Aloha_Shooter
06-20-2016, 01:03
I usually snort at the leftist musings on Ars Technica and Medium but this is a good read. I doubt it will do much to convince his fellow leftists but it's a good try and there may be one or two who actually think their way through his editorial.
https://medium.com/@jonst0kes/why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c
Given the author's bent and tendency to try to cater to the liberal crowd, I thought he did a fairly good job in the content itself.
Unfortunately, the comments reveal he didn't do much to convince people of "need" in general. Those comments were largely emotionally driven and lack even basic logic, employing fallacies in order to make their "point". Case in point includes commenters Paul Marcum and Brett King.
You'll notice Marcum includes such sarcastic other needs as going 55mph on residential streets, smoking indoors, etc. He misses the point that the author failed to make: laws against such things do not stop the criminal element from doing them. In the end, law-abiding drivers go 15 or 25 or 30 or whatever the posted limit is and the other class of driver doesn't. Similarly, law-abiding gun owners simply do not shoot crowds of children or other defenseless persons. And, last I checked, criminals are by definition in contradiction to the law, including any law which does or would "prohibit" them from access to such platforms.
Brett King contradicts the facts of the Orlando shooter, and thus nullifies his argument, in a mere two sentences:
The one thing you did that got my respect is admitting that there is no argument that is sound and reasonable that should have resulted in the Orlando gunman having access to this platform. Which supposes, rightly so, that we need reasonable controls on access to AR-15 and similar weapons.
The Orlando shooter was a .gov-contracted security guard with state-issued firearms licenses for security work, who, apparently, went through a BG investigation and was one of the few classes of people who did not qualify as a mere 3/5th of a gun-owner under the rhetoric of the left. Security? check. Licensed? check. Government need? check. Etc.? check.
What are "reasonable controls" under such a circumstance? The commenter never defines such a pretty phrase, leaving it subject to a future festival in New Mexico where it will take its place in the skies with other hot air balloons.
One might ask such persons the "need" for blacks to not have their own water fountains, women to receive equal pay to men, etc. I bet they'd fail to communicate the actual "need" -- and if they didn't, one could still engage in absurdity by just repeating, "yeah, but you didn't explain the need" a la Anger Management's scene where Dave has to explain who he "is". I mean, wouldn't the black person who hydrates at a "blacks only" water fountain still have their need of water met? Wouldn't the woman taking home less pay still get paid for working? I don't hold the belief that blacks should be segregated, nor that a person should ipso facto be paid less due to the fact they are a woman, but such questions would make a liberal squirm because the answers lie precisely in the "need" space for an AR-15 or commonly styled firearm: the dignity of the person.
Created in the Imago Dei (image of God), all persons have a dignity afforded to them by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights. One of those rights includes the right to self-defense. An AR style weapon, as the author showed in the blog, is a perfect platform for this in the modern era. That it lends itself to other applications, such as hunting and target shooting, is really besides the point, not the other way around; my AR is primarily a defense weapon. Yes, it's a great platform for say... coyote hunting or just shooting paper at the range. But that's not its point -- its point in my life was, is, and will primarily rest in the realm of defense. If I have to defend that need, we're already starting off on a path of disagreeing on first principles. As St. Thomas says in the first part of the Summa Theologica, in regards to answering objections to infallible truth, "Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered."
Unfortunately, when arguing against people who live in an ideological fantasy world that doesn't mesh with the reality of the need for self-defense, and thus a mechanical platform for engaging that right, the only thing we can do is defend the difficulties. We'll never convince anyone of anything if they continue to believe in untruths and constantly move the goalposts.
OctopusHighball
06-20-2016, 07:57
I've actually found ars technica to be fairly right of center on gun issues. Anything written by Lee Hutchinson regarding guns is pretty good, I don't know the man's politics on other issues but it's fair to say he enjoys firearms ownership the way most people here do.
I was surprised to see a fair amount of support in the comments section for 2A rights as well. I've never heard of the website you linked to, but saw that the author of this piece is an ars technica founder, another surprise. Ars is clearly on one side of the climate change issue heavily, I think that is mostly a result of the specific contributor. They are on a side opposite of the Republicans on tech policy issues (and I share the Ars view being in the tech field myself), but I not sure I would call them left wing.
Ars technica is one of a handful of non-forum websites I frequent.
I thought this piece was a good read, and glad you linked to it. I don't know that it will win any hearts and minds, but it may help someone, somewhere. I did like his take on "civilians have always gravitated towards military arms".
Rucker61
06-20-2016, 07:57
"What are 'reasonable controls' under such a circumstance? "
Common sense laws that make it absolutely impossible under any circumstances for anyone to be killed, injured, threatened by or given the vapors by an "assault weapon". All responsible gun owners would sign up for this.
@octopi
I try not to click on arstech articles. Even when they do manage to be netral/positive the comment section devolves into a totalitarian cespool often driven by non US citizens and SanFran residents (but I repeat myself).
OctopusHighball
06-20-2016, 09:24
@octopi
I try not to click on arstech articles. Even when they do manage to be netral/positive the comment section devolves into a totalitarian cespool often driven by non US citizens and SanFran residents (but I repeat myself).
I will say this much, they have a "voting" system for comments that I don't agree with... up votes and down votes are calculated in a way that could result in complete censorship of "unpopular" views. It's meant to combat trolls but there are times I'll wade into a comment section and see hidden posts referenced by others. The unintended consequence of this could be pro 2A posts being "shouted down" by the gun control crowd.
Having said that, I don't know that I would discount an entire website based upon that websites readership.
Having said all that, I'll pimp another website I do like for no good reason other than I find myself going there more often than not... the Federalist. They came to my attention during the recent planned parenthood debacle.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.