A Though on Presentation

[Dr Guido]

I've been mulling over the "present situation" which the moderators of this forum are controlling in an admirable manner and that mulling led me to some musing about basic terminology and how subtle yet important it can be.

We used to refer to the Democrats as "The Democratic Party". Then, it occurred to someone that the term made the democratic party appear to be DEMOCRATIC, when it is actually very dogmatic and authoritarian. So we started referring to them as the "Democrat Party", which does not carry the implication that they somehow hold the moral high ground, but instead, carries the lesser implication that they are just another party and also the cleaver implication that they got demoted somehow.

I think that a similar change needs to be made with regard to the battle to preserve our Second Amendment Rights.

There are two sides to this battle. One side seems to be most often referred to in the media as "The Pro-Gun Lobby". Sounds bad to me. "Lobby" is a dirty word nowadays. The other side is referred to as the "Anti-Gun Lobby" which somehow has come to infer that they are "Pro Common Sense" and we are "Anti Common Sense".

How about if we become "Pro Self-Defense" and they become "Anti Self-Defense".

Guns are apparently BAD. But Self-Defense seems less bad to at least some people. Or at least I think so. Self-Defense, after all, does not in itself imply the use of a gun. We can use a cast iron skillet. We CAN kill someone with one of those! Yes, We Can!

If we are no longer "Pro-Gun" but instead "Pro Self-Defense" we have removed the objectionable part of our position (the gun) and the other side can then ignore the "Gun Thing" just like they ignore the "Everything Else That Makes Them Uncomfortable Thing". The "Gun Thing" can then retire from the limelight and the media can move on.

Admittedly, I've often spoken to people who genuinely feel they would prefer to be killed rather than defend themselves. This seems to make some kind of reluctant sense to them. And they are in fact mostly reluctantly not in favor of the right to self-defense. And in order to justify what they seem to know is a completely nonsensical stance, the are against that right for EVERYONE, since if no one has that right they don't have to think about that unpleasant subject. At least I find it unpleasant. The military knows that not killing anyone is pretty much hard wired into us and it's difficult to overcome that instinct in most people. If you don't believe me, read "On Killing", a book about just that subject.

While my suggestion might seem trivial, calling the Democrats "The Democrat Party" really caught on and I think it helped re-frame things in peoples mind, over the long term.

Anybody have any thoughts?

 

[Rail Driver]

The way I see it, if a person refuses to use force to defend their own life in the face of force being used against them, then they deserve what they get because their life has no value to them.

As far as terminology goes, on the one hand I can see what you mean about pro/anti-gun or pro/anti self-defense, but I don't think it's going to make a stitch of difference, even if we all stopped using the word gun.

It's not the word that is bad, it's the aura of evil that anti-gun proponents give it that is evil. It's the things that some PEOPLE do with guns that are evil.

Changing to suit someone else's desires, or change for the sake of change is not change for the better, just ask anyone that voted for Mr. Obama.

 

[Sambo82]

People tend to want to shoot down a new idea, so before that starts I'd just like to say that I think you're on to something Dr. Guido. Changing the terminology to "pro self defense" won't happen overnight, but I think it's a logical move. Saying that we support the right for people to defend themselves, with whatever object, is a pretty good argument. Guns are only part of the equation.

 

[Rail Driver]

People tend to want to shoot down a new idea, so before that starts I'd just like to say that I think you're on to something Dr. Guido. Changing the terminology to "pro self defense" won't happen overnight, but I think it's a logical move. Saying that we support the right for people to defend themselves, with whatever object, is a pretty good argument. Guns are only part of the equation.

Let's look at it this way... The right to defend oneself is not in question and hasn't directly been attacked by anyone, and is not even expressly addressed in the constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, however has been directly attacked, is currently being infringed, and is expressly addressed in the constitution, with its OWN amendment no less.

We say "What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not understand"... Well, keep and bear arms generally means own, possess and carry weapons. Note that I said weapons, not just guns. We have to fight for other weapons rights under the 2nd Amendment too, not just guns even though guns are what is being attacked primarily.

 

[Dr Guido]

yea, like "Democrat Party", if some of us start now, in 10 years we will have the force of "Social Inertia" working for us instead of against us.

If you know anything about driving a loaded Super Tanker, you know that you have to order rudders full to port about 12 to 15 miles before you will start making a left turn.

All that oil has a lot of inertia, but the rudder will not budge once it's set and it will eventually redirect the inertia.

