Arguing With Facebookers
Operative B has been thinking about firearms.
| O Fearsome One, This lowly minion was discussing the attack in San Bernardino online and in a Facebook thread (yes, I know: self-flagellation would be more productive) and was making progress helping an obvious anti-gun advocate understand the concept “guns are not evil; people use them for evil purposes”, when the anti-gun advocate brought up the leftist-required “would you allow people to buy nuclear arms” question. It was at that point that I abandoned the thread. I fail to understand the logic behind the use of an obviously outlandish and irresponsible straw man argument as an argument in a discussion on any subject. And it seems to me that any discussion about the limits of Constitutional rights should be argued on the merits of the limits themselves. To say that the 2nd Amendment allows the private ownership of nuclear arms is both nonsensical and counterproductive: I cannot think of ever hearing a 2nd Amendment supporter advocate the ownership of weapons of mass destruction. Yes, of course I know that such tactics are used by those who advocate for the establishment of a socialist order with the intent of bringing about a utopia. And yes, I know that they forget that their concept of utopia – a universal gun-free zone – is not the same as the Islamic concept of utopia – a worldwide Sharia-based caliphate. And, of course I recognize the difference between a childlike dream (“wouldn’t peace be wonderful”) and a childish belief (“more gun control will eliminate terrorism”). But I am still puzzled why reasonably intelligent individuals cannot discuss the attack in San Bernadino in an open forum without that one anti-gun advocate essentially ending the discussion by saying something as stupid as “when did you stop beating your wife?” By the way, it turns out that the San Bernardino terrorists also had pipe bombs with them. Interestingly, the question of how they got their hands on explosives did not come up during that argument – just the guns. I’d have been more worried about the explosives… |
First, stay off Facebook. The Czar can’t abide it: it’s like bumper sitckers for even shorter attention spans. The Czar understands people—and GorT—enjoy the site, but it’s too easy to cut and paste memes without any real thought there. Twitter at least forces you to reduce your point to 140 characters (or 137 in our case), but winning an argument on Facebook is like the Carolina Panthers beating the West Drumlan Brownies Troop 36.
Now, as to the merits of the argument, Obviously, the nuclear analogy is more than a strawman, it’s a false choice because no one is proposing legalizing nuclear weapons outside of, apparently, the State Department.
Of course, it’s an analogy designed to shut down discussion. However, it’s a fantastic argument—not in the sense that it’s effective, but because it’s not based in reality. The Czar might be inclined to say something about that.
For example, the Czar might argue the analogy is completely inadequate because no one on any side of the argument is considering nuclear weapons, which are offensive and indiscriminate, with Constitutionally-protected self-defense weapons. This is a key point, because comparing the two reveal that the Second Amendment isn’t actually understood by one of the parties.
A better analogy is abortion. If the intent of gun control regulation is to save lives—say the 14 victims in San Bernardino, or even the hundreds killed each year in crimes, suicides, or accidents—why not completely outlaw abortion, which kills hundreds of thousands in America each year? That actually happens. By the way, abortion may be permissible by the Constitution, but it was never an explicit right the way gun ownership is.
If someone opposes the killing of a couple thousand but doesn’t oppose the slaughter of abortion, he’s not even close to pro-life. He’s merely a hypocrite of the highest order. Get on the correct side of abortion, first, then we can talk about a much lower priority like the decreasing number of violent crimes in this country.
Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.