Basis for outrage (should have been "Basis for the Argument")

[Blofeld]

I think the emotional end of it from our side comes from the fear of an unreasonable ban easily becoming a law.

While I don't anticipate the need for an MG or silencer, they do symbolize a sort of "gateway restriction" to me. Next is the .50 cal. Next is the "What could you possibly need a hi-cap mag for" argument. Just because some of us may be seen as paranoid, it doesn't mean we're wrong. It has happened before, a silly, arbitrary ban where two guns of identical make and model were scrutinized, the wood stock gets a pass and the synthetic stock is an assault weapon.

When illogical people come after my liberty, I get emotional. When I put a lid on my emotion and respond logically, I tend to note even more illogic from them. Now I just vote the way I have to, participate in whatever activism my circumstances allow, I worry more about the struggle within our ranks that I sometimes see.

 

[ZeSpectre]

So...what I think you're getting at Z is to come up with ideas of using religion to RKBA.

Well, not so much turn RKBA into a religion, but apply some of the accepted principles of religious freedom to RKBA since those principles have already been argued out. It could save us a lot of groundwork, or it could go horribly wrong. That's why I want to throw such thoughts out HERE where we can pick the idea apart to find the flaws without damaging what work has already been done for preserving and advancing the RKBA.

 

[Blofeld]

Applying religious principles as a basis for our argument sort of doesn't work out since religion generally remains under attack. I've noted the name God edited in this forum, since even putting 3 letters together can stir the pot.

Respected world religious leaders endorse self defense. The major religious texts of the world sanction self defense. But religion isn't above attack itself, in fact it is constantly attacked, and therefore maybe not the best strategic model.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Blofeld -

That's a good point, and why I avoid the comparison to religion for my argument for RKBA. I believe that each are inaliable rights, but for (perhaps) different reasons, or at least from different foundations.

Firearms preserve a right to exist physically.

The right to believe, spiritually, is another right, and one that may draw opposition. Although (I believe) no less valid, it is certainly one that is not as universally accepted.

In a post-modern (perhaps neo-pagan? have started hearing that term) world, the average American may well believe that you have a right to your own religion, with the caveat that such religions are acceptable "as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's beliefs." That may very often be extended to the point that simply believing in a religion, such as Christianity, that is exclusive by nature means you are "intolerant" and exceeding your limits of what you can believe. Personally, I disagree with this, but there are many who do not.

By contrast, few (although some do exist) would argue that, if someone tried to kill you, you would be unjustified in defending yourself. Most understand innately that defending one's own life, in light of a direct, unavoidable attack is an acceptable, even necessary, response.

That's why I base my argument on the latter presupposition.

Again, not all hold that view of self-defense, but those who do not are most certainly your enemies and should be recognized outright as such. With these, there can be no hope of discourse or agreement.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Respected world religious leaders endorse self defense. The major religious texts of the world sanction self defense. But religion isn't above attack itself, in fact it is constantly attacked, and therefore maybe not the best strategic model.

Ah, but it survives, endures, even flourishes. RKBA will also always be under attack by those who, in the end, would like nothing more than to own all of the power and keep it to the elites. (Sounds kinda corny but I've worked with people who don't actually put it in such terms, but definitely work towards those ends).

If the "war" will never end and the attacks will never cease, then the best "sustainable" plan might be the best course of action.

I'm not sure that's accurate, but it certainly is food for thought.

 

[Vaarok]

I agree with Chupa, it's not a good idea to use religious connotations in our struggle. Firstly, many aspects of modern liberalism are the product of an overdeveloped judeochristian ideology based on passivity, docility, and turn-the-other-cheek.

Secondly, we risk being dismissed or blended with other persecuted groups. I am horrifically discouraged whenever someone drags out the Jews-in-Germany argument as a supposed be-all-end-all source in what should be a discussion of civil-liberties in the present-day and on a personal level, not only because it's cliche, but because it allows someone to stereotype the individual as part of a group, and then assert that groups have collective strength and protections under law, and therefore so are the constituents.

It's best to remain distinct, unique, and difficult to categorize, both because it renders us difficult to target with stereotypes, damages the credibility and assumptions of our foes when their arguments miss wildly when they try to apply them on an individual-person basis, and give a more difficult to dismiss single human face to our issue than a collective faceless mob with some shared global fault that can be used against our platform.

In short, we need to be not just blades of grass, but snowflakes. Each unique, each independent, and scattered everywhere, but easily massed together into one coherent projectile when given a target as a smartmob.

 

[Titan6]

Firearms preserve a right to exist physically

And there you have it in a nutshell.

