-
Statistics
May
29
Language Counts in the Debate on Guns
May 29, 2008 | Tagged , Culture War, language in gun the debate |
“Saturday Night Specials,” “Cop Killer Bullets,” “Assault Weapons,”"Junk Guns,” Bullet Hoses,”"Sniper Rifles:” we hear these pejorative terms applied all the time to guns and ammunition. Those of us in The Community of People Who Legally Possess Firearms must be more careful in not allowing anti-gun fanatics, latte liberals, and hard-core socialists to dictate the terms of the debate regarding our natural rights to self-defense against crime and tyranny that are recognised by the Second Amendment.
It’s hard to manage the language of the debate, when the other side controls most of the media outlets in the country. How often do law-abiding gun owners get a fair shake from ABC, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, Time, Newsweek, or for that matter, The Denver Post? Remember, people who get their news from these media outlets VOTE.
We have to deal with “Gun Show Loopholes,” “Safe Storage” laws, and “Make My Day” labels stuck on self-defense legislation. If we fail to make counter arguments using at least neutral language, the other side will bury us with cliches and negative word associations. Don’t think it’s important?
Think about how you feel after saying the words “Safe Storage?” Doesn’t it make you feel good? Don’t you think that “Safe Storage” of guns and ammunition is a positive thing? It doens’t sound so good, when you consider that “Safe Storage” is liberal code for “Lock Up Your Guns And Ammo, So That You Can’t Use Them For Self-Defense.”
“How about “Cop Killer Bullets.” That term has scared the common sense right out of a generation of Americans. The so-called “Cop Killer Bullets” were never available to the public, even though you wouldn’t know it by watching the evening news.
We need to find a good label for our side of the gun debate. Both sides of the abortion fight have powerful monikers, “Pro Choice” versus “Pro Life.” As far as I am concerned, “Pro Choice” translates into a woman’s right to kill her unborn child for any reason, but you get the point. “Pro Life” is a good label. It is good “branding” in the Madison Avenue advertising tradition.
The best I have been able to do on the gun debate is something like “Our best defense against crime and tyranny.” That’s not concise or catchy enough. “Gun Rights” is often used as a catch phrase, but we are not really talking about the rights of a tool. Nobody would advocate for ”Shovel Rights,” or “Saw Rights.” We are discussing the basic individual right of a human being to protect him or herself from private and governmental violence through the most effective means currently available. That’s not catchy either.
If anyone can come up with an apt title for the individual rights movement, I’m sure lots of people will be willing to listen. We need a good catch phrase, because our opponents are for “Gun Safety,” and “Reducing Gun Violence,” and all sorts of touchy/feely emotional, cuddly stuff like that. We need something equally concise and pithy. Any suggestions?
Def Mech
Comments
3 Comments so far
Powered by FireStats
“‘Gun Rights’ is often used as a catch phrase, but we are not really talking about the rights of a tool. Nobody would advocate for ‘Shovel Rights’, or ‘Saw Rights’.”
Haha…laughed when I saw this. It’s a good point, something I have never thought about. Whatever the term is, it should be rooted in language that stresses the connection between individual rights and self defense. If you have no right to defend yourself, you have no rights at all; you’re, instead, left to the wolves.
Without self-defense a human being is little more than a fragile, pathetic nervous-wreck lacking any sense of self-affirmation…I mean, self-affirmation means nothing if only limited to a harmonious environment; it’s times of turbulence that test our ability to affirm ourselves.
Hmmm…not sure if that last part makes sense but what it comes down to is a state of affairs w/o defense reminds me of something as stupid and implausible as socialism.
I usually just say “Pro Rights”. It is rare that you’ll find someone in favor of protecting the Second Amendment, and not the First or Fourth.
I like this term because, like “Pro Life”, it has a positive connotation, and at the same time casting doubts upon supposed protectors of the Bill of Rights like the ACLU. I’d love to see the entire movement re-labeled this way.
Personally I support “gun rights” for the most part. My current thinking is that I would also accept some reasonable restrictions (e.g. I’m not against registration). However, I view taking guns away from law-abiding citizens as quite unreasonable and a clear violation of the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment.
As a generally liberal-thinking person, I’d like to see “gun rights” labeled as “the right of self-defense.”
In general principle, this right is nearly universally acknowledged. It is already a part of our legal system. Thus, you don’t have to convince most people of the basic righteousness of the principle, you need only prevail upon them that the right to self defense is meaningless if you deny citizens the means to exercise this right, i.e. firearms. It can be argued that this right follows not just from the 2nd Amendment, but from Common Law and the 9th Amendment as well.
It is, unfortunately, quite common to find people who support the Second Amendment but not the First or Fourth. For example, I frequently hear the very same people who promote “gun rights” complaining about “criminals” (i.e. defendants) getting off because of “technicalities” (i.e. usually their 4th or 5th Amendment rights). Likewise, there are people who would allow guns unrestricted but establish Christian practices in government and schools. And I’m afraid there are too many people out there who would consent to throwing out the entire Bill of Rights from One to Ten in cases of alleged terrorism.
The First Amendment in particular is arguably our most radical right and is constantly under attack by short-sighted people on all sides of the political spectrum. It is the most radical right because it is inherently contrary to government power, but it is also the most integral to a free society for the same reason.
And personally, I think the ACLU does quite a good job overall. I don’t agree with their stance on the 2nd Amendment, although they’re entitled to their opinion (that the right to bear arms is a collective right to form state militias) and it has some legal merit. But on the rest, they are usually dead on.