It’s Liberty Control NOT Gun control.
The current debate is over Liberty and Freedom, the national Socialist Left wants it to be about scary objects they don’t understand.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“She who defines the terms, wins the debate”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
For all of their inherent faults, one must have a begrudging respect for our comrades on the national Socialist-Left in how they exploit language to very good effect. They have an iron discipline when it comes to the words they use to frame the argument to their cynical advantage. This was exemplified by an article in The Atlantic: Don't Call It 'Gun Control' https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/dont-call-it-gun-control/267259/
Or more recently …show more content…
At present the important point is that we use the term ‘Liberty’ in place of the word ‘gun’ in the debate over the common sense human right of self-defence. It is the underlying issue of the debate over the 2nd amendment. A pew poll from last Jun showed that For most gun owners, owning a firearm is tied to their personal freedom. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/ The best way to convince non-gun owners of this critical issue [ aside from taking them to the range and having fun shooting an EBR ] would be to instantly frame the debate as being over Liberty instead of guns.
It is absurd to ascribe rights or controls to inanimate objects, but that is the implication when the name of an object is used instead of the underlying issue at hand. Consider some other the important issues of freedom such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, would we really talk about a War on ballots or assault search warrants instead?
Framing the debate over Liberty instead of scary objects the national Socialist-Left don’t
The current debate is over Liberty and Freedom, the national Socialist Left wants it to be about scary objects they don’t understand.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“She who defines the terms, wins the debate”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
For all of their inherent faults, one must have a begrudging respect for our comrades on the national Socialist-Left in how they exploit language to very good effect. They have an iron discipline when it comes to the words they use to frame the argument to their cynical advantage. This was exemplified by an article in The Atlantic: Don't Call It 'Gun Control' https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/dont-call-it-gun-control/267259/
Or more recently …show more content…
At present the important point is that we use the term ‘Liberty’ in place of the word ‘gun’ in the debate over the common sense human right of self-defence. It is the underlying issue of the debate over the 2nd amendment. A pew poll from last Jun showed that For most gun owners, owning a firearm is tied to their personal freedom. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/ The best way to convince non-gun owners of this critical issue [ aside from taking them to the range and having fun shooting an EBR ] would be to instantly frame the debate as being over Liberty instead of guns.
It is absurd to ascribe rights or controls to inanimate objects, but that is the implication when the name of an object is used instead of the underlying issue at hand. Consider some other the important issues of freedom such as the right to vote or the right to privacy, would we really talk about a War on ballots or assault search warrants instead?
Framing the debate over Liberty instead of scary objects the national Socialist-Left don’t