http://www.SierraTimes.com/gedjns0614.htm
Sillygisms
by J. Neil Schulman - Posted: 06.14.00
Copyright 2000 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.
As the author of two books on the "gun rights" issue, I must conclude
that I
have been less successful than I had hoped in making my feelings clear
about the NRA, the Second Amendment, and even guns themselves.
When all is said and done, I really don't care all that much about the
NRA,
the Second Amendment, or even guns.
The NRA could cease to exist tomorrow, and my political activities would
be unaltered. As a matter of fact, I have been embarrassed in the past by
the NRA publicists' apparent inability to convey my beliefs to the media,
American intellectuals, and most urban professionals.
The Second Amendment could be repealed tomorrow, and it would make
no change whatsoever in my political beliefs. I believe that Americans
have
no greater right to keep and bear arms than anyone in any other country
that doesn't have such a right written into its constitution. The Second
Amendment is irrelevant to the existence of the right to keep and bear
arms.
Tomorrow, all the privately-owned guns in America could be grabbed by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, then melted down into a
mountain of slag, and my ultimate political goals would be unchanged. The
absence of guns would not stop me from pursuing the same personal and
political goals that I do now.
Those who want to ban guns think I care about the NRA, the Second
Amendment, and guns. They think if they can marginalize the NRA, so that
it is regarded as an extremist organization such as the Ku Klux Klan,
they
will be free to repeal the Second Amendment. They think if they repeal
the
Second Amendment, they will be free to pass all the laws they like
banning
the private ownership and possession of guns. They think that if they
actually succeeded in collecting all the privately held guns in America,
they
will be free from violence, free from fear, free from extremists who
oppose
their oh-so-benevolent plans to remake society in their image.
I'm here to tell them that not only do they not have a good sense of
reality,
they don't even have a good sense of what motivates the people they
think of as enemies.
I am personally motivated by my belief in inherent human rights. I'm an
advocate of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe people
have the right to pursue their own lives free from tyranny, regardless of
whether the tyrant is a schoolyard bully, a street thug, a violent family
member, nosy neighbors, or armed bureaucrats.
I'm seeking a society where property rights enable people who disagree
with each other's lifestyles to live in peace with each other. I want a
society
where a gay bar can peacefully coexist next door to a Seventh Day
Adventist church -- and as long as the blow-jobs are kept behind the
closed doors of the gay bar, and the Seventh Day Adventists keep their
prayers for the souls of the gay men on their side of the property line,
they
can live as neighbors. I want a society where channel 44 is Jimmy
Swaggart and Channel 45 is Baptist Babes in Bondage--and I can
unsubscribe to whichever channel I find offensive. I want restaurants and
bars to be free to cordon off smokers' sections and non-smokers' sections
-- and saloon keepers are free to make a rule that in the smokers'
section
you have to smoke. It is only respect for the demarcations of private
property that enables people who despise each other to coexist. For many
people, it is only the fear of retaliation for violating someone else's
rights
that motivate respect for them. In the real world, there is no respect
without deterrence.
Each of us has the right to defend the rights of life, liberty, and
private
property, if necessary applying violence against those who threaten or
first
use violence to violate those rights. A right that cannot be exercised is
no
right at all. A right which is not yours to defend belongs to no one.
These are fundamental principles. The problem with those who want to
ban guns is that they do not have the ability to think in principles.
They
think not in syllogisms but in what I've termed sillygisms. A syllygism
is a
sequence of statements which appear logical but which produce nonsense.
For example: People who die after jumping out of airplanes are almost
always wearing parachutes. Therefore, if people jump out of airplanes
without parachutes, they will be safer. That's a sillygism.
This may seem obviously ludicrous to you. But I can point out to you
studies conducted by people with doctorates and medical degrees, and
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New
England Journal of Medicine, where the logic is just as silly: People who
die from a gunshot wound more often keep a gun for protection than
people who don't. Therefore, if people don't keep guns for protection,
they will be safer.
The sillygism is the same for both parachutes and guns. People who jump
out of airplanes need parachutes far more often than people who don't.
The failure of a parachute to save a jumper's life in a few cases doesn't
mean that jumping out of a plane without a parachute is safer. Most of
the
time parachutes save the jumper's life. Likewise, the failure of a gun to
save a victim's life in a few cases doesn't mean that living in a
dangerous
world without keeping a gun for protection a gun is safer. Most of the
time,
the availability of a gun will save the victim of a criminal attack.
