Finding The Question

[UhKlem]

A question of choice

A key word that resonates with many people who have limited vocabulary or critical thinking skills is 'choice'. The question then becomes "Whose choice should it be if a woman can buy a gun to protect herself", or "Whose choice should it be if a person who hasn't committed any crimes or problems should get to keep their property (a lawfully purchased gun)", or "Why does a bureaucrat hundreds or thousands of miles away get to decide how a family can spend their money or choose to provide for their defense of their home."

 

[Henry Bowman]

"Choice"

Excellent point.

 

[sm]

This is the key.

Henry Bowman wrote:
I don't think the average soccer mom is worried about "freedom" and "rights." As they said about the Romans, they don't care about great military victories in far-off lands but about the pebble in their sandal.

I think they care about their safety at home and when their kids are at school. To us that means being allowed to have self-defense tools. To them that is several steps of logic away from "being safe." We then have to follow-up and "connect the dots" in a credible way.

A baby is not able to articulate what is wrong, and a parent feels helpless when the baby cries.
A child is only able to articulate "I don't feel good" and a parent has to ask "where does it hurt?".

Henry Bowman is correct, as that baby and child do not understand COTUS, BoR at their stage of development, so one must communicate to that baby or child's level of understanding.

Teenager tosses down a backpack, jerks the fridge open, snags a bottle of water and a parent asks "what is wrong?"

"Stupid school says we cannot bring knives to school!"
or
"Stupid school says we cannot have guns in vehicles, so I will have to waste time and gas coming home to get my gun before I head to grandparents after school on Friday!"

Now, the teenager is able to communicate "what hurts", and the parent or mentor can now effectively communicate on a teen age level freedoms, rights, government, and how to "make it better".


Soccer mom, comes home, and she is upset.
"Dad, what is wrong, mom is sure pissed about something!"

"Mom/Honey, "where does it hurt?"

a. My company says we cannot have a knife at work, unless it is under 3" closed, does not lock, and ...
b. My company says we employees cannot have firearms in vehicles on company property.
c. I cannot CCW when using company vehicles.
d. My co-worker's son going to college, was killed delivering pizza as the Pizza company does not allow drivers to carry concealed.

Where does it hurt a particular person?
Communicate to the level that person can relate to, on how to "make it better".

 

[BruceRDucer]

Respectfully, "sm" I disagree...

Respectfully, "sm" I disagree. Here's why.

You present, as does Henry Bowman, a common difficulty in public discourse. It amounts to re-inventing the wheel.

What you are presenting as definitive in the issue of gun rights, is some sort of personal ethical construction, to re-invent our RIGHTS at LAW.

We don't really need new ethical propositions. What is needed is an educated populace. De Tocqueville identified that democracy was entirely dependent upon an educated populace.

It is precisely because the American population is not as familiar with it's most powerful document, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that they are most confused with propositions that threaten fundamental freedoms.

Many arguments exhibit the "Let's re-invent our ethics" flaw, presuming that America is founded upon an inadequate ethic.

I do respect what you wrote, but my criticism is that it is a long slow path to elaborate what has already been elaborated in Constitutional law.



The problem with restrictions on our RKBA (right-to-keep-and-bear-arms) is that it plainly interferes with our CIVIL LIBERTIES as stated in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. American citizens are entitled to CIVIL RIGHTS.

/