Archive for December 12th, 2018

The Modern Musket

December 12, 2018

http://thefederalist.com/2018/12/12/top-10-reasons-ar-15/?fbclid=IwAR0bCoBNyjvCbumJcj_3ugOoliXXoKlibj1j7yL7DV3zehEM1w1SMAgbaC0

The language we use.

December 12, 2018

An Oldie but goodie

For Publication, 3,449 Words, 2/29/00
One-time North American Serial Rights
Copyright 2000 Alan Korwin
Not-for-profit circulation is approved.

POLITICALLY CORRECTED Glossary of Terms
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America

Part One — The Concept

Certain words hurt you when you’re talking about your rights.  People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you’re probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.

To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices.

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN
It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROL

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENT

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRY

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPON

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNS

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENT

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns kill

YOU SAY:
Guns save lives


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns cause crime

YOU SAY:
Guns stop crime


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns are too dangerous to own

YOU SAY:
Then you should take a safety class


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns are too dangerous to own

YOU SAY:
Then don’t trust the boys and girls in the military and police with them


WHEN THEY SAY:
People shouldn’t have guns

YOU SAY:
You shouldn’t be required to have one


WHEN THEY SAY:
The only purpose of a gun is to kill

YOU SAY:
The main purpose of a gun is to protect


WHEN THEY SAY:
People shouldn’t have guns.

YOU SAY:
Only the good people should have the guns.


WHEN THEY SAY:
Guns should go away.

YOU SAY:
Then you should personally sign up to never have a gun in your life, under penalty of felony arrest, as you would ask of me.


WHEN THEY SAY:
They should take all the guns away.

YOU SAY:
Bad guys first.


WHEN THEY SAY:
We need more gun laws

YOU SAY:
Everything criminal about guns is already illegal


WHEN THEY SAY:
Why would anyone want to own a gun?

YOU SAY:
You’re kidding, right?

You mean you really don’t know?

Well, why do you think the police have guns?


WHEN THEY SAY:
We’re not really against people having guns.

YOU SAY:
What sort of guns do you think people should have, and why.


WHEN THEY SAY:
Do you really have a gun?

YOU SAY:
Of course, don’t you?

Then just give it a rest and watch where it goes. You’ll hear their litany, replete with flaws. Don’t rebut, seize the moment, listen hard and learn — then just raise an eyebrow and think, “How ’bout that. Feller doesn’t even own a gun. It takes all kinds.” Then talk about something else. And boy, does the disjoint hang in their craw.

————————————————-

Part Two — THE GLOSSARY

PRO RIGHTS

A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common “pro gun.” The reverse term, which describes them, is “anti rights.” Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the phrases “pro gun” and “anti gun”, because they automatically win when they’re used. They believe the righteous path is to be anti gun, because only devils would be pro gun. You flat lose if you allow a debate to be framed that way.

The debate is really between people who are “pro rights” and “anti rights” (and then you automatically win), because the righteous choice between pro rights and anti rights is obvious. You’re pro safety; pro self defense; pro freedom; pro liberty; pro Bill of Rights (correctly casting them as anti safety; anti self defense; anti freedom; anti liberty; anti Bill of Rights). This is an accurate depiction of people who would restrict, repress and flat-out deny civil rights you and your ancestors have always had in America.

ANTI RIGHTS

A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common “anti gun.” The reverse term, which describes you, is “pro rights.” Fight the desire to cast repressionists as “anti gun,” (and by so doing casting yourself narrowly as “pro gun”). Instead, always refer more broadly to the “anti-rights” posture they take. Make them argue rights, not guns. 

CRIME CONTROL

What “gun control” used to mean, and a generally good idea (the phrase “gun control” has morphed to mean “disarm the public” and thus should be avoided, more on this later). Everyone basically agrees there should be crime control, so it is good grounds for détente. A common sense and reasonable proposal. Includes forcibly disarming criminals. Emphasizes the differences between criminals and an armed public.

GUN BIGOT

A person who hates guns. Typically has little or no personal knowledge of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn’t have any. Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction. An elitist. One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is ignorant and immoral. Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners, gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights legislators. Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.

GUN BIGOTRY

The notion that you can only own a gun if it is expensive, or passes a drop test, a melting point test, a consumer products test, a government design test, a caliber size, an ammunition capacity, a lock test, etc. The notion that only idiots, miscreants, red necks, dim bulbs and other nasty-named people would own guns. The notion that you can only vote, oops, I mean have a firearm, if you pass a test run by your government, and pay the tax, often called a “fee.” The notion that anyone who fails the tests — or any other qualifications — automatically forfeits their rights “for the common good.” An inability to distinguish honest people from criminals.

GUN PREJUDICE

Discrimination against honest people merely for their legal ownership or possession of firearms. A common occurrence in society today. A violation of your constitutional and natural rights. Gun prejudice appears to be a federal civil-rights offense, punishable by prison and fine. Now there’s a thought. Repressionists have attempted some very novel court challenges to laws that protect our liberties. Turnabout’s fair play. If there were, say, a city bank somewhere that refused customers simply because they legally handled firearms…

AFFORDABLE FIREARMS

Anti-rights bigots curse these as “junk guns” and “Saturday night specials,” racial epithets you should never use. The racist goal of outlawing guns unless they’re expensive is self evident and reprehensible. A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an inexpensive car doesn’t lose her right to protect her family because she can only afford an inexpensive gun.

