25
January 2013 –
The
most precise definition of the term gun control is, as the old saw goes, to
control your breathing and to squeeze, not pull, the trigger. The
rest of the debate is full of misdirection and obfuscation. One example:
The verb to assault has been applied as an adjective to many
weapons. People from both sides of the
debate use the term. Elements on one
side hawk weapons with that moniker in order to entice certain buyers. Elements on the other side spit out the
adjective to make some weapons seem even more dangerous in the minds of frightened
voters. What determines control is at
the heart of the debate over Second Amendment rights.
I
want to focus on one method of persuasion in the weapons control debate. The strict-government-control
advocates repeat it often to convince the less intellectually rigorous, but generally
law-abiding and hard-working people who make up the bulk of the swing citizenry,
that guns should be controlled by the elite decision-makers in the federal
government. In all discussions or
debates, the elite or their talking heads eventually ask the easy question: “Do
you really need an assault rifle?” “Do
you really need a magazine with 24 rounds in it to protect yourself or to go
hunting?” is another version of the talking point. These questions win adherents to the elites’
side of the argument, probably more than any other statement or fact.
This
type of question is a powerful method of persuasion. It makes one feel guilty about buying something
one really doesn’t need. I think it exploits
the old Protestant work ethic, penury toward pleasures culture that the
Progressive Left is trying so hard to undermine in so many other ways. How can one answer these questions without
sounding like a selfish and self-centered, ideologue jerk? One risks losing the argument even if one eloquently
and flawlessly explains the irrelevance of “need” in the constitutional concept
of rights. This is because the target
audience will be moved more by the question than by the answer. The target is the guy who is not
ostentatious, either because he is truly modest in his needs and wants or
because he is envious of those who can afford to buy things they want when he
can’t. There are a lot of these people
in every crowd. Their immediate answer
to such questions is that they don’t need weapons—and others, by extension, don’t
need them either.
“Do
you really need such a weapon or clip (Gun purists would say magazine, but this
question is never directed toward them)?” evokes a range of interpretations and
feelings among many people in the United States. Have you ever used or understood the meaning
of such expressions as, “Now, you don’t need to do such a thing!” or “You don’t
be needin’ to talk that way!” or, the
more direct “You don’t need that! Get
away from there!” Our society’s use of
the word need, as a verb or a noun, ranges from survival requirements all the
way to rampant illicit desires. Proponents
of gun control gently pose the question and let each listener interpret it in
the way he feels most comfortable. It is
a powerful method of persuasion by deflection.
Scary method to get people to support something that is not in their best
constitutional interests, heh? Oops!
I guess I shouldn’t need to talk that way!
No comments:
Post a Comment