Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RX-79G
I think it is disingenuous for you to say now that Metcalf's argument was merely poorly made - you aren't going to agree with any sort of firearms regulation, no matter how well crafted the argument.
|
Why is it "disingenuous" to point out an obvious fact? Frank Ettin, a moderator here and a respected attorney, doesn't agree with me on this, and I don't agree with him -- but we nonetheless understand the other's position and we can debate it civilly (as we have done, on more than one occasion).
Metcalf didn't HAVE an argument. He proposed an unpopular idea, tried to back it up with misinformation (if it wasn't disinformation), and then demonstrated his essential Fudd by advocating that the strictest pre-licensure training requirement in the entire country (I believe that's correct -- hasn't Texas finally dropped it to just one day?)
might be sufficient training -- but only
IF it's "good" training. That's just another way of saying, "I support your right to carry arms, but I don't trust you to do so until you're as good as I am."
There is nothing disingenuous about my position. Merriam-Webster On-line defines disingenuous as ": lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness." There is nothing about my position that is lacking in candor. I state my position, I explain it as clearly and plainly as I can, and there it sits. Others are free to agree with me or not (as Frank does not). I'm not trying to con anybody with my statements.
As for my agreeing "with" any sort of firearms regulation, you can't possibly know or predict with what I might agree or disagree unless and until it has been proposed and I have responded. My point is simply that I do not believe the Second Amendment allows for ANY regulation of possession or carry of "arms." Period. That's simple, and it's based purely on the language of the Second Amendment itself, read in conjunction with the Fourth Amendment, in which the Founders demonstrated clearly that where they wished to allow for "reasonable regulation" they were fully capable of saying so.
I have also acknowledged the reality that we have regulation of the RKBA, and that we probably always will. The fact that we have it does not require that I (or anyone) believe this is correct and proper, but we must accept reality. Then the question becomes one of how much regulation is "reasonable," and whether or not any particular regulation succeeds in accomplishing its purported purpose while being the least intrusive on the exercise of the RKBA as possible. That is open to debate, and I am willing to debate it.
I am NOT willing to enter a debate that has a profound misreading of the Second Amendment as its starting point, and an elitist statement as its ending point.