GLOSSARY -- Part 2

Glossary Part One

 A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "pro
 gun."  The reverse term, which describes them, is "anti rights."
 Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the phrases "pro gun" and
 "anti gun", because they automatically win when they're used.  They
 believe the righteous path is to be anti gun, because only devils would
 be pro gun.  You flat lose if you allow a debate to be framed that way.

 The debate is really between people who are "pro rights" and "anti
 rights" (and then you automatically win), because the righteous choice
 between pro rights and anti rights is obvious.  You're pro safety; pro
 self defense; pro freedom; pro liberty; pro Bill of Rights (correctly
 casting them as anti safety; anti self defense; anti freedom; anti
 liberty; anti Bill of Rights).  This is an accurate depiction of people
 who would restrict, repress and flat-out deny civil rights you and your
 ancestors have always had in America.

 A more accurate, and far more compelling term than the common "anti
 gun."  The reverse term, which describes you, is "pro rights."  Fight
 the desire to cast repressionists as "anti gun," (and by so doing
 casting yourself narrowly as "pro gun").  Instead, always refer more
 broadly to the "anti-rights" posture they take.  Make them argue rights,
 not guns.

 What "gun control" used to mean, and a generally good idea (the phrase
 "gun control" has morphed to mean "disarm the public" and thus should be
 avoided, more on this later).  Everyone basically agrees there should be
 crime control, so it is good grounds for détente.  A common sense and
 reasonable proposal.  Includes forcibly disarming criminals.  Emphasizes
 the differences between criminals and an armed public.

 A person who hates guns.  Typically has little or no personal knowledge
 of guns, may never have even fired one, certainly doesn't have any.
 Would subject innocent people to defenselessness without compunction.
 An elitist.  One with an irrational and morbid fear of guns that is
 ignorant and immoral.  Spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners,
 gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations, pro-Bill of Rights
 legislators.  Striking similarity and direct parallels with racial
 bigotry before (and even after) the civil rights efforts of the 1960s.

 The notion that you can only own a gun if it is expensive, or passes a
 drop test, a melting point test, a consumer products test, a government
 design test, a caliber size, an ammunition capacity, a lock test, etc.
 The notion that only idiots, miscreants, red necks, dim bulbs and other
 nasty-named people would own guns.  The notion that you can only vote,
 oops, I mean have a firearm, if you pass a test run by your government,
 and pay the tax, often called a "fee."  The notion that anyone who fails
 the tests -- or any other qualifications -- automatically forfeits their
 rights "for the common good."  An inability to distinguish honest people
 from criminals.

 Discrimination against honest people merely for their legal ownership or
 possession of firearms.  A common occurrence in society today.  A
 violation of your constitutional and natural rights.  Gun prejudice
 appears to be a federal civil-rights offense, punishable by prison and
 fine.  Now there's a thought.  Repressionists have attempted some very
 novel court challenges to laws that protect our liberties.  Turnabout's
 fair play.  If there were, say, a city bank somewhere that refused
 customers simply because they legally handled firearms...

 Anti-rights bigots curse these as "junk guns" and "Saturday night
 specials," racial epithets you should never use.  The racist goal of
 outlawing guns unless they're expensive is self evident and
 reprehensible.  A woman who eats inexpensive food and drives an
 inexpensive car doesn't lose her right to protect her family because she
 can only afford an inexpensive gun.

 Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
 accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun," a term which many people
 think means machine gun, according to Handgun Control (who recommends
 use of the term "semiautomatic handgun").  Unfortunately, "handgun" has
 been vilified beyond usability, and needs to be retired or at least
 back-burnered for now.  Remember, it was the so-called Brady "handgun"
 law that federalized all retail sales of rifles and shotguns.

 Or would you rather use the complex and dangerous sounding (though
 accurate perhaps) "semiautomatic handgun."  A basic, reliable, standard
 type of pistol, a regular pistol, an ordinary pistol, the same kind of
 pistol anyone would normally own.  A basic, reliable, standard type of
 sidearm, a regular sidearm, an ordinary sidearm, the same kind of
 sidearm anyone would normally own.

 The type any household is likely to have.  All the firearms you own,
 despite constant name-calling from the media, are just household

 The only kind you can now buy in America at retail.

 Any type of firearm that could save your life in an emergency.

 Expunge the word "concealed" because so many people hear it and believe
 only a criminal would conceal something.  It implies you have something
 to hide.  Because being discreet is a common sense, reasonable measure,
 there's no need to demean it with an ugly adjective (in this use anyway)
 like "concealed."  "Carry license," not "concealed-carry license."