SIDEARM

Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though accurate perhaps) “semiautomatic handgun,” a term which many people think means machine gun, according to Handgun Control (who recommends use of the term “semiautomatic handgun”). Unfortunately, “handgun” has been vilified beyond usability, and needs to be retired or at least back-burnered for now. Remember, it was the so-called Brady “handgun” law that federalized all retail sales of rifles and shotguns.

PISTOL

Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though accurate perhaps) “semiautomatic handgun.” A basic, reliable, standard type of pistol, a regular pistol, an ordinary pistol, the same kind of pistol anyone would normally own. A basic, reliable, standard type of sidearm, a regular sidearm, an ordinary sidearm, the same kind of sidearm anyone would normally own.

HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS

The type any household is likely to have. All the firearms you own, despite constant name-calling from the media, are just household firearms.

GOVERNMENT GUN

The only kind you can now buy in America at retail.

BASIC SELF-DEFENSE GUN

Any type of firearm that could save your life in an emergency.

CARRY

Expunge the word “concealed” because so many people hear it and believe only a criminal would conceal something. It implies you have something to hide. Because being discreet is a common sense, reasonable measure, there’s no need to demean it with an ugly adjective (in this use anyway) like “concealed.” “Carry license,” not “concealed-carry license.”

LETHALITY

The quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping, life-saving, defensive tool. A point that is attacked subtly in most anti-rights arguments. When met head on, the issue works against the anti-rights position. Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce lethality and your ability to save yourself or the state. Reducing lethality costs lives. Why should police need more capacity than you, when you both face the same criminals. How few bullets may a person use against an attacker, and how small should they be.

Guns are dangerous. They’re supposed to be dangerous. They wouldn’t be any good if they weren’t dangerous. Anything that makes them less dangerous by reducing lethality puts you (or police officers) at unacceptable risk.

ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT

People who believe you have little or no right to defend yourself if attacked, because social order may only be imposed by an authority, and that such authority is superior to your right to exist (if push comes to shove). Also sometimes referred to as socialists. Sometimes expressed as your right to keep a cell phone handy to dial 911. The anti-self-defense movement is often deceptively portrayed as the “anti-gun movement.” Never let them hide behind their comfortable disguise as anti gun.

POLITICALLY CORRECTED

Language that does not automatically bias a debate about the Bill of Rights against individual liberty and freedom. Opposite of “politically correct” language, which is basically socialist in nature. We all recognize that “political correctness” is “incorrect,” and then we sneer and dismiss it. We do this at great peril, however, for PC statements treated that way don’t just go away, they fester and insidiously modify the paradigm, and bend our thinking into acceptance of that which we have verbalized as “correct.”

You want a good example of neurolinguistic programming and transformational grammar on a national scale, there it is to a tee.  It’s how we get to the Orwellian point where war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

BILL OF RIGHTS

More broadly appealing and less polarizing than “Second Amendment.”  Sure, I like the Second Amendment, and talk about it all the time. But saying “Bill of Rights” protects you from malicious stigma and stereotyping as a gun nut. Much more difficult to oppose, slows the bigots down. All the rights count, don’t they, and they’re all under attack. Bill of Rights Day. Pro Bill of Rights. I support the Bill of Rights, don’t you? Actually, even virulent gun haters and gun bigots champion the First Amendment and other parts of the BOR, which, if you’ll recall, was a single amendment (with separate articles) to the Constitution.

SUNSHINE GUN LAWS

Laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun ownership and infringe civil rights. Civil rights.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Stop saying Second Amendment so much, since the other side tunes this out immediately, and marginalizes you as a gun nut. Say “First Amendment” instead, and make your comparisons there — does the government jeopardize your First Amendment rights? You betcha! Should you be concerned? Of course! What would you think of Internet censorship, government approved religion, font size limits, restricted word choices, acceptable word counts, licensed writers, training and testing before publishing controversial editorials, and tests for accuracy — now there’s a nice parallel.

People on all sides recognize there are threats to free speech, religion, privacy and more from our friends, the government. The same root problems affect the whole Bill of Rights, gun rights are no different than other rights under attack.

GUN-SAFETY CLASSES

Something that, with all the accidents reported in America, all Americans should be taking — from the tens of thousands of trainers out there. Always encourage people on both sides of a debate to take a real class. Why wouldn’t an honest person take a gun-safety class? Going out for some wholesome and relaxing target practice, with friends. Getting good at marksmanship. Target practice. Marksmanship. These words have not been defiled and cast a good light, use them. Privately promoted gun-safety training days. Talk up the goal of “National Accident Reduction” through education and training. Private enterprise should vigorously swell to fill the gaping theater called, “We need more safety.”

ROWANITES

Anti-rights bigots who secretly own guns themselves, rely upon armed guards for security, or live inside communities with private security forces, but decry your right to arms. Closet gun owners. Named in honor of Carl Rowan, a vicious anti-gun bigot whose syndicated newspaper column vilified guns and gun owners for years, to a vast audience, until he one day fired at a trespasser near his home.

