A quick observation about the ongoing gun debate...

January 13, 2013 11:04 PM ~  
Something that I haven't seen talked about very much during this current round of debating the second amendment and gun control is the sheer amount of government over-reach and loss of liberties that we've experienced in the last year. What I mean is this: every time a leftist is talking to a conservative, whether that is Piers Morgan or any other MSM personality, the conservative will valiantly make the Constitutional argument for gun rights: that the 2nd Amendment is there to protect us from the government, not for hunting or sport shooting.

The problem is, the statist will then press the conservative on their answer with a juvenile and mocking question such as: "Oh come on, do you really see the government as a tyranny? Are you really talking about fighting the US Military?" or something along those lines.

This is where we lose. The conservative usually then back-peddles from their orignal statement and says something like "Well no, not at this time, but possibly in the future, 20, 30 years from now" or they'll even be more apologetic and say "well of course not, we're still the land of the free, but the 2nd amendment is there just in case, no matter how improbable it may be."

At that point, the argument is lost. The statist leftist has backed the conservative down from their position, and now they have the upper hand in telling you what is or is not "reasonable." From there, they launch on to the point that certain models of rifle or certain decorative covers or certain magazine capacities are not "reasonable." And since the statist has already established (in the mind of the viewer) that only a nutjob would think they would ever have to defend themselves from the government, they have the upper hand and the "moral authority" in the debate over what is reasonable.

I'm not saying they're right, I'm simply talking about perception here, or debate strategy. So if I'm so smart, what is the right answer? Well that's easy:
In the last year, President Obama has gotten the power to indefinitely detain American Citizens without a trial or even an accusation. His federal government routinely executes No Knock Raids on American households, with an alarmingly high percentage of those being false leads. He has already assassinated American citizens with drones, including a 16 year old boy. It is common knowledge that he has a "kill list." He has expanded wiretapping by 400% under the Patriot Act over the activities of George W Bush. He has gotten the ability to retrieve all of a person's online data thanks to CISPA. He has all of the tools to be a bloody tyrant should he wake up one day and decide to do so. You pose the question to me as if I am irrational for wanting to be prepared for the worst case, but I look at you and see a person who is either woefully misinformed or willfully ignorant. I hope the 2nd Amendment is never needed for its intended purpose, but no amount of manipulated statistics or grandstanding on top of dead children is going to make me give up the right to bear arms.

See, that wasn't so hard? But why don't conservatives give answers like that?

One reason is a general tendency for conservatives to be nice, respectable people. They want to play within the box of acceptable thought and not be labeled an "extremist." They don't want to admit that so much freedom has been lost, and they don't want to mention the possibility of a bloody tyrant because they might be called "ridiculous" or "hate-filled." They let their enemy (the leftist) frame the box of acceptable thought and then they try to remain within it and win the debate at the same time. They should know by now that they are fighting a losing battle, but for some reason this hasn't clicked with most people on our side.

I'm not saying we need to go all "Alex Jones" every time we talk to a statist. Alex Jones is a clown and all of his ranting and raving about conspiracies discredits his valid points. But we also don't need to be afraid of telling the truth, and being direct about it! We need to call the leftists out for their hypocrisy, cowardice, lies, and immorality. We have to go for the jugular when confronting them (verbally, of course) because we have the winning arguments and we are on the right side, so we should be able to (logically) destroy them without mercy. This is what will get the respect of the ever-elusive "independent," not tip-toeing around people's feelings and playing within an artificially constrained box of acceptable thought.

Lastly, I think another reason conservatives don't give the answer I gave above is because some of the things I mentioned would require a conservative to go back and do some introspection and examine the policies that they accepted while a Republican was president and now end up defending just because someone on "our team" was responsible for them. I'm speaking of things like the Patriot Act. It's hard to fault Obama for using 4 times as many warrantless-wiretaps when you used to argue for the Patriot Act when Bush was president. It's hard to fault Obama for using No Knock Raids when you support the failed war on drugs that introduced the paramilitary style tactic to American law enforcement. Consistency is key, and holding inconsistent positions can severely handicap and debilitate you in a debate, particularly one that is going to be framed in the worst possible way for your side, by leftists who will use any tactic to try and trip you up.