H/T Bearing Arms.
A anti-gun nut is trying through some mental gymnastics convince you he know what he is talking about.
Pro-gun arguments can take many forms, but at the end of the day, every pro-gun voice can fall back on the idea that the Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms. The truth is, we shouldn’t need any additional arguments than that.
As such, though, while anti-gunners may try to claim we’re engaging in some double talk from time to time, the truth is that we’re addressing their arguments. Ours are pretty much, “It’s our right to have guns.”
However, on their side, the arguments can get kind of idiotic. Take this essay that tries to counter a pro-gun essay.
In his Oct. 15 essay, “Second Amendment rights at stake in November,” Len Lisenbee writes that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris “have repeatedly stated their intent to disregard all aspects of the Second Amendment. Both Democrats have stated their intentions to confiscate all firearms held by civilians.”
It’s one thing to argue that you disagree with their policy goals and even to argue that in your opinion those policies would violate the Constitution. It’s another to baldly lie about what they have said and lie in a way that only fuels irrational fears about impending doom if the election doesn’t go your way.
The rest of Lisenbee’s column provides absolutely no support for his assertion, because there is none. Just because someone advocates a gun-control policy that you believe would violate the Second Amendment doesn’t mean they advocate a “disregard [for] all aspects of the Second Amendment” or, even worse, that they favor confiscating all privately owned weapons.
Put aside whether their gun policy agenda would be effective or constitutional or not. It’s simply a lie to say that any and all restrictions on guns are unconstitutional. That’s not just my opinion. It’s what the courts of this nation have held since the Bill of Rights.
I don’t know Lisenbee, but he actually wasn’t particularly wrong.
See, while one can make the case that gun control is, actually, constitutional, Lisenbee wasn’t speaking about gun control in general. He was talking specifically about Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, and that’s an important difference.
Joe Biden’s gun control proposals call specifically to ban so-called “assault weapons.” These are the most commonly owned rifles in the nation, but he wants to ban them anyway. This despite the Heller decision saying that commonly-owned guns were not to be banned.
Further, Joe Biden has said he disagrees with the Court’s decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. That means there’s little reason to believe he would view it as part of his oath of office to protect that right.
Oh, but he hasn’t said he would come after our guns, though, right? Well, maybe not.
However, what he has done is make clear his intention to have Beto O’Rourke spearhead his anti-gun efforts. This is the same Beto O’Rourke who stood up during a debate and said, “Hell yeah, we’re coming for your AR-15s and AK-47s.” The fact that Biden hasn’t disavowed that particular part of Beto’s plan suggests that he’s not ruling out doing precisely that.
So no, Lisenbee didn’t lie.
Oh, he might be wrong, but a lie is a knowing falsehood. I honestly believe that Lisenbee believes these claims because, well, I sure as hell believe them too. That’s based on the facts outlined above.
If you’re going to call something a Big Lie, you damn well need to make sure the other person is lying, rather than just assume because your interpretation of the facts are different that the truth automatically must be.
Frankly, I fail to see how anyone remotely cognizant of Biden’s words and deeds regarding gun control, especially during this election cycle, could possible see them as anything other than blatantly anti-gun.