 

GUN BUYUPS

Gun buy back programs are misnamed. You cannot buy back something you didn’t own in the first place. Since the Brady law prohibits dumping such guns into criminal lairs (gun buyers must be certified by the FBI these days), there is no longer justification for destroying firearms collected in buyups. That’s right, there is no longer any justification at all for destroying firearms collected in buyups. When buyups are government funded, meltdowns are therefore wanton destruction of a public asset, and someone deserves to be held liable. Tax dollars are buying legal property simply to destroy it, when the only way to sell it is to certifiably law abiding individuals. What an outrage. Where I live, savvy collectors have set up shop at widely publicized gun buyups to make competitive bids and cherry pick the merchandise, pre-smelter.

DEMOCIDE

Murder committed by government. The most prevalent form of murder, responsible this century alone for 170 million deaths. Regime-ocide.

 

GUN CONTROL

Now generally synonymous with “disarming the public.” Using the phrase “gun control” in its currently twisted form distorts the debate and should be avoided; it is the other side’s rallying flag, bolstered every time the words leave your lips; argue about gun control and you’ve already lost. Use “crime control,” “accident reduction” and “disarming the public” to distinguish issues and preserve accuracy.

Listen hard when you hear the term “gun control” in the news. You’ll notice they’re basically not talking about controlling crime. They’re talking about controlling you.

Always start by asking what a person means when they say this phrase, then shut up and see. Often, people who think of themselves as being anti gun, unwittingly adopt the position that only the rulers should be armed (cop and army guns OK, but not you; such a person isn’t anti gun at all, they’re simply anti rights — your rights).

When a “gun-control law” regulates or demeans honest people in the false name of controlling crime, that’s actually tyranny. When “gun control” controls your right to have a gun, that is people control. The phrase “gun control” is a dangerous misnomer (some would say euphemism) for an agenda now actively pursued by a segment of society — that would consolidate power solely in “official” hands.

Help seize the metaphor back:

1. Drop into conversation how your gun control at target practice recently was better than usual, or how you have pretty good gun control but you still need some lessons. Invite someone to your gun-control class at the range next Tuesday — free style target practice. A well advertised gun-control class might attract some pretty interesting neighbors. Jokes about gun control (“a steady hand”) are neurolinguistically challenged and don’t help. Say something else funny if you must be funny.

2. When reporters and others inevitably ask, “Are you in favor of gun control?” they often don’t realize their question is as biased as, “Are you still beating your wife?” So it’s up to you to show them. They’re looking for a pro or con answer, and then a question of how much. Don’t play into it. Instead, try responding, “Well me, I’m in favor of crime control. How about you?”

3. When you write about so-called “gun control” or so-called “gun-control laws” always put it in quotes, to disparage it.

THE HENIGAN/BOGUS THEORY

Named by Dave Kopel in honor of its two leading proponents (Dennis Henigan and Carl Bogus). This is the notion, first arising a few decades ago, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right. It stands in opposition to the fact that “the people” means all of us, and is responsible for the widely armed population we observe today. Covered more thoroughly in an earlier article of mine, The Big Lie (posted under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com). Kopel’s recent paper on this, for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, is nothing short of brilliant. David can be reached at http://www.independenceinstitute.net.

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

A tool for reaching closed minds. The use of questions to point out fundamental illogic, which can then topple the notions a person builds on that flawed base. An application of the Socratic method. The mental awareness that forms when a simple question challenges fundamentally held beliefs. Here are many. One at a time is usually enough for most minds.

If a registration list makes sense for the Second Amendment, would it make sense for the First Amendment?

Are criminals and an armed citizenry the same thing?

So why do people these days carry guns anyway, and does it ever work?

Should it be against the law to defend yourself?

If a person can’t have a gun, why should the police have them?

So if you are allowed to defend yourself, how many bullets can you use?

Shouldn’t we disarm the criminals first?

Why haven’t we disarmed the criminals?

Why don’t they arrest all the Brady criminals they find?

Are you against an armed citizenry?

Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?

Now let me see if I understand this; when you say “gun control,” do you mean “stop crime” or “disarm the public”?

Now let me see if I understand this; when you say you’re anti gun, do you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces?

If you don’t want to disarm the police and military, you’re not really anti gun at all. You’re anti private gun. Why is that?

You know, after listening to you for a while, you’ve convinced me that you should never own a gun.

I’m against the idea that you should be forced to own a gun, and I would stand up for your right to not be armed.

Maybe you could sign up to be permanently disbarred from ever owning a gun. Would you do that (as you would ask me to do)?

Closing Note:

This article doesn’t end here. In attempting a document like this, I know I can never reach its ending. It defines a path which simply stretches forward.

If I wait until I have this evolved to my satisfaction it will never wrap. These ideas are too important to let wait that long. Consider it an early peek at a work in progress.

Alan.

 

“Social balance has evolved into a war of the metaphor — neurolinguistic programming meets George Orwell.”

— Alan Korwin

 


%d bloggers like this: