I was speaking to an active and dedicated RKBA proponent a couple of days ago. In that conversation, we touched upon something that I believe often gets lost in conversation.
Whenever you hear people, especially government officials or legislators speaking about the need to evaluate firearms policy, that firearm possession "cost too much", that "allowing everyone to have handguns isn't a good idea" and the like, we need to remind them that firearms policy is set per the Constitution. Absent an amendment or convention, the policy is what it is. Even if every single member of Congress decided that private gun ownership imposed too many costs upon society, was completely unwise and totally unjustified, that doesn't change the fact that our founders settled the issue, per the Constitution. The basic policy isn't open for debate. Not every societal ill can be (or should be) cured with legislation.
Obviously, this leaves a few things in the margins for debate, but core questions about whether people have a right, should have the right, etc are settled.
I know a lot of like arguing with others about whether firearm ownership is good policy, makes sense, saves lives and so forth. While such debates can be a good entry to trying to convert some anti's, I caution against getting too invested in such debates. Don't be afraid to conclude any such conversation by saying something along the lines of, "well, I guess it doesn't really matter what either of us believes, as the founders already made that decision for us".
Just a few words for thought.
Whenever you hear people, especially government officials or legislators speaking about the need to evaluate firearms policy, that firearm possession "cost too much", that "allowing everyone to have handguns isn't a good idea" and the like, we need to remind them that firearms policy is set per the Constitution. Absent an amendment or convention, the policy is what it is. Even if every single member of Congress decided that private gun ownership imposed too many costs upon society, was completely unwise and totally unjustified, that doesn't change the fact that our founders settled the issue, per the Constitution. The basic policy isn't open for debate. Not every societal ill can be (or should be) cured with legislation.
Obviously, this leaves a few things in the margins for debate, but core questions about whether people have a right, should have the right, etc are settled.
I know a lot of like arguing with others about whether firearm ownership is good policy, makes sense, saves lives and so forth. While such debates can be a good entry to trying to convert some anti's, I caution against getting too invested in such debates. Don't be afraid to conclude any such conversation by saying something along the lines of, "well, I guess it doesn't really matter what either of us believes, as the founders already made that decision for us".
Just a few words for thought.
