It's a funny meme, but in all seriousness I think those of us concerned about the right to bear arms would do better reframing it as a right to self-defense. It's much harder to argue against.
"We have the right to carry deadly weapons!" has a different impact than "We have the right to self-defense!"
Also, it would lead to conversations about what is needed to defend ourselves, and that could be educational for our adversaries. We might change a few minds that way, as opposed to just looking obstinate.
Of course, all I'm suggesting is a change in rhetoric.
Self-defense is of course the more important argument, and it is likely the best one tactically. Yet part of me just thinks "Some people like things that go 'boom,' and you have no right to stop them just because you don't approve. People can have motorcycles and trucks that are too loud. People can go skiing, or rock-climbing, or spend their money traveling to Europe or buying big video systems or extravagant clothes or expensive educations in useless subjects if they want, and it's none of your damn business."
The argument that people don't "need" these things is bogus. If I overestimate what I need for self-defense, so what? Maybe I grew up in a bad place. Maybe I have seen people act badly. No one needs skiing or Junior Year Abroad or Mercedes either. It's not your call, Jake.
I think firearms are in a different category than motorcyles, skiing, and travel. Firearms are primarily for killing things, and it's right for a society to take that into account.
If all that was at stake was fun, I might agree with much stricter regulations. Those things are dangerous.
But, the right to defend my life is at stake, so I'm counting on them being dangerous if I ever have to exercise that right.
5 comments:
“Handheld wireless peacekeeping devices.” I like it.
I reflected on the older, and perhaps better meanings of "peace"
https://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2007/08/note-on-peace.html
It's a funny meme, but in all seriousness I think those of us concerned about the right to bear arms would do better reframing it as a right to self-defense. It's much harder to argue against.
"We have the right to carry deadly weapons!" has a different impact than "We have the right to self-defense!"
Also, it would lead to conversations about what is needed to defend ourselves, and that could be educational for our adversaries. We might change a few minds that way, as opposed to just looking obstinate.
Of course, all I'm suggesting is a change in rhetoric.
Self-defense is of course the more important argument, and it is likely the best one tactically. Yet part of me just thinks "Some people like things that go 'boom,' and you have no right to stop them just because you don't approve. People can have motorcycles and trucks that are too loud. People can go skiing, or rock-climbing, or spend their money traveling to Europe or buying big video systems or extravagant clothes or expensive educations in useless subjects if they want, and it's none of your damn business."
The argument that people don't "need" these things is bogus. If I overestimate what I need for self-defense, so what? Maybe I grew up in a bad place. Maybe I have seen people act badly. No one needs skiing or Junior Year Abroad or Mercedes either. It's not your call, Jake.
I think firearms are in a different category than motorcyles, skiing, and travel. Firearms are primarily for killing things, and it's right for a society to take that into account.
If all that was at stake was fun, I might agree with much stricter regulations. Those things are dangerous.
But, the right to defend my life is at stake, so I'm counting on them being dangerous if I ever have to exercise that right.
Post a Comment