In the days to come, Obama and Biden will say “there is no reason why anybody needs a high capacity clip. All the hunters and sports people we have talked to agree that 10 rounds is enough.” Most people would nod their head and say, “yep, that make sense.” Obama’s team is very smart in that they are using a very specific psychographic behavior that comes naturally to all of us, one called Plausible Reasoning, designed to loll you into this type of non-action.
Plausible Reasoning means “something true at first glance.” Plausible reasoning (also referred to as “natural “reasoning) is our practice of leaping to a conclusion that is probably correct, but often not, based on the recognition of similarities between the situation confronting us at the moment and one that confronted us in the past. Natural reasoning proceeds by steps that are “credible [pausible]” but not rigorous and arrives at a conclusion that are likely [probable] but not certain. Sorry for the psyco-babble, but in order to truly analyze a Saul Alinsky-based argument, one must have a bit of theoretical background.
There are a few obvious or trivial problems with this argument, ones that I am reluctant to note because I know most of you see these fallacies. So just for completeness, here they are:
(1) 10 rounds – Why 10? Why not 9, or 8, or 7? Why not 11, or 12, or 13? What was the methodology used to determine that 10 is somehow the right number of maximum bullets one should be allowed to have in a single rifle at any one time?
(2) When you say you “talked with hunters and sportsmen,” who are they and how many did you talk to? The NRA has over 3 million hunters and sportsmen, did you talk with a statistically valid random sample from that space? There are between 43-55 million households in the US (2011) that have guns, so did you talk with a statistically valid random sample from them? Or, did you just talk with gun haters?
(3) Since when is the Second Amendment about hunting and sports events? The Second mendment was designed by our forefathers, and upheld by our modern day Supreme Court, to protect us against a tyrannical government. Remember Thomas Jefferson’s statement, “When the people fear the government, that is Tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is liberty.”
The argument I want you all to really think about is a lot more subtle, one that goes to the heart of why they want to use plausible reasoning to trick you into non-action. Obama and Biden’s basic logic is that “because somebody can not give a logical reason for why they should need clips with more than 10 rounds, the federal government has the right to regulate and/or ban them.” Just think about that for a second… because you can’t demonstrate to a group of faceless others why X is important to you, then the federal government can regulated or even ban that X. This is a principle tenant of central planning (Marxism, Communism, etc.) and should scare the bejesus out of you.
Ok, but for fun, let’s apply this logic to other parts of our lives. Here are a few examples of how to implement the “because most don’t agree with X, the federal government will regulate it” Obama doctrine:
(1) The federal government should put speed regulators, into every car in the United States, limiting their maximum speed to 65 mph. Nobody needs to drive faster than 65 mph, right? In many cases it is already the maximum speed limit for most states. So then, why do we need cars that can go faster than that. Let’s ban high velocity cars, regulate them, and put governors in every car in America. Who is with me?
(2) The federal government should limit the maximun size of any single family dwelling to 4 bedrooms or less. I have talked to families across the United States and they all tell me they could live in a house with less than 4 bedrooms. So then, the federal government should regulate the maximum size of any new home to be less than 4 rooms. Let’s ban large capacity houses, regulate them, and put the federal government in charge. Who is with me?
By the way, this point of view is a defining difference between conservatives/libertarians and liberals/progressives. Conservative/libertarians believe that it is a personal individualize choice whether to do and/or consume something. For example, I choose not to drink. My choice. Liberals/progressive believe that if they don’t like something, then they need to mandate those beliefs onto everybody else. If I was a liberal, I would try to force my not drinking beliefs on everybody else. Sad, but again true and goes without dispute by most leftist.
The bottom line is not to let the pseudo intellectualism of the Left (Obama/Biden) go unchallenged. Most of the anti-second amendment arguments you will hear in the days to come are fabrications and many will be bold face lies. Take some time to deconstruct their thoughts (yes, you might have to take a hot shower afterwards), then spread the word to those around you. Sometimes the cost of doing nothing is just too high.