Four Notes on the Gun Debate for the Reasonable
'Trigger' warning: not for the 'woke,' i.e., the terminally somnolent
This post has a prerequisite: a modicum of rationality and a little bit of good will. The irrational and ill-willed should head for their 'safe spaces' now lest they be 'triggered.'
1) Is anybody against gun control? Not that I am aware of. Everybody wants there to be some laws regulating the manufacture, sale, importation, transportation, use, etc., of guns. So why do so-called liberals routinely characterize conservatives as against gun control? Because they are mendacious. It is for the same reason that they label conservatives as anti-government and anti-immigrant. Conservatives stand for limited government, whence it follows that that are for government. This is a simple inference that even a liberal should be able to process. So why do liberals call conservatives anti-government? Because they are mendacious: they are not interested in civil debate, but in winning at all costs by any means. With respect to both government and gun control, the question is not whether but how much and what kind.
Similarly with immigration. Conservatives do not oppose immigration; they oppose illegal immigration.
2) Terminology matters. 'Magazine' is the correct term for what is popularly called a clip. Don't refer to a round or a cartridge as a bullet. The bullet is the projectile. Don't call a suppressor a 'silencer.' Is your name Hillary? Avoid emotive phraseology if you are interested in serious discussion. 'Assault weapon' has no clear meaning and is emotive to boot. Do you mean semi-automatic long gun? Then say that. Don't confuse 'semi-automatic' with 'fully automatic.' The 'AR' in 'AR-15' is not short for 'assault rifle.' Bone up on the terminology if you want to be taken seriously.
A stupid article in the Washington Post calls what I have just written 'gunsplaining.' To be 'gunsplained' is to be "harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control."
What nonsense! Only a fool dismisses essential distinctions as pedantry. And if one is not willing to learn the elementary terminology of a debate, then one should not presume to enter the debate. One who does not understand such terms as abortifacient, embryo, gamete, and viable should not enter the abortion debate, for example.
3) Gun lobbies benefit gun manufacturers. No doubt. But they also defend the Second Amendment rights of citizens, all citizens. Be fair. Don't adduce the first fact while ignoring the second. And don't call the National Rifle Association a special interest group. A group that defends a constitutionally-protected right such as free speech defends a right of all citizens, including those who do not invoke the right. Now every citizen has an actual or potential interest in self-defense and the means thereto. So it’s a general interest. If the NRA is a special interest group, then the ACLU of old (not the ACLU in its currently corrupt ‘woke’ incarnation) was a special interest group. It was not; ergo, etc.
A liberal who has no actual interest in self-defense and the means thereto is simply a liberal who has yet to be mugged or raped or had her home invaded. Such a liberal's interest is yet potential. When Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, many foolish liberals thought that a fascist was about to enter the White House and that the ‘fascists’ of fly-over country were about to be let loose. Many of these liberals suddenly began taking the Second Amendment seriously. Interesting, eh? Guns for me but not for thee?
4) Question for so-called liberals: what is your plan in case of a home invasion? Call 9-1-1? What is your plan in case of a fire? Call the Fire Department? Not a bad thought. But before they arrive it would help to have a home fire extinguisher at the ready.
Can you follow this reasoning? If not, you need help. Please seek it for your own good.