It is a love of life, liberty, and the property rights that protect
pursuit of
one's own concept of happiness that motivates me politically. It is an
historical study of what has been necessary to secure fundamental human
rights that dictates where I devote my energy to shape the future. It is
an
understanding of the usefulness of guns in defending the rights of the
individual that causes me to defend the Second Amendment as a political
barrier to the unilateral disarmament of the private individual. And the
NRA being the only well-funded, popular institution that defends the
Second Amendment is what causes me to support that organization,
despite its failure to convey my beliefs to the media, American
intellectuals,
and most urban professionals.
Destroy the NRA, and I will be no less enthusiastic about preserving
human liberty. I will merely see it as necessary to organize fresh
grass-roots support to preserve the Second Amendment.
Repeal the Second Amendment, and I will be no less committed to the
right of the people to keep and bear arms. That right precedes the
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution is merely a
contract
among the American people in an attempt to secure this and other rights.
If
that contract is broken, it may be assumed that I am no longer bound by
the terms of that contract -- and I will start renegotiating until I
secure
acceptable terms. The American Revolution which began on April 19,
1775 at the old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts was such a
renegotiation.
Ban private guns -- send armed bureaucrats house-to-house to collect
them all -- and my right to self defense will be lessened in no way.
There
are weapons other than guns that can be effective in combating even the
best-armed and most tyrannical government. In countries where guns are
few, home-made bombs are many. There are chemical propellants other
than gunpowder that can be effective in aiming and accelerating small
objects at a target, and drilling holes in it.
In an America with common household objects including aerosol oven
cleaners, laser pointers, microwave ovens, spread-spectrum cordless
phones, and laptop computers, you seriously don't want to piss off
millions
of Americans who believe they own guns to keep the government under
the people's control. We're peaceful and law-abiding now because our
right to defend ourselves with guns is politically secure. Make those
rights
insecure and I, for one, promise those who use the force of the state to
destroy our rights that I will find other ways to make their offices a
living
hell until we have once again secured our liberties.
Here's a syllygism for them: They think gun owners are dangerous. But
they also think it is safe for them to try taking away guns from millions
of
gun owners.
Maybe they should try thinking that one through again.
J. Neil Schulman
June 11, 2000
Sillygisms
by J. Neil Schulman - Posted: 06.14.00
Copyright 2000 by J. Neil Schulman. All rights reserved.
As the author of two books on the "gun rights" issue, I must conclude
that I
have been less successful than I had hoped in making my feelings clear
about the NRA, the Second Amendment, and even guns themselves.
When all is said and done, I really don't care all that much about the
NRA,
the Second Amendment, or even guns.
The NRA could cease to exist tomorrow, and my political activities would
be unaltered. As a matter of fact, I have been embarrassed in the past by
the NRA publicists' apparent inability to convey my beliefs to the media,
American intellectuals, and most urban professionals.
The Second Amendment could be repealed tomorrow, and it would make
no change whatsoever in my political beliefs. I believe that Americans
have
no greater right to keep and bear arms than anyone in any other country
that doesn't have such a right written into its constitution. The Second
Amendment is irrelevant to the existence of the right to keep and bear
arms.
Tomorrow, all the privately-owned guns in America could be grabbed by
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, then melted down into a
mountain of slag, and my ultimate political goals would be unchanged. The
absence of guns would not stop me from pursuing the same personal and
political goals that I do now.
Those who want to ban guns think I care about the NRA, the Second
Amendment, and guns. They think if they can marginalize the NRA, so that
it is regarded as an extremist organization such as the Ku Klux Klan,
they
will be free to repeal the Second Amendment. They think if they repeal
the
Second Amendment, they will be free to pass all the laws they like
banning
the private ownership and possession of guns. They think that if they
actually succeeded in collecting all the privately held guns in America,
they
will be free from violence, free from fear, free from extremists who
oppose
their oh-so-benevolent plans to remake society in their image.
I'm here to tell them that not only do they not have a good sense of
reality,
they don't even have a good sense of what motivates the people they
think of as enemies.
I am personally motivated by my belief in inherent human rights. I'm an
advocate of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I believe people
have the right to pursue their own lives free from tyranny, regardless of
whether the tyrant is a schoolyard bully, a street thug, a violent family
member, nosy neighbors, or armed bureaucrats.
