A friend of mine send me this:
As a pro-2nd Amendment novelist, NAGR activist, and editor for the Armed Citizen Project; I have come to view the gun rights debate from a unique perspective that has made me conclude that a new tactic in the fight to restore the 2nd Amendment is needed.
You see gun control activist have very masterfully crafted and used the term “Assault Weapons” to describe what are more aptly referred to by actual gun owners as “Tactical Weapons”. By ruthlessly associating the term “Assault Weapons” with any kind of mass shooting where the shooter had semi-automatic weapons, and even going so far as to make up new ones when the shooter did not, such as the infamous AR-15 Shotgun. They have marketed gun control to the masses with their absurd question “Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?“; with Glocks and AR-15s being their favorite guns to hate. So common is this tacit of using the term “Assault Weapon”. That many gun control activists actually know not to say “Assault Rifle”, and fall into the trap of proving they are clueless about guns; even if they proclaim that we need to ban Glock 10s in their next sentence (A.K.A Steven King). Since using the same term over and over in a speech is bad form that can dilute a message, gun control activist commonly use “Military Style” as a replacement synonym for “Assault Weapon” to change things up.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against political marketing as I recognize that unless gun rights activist expect everyone they encounter to have first read John R. Lott, JR’s More Guns, Less Crime. Then convincing people that non-infringed gun ownership is an important right requires that the message of the 2nd Amendment be simplified and direct it to a specific audience; which is the quintessential definition of marketing.
I therefore don’t have any problem when groups like NAGR calls the “UN Small Arms Treaty”, the “The UN Gun Ban Treaty” in order to market why gun owners should sign a petition to stop the treaty, in 3 seconds or less. Given that NAGR, and alike, first and foremost have an extensively researched and historically proven case for why a treaty that calls for international gun registration would lead to international gun confiscation.
That said what I do very much have a problem when gun control advocates use the term “Assault Weapon” to market their message; because quite simply the term fails to be backed up by any academic merit. For to quote Gregory Smith author of Selling the Second Amendment…
“Anything can be used to assault anyone, a hammer, a screwdriver, even a pencil can be wielded with deadly purpose (stick it in someone’s eye). Thus assault really is a behavior, not a device”. Likewise with the term “military-style” he notes “every weapon is military-style since they have all been used in the military at some point”.
However, instead of criticizing gun control advocates for so extensively using the intellectually dishonest term “Assault Weapon” over the past few decades; my unique perspective is that we should instead be thanking them as they have inadvertently made possible the largest opportunity to promote the right of citizens to keep and bear arms since the signing of the 2nd Amendment itself.
As I see it, even though “Assault Weapon” is a term so vague as to technically include any weapon; thanks to constant media exposure by gun control advocates, the term has become definitively defined as:
- Firearms that are black and semi-auto
- Firearms that have removable magazines and can thus accept “High Capacity Magazines”
- Firearms that have pistol grips, barrel shrouds or other “Scary” cosmetic features
- Single shot Glocks and blot action AR-15s (A Joke)
So not only have gun control advocates given a vague term definite meaning. In so extensively focusing the gun rights debate on the question “Why does anyone need an Assault Weapon?“; they have to use some military terminology, thereby left the flanks of said debate open to a massive offensive for restoring the second amendment.
Because rather then coming out and being intellectually honest that they don’t support the 2nd Amendment at all. Gun control advocates, politicians in particular, have said that they only want to ban “Assault Weapons” and/or “High Capacity Magazines”; while at the same time claiming they “support the 2nd Amendment”, least they be instantly booted out of office since the majority of Americans support the right to keep and bear arms to at least some extent.
Now I assume that most gun control advocates keep the double standard of claiming to support the 2nd Amendment while wanting to also ban “Assault Weapons” & “High Capacity Magazines”; tend to do so assuming that the only time when the 2nd Amendment was not contested was when everyone had muzzle loading muskets. However, this assumption overlooks a time in American history right before and during the civil war when the 2nd Amendment was not contested, unless of course you were Negro, and firearms technology made some major advancements.
