Language of the Enemy

Here's the deal... for those who are reading this. I have a PayPal account at karpa@netvision.net.il
Given that I am an IDF draftee, and get paid $60 a month, it would be nice if you donated.

And here's my newest rant.

Language of the Enemy

Using leftist rhetoric to promote the RKBA

The following two statements are taken among the pro-gun community as gospel truth: First, that 'anti-gunners' tend to be emotional, rather than logical, and vice versa for 'pro-gunners', and second, that leftist liberalism goes necessarily hand-in-hand with anti-gun beliefs. The sooner we shed those beliefs, the better.

Even a brief survey of the ranks of anti-gun activists – and even more so, the rank-and-file believers in Sarah Brady's "holy cause" – will yield the simple truth that quite a few anti-gunners are quite sane, logical souls, if not for their outlandish beliefs on the issue. Just as well, there's quite a few pro-gun leftists out there (unfortunately, they are currently a minority in the Democratic Party's elite). Just to note a single example, Alaska's current carry law (Alaska is one of the two states of the Union that allows concealed carry without any license – just like the Founders intended) was crafted and sponsored by Democrat Eric Croft. (One of the founders of the NRA-ILA, similarly, is Congress' oldest-sitting Democrat, John Dingell, otherwise famous for coining the term 'jackbooted storm trooper').

The real difference between a conservative and a liberal – or, to that end, a pro-gunner and an anti-gunner – is not whether they operate logically or not. The difference is that both sides operate on different premises and speak different languages. It is rarely possible to transition a liberal to a conservative or vice-versa through logical, structured debate – ever tried to use logical, structured debate to convert an atheist? – because what is in question is not a single point, but rather the very language in which the opponent thinks.

It is, however, possible to get the opponent to yield his ground on a key issue like the RKBA – if you use his language. Assuming for the purposes of the discussion that you are a 'conservative' and your opponent is a 'liberal' – and that he is not fanatical enough to be totally impervious to debate – here are some guidelines to what you can do or say to sway him to your cause.

· Point out that word 'liberal' itself – in its dictionary definition – implies tolerance for alternative lifestyles and support of, well, liberty. The hunter, the AR-15 collector, the CCW licensee – how are those not pursuits of alternative lifestyles? To pursue this train of thought further, perhaps it would be better if we refused to refer to the Feinstein-Boxer wing of the Democratic Party as 'liberals' and used BPL – 'blisninny pseudoliberal' – or something of the sort. Reserve 'liberal' for John Dingell, Eric Croft, and other similar legislators. Give credit where credit is due.

· Point out that gun control policies, such as the Sullivan Act, where originally invented to – and still do – mainly impact racial and social minorities – African-Americans, Italian immigrants, and so forth. Often, they were actually supported by unsavory groups like the KKK. In fact, Martin Luther King has applied for – and was refused – a concealed carry license at one point. The NRA, conversely, provided African-Americans with rifles and training during the 1960's.

· Point out that 'white males' are the people who least need guns for self-defense (though they certainly do, as well). Those who most need the equalizing effect of firearms are women, homosexuals, and people who otherwise are either more likely to be attacked or who are unable to resist an attacker through sheer force of muscle.

· Point out that the defense of gun rights is not solely the realm of the 'white male'. Groups like 'Pink Pistols' (www.pinkpistols.org) and similar will be excellent examples of this.

The regular arguments for gun rights – the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and so forth - won't do you much good – they are part of your language rather than a common language shared by both you and your opponent. A 'liberal' is likely to see the Constitution as merely another means to the establishment of civilized society, while a 'conservative' is likely to see it something valuable in itself. Similarly, appealing for studies like John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" is pointless – as you know, for every statistic, there's a counter-statistic. Use statistics only to decry your opponent's patently false statements – for everything else, they are useless.

By using the arguments described above, you are going to score a double victory for the right to keep and bear arms. Not only will you gain another supporter for your cause, but you will help to de-monopolize the issue. Today, a Republican legislator or candidate knows perfectly well that he doesn't need to be too good on RKBA to win – all he needs to do is to be less anti-gun than his Feinsteinite opponent –which usually isn't too hard.

If we could create more pro-gun 'liberals' that would put pressure on their party to stop trying to ride the dead horse of gun control, we could replace the Republican's monopoly on the issue with something more like free-market competition – and as we know, free-market competition primarily benefits the consumer. Us, that is.