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

[ZeSpectre]

For some time I have been pondering some of the "basis for outrage" that we, as RKBA supporters, have. In thinking about it I've come to the conclusion that some of our "basis" are very strong, but some are terribly weak and don't hold up to scrutiny.

Among of the most common comparisons I hear are attempts to create a direct relationship to the way minorities are treated, often with a specific reference to being black.

Although this does provide some good examples of discriminatory behavior, the direct association seems terribly weak to me because of the simple fact is that we, as RKBA supporters, CAN actually remove a sidearm and lock it up somewhere even if being forced to take that action is unjust. However a black person has no option to shed their skin.

So I began to search for other basis, then on another thread someone said the following...

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.

AH, now that makes more sense to me. A religious Jew COULD avoid wearing a kippa. But is it morally just to force them to do so just because it makes someone else uncomfortable?

I was initially quite reluctant to equate RKBA with any sort of religion but somewhere along the way the though occurred to me that there are very strong parallels.

I would love to hear what other members think.

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

Ze

 

[Deanimator]

So I began to search for other basis, then on another thread someone said the following...

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.

Boy, I'm saying clever things all the time!

AH, now that makes more sense to me. A religious Jew COULD avoid wearing a kippa. But is it morally just to force them to do so just because it makes someone else uncomfortable?

I was initially quite reluctant to equate RKBA with any sort of religion but somewhere along the way the though occurred to me that there are very strong parallels.

I made that comment as an agnostic with NO religious beliefs. I support the right to freedom of religion. I can support someone's right to autonomy without harming others whether I take part in any specific activity myself. I'm not Jewish. I'm not gay. I don't support Nuremberg style laws or anti-sodomy laws. Almost every militant anti-gunner I've met has been motivated by an urge to control others, mostly for its own sake, and with more than a little malice thrown in. The recent LTCF revocation fiasco in PA has a strong "Mean Girls" sort of stench to it. "You won't be part of OUR fashion club, so we'll get YOU!" It's small minded, juvenile and OH SO typical of anti-gunners.

Of course nevermind the strong undercurrent of racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and misogyny I've encountered in the anti-gun movement.

 

[Yo Mama]

Huh?

 

[zminer]

It seems to me that the situation of gun owners is somewhat like ZeSpectre described, but slightly different. Specifically, I think it has less to do with beliefs and more to do with perceptions.

If the general public could differentiate between "good" and "bad" gun owners, then there wouldn't be a problem. As it stands, though, everybody who owns a gun is lumped into the same category and given attributes like "criminal," "violent personality," etc. It's as if there are suddenly a whole bunch of negative attributes hung on your shoulders as soon as you purchase a gun, whether or not they actually apply to you. "Gun owner" is what sociologists refer to as a "master status" - it becomes the thing which other people feel defines you most, regardless of other statuses you may have (parent, law-abiding citizen, volunteer, employee, etc.) This is problematic because most people feel that they are other things first, and a gun owner later. And, regardless of where they prioritize it, they don't associate those negative things with the status, the way many others do.

So, ZeSpectre is right about how the issue has to do with other people's comfort. But it's also got something to do with having the burden of proof put on you to show that you're NOT one of "those" crazy gun people. And, in the absence of a quick and easy way to do that, people often react negatively (fear, calling authorities, demanding why you need a gun, etc.).

I don't know if that's helpful to the discussion, or not.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I've made a lot of those comparisons to other "civil rights" such as race and religion and get a lot of push back for some reason that I can't quite understand.

As a clearly named right in the Bill of Rights, and again reiterated post-Heller, how can infringement be ANYTHING except a civil rights violation.

Some will make the claim that "civil rights" are rights GIVEN by a government and so the Second doesn't apply since it's a "human right" given by G-d.

I think John Locke was correct when he said that these human, or natural rights are converted to civil rights and due protection by civil authority as part of the social contract a government makes with its' people when the government is created.


Life, Liberty, and Property are human/natural/G-d given rights that pre-exist a government but once a government is given power it MUST protect those rights or it is a failure as a government.

I don't see how you can get to any other place personally.