 The quality of a gun that makes it useful as a crime-stopping,
 life-saving, defensive tool.  A point that is attacked subtly in most
 anti-rights arguments.  When met head on, the issue works against the
 anti-rights position.  Caliber and capacity restrictions reduce
 lethality and your ability to save yourself or the state.  Reducing
 lethality costs lives.  Why should police need more capacity than you,
 when you both face the same criminals.  How few bullets may a person use
 against an attacker, and how small should they be.

 Guns are dangerous.  They're supposed to be dangerous.  They wouldn't be
 any good if they weren't dangerous.  Anything that makes them less
 dangerous by reducing lethality puts you (or police officers) at
 unacceptable risk.

 People who believe you have little or no right to defend yourself if
 attacked, because social order may only be imposed by an authority, and
 that such authority is superior to your right to exist (if push comes to
 shove).  Also sometimes referred to as socialists.  Sometimes expressed
 as your right to keep a cell phone handy to dial 911.  The
 anti-self-defense movement is often deceptively portrayed as the
 "anti-gun movement."  Never let them hide behind their comfortable
 disguise as anti gun.

 Language that does not automatically bias a debate about the Bill of
 Rights against individual liberty and freedom.  Opposite of "politically
 correct" language, which is basically socialist in nature.  We all
 recognize that "political correctness" is "incorrect," and then we sneer
 and dismiss it.  We do this at great peril, however, for PC statements
 treated that way don't just go away, they fester and insidiously modify
 the paradigm, and bend our thinking into acceptance of that which we
 have verbalized as "correct."

 You want a good example of neurolinguistic programming and
 transformational grammar on a national scale, there it is to a tee.
 It's how we get to the Orwellian point where war is peace, freedom is
 slavery, ignorance is strength.

 More broadly appealing and less polarizing than "Second Amendment."
 Sure, I like the Second Amendment, and talk about it all the time.  But
 saying "Bill of Rights" protects you from malicious stigma and
 stereotyping as a gun nut.  Much more difficult to oppose, slows the
 bigots down.  All the rights count, don't they, and they're all under
 attack.  Bill of Rights Day.  Pro Bill of Rights.  I support the Bill of
 Rights, don't you?  Actually, even virulent gun haters and gun bigots
 champion the First Amendment and other parts of the BOR, which, if
 you'll recall, was a single amendment (with separate articles) to the

 Laws that encourage gun safety training and responsible firearms
 ownership, as opposed to repressive laws that criminalize honest gun
 ownership and infringe civil rights.  Civil rights.

 Stop saying Second Amendment so much, since the other side tunes this
 out immediately, and marginalizes you as a gun nut.  Say "First
 Amendment" instead, and make your comparisons there -- does the
 government jeopardize your First Amendment rights?  You betcha!  Should
 you be concerned?  Of course!  What would you think of Internet
 censorship, government approved religion, font size limits, restricted
 word choices, acceptable word counts, licensed writers, training and
 testing before publishing controversial editorials, and tests for
 accuracy -- now there's a nice parallel.

 People on all sides recognize there are threats to free speech,
 religion, privacy and more from our friends, the government.  The same
 root problems affect the whole Bill of Rights, gun rights are no
 different than other rights under attack.

 Something that, with all the accidents reported in America, all
 Americans should be taking -- from the tens of thousands of trainers out
 there.  Always encourage people on both sides of a debate to take a real
 class.  Why wouldn't an honest person take a gun-safety class?  Going
 out for some wholesome and relaxing target practice, with friends.
 Getting good at marksmanship.  Target practice.  Marksmanship.  These
 words have not been defiled and cast a good light, use them.  Privately
 promoted gun-safety training days.  Talk up the goal of "National
 Accident Reduction" through education and training.  Private enterprise
 should vigorously swell to fill the gaping theater called, "We need more

 Anti-rights bigots who secretly own guns themselves, rely upon armed
 guards for security, or live inside communities with private security
 forces, but decry your right to arms.  Closet gun owners.  Named in
 honor of Carl Rowan, a vicious anti-gun bigot whose syndicated newspaper
 column vilified guns and gun owners for years, to a vast audience, until
 he one day fired at a trespasser near his home.

 Gun buy back programs are misnamed.  You cannot buy back something you
 didn't own in the first place.  Since the Brady law prohibits dumping
 such guns into criminal lairs (gun buyers must be certified by the FBI
 these days), there is no longer justification for destroying firearms
 collected in buyups.  That's right, there is no longer any justification
 at all for destroying firearms collected in buyups.  When buyups are
 government funded, meltdowns are therefore wanton destruction of a
 public asset, and someone deserves to be held liable.  Tax dollars are
 buying legal property simply to destroy it, when the only way to sell it
 is to certifiably law abiding individuals.  What an outrage.

