He must be using a different dictionary

The anti-gun bigots often use words in ways that make no sense. For example “vigilantism” is frequent used to describe self-defense.

Here Paul Helmke demonstrates he is confused about definition of the word “force”:

Congress should think very hard about their responsibilities for public safety before weakening gun laws in our nation’s capital, and should rethink their decision to allow more guns in our national public areas,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

“It is dangerous to force more guns into places that American families expect to be gun-free and safe,” he said.

With the help of George Washington let me explain it to Paul (someone at the Brady Campaign office subscribes to the RSS feed for this blog):

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master.

George Washington
speech of January 7, 1790

Laws are force. Government enforcing those laws are force. Removing restrictions on people being able to defend themselves is not force. It is freedom.

And another thing, that shooting occurred in a “gun-free zone” already–just like Chicago and D.C.

“Gun-free and safe” is a self-contradictory phrase. Look up the FBI stats for yourself Paul.

I’d buy Paul a new dictionary but I think the problem is much more systemic than merely having a problem with the definition of words. Like many other anti-gun bigots I don’t think he is capable of determining truth from falsity.


5 thoughts on “He must be using a different dictionary

  1. To the radical leftist, freedom is force, and force is freedom. In a free society, such as envisioned by the Founders, they are “forced” to respect other people’s property rights, “forced” to work within a free market, “forced” to serve the market as the market demands and not as they would wish, and so on. In their idea of proper government (Totalitarianism) they are “free” to alter and direct society as the see fit, and no longer “forced” to put up with people like you.

  2. I do think that liberals understanad the power of words and their ability to shape the arguement…arguably better than conservatives. Much of Obama’s current double-speak (“pay as you go”, “1.5M jobs created or saved”, “assault weapons”) attests to that.

    If you can control the language (and better yet, get your opponent to use your language) you control the pace and sometimes the direction of the arguement. When gun owners use the word assault rifle or assault weapon, we are instantly put on the defensive.

  3. “…we are instantly put on the defensive.”

    With all due respect, Kris; speak for yourself. If we know what the words mean, we instantly put the language abusers and double-talkers on the defensive. They are the ones who must answer for themselves. “They are the aggressors, justifying their beliefs and actions with false premises. We needn’t ever play pat-a-cake with these children, or play on their terms. Ever. If you find yourself on the defensive, you need to take a careful look at your tactics. As I tell my wife when she complains about the kids’ behavior toward her; “You’re the adult, Babe.”

  4. I agree completely. That use of the word “force” is just wrong. I guess it was a foolish attempt to exaggerate the offense of allowing guns into national parks. When I read it a couple weeks ago, probably it was on the Brady Blog, it sort-of grated on me. And frankly, I was a little disappointed that the Bradys couldn’t come up with a smoother way to accomplish their goal and get it across.

  5. This blogger frequently posts about the so-called “vigilantes” (i.e., ordinary Americans who don’t want to be victims) who put the bad guys in their place, like this one “77-Year-Old Maine Woman “Escorts” Armed Intruder Out of Her House at Gunpoint”

Comments are closed.