ETA: If you post "Huh" or "What?" or "???" you are probably new here. The debate over whether guns are or are not a civil right has been going on for a while here.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Yo Mama,

The point is this.

Many of us are outraged at the way our rights are (mis)treated. But not too many of us stop and consider WHY we're outraged, I.E. what the basis for that outrage is.

I'm trying to collect some of the STRONGEST fundamental basics, the "bedrock" of our argument that those who would infringe on our RIGHTS are just plain WRONG (no pun intended).

I'm doing this because the simple statement "because it's our right", while fundamentally sound, does not carry very much weight in a public forum debate (like standing up in city hall) since (as anyone who HAS stood up in city hall will know) there are folks there who do NOT agree that "it's our Right".

"Gun owner" is what sociologists refer to as a "master status"

zminer, Interesting. I've never run across that sociological definition. I'll have to read up more on that.

Specifically, I think it has less to do with beliefs and more to do with perceptions.

But my point is that I think we DO have a right to be outraged by these perceptions (most of which are negative). However I think we need to have solid and logically sound arguments about WHY we find these perceptions (prejudices and stereotypes) outrageous. I think some of the arguments (parallel to a choice such as religion) are strong and others (parallel to race which is not something you can choose) are weaker.

 

[berettaprofessor]

Outrage does not need a reason other than the feeling of violation;

Why do I need more reason to be outraged than that it's my civil right guaranteed protected under the 2nd amendment? Why aren't you asking why newspapers get so upset when the government tells them they can't print something or that they must tell their sources? Why aren't you asking why I might get outraged if my house was taken for use as troop quarters for the National Guard? What other reason's would I need to be outraged if a SWAT raid is carried out on my house without a warrant?

You're searching too deep; rights being violated are reason enough for anger.

 

[ZeSpectre]

rights being violated are reason enough for anger.

But anger (emotion) does not justify policy. Rational though must be applied to the equation otherwise we're no better than the "anti" side of things who want their way "just because".

Why aren't you asking why newspapers get so upset when the government tells them they can't print something or that they must tell their sources? Why aren't you asking why I might get outraged if my house was taken for use as troop quarters for the National Guard? What other reason's would I need to be outraged if a SWAT raid is carried out on my house without a warrant?

Why would you think I'm not pondering these questions as well? In all of these cases the argument "well I'm just right" alone doesn't carry weight and just blindly saying it over and over is a classic Argumentum ad nauseam fallacy.

I don't care if folks "believe they are right" (even if I happen to agree with the beliefs) I care about a well reasoned argument supported in facts. Generally the RKBA camp produces strong, or at least reasonable, logical arguments to support their position (their "belief") where the "anti" side tends to rely on logical fallacies for their "arguments".

I'm trying to weed out the weak and false arguments on the RKBA side. I'm doing this because I dislike just following ANY "party line" without having thought it through for myself, and also so I have a far stronger arsenal at my disposal for any debate I enter into with someone on the other side of the issue(s).

 

[berettaprofessor]

Are you phishing Ze Spectre? Just being argumentative? Or do you want us to list a number of reasons like a) I can't play with my toys when they're taken away or b) they're not dangerous if they're not improperly used?

I think you're missing the point; you're trying to find reasonable responses for unreasoned arguments. Outrage, or anger, are FEELINGS and are not logical and do not need a reason, as a couple of the more emotional types here are work are fond of repeating.

IBTL

 

[snipe300]

ZeSpectre's right. Just because it offends someone's arbitrary beliefs doesn't mean that's justification for outlawing it.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Are you phishing Ze Spectre? Just being argumentative?

I think my long established reputation on this board kills any "phishing" accusation DRT.

I am trying to spark a conversation and a healthy debate. I am trying to get folks to THINK and voice what they use as the bedrock of their RKBA arguments.

I'm trying to get others to apply some constructive criticism to those arguments so that we can all benefit from the strong ones and weed out the weak/easily defeated.

I think that the occasional review and re-examination of our beliefs and methods is a healthy thing lest we accidentally and incrementally fall into "blindly following along" mode .

