To his credit, Carnahan tries to present both sides of
the gun rights argument fairly.
Not exact matches
Critics from the
right tend to be concerned about the content of their message, noting that successful CEO activism often advances left - leaning
arguments on issues like
gun control and diversity.
... The
argument that
gun control allowed the rise of Hitler has circulated among
gun -
rights advocates for several years.
This is an especially effective counter against the abstract «let the police protect you» counter
argument against
gun rights.
A federal judge has upheld most of New York's new
gun control law, rejecting
arguments that its bans on large - capacity magazines and the sale of some semi-automatic rifles violate Second Amendment
rights.
Then, pre-empting the
argument by
gun -
rights supporters, the police commissioner wondered aloud, «Who goes hunting with an assault weapon?»
If the context behind the
arguments is not included, the public just sees dispute, and can simply lump a science fight with those over abortion,
gun rights, energy policy and other issues framed by ideology or values as much as (or more than) data.
If you think this line of
argument seems silly, would someone please explain how this law is any different from the proposals of the so - called «
gun grabbers» to require law - abiding
gun owners to register their weapons, and to restrict the
right to ownership of certain kinds of weapons that are clearly designed only to kill human beings on an industrial scale?
This
argument undermines the
guns - as - resistance - to - tyranny myth at the heart of the
gun rights movement, and it needs to be part of our fevered — and deeply consequential — national debate on the true intent of the Founders.