 Where I live, savvy collectors have set up shop at widely publicized gun
 buyups to make competitive bids and cherry pick the merchandise,

 Murder committed by government.  The most prevalent form of murder,
 responsible this century alone for 170 million deaths.  Regime-ocide.

 Now generally synonymous with "disarming the public."  Using the phrase
 "gun control" in its currently twisted form distorts the debate and
 should be avoided; it is the other side's rallying flag, bolstered every
 time the words leave your lips; argue about gun control and you've
 already lost.  Use "crime control," "accident reduction" and "disarming
 the public" to distinguish issues and preserve accuracy.

 Listen hard when you hear the term "gun control" in the news.  You'll
 notice they're basically not talking about controlling crime.  They're
 talking about controlling you.

 Always start by asking what a person means when they say this phrase,
 then shut up and see.  Often, people who think of themselves as being
 anti gun, unwittingly adopt the position that only the rulers should be
 armed (cop and army guns OK, but not you; such a person isn't anti gun
 at all, they're simply anti rights -- your rights).

 When a "gun-control law" regulates or demeans honest people in the false
 name of controlling crime, that's actually tyranny.  When "gun control"
 controls your right to have a gun, that is people control.  The phrase
 "gun control" is a dangerous misnomer (some would say euphemism) for an
 agenda now actively pursued by a segment of society -- that would
 consolidate power solely in "official" hands.

 Help seize the metaphor back:

 1.  Drop into conversation how your gun control at target practice
 recently was better than usual, or how you have pretty good gun control
 but you still need some lessons.  Invite someone to your gun-control
 class at the range next Tuesday -- free style target practice.  A well
 advertised gun-control class might attract some pretty interesting
 neighbors.  Jokes about gun control ("a steady hand") are
 neurolinguistically challenged and don't help.  Say something else funny
 if you must be funny.

 2.  When reporters and others inevitably ask, "Are you in favor of gun
 control?" they often don't realize their question is as biased as, "Are
 you still beating your wife?"  So it's up to you to show them.  They're
 looking for a pro or con answer, and then a question of how much.  Don't
 play into it.  Instead, try responding, "Well me, I'm in favor of crime
 control.  How about you?"

 3.  When you write about so-called "gun control" or so-called
 "gun-control laws" always put it in quotes, to disparage it.

 Named by Dave Kopel in honor of its two leading proponents (Dennis
 Henigan and Carl Bogus).  This is the notion, first arising a few
 decades ago, that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual
 right.  It stands in opposition to the fact that "the people" means all
 of us, and is responsible for the widely armed population we observe
 today.  Covered more thoroughly in an earlier article of mine, The Big
 Lie (posted under Position Papers at http://www.gunlaws.com).  Kopel's
 recent paper on this, for the St. Louis University Public Law Review, is
 nothing short of brilliant.  David can be reached at

 A tool for reaching closed minds.  The use of questions to point out
 fundamental illogic, which can then topple the notions a person builds
 on that flawed base.  An application of the Socratic method.  The mental
 awareness that forms when a simple question challenges fundamentally
 held beliefs.  Here are many.  One at a time is usually enough for most

 If a registration list makes sense for the Second Amendment, would it
 make sense for the First Amendment?

 Are criminals and an armed citizenry the same thing?

 So why do people these days carry guns anyway, and does it ever work?

 Should it be against the law to defend yourself?

 If a person can't have a gun, why should the police have them?

 So if you are allowed to defend yourself, how many bullets can you use?

 Shouldn't we disarm the criminals first?

 Why haven't we disarmed the criminals?

 Why don't they arrest all the Brady criminals they find?

 Are you against an armed citizenry?

 Do you believe that only the rulers should have guns?

 Now let me see if I understand this; when you say "gun control," do you
 mean "stop crime" or "disarm the public"?

 Now let me see if I understand this; when you say you're anti gun, do
 you mean you want to disarm the police and the armed forces?

 If you don't want to disarm the police and military, you're not really
 anti gun at all.  You're anti private gun.  Why is that?

 You know, after listening to you for a while, you've convinced me that
 you should never own a gun.

 I'm against the idea that you should be forced to own a gun, and I would
 stand up for your right to not be armed.

 Maybe you could sign up to be permanently disbarred from ever owning a
 gun.  Would you do that (as you would ask me to do)?

The above was provided by Alan Korwin @ www.gunlaws.com 


Last Update: March 22, 2005