Outrage, or anger, are FEELINGS and are not logical and do not need a reason

You are correct there. Perhaps a better thread title might have been "Basis for the Argument". If nothing else, this conversation has raised that point and any future debate I engage in will be that much stronger for it.

 

[jahwarrior]

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. this was done to ensure that our natural rights were documented, in case of a government violation. so, being harassed for being a jew, african-american, arming yourself legally, speaking out against a corrupt government, all these things should provoke outrage. i myself have been a victim of some of these things: i have been racially profiled, harassed, and wrongfully detained for being the right color in the wrong neighborhood, i've been harassed for OC, i've been harassed for public statements i've made or literature i've distributed. all of these have received the same treatment from me; a swift and decisive response.

 

[Blofeld]

Bring me up to speed on the Pa LTCF fiasco.

 

[jahwarrior]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=394925

 

[elChupacabra!]

ZeSpectre -

Here is the best argument I can come up with for RKBA... It doesn't seek to equate RKBA with any other civil right or preexistant basis for outrage, such as race, religion, freedom of press, etc., but attempts to build a position from presuppositions that any reasonable person can agree with (of course, an irrational person cannot be reasoned with or convinced of anything, which is the weakness of such an argument... in which case, as the adage states, "Do not engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person, for they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience").

Here is my argument:

1) Self-defense is a bodily function that, like eating, breathing, or even reproducing, cannot be safely or effectively delegated to another. Every living thing knows self-defense - even single-celled organisms have cell membranes. Self-defense is inseparable from self-preservation, and in that sense, is no different from finding shelter from the sun or water to drink.

2) Just as humans have an undeniable, basic right to seek shelter, nourishment, and a mate with whom to reproduce, so too do they have an undeniable, basic right to defend themselves against the threat of violence. To continue to exist is the most fundamental of all human rights, civil or otherwise.

3) It is not possible to separate the right to self defense from the tools necessary to effect said defense. Humans use tools to solve problems of all sorts - it is one factor that separates us from lower species (though there are many others). When other humans attack or threaten us, and we have the already-established right to defend our lives (self-preservation), to deny us the effective and efficient tools with which to do so is to effectively deny us the right to defend ourselves. To say a human has a right to eat but may not use tools to cultivate a field, slay an animal or build a fire is to mandate starvation. To deny the use of tools for defense is synonymous with mandating submission, even to death.

4) Mandating submission to death is a violation of the most basic human right - the right to continue to exist.

5) Therefore, any measure or philosophy that would seek to strip a human being of modern, effective and efficient tools for self-defense - i.e. firearms - is to oppress a human's right to exist at all, which is, at a fundamental level, the most basic of all wrongs. Such a wrong requires an appropriate response by the oppressed party.

6) A feeling of outrage is the most modest response acceptable to such a measure or philosophy. If the measure were actually implemented, appropriate ACTIONS, beyond mere feelings, would become necessary. To fail to do so would be to surrender the means by which a human may continue to exist.

Essentially, I believe that the right to survive, to continue to exist, is inseparable from the tools necessary to ensure such survival. The anti-gun mindset that would deprive us of these toos would, by definition, require us to surrender our lives and risk death. This is unacceptable.

ETA Also, may I note that anyone who denies presuppositions 1 or 2 is your enemy outright, believing humans are neither inherantly free, nor should they be. The rest of the argument will not follow, since they believe humans should be controlled and see no use for self defense by mere subjects; however, this is irrelevant, as they have established themselves and their universal beliefs as being fundamentally backward and evil.

 

[Blofeld]

Interesting thread. I am not a Christian. That said:

I think the phrase "natural rights" pretty much sums up how I live my life. I recognize that we give police and politicians authority. Key word is "give". I also recognize that a higher being has given the smallest creature tools and instinct for self defense.

I feel that the quest for the perfect argument to silence an Anti is futile. I listen to their side, find it baseless, and leave feeling I just wasted a portion of my life with someone who made up their mind that no matter how it was put to them, they were sticking to their guns.

You can draw parallels all day long, and they will only interest those who already get the point.

 

[elChupacabra!]

