Quote of the Day: Bad Faith Argument

From Joan:

Interesting point. I wonder if even then, the people who are opposed to expanding background checks would be on board. After they were reassured and with specific language in the bill that was voted on in the Senate that there could be NO registration, the NRA still opposed the bill.

Well except that’s another lie.

Go ahead an re-read my post on the GOP compromise to Universal Background checks. It had it’s flaws, but this was the first major bill I’m aware of to offer what would be an honest-to-god Common Sense background check bill.

The anti-gun Forces (also note these are people Joan has intimate ties with, so I doubt she was unaware of this bill) were AGAINST this. The only logical reason why the pro-gun side and anti-gun side didn’t get together to debate this is that the reasons the anti-gun side is after “Universal Background Checks” is a bad faith argument. They aren’t interested in cutting down bad people getting guns, they’re interested in whittling down GOOD people with guns through registrations, more ambiguous denials of rights, and adding pay gates and time constraints that will frustrate all but the most ardent gun nut.

They aren’t interested in public safety or enforcing the law, they’re interested in banning guns.

This entry was posted in Freedom, Guns, Politics, Safety. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Quote of the Day: Bad Faith Argument

  1. C. S. P. Schofield says:

    I have this discussion with gun banners, but somehow they don’t come back for more. Maybe it’s my attitude;

    Gun banner; “How can you be against background checks?”

    Me; “The Second Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Requiring people to pass a background check is an infringement. The Law you want to pass in unconstitutional. Unless and until you propose a Constitutional Amendment to allow such a Law, proposing such a Law makes you a scofflaw.”

    Gun banner; “You’re just a gun nut!”

    Me; “I don’t own any guns. But I fear guns in the hands of my fellow citizens a great deal less than I fear a government that will not be bound by it’s own laws. Propose an amendment, or flake off.”

    • Jack/OH says:

      Thanks, C. S. P. I sort of respond to economics-based arguments. Cost-benefit, risk-reward, opportunity costs, etc.

      Assume the Second Amendment and everything connected with it is simply defined as bad. Assume everyone agrees on that. (Bear with me.) Now look at the “cures” or “solutions” to the bad Second Amendment. Does anyone in his right mind really want to trust the government that the “solutions” to the Second Amendment won’t be even worse in quality and quantity than just plain putting up with the down side of America’s unique gun culture?

      • Weerd Beard says:

        Hell to expand on your point further. The antis DO see everything about the 2nd Amendment and private gun ownership is bad. So why do they lie so much about “Respecting the Second Amendment”?

        Of course that answer is obvious.

        • C. S. P. Schofield says:

          They desperately, DESPERATELY want to avoid having to pass an Amendment to the Constitution. In the first place, such an attempt would almost certainly fail, and fail badly. But more importantly, having to make the attempt would make clear that all their talk about the Constitution being a “living document” is hogwash. It is a living document in that it includes a process for amendment. If you are not willing to make use of that process, the citizenry is justified in concluding that you are yet another crackpot minority that hints the rules don’t apply to your precious selves.

          And the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressives really REALLY don’t want the Common Folk thinking about that.

      • C. S. P. Schofield says:

        Well, here’s an economic argument for you; “If you gun banners are not willing to play by the rules and attempt the necessary amendment on something this important, why should I trust that you obey the law in any lesser pursuit? Why should I think that a contract with one of you is worth the paper it is printed on?”

  2. Bob S. says:

    Of course it is a bad faith argument.
    Name a time ever in history that the anti-rights cultists have stopped and said “We don’t need another law”.

    ……. I’ll wait for you to search fruitlessly for any evidence of them every in considering that…..

    History shows that the antis have continued to push for restrictive laws. Look at New York State, California. Federal law is replete with examples; they have learned the incremental approach works best.
    Especially since they have no hesitation in lying about their goals.

    Bob S.

  3. Pingback: Quote of the Day: C. S. P. Schofield | Weer'd World

  4. McThag says:

    It’s not the background check that bothers us, it’s the RECORD of the background check that bothers us.

    There are more than a few universal background check schemes that could be put into place where no record is kept of who bought what. If the point was really to check to see if the buyer was not a prohibited person, then the anti-gunners would be all over it. But to even suggest that records not be kept of each sale and they reject the scheme out of hand.

    It seems pretty clear that the intent of their background checks isn’t to insure that the buyer is clean, but to create a record that the seller had gun A and the buyer has gun A. And that, folks, is de facto registration (as I am sure the choir already knows).

    • Jack/OH says:

      Thanks, McThag. Libraries and the First Amendment. My understanding is that public libraries only keep a record of a patron’s current withdrawals. You return the book–your record is deleted as though you’d never taken the book out. The library maintains only an anonymous record for circulation auditing that a withdrawal has been made.

      Why? My understanding is that a permanent record of a patron’s withdrawals is unnecessary for library management, that there are privacy liability issues, that it could open the door to mischievous searches of reading material by law enforcement, and, that a permanent record would infringe on circulation by infringing on the First Amendment’s free speech. Who’d risk withdrawing a controversial book if you knew the record of it could be used against you? (I work at a college, but I’m no library expert. I’ve just picked up a few bits of info from talking to library people.)

      First Amendment folks go on about “chilling effects”. Second Amendment folks seem to me just as right in fighting the “chilling effects” of misguided anti-Second Amendment laws.

Leave a Reply to C. S. P. Schofield Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.