It is unfair to compare the rights of self defense to say the right to vote, drink from a certain water fountain or post on the internet. We are talking apples and oranges and pineapples here. What you have to understand are several very, vey important factors:

Ah, but it survives, endures, even flourishes. RKBA will also always be under attack by those who, in the end, would like nothing more than to own all of the power and keep it to the elites.

This is only one aspect of the problem.

There are many people who seem perfectly sane that can not imagine doing violence to another person to preserve their own life, the lives of their loved ones or protect themselves from greivous harm or ruin. These same people do not want you to have that right either. They drive around in cars, work, watch TV and vote. The voting is the scary part.

There are a lot of people who want the government to take care of all their needs. These people think that the government taking over the financial markets of the US and leading the country into socialism/ facism is a good thing for example. They expect the police to solve all of their HD/ SD problems and don't think other should be allowed to go it alone. That the government should make decisions to put people on terroist watch lists and therefore suspend their rights without even a mock legal proceeding. So long as they are safe in their illusions they are happy.

There are people that think that animals have the same rights as people and that certain people should have more rights than other people. Guns get in the way of these things for obvous reasons.

There are thugs and criminals and crimelords all of whom prefer a disarmed public that has to follow crazy rules (rules that they will never even consider following) to protect themselves.

It is not just the elites you have to worry about. The elites are "doing it for your own good" but they get voted in by others. It is the others you have to worry about....

 

[berettaprofessor]

I had resolved to stay out of this discussion because I find it ludicrous to search for logical reasons to support an emotional decision on both sides; We want guns, "they" don't want us to have them....it's emotion, not logic.

"I need guns to hunt for food"...response; nope, you can buy food at the supermarket.

"I like to target shoot"....response : "like" is an emotion; tough, find another hobby.

"I need a gun for protection" Response: Not if everyone else agrees not to harm you and nobody else has guns.

"I need a gun to protect me from my government arbitrarily taking my rights."....Response; now there you've got something! Stay with the historical facts; disarmed citizens eventually get run by dictators.

 

[ZeSpectre]

"I need a gun for protection" Response: Not if everyone else agrees not to harm you and nobody else has guns."

You were doing well with some valid points until this one which leaps well into fantasy since the attached conditions of "if everyone else agrees not to harm you and nobody else has guns" will never exist.

As for the entire argument being about emotion, somehow I am apparently not being clear. Weak, emotion based, arguments are the ones I'm trying to weed out, not encourage.

 

[Vaarok]

Tyranny is not a valid argument, because it's a relative thing, and it's too easily dismissed as being a mythical thing from History rather than a reasonable, actionable event.

Self defense, as an equalizer, as a last resort, as a deterrant, is essentially the only unassailable argument for firearm ownership. Defense against what is how you can draw in political themes like gestapo and revolution, but it all boils down to "do you have any right to tell me my life is worth less than your illusions."

 

[AZAndy]

I'm not sure that this will be helpful, but this discussion made me think about analogies to gun-banning efforts. Here's one:
Banning guns to reduce crime is like eradicating the immune system in order to cure colds. (Cold symptoms being caused by the over-reaction of the immune system, you see.)

 

[zminer]

I appreciate the sentiment here - to come up with logical responses to people who can be amenable to logic. It's a tricky argument, because I was initially tempted to say that it is not about self-defense, but I think that it does come down to that eventually. For example:

* * * * *

Person A (anti-gun): Why do you need to own a gun?

Person B: (pro-gun): Target shooting, hunting, and self-defense.

Person A: Okay - you can shoot targets with anything, and hunting only requires enough firepower to kill whatever animal you're going after. Why do you need anything more than a five- or ten-round magazine if you're hunting?

Person B: I need those things for self-defense.

Person A: Why not defend yourself using burglar alarms, dogs, pepper spray, or martial arts? Those things don't kill people the way guns do.

Person B: That's the point - I need to have a tool that will make me able to end the life of another individual who I feel is going to cause harm to me or my family. Or, I need to be able to make the decision that the government has gone too far in some way, and that it needs to be overthrown.

Person A: I don't trust you to make that kind of decision.

Person B: You should.

Person A: Well, I don't.

* * * * *

Really, if all we wanted to do is shoot targets and squirrels / woodchucks / deer / moose / whatever, then shotguns and small magazines of .22 caliber would probably be enough.

So what's the rest of it for? To have the ability to kill people, if that becomes necessary through some terrible consequence. What can you say to someone to convince them that you are able to make that choice?

Is that really what we're arguing about, or am I missing the point?