Blofed,

You're right, and you reach the same conclusion reached by anyone who makes a logical argument to someone who refuses to see the truth. It's one thing to respond with an opposing logical argument, but to simply deny presuppositions at a base level without substituting anything in their place is the clear sign of ignorance.

At that point, you have two options - inform the person of their illogical, ignorant and absurd position and thought process (i.e. tell them they are an idiot) or simply walk away, resigned to the fact that you will never reach them until they chose to accept truth as truth.

The first may be more satisfying... but the second is probably more wise. Both are frustrating.

 

[22-rimfire]

I think you're missing the point; you're trying to find reasonable responses for unreasoned arguments. Outrage, or anger, are FEELINGS and are not logical and do not need a reason, as a couple of the more emotional types here are work are fond of repeating.

That is why Berry Obama told his supporters that folks in PA and OH cling to their beliefs about religion and firearms. Clinging to either is an emotional response to the outside world from Berry O's perspective.

It all boils down to a fundamental right by human beings that we have a right to self defense and that would include defense of our family and loved ones. That right is protected in our Constitution with the inferrence being defense of life, property, and country. The individual right has been affirmed by the Heller vs DC decision by the US Supreme Court.

 

[ZeSpectre]

elChupacabra!
quite a post (#16). Interesting reading and I'm going to chew that one over for a bit over lunch.

I feel that the quest for the perfect argument to silence an Anti is futile.

Blofeld,
I'm not trying to silence anyone, and I know better than to waste my time with hard-core, rabidly anti types as I'm well familiar with their entrenched philosophy.

My focus is more on logical discussions with the OTHER type of anti, (somewhere there's a thread on "types of anti") the uninformed who have been duped but who are capable of using their intellect to figure things out, they just need to be challenged to think sometimes.

I aim to present that challenge

 

[Blofeld]

If you truly believe they can be swayed, invite them to the range.

If they're not the rabid irrational anti, their "antiness" may be fear of the unknown.

A range trip is an opportunity to go hands on, all the while explaining the benefit of self reliance. Explain to that 40ish flabby' pasty anti that the 9mm he's holding may be the only thing between his children and the BG intent on harming them.

Explain to the cute girl anti that the shotgun you're letting her try is responding faster than the most fleet-footed LEO when Mr. Serial Rapist made his way into her house.

There may come a day when a Utopian society exists, there is no war, no famine, and everybodys day is filled with peaceful, lofty pursuits. Till then...

 

[SuperNaut]

You got me thinking; good stuff Z.

 

[Mainsail]

Basis or bias? I don't know what your post means.

 

[Vaarok]

This is an excellent post, though the one thing I find disquieting, since I can't really quantify the pro side beyond the usual prudence and liberty arguments, is the number of people who petulantly demand these considerations without any introspection on their instant-gratification/absolutist stance.

I support deregulated MGs and cans and all that good stuff, but the degree and basis for outrage at their restriction often seems to me to be disproportionate and overblown simply as grounds for a tantrum or to form the basis of a persecution complex used to leverage the idea on an emotional basis not too dissimilar to the anti-gun emotional arguments. Rather than DO NOT WANT, it's "I WANNA" and delivered in a manner every bit as self-serving and poorly veneered.

I'm probably gonna get roasted for that, but I thought it pertinent to the topic at hand. The vast majority of firearms owners and enthusiasts understand practical benefit and symbolic logic, but it always distresses me when some among us resort to the same manipulative and emotion-based reasoning as our enemies, which blurs the line between our well-reasoned impetus and their whim-based and generally unfounded position based on unquantified urges.

 

[SuperNaut]

Basis or bias? I don't know what your post means.

Read #12, ZeSpectre spells it out pretty clearly. We accuse antis of basing their arguments upon emotion; id est, a fallacy. How do we avoid the same trap and base as many of our arguments upon facts and reason as we are able. Just being outraged is not enough of a reason.

 

[CountGlockula]

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

My thought: Not being able to CCW in schools, government buildings and airports are against my religious beliefs. Because Jesu wants me to preach the Word to all nations. As I go to these places, I need to be well armed.