This particular time period is important because during it the Republican Party, and the abolitionists who created it, came to see arms as the way to end slavery to the extent that…
“When the time came, many joined the struggle bearing arms. Many abolitionists joined Northern armies, leading soldiers into battle against the South, when it became obvious it had become a war of liberation. Many fought bravely and sacrificed their lives and for that, they are immortalized in our heart of hearts.“
Source: http://www.worldfreeinternet.us/cbboard/bb1.htm
In fact if you have read Chris Kyle’s book American Gun you will know that the greatest abolitionist in world history Abraham Lincoln, test fired the revolutionary lever action Sharps Rifle on the White House lawns, and immediately wanted to order 20,000 of them for the Union Army.
Realizing that none of the arms used by the overwhelming majority of abolitionists to eliminate slavery in the civil war were semi-automatic, featured detachable magazines, or even painted black. I recently had the inspiration to come up with the term “Abolitionist Arms“, along with the replacement synonym “Lincoln Guns“, as a way to classify all “Non-Assault Weapons” in general and any kind of manual action firearm with non-detachable magazines in specific.
Now “Abolitionist Arms” is of course not a historically accurate term, after all I just coined it this year; but unlike the term “Assault Weapon” it has three points of academic merit it can stand on…
- In the civil war Abolitionist did indeed use these types of arms in the fight to end slavery even if at the time they did not call them “Abolitionist Arms”
- The number of people around the world who would not be living as defacto slaves to modern socialist dictators, if said socialist dictators had not first taken away the peoples “Abolitionist Arms” is in the millions.
- At the very least a man who cannot defend himself is a slave to his attackers.
Therefore, the new tactic I that think is needed in the fight to restore the 2nd Amendment. Is for gun rights activists to push for non-comprised laws at the state level that guarantee the right of citizens to own “Abolitionist Arms” at home; while keeping the larger gun rights debate focused on the right to own “Tactical Weapons” and have concealed carry reciprocity.
The aim of this tactic is quite simple, because historically speaking gun control activists typically use the following slippery slope method to eventually ban all guns…
- Demonize & ban “Assault Weapons”
- Demonize & ban Handguns
- Demonize & ban Rifles
- Demonize & ban Shotguns
- Make muskets available by permit only
Though the exact order of how various guns are demonized and them banned varies from country to country (you can get a shotgun with a permit in the UK), the general principal of demonizing particular types of guns one at a time is the same. Therefore if gun rights activists can successfully make the argument that all “Non-Assault Weapons” should be called “Abolitionist Arms”. Gun control proponents would then have to try and do the following if they wanted to ban all guns…
- Demonize & ban “Assault Weapons”
- Demonize & ban “Abolitionist Arms”
Suffice to say it would be highly unlikely that gun control activist could ever make the argument that “Abolitionist Arms” should be demonized; especially when you consider that some of this nations first gun control laws were Jim Crow laws that were written to specifically keep Negros from owning guns, least they revolt against their slave masters.
While this means that more states will inevitably implement an all out ban on “Assault Weapons” as gun control activists are forced to use their over played political marketing scheme even more. I it will be near impossible for said gun control activists to be able to accomplish anything more than that, if gun right activist can successfully pass non-comprised “Abolitionist Arms” laws. Furthermore when you consider that citizens living in DC, Chicago and alike will be able to buy shotguns and revolvers as they wish for home defense, thus building the number of gun owners. Over time this increase in gun ownership will translate into increased efforts for citizens to legally own semi-automatic “Tactical Weapons” and be able to carry them concealed.
However, Key to the success of state level “Abolitionist Arms” laws is that they must be non-comprised, and when I say non-comprised I mean…
- No waiting periods
- No mandatory training required
- Only driver license based background check required to buy
- Absolutely no registration required EVER!!
- Points 1-4 must also apply for buying ammo too.
While I will elaborate on those points in future articles on the topic of “Abolitionist Arms” it is important for gun rights activists to note that according to NAGR activists classes. It is far better for long term gun rights to have non-comprised gun rights legislation loose in a roll call vote; then it is to have it be passed after some of your key demands are left out for the sake of compromise. Even if its the NRA that is suggesting you comprise!
Email: for questions comments and suggestions
