need a Ferrari?", we as gun owners are the ones who are ceding the high ground in the debate and we are appear not to have the benefit of facts or reason on our side. Like it or not, there are squishy, middle of the road voters who don't necessarily understand or agree with an absolutist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment- their votes may be the deciding margin in the coming legislative debate. As to the "devil's advocate" position, the whole point of the post was to point out that the very same features and functions that make "Assault Weapons" scary and a target for gun banners are among the reasons they are most beneficial to lawful gun owners; how does the fact that our opponents will try to do the same mean that the counter-argument isn't worth making? I don't expect anyone to necessarily agree with me, but I find the strategy of abandoning the field of debate and retreating behind a "2nd Amendment" mantra to be a dubious one, Amen's or no. Of course that would be exactly the thing to do if you expect the same Supreme Court that upheld Obama Care to ride in and rule that your AR-15 can't be restricted- any takers there?
simonov jr is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04380 seconds with 7 queries