This is about redirecting the inertia by being influential in a vital place and doing it consistently. If enough people start doing this it will eventually reach a critical mass and a lot of people who don't like the idea because it appears to be compromising our values will eventually see that a. resistance is futile, and b. it's working in our favor.

The working in our favor part can't be bad.

 

[Rail Driver]

Let me try and be a little more clear on my opinion here...

This is www.TheHighRoad.org - a RKBA based website/forum. Our mission here is to further the cause of the 2nd Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. That we also further the cause of self defense, while being one of the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment, isn't the only reason. Self defense is a secondary concern to the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't read "The right to defend oneself shall not be infringed", and it doesn't read "The right to defend oneself with a gun shall not be infringed". In fact, it doesn't enumerate just what we can and can't do with "arms", it simply protects our right to "keep and bear" them.

While I applaud your effort at thinking outside the box, I don't think that your idea will have the effect you want.

It might work for a short time (relatively speaking), but the next logical step in that progression based on historical data is "Ok, we recognize your right to defend yourself, but you can't do it with a gun because guns are evil".

In other words, a rose is a rose whether it's red or blue, and calling it a banana won't make it one.

 

[Sky]

If we are no longer "Pro-Gun" but instead "Pro Self-Defense" we have removed the objectionable part of our position (the gun) and the other side can then ignore the "Gun Thing" just like they ignore the "Everything Else That Makes Them Uncomfortable Thing". The "Gun Thing" can then retire from the limelight and the media can move on.

The longest journey begins with the first step; I like your reasoning and thoughts.

 

[Dr Guido]

Let's look at it this way... The right to defend oneself is not in question and hasn't directly been attacked by anyone, and is not even expressly addressed in the constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, however has been directly attacked, is currently being infringed, and is expressly addressed in the constitution, with its OWN amendment no less.

We say "What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not understand"... Well, keep and bear arms generally means own, possess and carry weapons. Note that I said weapons, not just guns. We have to fight for other weapons rights under the 2nd Amendment too, not just guns even though guns are what is being attacked primarily.

Rail Driver:

While you are correct, it may be best if we do not even bring up the subject of weapons. Let the other side deal with that subject and we'll claim, as someone else said, that weapons are only part of the toolbox. I think we just have to ignore everything else to the point of unreason (its working for them right now) and insist on keeping the conversation about SELF-DEFENSE only. Martial Arts is useful in self defense and you don't need a weapon for that.

The reason I say that is that the Second Amendment Argument, in the present moment, focuses on the supposed right to own guns FOR SELF DEFENSE. As a casual history buff and one who has at least read a bit of the Federalist Papers, I don't think our framers could have conceived of a world in which the very right to self defense was the least bit in doubt.

The Second Amendment is, as I read it, a total failure, due mostly to economics and science, and not to a lack of diligent defense on the part of people like us. The true purpose of the SE, again as I read it, is to insure that we, as individual citizens, can own and move about the type of weapons we would need to overthrow the Federal Government if it came to that. Even now, it's not there yet.

And..Gun Safety aside, I would have no problem hopping in an Abrams tank and letting you guys shoot whatever you had at me. Can anyone here afford one of those?

So basically, the US Military is the only organization in the world that can use the Second Amendment as it was (probably) intended to be used.

And do you really want to be drawn into a discussion of THAT? NO. Then we look crazier than they are, even if our position is legally defensible.

We need to quietly and steadfastly hold the national debate to the broad subject of self defense and not get drawn into the weeds.

We need to take the High Road and hold it...ouch..can I say that here?

 

[Rail Driver]

Rail Driver:

While you are correct, it may be best if we do not even bring up the subject of weapons. Let the other side deal with that subject and we'll claim, as someone else said, that weapons are only part of the toolbox. I think we just have to ignore everything else to the point of unreason (its working for them right now) and insist on keeping the conversation about SELF-DEFENSE only. Martial Arts is useful in self defense and you don't need a weapon for that.

Keeping the conversation on self defense and refusing to address the opposition's attacks on our choice of defensive tools has in the past and will in the future, limit our choice of tools. You said it yourself, you don't need a gun for self defense. You're already arguing for their side.

The reason I say that is that the Second Amendment Argument, in the present moment, focuses on the supposed right to own guns FOR SELF DEFENSE. As a casual history buff and one who has at least read a bit of the Federalist Papers, I don't think our framers could have conceived of a world in which the very right to self defense was the least bit in doubt.

I'm also a history buff. The 2nd Amendment IS the right to own guns, PERIOD. There are no qualifiers or quantifiers in the 2nd Amendment. What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" are you failing to grasp?

The Second Amendment is, as I read it, a total failure, due mostly to economics and science, and not to a lack of diligent defense on the part of people like us. The true purpose of the SE, again as I read it, is to insure that we, as individual citizens, can own and move about the type of weapons we would need to overthrow the Federal Government if it came to that. Even now, it's not there yet.

The Second Amendment isn't a failure, we as a people are failing. We've allowed greedy, controlling, power mad people seize power (career politicians). The scalpel that those career politicians have used for decades is the "interstate commerce clause", but again, that's just the weapon the opposition uses against us. It's OUR OWN (well, our ancestors') failure. By not focusing on what has been going on, we've allowed our representatives to fail in representing our best interests and they instead represent their own best interests (money, power, control). By not standing up and saying "No More of this!", we've allowed our 2nd Amendment right to be heavily infringed, since the '20s and '30s and even before. Now it's to the point, and we're seeing it with Mr. Obama, that no matter WHAT we say, they (career politicians) are going to do what they want.

And..Gun Safety aside, I would have no problem hopping in an Abrams tank and letting you guys shoot whatever you had at me. Can anyone here afford one of those?

So basically, the US Military is the only organization in the world that can use the Second Amendment as it was (probably) intended to be used.

And do you really want to be drawn into a discussion of THAT? NO. Then we look crazier than they are, even if our position is legally defensible.

Do you know WHY we can't afford machine guns and Abrams tanks? Dig in your history books and look back to prohibition. Look into the NFA and GCA acts. Look back further to when politicians started going back for more and more terms, to when governing stopped being an elected volunteer position and started being a career paid position that is bought and sold like a commodity.

We need to quietly and steadfastly hold the national debate to the broad subject of self defense and not get drawn into the weeds.

We need to take the High Road and hold it...ouch..can I say that here?

While I applaud your ideal of quiet resistance, by focusing on the broader idea, you will miss the little things. The little chips out of our rights over decades are what put us in this position now. As far as The High Road goes, we'll continue to focus on the 2nd Amendment, as the forum was intended. Outside of THR, I still maintain that we need to stoke the fires of revolution and take our rights back from those who would control us like chattel.

Thankfully, we also have the rights guaranteed in the First Amendment, which protects your right to put forth these ideas. Without the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Keep And Bear Arms, you wouldn't have that right.

 

[Dr Guido]

ah...I see.

 

[Rail Driver]

ah...I see.

Something else that might help you understand where your train of thought could lead our nation is in other nations' histories, where they already lost this fight... Many of the European nations have suffered these same problems (the UK and Ireland to name the big ones), India (by way of Britain), several African countries... There are more examples, and none of them follow our exact path, but the destination is the same, just look at any of the dozens of third world dictatorships. Look at China and North Korea. Cuba.

 

[Dr Guido]

we're not them. But, since there is at least one person on these forums that strongly disagrees and apparently intends to fight (and I fully understand that person's feelings), then this forums is not the place for the idea to take root. Perhaps elsewhere, perhaps nowhere. It takes a group of like-minded people to start something like this. An effort of this type has no place for political diversity...and, though this idea might not be the correct one, I am convinced that political diversity got us into this mess and diversity in general is bad for any country.

The concept has worked, though. Just look at what the Christian Right did with the abortion issue. Big things can grow from little seeds if you just weed properly.

I yield the floor.

 

[Rail Driver]

I am convinced that political diversity got us into this mess and diversity in general is bad for any country.

That's what a certain outspoken and very intelligent (though quite mad) Austrian thought too. Eventually his ideas led to WWII and the Holocaust. Failing to heed the lessons history has to teach us dooms us to repeat them.

*Edit to add: This is the first time I've been the one to invoke Godwin's Law. Rather anticlimactic if you ask me.

 

[hso]

Let's not get too wrapped around the political titles since they're just used for illustration.

Remember that naming a thing has significant power in framing a discussion. We can look at the term "assault weapon" which was made up by the anti self-defense organizations to demonize what we recognize as military style semiauto rifles. The term intentionally tries to draw people into confusing the semiauto military style rifle with the actual assault rifles that are selective fire. That term got very serious traction in people's minds due to repetition and intentional "mistakes" in blurring the definitions.

Redefining the terms used can frame people's thinking on a topic. It is a common propaganda/advertising technique that we've done very badly at exploiting.

 

[Dr Guido]

thank you. I veered off topic for a second there. Defeating the Anti Self Defense organizations can get inertia working in our direction. And, I'm at least pretty sure it's working against us right now. At least on MSNBC and CNN. I watch that stuff all the time...know your enemy.

 

[Sambo82]

Rail Driver, you can keep saying "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand", and certainly it's a good slogan, but how effective has it been? While that statement might carry resonance with you and I, to many others it's just a copy and paste from a 220+ year old document.

Like it or not, public opinion in this matter is what will determine what future firearms rights you an I have. And like it or not public perception and public relations affect public opinion. Dr. Guido's post was simply a suggestion as to how we might better affect public opinion regarding firearms. We've lost much of our rights TKBA because of the Left's ability to transform the image of the firearm into a dangerous device that perpetuates violence. Doing more to marry the image of firearms and self defense can do nothing but help our cause.

When addressing the opposing side, I would bet that to the average American "anti self defense" certainly sounds more damning than "anti gun".

 

[Dr Guido]

yes...one of the problems we face is the FACT that perception is reality, no matter what the facts are, as far as the voting public is concerned. I don't like that myself but there you have it.

There are a few very intelligent people on the anti self defense side and they are thinking their way to success. We must out-think and out-maneuver them. To do that we must design a strategy by thinking and planning how to go about setting up conditions that will allow people to change the way they feel about our issue.

Mine might not be the correct one and if it will work, we will need a lot more than that to prevail, but it may be at least a start.

 

[Manson]

For me it seems a simple matter. I support the 2nd amendment. Everything else muddy's the water. I have a right to own a gun. Period. 2A clearly supports that right.

If I start calling my self a supporter of self defense the opposition will recognize this as a weakness (which it is ) in my position. They will bring up all sorts of senerio's in which people have defended themselves successfully without a gun.

They can then argue that their position is a win/win. I get what I want. The right to defend myself. As long as I use a wet rag, trash can lid, three week old dead fish to do it. Anything but a gun.

In short my becoming a self defense advocate will not stop the anti gun people attacking guns.

Edit. And by the way Dr. calling the opposition the anti defense side is meaningless as none of them have come out against your ability to defend yourself.

 

[Rail Driver]

Rail Driver, you can keep saying "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand", and certainly it's a good slogan, but how effective has it been? While that statement might carry resonance with you and I, to many others it's just a copy and paste from a 220+ year old document.

Like it or not, public opinion in this matter is what will determine what future firearms rights you an I have. And like it or not public perception and public relations affect public opinion. Dr. Guido's post was simply a suggestion as to how we might better affect public opinion regarding firearms. We've lost much of our rights TKBA because of the Left's ability to transform the image of the firearm into a dangerous device that perpetuates violence. Doing more to marry the image of firearms and self defense can do nothing but help our cause.

When addressing the opposing side, I would bet that to the average American "anti self defense" certainly sounds more damning than "anti gun".

I think you're wrong, and here's why:

When you hear the words self defense, you think of violence right? When you hear gun, you think hunting, target shooting, defense, military, etc etc etc. Instead of changing titles and limiting ourselves, we need to give guns a more positive image in the public eye. Photos of kids target shooting... Olympic athletes holding gold medals in the Biathalon... A father taking his son hunting... A police officer (or armed citizen) foiling a robbery using his sidearm, and so on.

When you say "anti-self defense" it sounds like you're saying anti-violence. Now on the surface one would think that being against violence is a good thing. I will be the first to tell you that while INITIATING violence is not a good thing, one MUST embrace violence, at least in that moment, in order to defend oneself.

When you hear about a self defense shooting on CNN and MSNBC, they always show pictures of bloody, torn bodies, chalk outlines and so on. Do you REALLY think that our RKBA cause is best served by associating guns with those images?

Guns are inanimate objects. Guns cannot do anything without physical input from a living being. Calling an anti-gun proponent "anti-self defense" is like calling a pro-life supporter "anti-freedom". These titles though, in the end, are meaningless. It's the content, logic and intelligence of our argument that must be heard.

While I agree that the slogan we use "What part of Shall Not Be Infringed don't you understand" is old and outdated, I certainly do not agree that hiding from the word gun is the right move. By avoiding a word, you show antis that you think it's a "bad" word.

 

[Rail Driver]

Manson, you said it better, and in less words than I did... Thanks

 

[Neverwinter]

Guns are inanimate objects. Guns cannot do anything without physical input from a living being. Calling an anti-gun proponent "anti-self defense" is like calling a pro-life supporter "anti-freedom". These titles though, in the end, are meaningless. It's the content, logic and intelligence of our argument that must be heard.