 

[jonmerritt]

What does skin color, race, or religion, have to do with being a fellow human? If you screw with me, I don't dislike or hate you due to you race, skin color, or religion. You screw with me, or my country, or my fellow (mixed race, skin color, religion) countrymen (and woman) ie. fellow American. You are going to pay the price, if you don't like that, what the he## are you doing in our country then ??!

 

[elChupacabra!]

jonmerritt -

WAT???

zminer -

I wouldn't get into the tyrranical government thing with most antis. I think Vaarok has it right when he says that tyrrany essentially falls under "self defense," as the reason you would use a gun to overthrow an oppressive government would be for self-preservation. At that point, you may leave the concrete realm of "he had a knife to my wifes throat I had to kill him to save her" and go into the more ambiguous "this government threatens, kidnaps and murders citizens at will and must be stopped before it eventually happens to me or my family," but it's the same premise.

Don't give others the opportunity to get into that abstract, hazy realm... keep it in the area of "do you agree that I have the right to defend myself if my life is being threatened? Yes? Then guns are a necessary tool to effect that right" argument, which is more concrete.

Again, as I've said in my earlier posts, if anyone denies that you have the right to defend yourself against the threat of violence - if anyone would submit that self-preservation is not one of the most fundamentally sacred rights any human being posesses - than they are your enemy and desire that you be controlled by another, and cannot be reasoned with. That is as far as the argument remains valid... but when someone won't cede that basic presupposition, they have crossed a line and can't be trusted. Get them out of your life post haste. They are dangerous.

 

[Vaarok]

More importantly, the more abstracted the question, the more room they have to rephrase things, argue conditions, and justify their position.

Our arguments must be simple, direct, harsh, merciless, logical, and above all else reasonable.

This isn't an acid-test to see if they're trustworthy, this is the shock-therapy where you're trying to take a wrecking bar to the smug cocoon of preconceptions and sense of security your target has clouding their judgement. You must free them without making them draw the covers further over their head, or at least make them aware that the covers only hide what's really out there.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Varrok -

I agree... I just point out the limitations of the argument to those who will, inevitably, posit that "my friends don't agree with the premise that a human being may reasonably use force to defend their own life." This is THR - it's inevitable to happen eventually

Although I think my argument is a strong one, it is a limited one, and won't carry any weight with someone who has such fundamentally different beliefs about humanity. Most good arguments are, essentially, limited in some capacity. I'm just heading off that criticism at the pass.

And, incidentally, I believe what I say about those who deny that one has a right to defend onesself against the threat of violence. Such a person is, essentially, an enemy, and should be regarded as such.

You won't convince them of anything you believe.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

Is a parallel to religion a strong basis for our outrage against infringement?
What other basis can we come up with?

It's the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I need no further basis.

 

[Deleted member 66305]

The recent LTCF revocation fiasco in PA

This sounds interesting -- link to news story or THR discussion thread, please?

ETA: Never mind, I found it.

 

[Tommygunn]

"I need a gun for protection" Response: Not if everyone else agrees not to harm you and nobody else has guns.

Now you KNOW you're never going to obtain a condition where the bad guys will always be without arms of their own.

Tyranny is not a valid argument, because it's a relative thing, and it's too easily dismissed as being a mythical thing from History rather than a reasonable, actionable event.

I disagree; it IS a valid argument, though one that may be very hard to make because some people won't believe it could happen here. In this vein I find it ironic that many people who would find this the hardest reason of all to accept are often those who view George Bush as a "neo"Hitler, or wanting to establish an "empire" or some other blind Bush-hating principle ... usually right out of Daily Kos or MoveOn.Org.
The fact that it's a tough argument to make doesn't invalidate it as an argument though -- one just ought to be very judicious about how and when it gets applied to the discussion immediatly in hand.

 

[ZeSpectre]

It's the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I need no further basis.

I hear that all the time on this board, and amongst RKBA supporters in general.

I would dearly love for it to be true and it sounds good amongst the faithful but sadly it's an extremely weak argument with people outside our tribe and those outsiders are who I'm debating with. (There is no debate with the faithful <grin>).

If the 2'nd amendment alone was all we needed then we'd all have a free and un-infringed right.

In reality I see 20,000 gun control laws, "permitting" and "licensing" and "reasonable restrictions" and "gun free zones" everywhere I turn not to mention a STRONG social prejudice against gun owners.

In day to day life I meet an awful lot of folks who (when you get down to brass tacks) aren't sure that they actually believe that it -is- actually our right to keep and bear arms.

In such a situation just stating your right, by itself, is simply NOT enough and repeating it endlessly will not MAKE it a good enough argument all by itself and it becomes a classic "Argumentum ad nauseam".

