Jeff Knox has an interesting follow up to his previous piece, which received so much negative scrutiny from some in the gun rights community.
Knox's central point is that we aren't there yet, and hopefully it won't get there. The goal of our Constitution was to set up a system where folks could debate issues, sometimes for years, until one side or the other finally succeeded in convincing a substantial majority of the rightness of their side's cause. I think substantial here means something like 75 or 80%. I think most of us view guns as a "canary in the coal mine" issue. If they take away guns, what else are they going to take away, and how will we stop them? Setting aside that we have already lost rights we thought guaranteed, some 80% of the population agree we have the right to keep and bear arms. But when you put more meat on those bones, suddenly the percentages go down. Does that mean we have the right to carry concealed weapons? The right to own so called "assault weapons?" What about the right to carry concealed weapons on college campuses? In each case, the percentage of folks who agree goes down considerably. My guess, and it is just a guess, would be 40%, 25% and 5% respectively. We haven't made our case to the American People.
Dave Koppel and John Lott are two who routinely write about gun issues in the general press. We need more, a lot more, of those articles and we need those writers to appear more frequently in the general press. Gun blogs that only "preach to the choir" will do little to convince the general public. And if the public thinks we are fighting for the right to keep our "hobby," they are not going to be sympathetic. What we need to do is show that we are fighting for the traditional American values of Life, Liberty, and Property, and that guns support all three.
What we also need is more writers to espouse not just the reasons for our rights, but the principles upon which these are based. Jeff Snyder does an excellent job in the little book "A Nation of Cowards." If people had a thorough understanding of these principles, it would render moot the discussion that Knox tries to illuminate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Your title nails the problem with Knox "the younger" from begining to end. He has no line only a scratch in the sand, AND he willingly moves it for a zero sum gain. I do not want "war" or fighting in the streets, but i cannot in good conscience give up my guns. Period. It is not bravado, but obligation.
ReplyDeleteJason
III
Jay21,
ReplyDeleteI agree. However, properly understood, the American Revolution was fought first by learned men using Lockean principles that were commonly understood. They laid out their case, but it was rejected. Only reluctantly did they resort to men with guns. Because it was obvious that they had tried to make their case first, they had many in the British Parliament, and the British public on their side. It did not hurt that the king was something of a tyrant.
So, both Knox and Vanderboegh are right. Be prepared, as anyone must be at all times. But work to find, and support people who represent your views. Write letters to the editor, write to your Congressman. Put the letters on your blog as well as well as the reply, if any. Hammer them when they try to paint their ideas as something they are not. And I often think that maybe our side needs to take a few pages out of Saul Alinskey.
Regards,
PolyKahr