Here's my side of an exchange I had with Darrell Bock on his recently article:
Darrell,
A chronic problem with your political articles is that you never engage the other side of the argument. You just assume that you're right. You just assume that people should see how reasonable your position is.
Your articles are unconvincing to someone who doesn't already agree with you, because you make no attempt at rational persuasion. There's no indication that you've bothered to study the other side of the argument on gun rights. For instance:
If you wish to change minds, you need to show an awareness of the best arguments on the other side, and address their arguments.
Darrell,
You're politically naive. You personally may not believe in confiscation, but gun control advocates in general are pursuing an incremental strategy. They won't announce outright that they wish to disarm private citizens and confine gun possession to gov't agencies, but that's the goal. Hillary was praising the Australian model, which was a confiscation model.
You imagine there's difference-splitting middle ground, but that's not the end-game for gun-control advocates. They won't stop there. We've had outright gun bans in big cities in blue states.
It's like the debate over gay marriage. Proponents pursued an incremental strategy. They framed it in terms of "marriage equality". They said, "how does gay marriage have any effect on you?"
From their viewpoint, that was the noble lie. But once they got SCOTUS to invent a Constitutional right to gay marriage, they began driving Christians out of business.
That's the way it works in the real world, Darrell. They lie about their true intentions to make irreversible gains, then build on those gains.
Darrell, it's a familiar wedge tactic.
BTW, what's wrong with citizens owning "assault rifles"? Why is it okay for police to use assault rifles to defend themselves, but not okay for civilians to use assault rilles to defend themselves? Why is it okay for police to use assault rifles to protect the public, but it's not okay for the public to use assault rifles to protect themselves?
If you ban assault rifles, that creates a lucrative black market for banned weapons. The criminal class will still have access to assault weapons. And the criminal class will have private citizens outgunned, since you've prevented private citizens from having comparable weaponry.
i) Darrell, those are defensive as well as offensive weapons. Why do you think the police use them? To kill masses of people?
ii) You and I are both old enough to remember a time when we didn't have mass shootings in school. Yet that was a time when there were high school gun clubs on campus. Boys brought guns to school. It's not access to guns that's the source of the problem, but a cultural change.
iii) It's kind of definitional that if you successfully eliminate guns, that will cut down on mass shootings. In reality, that just creates a black market for banned weapons, so the criminal class still has access.
But cutting down on mass shootings doesn't necessary cut down on mass killings. Take suicide bombers in Israel. Or vehicular jihad. Or all the people Tim McVeigh killed and maimed using fertilizer. Or knife attacks in China. Or the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo.
Some killers plan months in advance.
Regarding Dreamers:
The parents gambled on breaking the law and getting away with it. Well, when you take a risk, sometimes you lose the bet.
Suppose a father or mother illegally obtains a property. That's where they begin to raise their kids.
The rightful owner then gets a court order to have them evicted. It's a pity that the kids are caught in the middle, but we can't have a situation in which adults are allowed to game the system, then dare us to enforce the law because they use their own kids as human shields.
There are illegal immigrants who cynically use the anchor baby principle, then dare authorities to deport them. But we're under no obligation to turn our country into a haven for looters. Illegal immigration is very costly to citizens who play by the rules.
The fact that they broke the law isn't my primary concern. Rather, I'm making the point that when you obtain a good by breaking the law, that's a calculated risk. You act as if that should be a risk-free endeavor, and it's somehow unfair or unjust for people to suffer the consequences if their gamble doesn't pay off.
It's like betting a horses. I take the risk of losing my bet. Should I be protected from not losing my money if I put money on a race horse and another horse wins?
Yes, children are not the guilty ones. But children often suffer the consequences of choices made by parents. Are you saying we should create a system in which kids are always insulated from the risky or foolish choices of their parents?
Responsible wage-earners pick up the tab for cheaters. How is that fair?
Darrell, who is the "we" who invited them in? Was there a plebiscite in which the American electorate invited them in?
One of the problems with your position, Darrell, is that there's no logical cutoff on your principle. When illegal aliens know that if they just wait it it out long enough, their status will be normalized, that creates an insatiable chain of illegal immigration.
Anchor babies are a wedge tactic. That's the point. They can always point to their kids, then people like you will always buckle. So your position reduces to an open borders policy. There's never a last time for amnesty, since the principle is unlimited.
If a breadwinner supports his family through a criminal enterprise, and he's convicted, then his kids suffer. Does that mean we should never convict breadwinners?
No comments:
Post a Comment