Quote of the day–The Eggman

I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, gun-owner rights.”

The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.

The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.

The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.

It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.

When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.

Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it’s technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it’s gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.

So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.

The Eggman
March 10, 2010
Enough about “Gun Rights” already!
[I agree with him but I think that horse has already left the barn. Just like people calling a “magazine” a “clip” and to a less extent “cartridges” “bullets”. I still sometimes use the phrase “gun owner rights” but in my old age I’m getting weary of fighting battles I don’t believe I can win.–Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day–The Eggman

  1. Also this mode of thinking also points out the absurdity of the current argument of “Healthcare is a Right”, as in we all have the right to be treated by professionals with both service, and goods, regardless of our ability to compensate them for these valued commodities. Free Speech gives us the right to speak, and express ourselves freely, but does not supply any MEANS to that. The 2nd Amendment does not give me a gun, but allows me to acquire one and once I posses one, allows me to both keep AND bear it. So-on-and-so-forth. We could even get geeky and point out the 4th Amendment protects my property from search and seizure, but does not supply me with locks, fences, firewalls, ect ect to help create those barriers.

    Its a good point, but I think that the name-change game doesn’t work as well for our side. See also people arguing to no longer call semi-auto pistols “Automatics” as they once were readily called, or the coinage of the term “Auto-Loader” to spearhead the whole “Assault Weapon” lie.

    I think the verbiage isn’t much use, but the thoughts behind it are something we should certainly embrace.

  2. Joe,
    I agree that the horse has already left, but I see no harm in trying to shape the debate to our advantage.

    For my part, I try not to use the word ‘gun’, but instead try to use ‘firearm’. It is my opinion that in part the gutteral ‘g’ sound hurts us – guuuuhn control ….. you and your guuuuhns. ‘Firearm’ sounds more calm and reasoned (to me) than ‘gun’.

    My .02!

  3. No.

    Property doesn’t have rights either, but it’s property rights, not property owner rights, or property user rights.

    Do we really want to make the focus “Right to own a firearm”? Or should we leave the name inclusive, covering use as well?

  4. I read it as everyone’s right, not just gun owners. Just because someone does not own a gun, they still have the right to do so, should they someday so choose.

    Mr. C.

  5. Of course, the same simplification is used on the anti’s side, where we often mock the notion of sentient firearms lurking about and causing mischief – “gun violence.” Would we rather have them personalize their claim and start talking about “gun-owner violence?” The latter is more accurate, but seems to me to more directly attack our cause than the seemingly illogical first case.

  6. I’m with Tomcatshanger.

    Referring to a concept using the name of an object closely associated with that concept is a perfectly correct and common figure of speeach. We know perfectly well what we mean, and just as importantly, everybody else knows what we mean. And it sounds natural; switching to an awkward phrase that sounds forced and jargony won’t make people see us more sympathetically or understand us better, no matter how technically accurate it is.

  7. Is it ubergeeky that I knew what figure of speech Elmo Iscariot was referring to before I looked up the link?
    Metonymy. How often does THAT word come up in polite conversation? It wasn’t even mentioned in my college literature classes where the concept was discussed.
    I doubt we have to worry about the antis referring to gun-owner violence any more than they already do; they want to paint us all as knuckle-dragging wife-beaters wearing wife beaters anyway, clinging to our religion and our guns.
    It might have helped some of the takings and regulation cases had one of the Supreme Court Justices pointed out sooner than he did that “property rights” really refers to a bundle of rights we recognize in a person who is an “owner” of that property.

    Had it been “citizen’s right to self preservation in the face of goblins” that was discussed over these past 80 years we might not have arrived at the place we are where our “betters” consider it acceptable attrition that some people just run out of time at the hands of goblins because the cops just can’t get there in time. What makes that particularly appalling is the fact that so many of the hoi polloi (Another word like Metonymy I never thought I’d use on a gunblog)accept that as well (at least until it happens to them or theirs).

Comments are closed.