I'm seeking a society where property rights enable people who disagree
with each other's lifestyles to live in peace with each other. I want a
society
where a gay bar can peacefully coexist next door to a Seventh Day
Adventist church -- and as long as the blow-jobs are kept behind the
closed doors of the gay bar, and the Seventh Day Adventists keep their
prayers for the souls of the gay men on their side of the property line,
they
can live as neighbors. I want a society where channel 44 is Jimmy
Swaggart and Channel 45 is Baptist Babes in Bondage--and I can
unsubscribe to whichever channel I find offensive. I want restaurants and
bars to be free to cordon off smokers' sections and non-smokers' sections
-- and saloon keepers are free to make a rule that in the smokers'
section
you have to smoke. It is only respect for the demarcations of private
property that enables people who despise each other to coexist. For many
people, it is only the fear of retaliation for violating someone else's
rights
that motivate respect for them. In the real world, there is no respect
without deterrence.
Each of us has the right to defend the rights of life, liberty, and
private
property, if necessary applying violence against those who threaten or
first
use violence to violate those rights. A right that cannot be exercised is
no
right at all. A right which is not yours to defend belongs to no one.
These are fundamental principles. The problem with those who want to
ban guns is that they do not have the ability to think in principles.
They
think not in syllogisms but in what I've termed sillygisms. A syllygism
is a
sequence of statements which appear logical but which produce nonsense.
For example: People who die after jumping out of airplanes are almost
always wearing parachutes. Therefore, if people jump out of airplanes
without parachutes, they will be safer. That's a sillygism.
This may seem obviously ludicrous to you. But I can point out to you
studies conducted by people with doctorates and medical degrees, and
published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New
England Journal of Medicine, where the logic is just as silly: People who
die from a gunshot wound more often keep a gun for protection than
people who don't. Therefore, if people don't keep guns for protection,
they will be safer.
The sillygism is the same for both parachutes and guns. People who jump
out of airplanes need parachutes far more often than people who don't.
The failure of a parachute to save a jumper's life in a few cases doesn't
mean that jumping out of a plane without a parachute is safer. Most of
the
time parachutes save the jumper's life. Likewise, the failure of a gun to
save a victim's life in a few cases doesn't mean that living in a
dangerous
world without keeping a gun for protection a gun is safer. Most of the
time,
the availability of a gun will save the victim of a criminal attack.
It is a love of life, liberty, and the property rights that protect
pursuit of
one's own concept of happiness that motivates me politically. It is an
historical study of what has been necessary to secure fundamental human
rights that dictates where I devote my energy to shape the future. It is
an
understanding of the usefulness of guns in defending the rights of the
individual that causes me to defend the Second Amendment as a political
barrier to the unilateral disarmament of the private individual. And the
NRA being the only well-funded, popular institution that defends the
Second Amendment is what causes me to support that organization,
despite its failure to convey my beliefs to the media, American
intellectuals,
and most urban professionals.
Destroy the NRA, and I will be no less enthusiastic about preserving
human liberty. I will merely see it as necessary to organize fresh
grass-roots support to preserve the Second Amendment.
Repeal the Second Amendment, and I will be no less committed to the
right of the people to keep and bear arms. That right precedes the
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution is merely a
contract
among the American people in an attempt to secure this and other rights.
If
that contract is broken, it may be assumed that I am no longer bound by
the terms of that contract -- and I will start renegotiating until I
secure
acceptable terms. The American Revolution which began on April 19,
1775 at the old North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts was such a
renegotiation.
Ban private guns -- send armed bureaucrats house-to-house to collect
them all -- and my right to self defense will be lessened in no way.
There
are weapons other than guns that can be effective in combating even the
best-armed and most tyrannical government. In countries where guns are
few, home-made bombs are many. There are chemical propellants other
than gunpowder that can be effective in aiming and accelerating small
objects at a target, and drilling holes in it.
In an America with common household objects including aerosol oven
cleaners, laser pointers, microwave ovens, spread-spectrum cordless
phones, and laptop computers, you seriously don't want to piss off
millions
of Americans who believe they own guns to keep the government under
the people's control. We're peaceful and law-abiding now because our
right to defend ourselves with guns is politically secure. Make those
rights
insecure and I, for one, promise those who use the force of the state to
destroy our rights that I will find other ways to make their offices a
living
hell until we have once again secured our liberties.
Here's a syllygism for them: They think gun owners are dangerous. But
they also think it is safe for them to try taking away guns from millions
of
gun owners.
Maybe they should try thinking that one through again.
J. Neil Schulman
June 11, 2000
:evilgrimace: