Gun Control: A War Not a Conversation
| “
|
Today's American
Thinker features an article, "Gun
Control: A War Not a Conversation", the theme of
which is that when Democrats claim that "we need to have a
'conversation' about gun control", they're not really after a
"conversation"; they are already clearly at war with the notion of
private gun ownership, with the Second Amendment, with the other
freedoms that the Second Amendment protects, and with the Constitution
and the very notion of Liberty itself.
(1) The enemy have deployed military-grade hate propaganda against gun
owners.
(2) A Blitzkrieg is not a conversation
(3) Incrementalism is War
The
article gives solid examples of the type of propaganda being used to
turn public opinion against citizens exercising their
Constitutionally-protected gun rights, and the legislative ploys used
to further the anti-gun agenda.
One
point made in the article is how we've already allowed opponents of gun
rights to seize control of the language. For example, we should not be
talking about "gun control" but of "gun rights". -Stu Tarlowe
|
Scroll
(1) The enemy
have deployed military-grade hate propaganda against gun owners.
Does any reasonable person believe that a German
Jew could have had a constructive win-win conversation with the
creators of this poster?
If not, does anybody believe that firearm owners
can trust the creators of a cartoon that depicts
an NRA member threatening to assassinate the President of the United
States? Here is another
that shows politicians who support the Second Amendment, along with the
Republican Elephant, standing on the graves of the Sandy Hook shooting
victims. These are but a handful of countless images
whose purpose is to demonize law-abiding firearm owners the same way
the Nazis promoted hatred of Jews or, for that matter, the way the
Yellow Press fomented hatred of Spaniards in 1898. It is instructive to
compare this
image of a "Second Amendment supporter," and this
one by Steve Benson, to Grant Hamilton's depiction of a Spaniard:
The anti-Second Amendment camp, as led by
President Obama, has also waged other dishonest
forms of psychological
warfare and gaslighting
to advance its agenda. It is difficult to have any kind of good faith
"conversation" with somebody who is using against our side the only
weapon of war (propaganda) that it is legal to use during peacetime.
I am not complaining like a child who has been hit
by a bully on the schoolyard, because my knowledge of psychological
warfare goes far beyond the amateur efforts of cartoonists like Steve Benson.
Benson violates repeatedly a basic PsyWar rule by demonizing the
opposing side's rank and file, thus making his cartoons one of the best
recruiting tools available to the NRA. If the other side uses a
psychological weapon of war against my side, my side has the right to
use it back, and with compound interest. If the other side starts a
war, our side must finish it in a manner that leaves organizations and
political careers in ruins. If the Million
Mom March was the anti-Second Amendment side's Hiroshima, then we
must make Michael
Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns its Nagasaki. As Lord
Clifford put it in King Henry VI, "I will not bandy with thee word for
word/ But buckle with thee blows; twice two for one." Full
Article:
(Tarlowe)
One entry (JohnFRoss)
from the Comments section stands out as
recommended reading:
An excellent article, especially
concerning the use of language to accurately describe the enemies
of freedom and their policies. I'd add another one: Refer to "gun
control" laws as VICTIM DISARMAMENT laws, which is what they are.
Here are a few other suggestions. In my opinion, the biggest mistake we
make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issue, and
letting our enemies define the terms.
THEY SAY: "We'd be better off if no one had guns."
WE SAY:
"You can never succeed at that, criminals will always get guns." (FLAW:
The implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it would be a
reasonable plan.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "So, you want to
institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of
the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang. You want to
give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens
are disarmed. Sorry, that's unacceptable. Better that we should
require every citizen to carry a gun."
***
THEY SAY: "Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don't
need a 30-round magazine for hunting deer -- they're only for
killing people."
WE SAY: "I compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15. You need a
large-capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer
rifle, and I've never done anything to give my government reason
not to trust me, blah, blah, blah." (FLAW: You have implicitly
conceded that it is OK to ban any gun with no sporting use. And
eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade-game
substitutes.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Your claim that
'they're only for killing people' is imprecise. A gas chamber or
electric chair is designed for killing people, and these devices
obviously serve different functions than guns. To be precise,
a high capacity military-type rifle or handgun is designed for
CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the
most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The
only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom is
that they're good practice."
***
THEY SAY: "If we pass this CCW law, it will be like the Wild West, with
shoot-outs all the time for fender-benders, in bars, etc. We need to
keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it
will be worth it."
WE SAY: "Studies have shown blah blah blah." (Flaw: You have implied
that if studies showed CCW laws equaled more heat-of-passion
shooting, CCW should be illegal.)
WE SHOULD SAY: "Although no state has experienced what you
are describing, that's not important. What is important is our
freedom. If saving lives
is more important that anything else, why don't we throw out the
Fifth amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual
truth serum session to the entire population. We'd catch the
criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How
does that sound?"
***
THEY SAY: "I don't see what the big deal is about a five day waiting
period."
WE SAY: "It doesn't do any good, criminals don't wait five days, it's a
waste of resources blah blah blah." (FLAW: You have implied that
if waiting periods DID reduce crime, they would be a good idea.)
WHAT WE SHOULD SAY: "How about
a 24-hour cooling-off period with a government review board before
the news is reported? Wouldn't that prevent lives from
being ruined, e.g. Richard Jewell? And the fact that this law
applies to people who ALREADY own a handgun tells me that it's not
about crime prevention, it's about harassment. Personally, I want
to live in a free society, not a 'safe' one with the government as
chief nanny."
***
THEY SAY: "In 1776, citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned
these deadly AK-47s. I suppose you think we should all have atomic
bombs."
WE SAY: "Uh, well, uh . . ."
WE SHOULD SAY: "Actually, the
Founders discussed this very issue - it's in the Federalist
Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same guns as were the
issue weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in
1776 were each issued muskets, but not the large field pieces with
exploding shells. In 2014, soldiers are issued M16s, M249s, etc.
but not howitzers and atomic bombs. Furthermore, according to your logic,
the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for
newspapers whose presses are hand-operated and use fixed type.
After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing or electricity,
let alone TV and satellite transmission."
***
THEY SAY: "We require licenses on cars, but the powerful NRA
screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these
weapons of mass destruction."
WE SAY: Nothing, usually, and just sit there looking dumb.
WE SHOULD SAY: "You know, driving is a luxury, where firearms ownership
is a right secured by the Constitution. But let's put that aside
for a moment.
"It's interesting
you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the U.S. you can AT
ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars, or
trucks of any size as you want, and you don't need to do anything
if you don't use them on public property.
"If you DO want
to use them on public property, you can get a license at age 16.
This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods,
no background checks, nothing. If we treated guns like cars, a
fourteen-year-old could go into any state and legally buy
handguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and
shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at
age 16 he could get a state license good anywhere in the country
to shoot these guns on public property."
***
Final comment,
useful with most all arguments:
YOU SAY: "You know, I'm amazed at how little you care about
your grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you
than anything."
THEY SAY: "Hunh?"
YOU SAY: "Well, passing this proposal won't have a big immediate
effect. I mean, in the next couple of years, neither Barack Obama
nor Ted Cruz is going to open up internment camps like Roosevelt
did seventy-odd years ago.
"But think
of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn't it POSSIBLE that
a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next
30, 40, or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the
Senate behind him? If that does happen, do you REALLY what your
grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of
freedom? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it
BY YOU?"
Stu Tarlowe via Skoonj
|
” |
|
