View Single Post
Old January 20, 2020, 10:51 PM   #99
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 13,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by bn12gg
Eh, the above is a bunch of NRA noise. It's time to keep guns out of the hands of nut cases. Universal background checks need to be put in place.
No, it's not "a bunch of NRA noise." The fact that some (perhaps even many) of the people who disagree with you happen to be NRA members doesn't mean the position should be disregarded or dismissed because the NRA happens (in this case) to agree with its members' position. If you think about it, isn't that what a membership organization is supposed to do -- advocate for the views of its members?

I don't think very many NRA members would argue with keeping guns out of the hands of nut cases. The problem is, how do you accomplish that without further trampling on the rights of the not-nutcases to keep and bear arms?

The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." According to Samuel Johnson's 1785 dictionary of the English language (which is about as close as we can come to being contemporary with the drafting of the Bill of Rights, and therefore represents our best chance of understanding what the words were supposed to convey), the word "infringe" means:

Quote:
1. To violate; to break laws or contracts.

2. To destroy; to hinder.
https://archive.org/details/dictiona...oft/page/n1039


Quote:
I happen to be NRA x many years.
The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries made it very clear in abundant writings at the time that the intent was for all of "the People" to be armed. The 2A says that right "shall not be infringed." Referring to Johnson, then, we can conclude that the Founders did not want government to violate, break, destroy or hinder that right. And they didn't say "shall not be unreasonably infringed," they made it an absolute prohibition.

Since background checks are an impediment, an inconvenience, sometimes an unjustified barrier, IMHO it's difficult to argue that universal background checks are in any way consistent with the intent of the 2A.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bn12gg
I happen to be NRA x many years.
That strikes me as a logical fallacy of the type known as "appeal to authority." I'm an NRA life member, and I disagree with you. Now what? There's one truth that applies to when two people disagree: both may be wrong, but both can't be right.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03525 seconds with 8 queries