Free States and terminology

P

psyfly

New member
I read frequently on this and other RKBA-friendly sites entries such as:

"You should move to a free state" and "I'm fortunate to live in a free state".

This appears to be a normal evolution of the use of language to indicate a state that does not attempt to restrict a person's constitutionally-protected natural rights and, lately anyway, always appears in connection to exercise of RKBA. There's little indication that any other rights-restriction is involved.

1.) The term is unfortunate in that it calls forth unintended (for the most part, anyway) associations to our history of civil rights in general and can be criticized as such.

2.) I have yet to see a consolidation around any kind of term to describe a state that restricts or limits such rights, perhaps in part due to 1.), above.

While this might, of course, apply to any of our liberties, let's restrict this to gun-related or RKBA issues for the purpose of this question/discussion (and to adhere to the rules of the forum).

My question, however, is simpler: Can we (or have we) come up with a widely acceptable term for those states that seek to restrict our RKBA rights?

Best,

Will
 
Last edited:
We'll leave this open for now, but it will be closed following any posts invoking terms such as "Kommiefornia," "People's Republic of New Jersey," or anything else along those lines.

That said, psyfly, I'd ask "Should we?" Why do you see a need for such a term? (If you do... ;))
 
My question, however, is simpler: Can we (or have we) come up with a widely acceptable term for those states that seek to restrict our RKBA rights?


We already have. It's in common use and is understood by most RKBA advocates.

It's called a "Free State" :rolleyes:


Willie

.
 
My question, however, is simpler: Can we (or have we) come up with a widely acceptable term for those states that seek to restrict our RKBA rights?(My emphasis.)
Click to expand...
Willie, I'm afraid you misunderstood the question. ;)
 
My desire for proper terminology springs, in part, from observing that people have in frustration chosen other, somewhat unfortunate (and warned against, above), terms which only serve to accentuate our differences and to frame the user as a hostile witness.

I'd like to avoid that.

Something like "Nanny-state" appears inadequate as it implies the need for the state to supply every need without necessarily implying the state's desire to control and restrict.

I certainly see no need to create any more divisiveness; we have enough of that to deal with already.

Perhaps my problem is that the use of "free-state" carries what semanticists refer to as "excess meaning".

Perhaps there is no such term that isn't pejorative.

Thanks,

Will
 
Something like "Nanny-state" appears inadequate as it implies the need for the state to supply every need without necessarily implying the state's desire to control and restrict.

So why not just call them restricted and non-restricted states. You could also further this by stating moderately restricted (ie. California) versus non-restricted (AZ) which is constitutional carry.
 
Since the issue is never restricted to a single issue and the politicians who make these decisions are typically reelected ad nauseum, which means that it truthfully a consequence and the fault of the voters....

any such designation should factually lay the blame at the feet of the voters.

Unfortunately, any such term would be seen as derogatory and/or invective against the many fine folks who are sadly outnumbered by the not-so-fine folks.
 
One could refer to relatively "free" unrestricted states such as Arizona as "Citizen States," and restricted states such as Massachusetts as "Subject States."
:D
 
This reminds me of the difference between Army, Air Force, and Navy aviation mindsets.

In the Army, if the book does not say you can do it, then you can't do it.

In the Air Force, if the book says you can't do it, then you can't do it.

In the Navy, it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.
 
Books? The Army has books? Every briefing I ever got was done in hyroglyphics and cave art.

In regards to the OP, I somewhat detest the application of the term Free State, but I think a lot of that has to do with my background as a Southerner.

Along those same lines, I think the term "Commonwealth of ..." is also outdated.

States are states. We are bound by the Constitution as a nation of seperate states, and according to the tenets of dual federalism, the states should make thier own laws according to the desires of thier populations.

I often times have a hard time reconciling my belief in State's Rights with the sweeping power of the Federal Government, be it for good or ill.

Unfortunately, as Brian stated, a lot of the states in which draconian gun laws exsist, have perpetual victories of anti-gun politicians.
 
I like th term "restricted" when refering to States that don't see fit to fully recognize the 2nd amendment.

One could also argue that these State are "limited", "restrained", "constrianed" and "inhibited" with respect to the 2nd.

Then again "suppresive state" may be a better description. Maybe we can coin the term "authoritarian state" and have that stick.
 
The term "authoritarian state" is already in wide use, referring to countries such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. It may be tempting to apply the term to states we believe are too restrictive -- but conditions in those states are nothing like those in such countries.

So I'd say that applying the term to U.S. states is a considerable exaggeration, and also has the potential to offend many who live in them.
 
2.) I have yet to see a consolidation around any kind of term to describe a state that restricts or limits such rights, perhaps in part due to 1
Click to expand...

Why would we? In the first place, it's just another Assault Weapon/Modern Sporting Rifle game to waste time. In the second, and hinted at in the first, what we call them won't be what they call them, nor will it be what the undecided will call them. Constitutionally Compliant and Non-Compliant is as far as I need to go.
 
Maybe I am confused... or tone deaf....

...but what exactly is wrong with the terms "free state" and the implied alternative "non-free state"...

1.) The term is unfortunate in that it calls forth unintended (for the most part, anyway) associations to our history of civil rights in general and can be criticized as such.
Click to expand...

I think one of the very compelling advantages to the term "free state" is that it DOES use the same language that has been successful in past civil rights struggles... after all, is not our quest for the universal recognition of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a civil rights struggle?

This terms allows us to claim the moral high ground, which is altogether fitting because WE ARE ON the moral high ground.

Or am I missing something ?

Jim
 
So I'd say that applying the term to U.S. states is a considerable exaggeration, and also has the potential to offend many who live in them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, "authoritarian" is a pretty harsh, unpleasant term that no doubt would offend.

Yet, sometimes, when using language to present your ideas and argue against others ideology, offensive words do make a point.

But, it is better to not provoke and simply accept the resentment of your own beliefs?
 
Wyoredman said:
Yet, sometimes, when using language to present your ideas and argue against others ideology, offensive words do make a point.

But, it is better to not provoke and simply accept the resentment of your own beliefs?
Click to expand...
If we want to win people over, we should be talking not with people whose minds are made up to the point of having a fixed "ideology," but with people whose opinions aren't set in stone, who may be uninformed, neutral, or just see no reason to care. Hard-core anti-gun people are in the minority.

So why start out with the idea that it's OK to provoke or offend people whose minds we seek to change?
 
So why start out with the idea that it's OK to provoke or offend people whose minds we seek to change?
Click to expand...

I do agree. Thus, I did say I do like the term "restricted state" when refering to those U.S. states that don't see fit to fully recognize the 2nd Amendment.



Hard-core anti-gun people are in the minority.
Click to expand...

Somtimes I wonder. There are some who would take "authoritarian" as not offensive, but rather complimentary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top