Sorry but I've never won anyone over to our camp by the sole reason of "oh and of course it's your Constitutionally protected right".

 

[zminer]

Although I think my argument is a strong one, it is a limited one, and won't carry any weight with someone who has such fundamentally different beliefs about humanity. Most good arguments are, essentially, limited in some capacity. I'm just heading off that criticism at the pass.

It is limited, because I guarantee that there are people out there who will respond to a self-defense argument by saying, "It's so unlikely that you'll need to defend yourself, and so much more likely that the firearm will be stolen or misused that the negative outweighs the positive." Logically speaking, this is a sound argument, and can only be resolved by a detailed and fair accounting of the costs/benefits of gun ownership, which is not something that can take place in a City Hall-type argument over a new gun law.

Sorry but I've never won anyone over to our camp by the sole reason of "oh and of course it's your Constitutionally protected right"

It won't ever happen. Why not? Because there are plenty of things in the Constitution which are then restricted by case law, statutory law, etc. Sure "Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble" but you sometimes have to get a permit to have a rally, don't you? You and your buddies can't just walk down Main Street with a banner and claim First Amendment protection when the police arrest you for blocking traffic. And you can't assemble on private property without the owner's permission, or else it's trespassing. And you can't assemble loudly at night or else you're breaking noise ordinances. Etc....

Given that, what makes you think that you have an unencumbered right to own a gun, without "reasonable restrictions" like trigger locks, background checks, etc.? (Note: I don't really intend to argue these points - I am just saying that these are logical rebuttals to the 2nd Amendment argument. Essentially, it is not an argument that will win the day.)

 

[RPCVYemen]

In actuality, this incident is more like a religious Jew being told not to wear a kippa because it upsets the Holocaust deniers in the group.

The rejoinder to test the efficacy of this argument - Name the last incident where a kippa was used a lethal weapon. Asking someone to remove their kippa is more like asking someone to remove their NRA ballcap.

I think the analogy is pretty weak.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

i think we need to remember that the Constitution doesn't grant us any rights at all. all it does is outline and express the rights we all have as human beings, rights that were already there.

Balderdash. The theory of natural rights holds no more water than the theory of the divine right of kings.

Bentham and the utilitarians were correct:

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible rights, rhetorical nonsense — nonsense on stilts.

Mike

 

[elChupacabra!]

zminer -

there are people out there who will respond to a self-defense argument by saying, "It's so unlikely that you'll need to defend yourself, and so much more likely that the firearm will be stolen or misused that the negative outweighs the positive." Logically speaking, this is a sound argument, and can only be resolved by a detailed and fair accounting of the costs/benefits of gun ownership

I disagree that you present here a logical argument that can only be resolved by balancing costs and benefits of gun ownership. That approach is purely subjective, and if you attempt to walk that road, you are going to have to convince them that the benefit of protecting YOUR life is greater than the cost of the risk to society as a whole.

If they give the argument you offer, they've ALREADY performed their own cost/benefit analysis, and are informing you that the value of your life comes up short.

Again, this is the point at which the argument becomes irreducable and uncompromising. Either someone else believes that defending a human life is critically important, or they don't. If they do, then my argument is strong. I would propose that MOST Americans DO believe this - they just want to believe the police can protect them. That's a whole different argument to have, but returns to mine - when you call the police, you summon someone with a gun to act on your behalf. If they are presumptively ok with that (which most people are), it just becomes a discussion about cutting out the middleman.

Now, on the other hand, if they don't concede that defending a human life is valuable, they might as well be from Mars, because their beliefs about the nature of human life are irreconcilable to yours, and the conversation is over.

Every argument has a threshhold like this one, a point at which you cannot convince someone of one or more of your basic precepts, and they cannot convince you of one or more of theirs. If basic precepts are the same, then an argument may well end in agreement.

If basic precepts are NOT the same, any discussion about anything - including guns - will inevitably reach a point where no further discussion is possible.

I believe that, for firearms, that point is simply "Do you believe that a human life is the most valuable thing on earth, and preserving ones' own life is the most fundamental of all rights?"

This question cannot be quantified, expressed as a probability such as with the statement "it's so unlikely you will need to..." That likelyhood is irrelevant. It is most certainly POSSIBLE, and that's all that matters. One must answer the above question, and that answer determines whether the conversation can continue at all.

 

[elChupacabra!]

RPCVYemen -

According to your logic, the Socialists have it right, since they promise the greatest good to the greatest number. Also by your logic, if natural rights are empty, then the Constitution, which can be amended by a great enough majority - is all that stands between your rights and your enemies.

I presume that YOU believe you have a right to continue to exist, don't you? I don't know what else to call this but a natural right.