Personally I think it's perfectly adequate for deer hunting, provided you are a good shot. Note that those 12 states mostly include gun control havens like California or Maryland, though. As is so often the case, any stick is good enough to beat their enemies: the AR-15 should be banned, they say, both because it is too lethal and because it is not lethal enough.
Usually in logic, deriving a contradiction is thought to prove the opposite of the assumption that got you there. Here they take it to prove that which they assumed at the beginning.
3 comments:
In a similar circular argument, the WA State Supreme court ruled a 3" paring knife was not deadly enough to have Second Amendment protection as an Arm. But it was deadly enough to sustain a conviction for a "dangerous weapon".
One suspects if it had been a bayonet , or some other clearly military edged weapon, the court would have found some other reason to sustain the conviction.
Once the courts are taken over as a tool of the left, the only consideration has to do with whom, and who.
They say one of the traits of cognitive dissonance is to be able to hold clearly opposing conclusions in mind and be able to switch back and forth between them according to the issue at hand.
On the other hand, Aristotle said that the proof of a subtle mind was to be able to entertain opposing ideas -- without accepting either. There's a neat difference between the two cases, which probably comes down to the fact that the bad example has already decided and is just settling on the stick he's going to use to beat you. The good example is genuinely able to consider that either view might be correct.
Unfortunately it is widely held that the changing of ones mind on a subject is a flaw, that one "blows with the wind". And to be fair, that is exactly what some who seek to curry favor do-
brownnosers and politicians mostly.
The ability to examine new facts and circumstances to alter a previously held belief is a valuable trait.
Post a Comment