Gun Control Wins Debate...When Advocates Argue With Voices In Their Heads [More]
Tom Knighton does a pretty good job of deconstructing an anti-gun fool.
He did miss one significant opportunity I'd like to see more "gun writers" be sensitive to:
However, the Second Amendment gives people the right to have them.
Even our friends, it seems, have trouble with this one, meaning correcting such a destructive misassumption can't be overstated. Even though, based on results, most readers disagree with me on that...
[Via Jess]
1 comment:
"Gun Control Wins Debate...When Advocates Argue With Voices In Their Heads"
They also win when we don't use the best tools at our disposal.
The argument over abortion rights was fundamentally changed in favor of those who argued for "a woman's right to choose" by a single SCOTUS decision, Roe v Wade (1973). In US legal proceedings, it is difficult to find a bigger club than a SCOTUS decision. Roe v Wade is no exception. That's why it is rare to find an argument, an article, or a case argued in court on the subject of said "woman's right to choose" without some reference to Roe. Every freshman Woman's Studies major knows about Roe. Every cub reporter of every media outlet knows about Roe. Every practicing attorney knows about Roe. Roe is the .45ACP 230 grain hardball load of the debate, a proven fight stopper.
Which brings me to the current topic, "... the Second Amendment gives ..." When someone, on either side of the debate, writes that bit of nonsense, why don't we immediately go to our biggest club, US v Cruikshank (1873)? Because, sadly, we're unfamiliar with it, as are our adversaries. That's our fault. We need to become familiar with what could be our most formidable legal weapon. We need to educate our adversaries through its use until they respect it, if not fear it. We need to make US v Cruikshank our Roe v Wade. But we haven't. Look at the article referenced at the above link. See any reference to US v Cruikshank? Now look at our host's response. See any reference to US v Cruikshank? Me neither. That needs to change. US v Cruikshank should become almost a Pavlovian response.
Them: "The Second Amendment grants...." Us: "US v Cruikshank."
Them: "The Second Amendment gives..." Us: "US v Cruikshank."
Them: "Why don't we just repeal..." Us: "US v Cruikshank."
Practice it, use it, or else Sister Mary Elephant will keep you after class and have you write "US v Cruikshank" on the chalkboard 1000 times.
Seriously, Folks. "Ulla Sella..." and all that. But we need to practice it every opportunity, and with all of our chairs, or we lose.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
Note that in a more recent case, McDonald v City of Chicago, SCOTUS "incorporated" The Second Amendment's language so that it now applies to state and local governments as well as to Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago
Post a Comment