Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark17
Your posts are informative and articulate.
I am finding it ironic that these people who think more laws will solve the problem, seem willing to sidestep, or set aside, the central law of this country since its very founding: the Constitution.
|
Thank you. It's almost like people will just ignore laws that get in their way, or something. Crazy. Imagine that. Who could have seen that coming?
The argument is self-defeating because it contradicts itself. The banners would be better served by recognizing the difference between what one thinks should be, and what actually is rather than conflating the two. Instead of trying to have the cake and eat it too (pretending that banning essentially all post-civil war technology in the field, de facto total bans via a 10,000x tax, ignoring the 4th amendment as well, etc. are somehow actually in accord with the Constitution), a logical argument would be that while this is what the document, the highest source of US law, states, it should be changed. There is a process to do so, spelled out in the Constitution itself as the founders recognized times would change, and the people might need to reconsider things and consider new things. It's a loser of an argument to play the game the way they are playing it now - to pretend the 2nd and now the 4th also can just be ignored whenever politically expedient for political goals they agree with, without actually violating the amendments they are insisting be practically set aside. It's an argument without any logical merit. Make the case that the people should have no meaningful right to self-defense, that guns should not be allowed (or only allowed for pre-civil war technology), and that the Constitution should be amended through the legal process put in place to do exactly that to eliminate this liberty of the people. I would strongly disagree with it, but the argument would at least be internally consistent with itself instead of a series of absurd contradictions.