A question of terminology

C

cornered rat

Moderator
I would like to suggest use of "anti self-defense" instead of "anti-gun", when describing the enemy. Anti-gun has positive connotation to many, whereas anti self-defense does not. And, judging by Australian and British laws, they are against self-defense in any way, shape or form (like the USSR, where teaching martial arts would get you a loooong prison term).

Likewise, using "defensive" in front of handgun, OC spray or martial art description would keep the intended use in the spot-light. Lawful citizens do not use their defensive handguns for drive-by shooting. For defense from such shootings, perhaps, and who can argue with that?

------------------
If you believe in freedom and means of protecting it...you might be a gun nut.
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
Excellent point, sir. This is what I meant when I posted the link to the speech about reframing the question. We must use our lexicon and take possession of the issues from the whiners and weiners. We are not criminals, we are law abiding gun owners and sportsmen/women. We already comply with the law. We will not have our right of self-defense compromised because 'they' are soft on crime and refuse to deal effectively with the cause of crime: CRIMINALS. Smoke 'em when you catch 'em. M2
 
Great point. What the "anti's" are against is anyone willing to engage in violence, no matter the reason. They really have no problem with firearms...they have a problem with all willing to use them.

In reality, these people cannot picture themselves surviving a violent confrontation. Therefore, if they can convince the rest of us not to "resist" they believe their own chances of survival will increase as the bad guys will see less reason to use violence in criminal activities.

So, in a sense, they have greater fear of the law abiding citizen fighting back than of the criminal element.

Other tems:
AntiViolence?
AntiPreservation?
AntiAmerican? (oops!)
ProCrime? (hmm...there's a possible)
ProRape? (Too limited)

Anyone see a contest thread here?
Rich
 
cornered rat, thank you. I like 'anti self-defense'. Succinct but clear. I'm going to use it first chance I get.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited 02-08-99).]
 
I worry about terminology sometimes too. I try to avoid "anti-gunner", especially in debate with anti-gunners (oops). But damned if I can find a phrase as catchy as "anti-gun". We need something that immediately rings with the public, like "anti-choice" does.
 
I LIKE IT!!!
Lets start using it and lets get some lawmakers and media using it.
Do we have your permission?

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Rich brings up an interesting point regarding 'their' belif that they couldn't survive a violent incident (natural selection in action?).

It's an ethical issue that I haven't quite figured out how to articulate clearly, but let me throw this out for some wordsmitihing - Where does someone who won't raise a finger in their own defense get off calling someone else to do it for them? They won't put their pricelss butt on the line, but expect a $40K/yr. public servant to do it for them?

This frosts my fanny for a number of reasons:
1. It's and abrogation of personal responsibility.
2. It's unethical to expect others to do for you what you will not do for youself.
3. It's stupid and it won't work. Every court from the Supremes on down have upheld the fact that police have no obligation to protect an individual.
4. It's hypocritical in that they would prohibit those who are willing to protet themselves from doing so.
5. It smacks of elitism.
6. It's misdirected in that they keep trying to put more controls on the law-abiding gun owner (who may be part of the solution) rather than the source of the problem - the criminal. (Of course the fact that we're law-abiding makes it easier to control us, rather than the criminals who pay no attention to laws and are difficult to control, not to mention expensive). It's just WRONG!

Now I give a rat's posterior for those [cowards] who will go willingly to the slaughter, but I won't be among them. How do we get the message out that self defense is a legitimate civil right, and the possession/use of firearms to preserve that right is ethical and moral? Those who would hinder that right are unethical and immoral. We must own the issue with a strong, simple message: Self defense is a civil right and an individual responsibilty. The government defends the nation, the citizens defend themselves. Those who would deyny those rights are unethical, immoral, and cowards. It is absolutely UN-AMERICAN!

I feel a real rant coming on, so I will just ponder this some more for now, I welcome your comments. M2


[This message has been edited by Mike in VA (edited 02-09-99).]
 
"Give a rat's posterior"!? Hey, I am fond of it and they can have it after thay get my teeth, 55 grains at a time.

Unfortunately, some of my friends feel that "those people" are too stupid to be trusted with guns. Elitism, not moral convictions carry the day.

[This message has been edited by cornered rat (edited 02-09-99).]
 
Sorry, Cheese Breath, noting personal, I shoulda been more sensitive to the originator of this thread, I meant no disrespect to your particular rodential backside. Allow me to amend my statement to read that 'I don't give a flying fornicating leap at a rolling donut about those wimps'. If they don't care for guns, they should leave them alone. There are plenty of ways of defending oneself without guns, but all things considered, I'd rather reason with a .45 and a few kind words than kind words alone.

I think it was George Patton who said that'life is a bganquet, but most poor bastards won't come to the table'. Rather than make the effort to get a slice of life, they want everyone else reduced to their level of mediocrity by reducing the opportunies and alternative for all of the willing and able.

Trust is a two way street. They can't/won't run their own lives, why on Earth would I let them run mine. Oooops, ranting again.

Later, M2
 
Anti-self-defense is good, my terms are a little earthier and wordier. Like scum sucking slime balls but that does not have the ring that anti-self-defense does and it is a tad hard to get printed in most newspapers. ;) Has anybody else noticed that the Anit-Self Defense people want to get everyone to mold to their ideas but the Pro-Self Defense people (us) say "We don't care how you protect yourselves, just leave us alone."?

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
 
The bottom line, if everyone beleaved in personal protection , self preservation, the crimanals would be forced to become better equiped, and more formatable. The anti gunners know this. I have to say that if they choose to be the defensless victem so be it.There will always be the lambs to feed the wolves. If we were all lambs the odds go
way up that the wolf will eat some else and not me, says the anti~gunner.
 
Anti self-defense lobby is probably better than anti gun lobby even if it is somewhat awkward. Pro-tyranny lobby?

[This message has been edited by Spartacus (edited 02-10-99).]
 
rooster, OTOH, they may seek nother line of work. As I'm sure you're aware, in states where CWP is easier to come by, crimes against people tend to go down. I understand a guy who sticks a gun in your face for $1 million, I don't get the puke who does it for $10. It's a risk/reward thing - increased risk for small rewards discourages that kind of behavior. Criminals are basically lazy and cowardly. Increase the risk of getting shot, they'll find other (not necessarily legal), safer things to do.

I'd also disagree with the logic about the sheep improving their individual odds by adding more sheep to the flock. In the natural world, when game is plentiful, the number of predators goes up, not down. If the number of oportunities increase, and the risk is low, crime goes up, at least until the sheople recognize the need and figure out how to deal with wolves. (nobody said they were bright or capable of thinking it thru to this conclusion, however)

An armed society is a polite society. M2
 
<a href="http://ddb.com/RKBA/fable.shtml">A fable</a> about wolves and sheep...be sure to follow the lin at the bottom to another version...

------------------
If you believe in freedom and means of protecting it...you might be a gun nut.
http://ddb.com/RKBA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top