It is similar, because in both cases you are talking about removing the best tools available for self-defense/bodily freedom. Sure, it's possible to achieve self-defense without guns, just as its possible to achieve bodily freedom without pharmaceutical and surgical methods, but claiming that removing the most effective tools doesn't work against those goals is dishonest.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sambo82]

Rail Driver, it seems as though the argument you are making is that the term "self defense" doesn't explicitly cover the right of an individual to possess a firearm. I feel like I should remind you that to the anti gun crowd, the 2A as it stands doesn't cover the right of an individual to possess a firearm, either. They could argue that 2A doesn't specifically mention the word "firearm" or "gun". And according to our opponents "arms" doesn't apply to modern firearms anyway, only to the muzzle loading devices of yore. And if it does apply, it only applies to "sporting arms", used for hunting or target practice. Certainly it doesn't apply to modern "assault weapons" that the only purpose of which is taking human lives. And if it does apply to these weapons, then it only applies to the militia (which they of course interpret to mean the National Guard). Heck, I've even seen the argument that while the 2A protects these firearms for civilians, nowhere does it protect our ammo.

As Neverwinter said, in arguing that yes you have the right to self defense, yet you don't have the right to a firearm (as you're right, our opponents would say), you are illogically removing the best and in many instances the only effective means of self defense. It's hard to make the case that a small woman could defend herself against a large man with anything other than a firearm. The image of a helpless woman at the mercy of an attacker is in itself damning enough to turn the tide of a debate. A firearm is the gender equalizer. We shoud use that.

"When you hear gun, you think hunting, target shooting, defense, military," Yes, indeed. But only the argument of defense is credible enough to explain why we should be allowed those evil "assault weapons". And by "defense", in my mind, that includes defense against tyranny. Certainly you wouldn't "need" those weapons for taget shooting or hunting.

Essentially though, it seems that you are arguing that we need to associate the RKBA with many things, including defense, and Guido is arguing that we need to associate the right to defend ourselves with with many things, including firearms. Which ever is emphasized more, the firearm or self defense, I think it is absolutely essential to marry the two more effectively than we have been.

It's simply one strategy in many in which we can continue to turn the tide in favor of our 2A rights. Every point that you've brought up is certainly applicable. We need to educate individuals about what the 2A really means, and the history behind it. We also need to immerse our neighbors and friends in the firearm culture. Invite them hunting or to the range. Heck I've even delved into pointless discussions about zombies with folks because I saw it as an attempt to evangelize my postitions for the RKBA. But also, thanks to Guido, I'm adding the statements of "why are you anti self defense" and "don't you want to help women protect themselves" to my repertoire of arguments against anti's.

 

[hso]

Rail Driver,

I agree that if you're dealing with logical dispassionate people that emotional appeals and manipulation through demonization wouldn't have any meaning in the first place. BUT advertising and propaganda work precisely because most people aren't dispassionately logical and do respond to emotional appeal. Heck, even our side isn't primarily dispassionately logical using reason in all our arguments.

Taking a two pronged approach, logic and propaganda, earns the most reward for any side when you're trying to win people's "hearts and minds".

 

[Dr Guido]

Rail Driver,

I agree that if you're dealing with logical dispassionate people that emotional appeals and manipulation through demonization wouldn't have any meaning in the first place. BUT advertising and propaganda work precisely because most people aren't dispassionately logical and do respond to emotional appeal. Heck, even our side isn't primarily dispassionately logical using reason in all our arguments.

Taking a two pronged approach, logic and propaganda, earns the most reward for any side when you're trying to win people's "hearts and minds".

hso is, unfortunately, correct. If you don't see that, try stepping in front of a large crowd, mentioning the currently popular "Florida Incident" and then counting the number of people who remain logical and dispassionate. You won't need all 10 fingers.

 

[MisterMike]

My own practice in discussing the Second Amendment is to refer to those of us favoring expansive rights as "pro-civil rights." There is an abundant body of proof that the whole of the Bill of Rights was not mere happenstance, but a carefully crafted affirmation of a whole body of rights that had to be recognized to guard against the predations of government and the darker motives of those who would attempt to justify intrusion on one or more of those rights in the name of "good order."

The term, "civil rights" has often been interpreted to focus on the right of equality under the law, but I firmly believe that it accurately describes all our Constitutional rights. I am, in every respect, pro-civil rights. Those who believe that they have the individual prerogative to deny some or all of those rights are anti-civil rights.

I really think that describing our position in this manner suggests a higher purpose than simply focusing on self defense.