nice face on bearing arms, how to persuade Americans that I'm looking out for them?

Question

The problem is that anyone referencing 2nd Amendment falls into the catagory of gun waco. In reality, most would-be gun-toters are the best citizens, and project a sphere of about 100 yards awareness, to protect everyone around them.

So how do we persuade the average American that bearing arms is a good thing? The "an armed society is a polite society" argument doesn't seem to work well, because half of America has The Fear and are not willing to take responsibility for their lives, let alone the Security of America.

How to sell it?

rei_t_ex: The Swiss and the Japanese are not good examples of Individual Rights or Freedom. Both are examples of total government. USA 'intent of the framers' had to do with popular sovereignty. A point which is lost on Socialists, Communists, Asians and the UN. If one reads the letters our founding fathers circulated, one would realize that the whole point of 2nd Amendment was to keep a check on government's tendency to take all power unto itself.

WE, The People, created the Constitution, which creates government, which hires our servants If the rest of the world doesn't like it that US Sovereigns retain our power, too bad. That's why they have none.

Our servants need to be reminded of their status. Otherwise; Tyranny.

Parmalita: "...the RIGHT of The People to leep AND BEAR arms
shall
not
be
infringed."

You fail to understand that we can police ourselves through Adam Smith's 'unseen hand'. Just because some folks are irresponsible doesn't take away my RIGHT.

Do you know what a RIGHT is? Government can't take it away, which some States seek to do.

rei_t_ex said "what concrete rights to Americans have that the Swiss and the Japanese lack? "

Property rights

"property" has lots of rights associated with it, having to do with land and your paycheck and real money. Switzerland and Japan are Socialist countries where the people are not Sovereign. They did not create their government, they are Subjects. Not too far away from feudal serfdom, in a strict legal sense.

Ben Cartwright didn't have to ask government's permission to remodel his bathroom (building permit) and pay for the privilege. He did it as a matter of right because he owned his land. Free and clear.

I understand your confusion, because USA has taken the road to Socialiam. You no longer own your paycheck, 30% is deducted. The bank owns your land, the banks create your Federal Reserve Notes, instruments of debt us Americans pay interest on. Huge scam. Specie cannot be inflated.

As for small arms being useless in resisting tyranny, it worked in the American Revolution, but won't work now, too low-tech, can't compete.

So what is the govertnment so worried about? The Feds don't care, it'a all local, a State Issue. What are the States afraid of? See, the reps there are a little closer to the ground, and a little more corrupt, and we can get to them, which is what they are afraid of as they feather their nests by stealing from us.

The real problem is that the people who get elected to office are the "day shift" folks, always on their knees bootlicking the power they crave.

They've lost touch with what it's like on the street due to ego and pride and not getting their fingers into the dirt often enough.

The Plastic Enemy.

They've forgotten or never known what it is like to be real.

rei_t_ex continues to impress me, I'm going to call him. Maybe I can learn something.

In reality, guns don't really make it easier to end earthly life, they offer action at a distance.

In more reality, a man with faith finds that while showing the bad guys your pistol makes them repent mightily, it seems that one is never really necessary.

What I want is a light sabre. An elegant weapon, for a more civilized time.

Answer 1

I am not sure that your initial premise - that more guns lead to a better society - is correct in the first place. Consider two examples - Switzerland and Japan. In the former, most people voluntarily serve in the military and are issued assault rifles to take home with them at the end of it. In the latter, getting access to firearms is incredibly difficult and rarely sought. Both today are as close to being 'model' societies as we humans are capable of.

As such, I remain unconvinced that either giving more guns to Americans or taking guns away from them will change things much either way - after all, most gun owners never get to use their firearms for anything other than recreation, so it is ultimately irrelevant whether they actually have those guns or not.

*************************Further Response*********************

I am not sure what the evidence is for the Swiss and the Japanese having less individual rights or being less free. Guns aside, since it is the issue we are discussing, what concrete rights to Americans have that the Swiss and the Japanese lack? What are we free to do that they are not? Likewise, what features of their political systems make them examples of "total" (totalitarian?) governments?

As to the need of arms to keep the government in check, they have never been used for this purpose in the past, and certainly will never be used for this purpose in the future. For several reasons. First, most developed countries have more than enough checks and balances to depose leaders without violence if they ever try to get out of hand. Second, if a dictator does seize power, merely owning a gun does not give one the balls to mount an armed resistance. Third, weapons have developed so much since the time the Constitution was written, that today a man with a rifle would stand about as much chance against a government with jets, tanks, submarines and nuclear weapons as a man without rifle.

*************************Further Response #2*********************

Switzerland and Japan are socialist countries close to serfdom? In terms of total economic freedom, they are only marginally below the USA according to Heritage - at 15 and 27, respectively, to the USAs 9. For property rights specifically, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranks Switzerland as the best in the world. Bot of these facts are not surprising - the political system of Japan was set up post WWII with much American help and guidance, while Switzerland has been a bastion libertarian, federalist individualism for its entire existence. Socialism, I would argue, they are a far cry from. Again, I have never noticed people in either country lacking the freedom (from government meddling) to do things that we Americans can...

As to gun ownership, I may be wrong (I will admit that I have never looked into this in detail), but I do not think that opposition to it emanates as much from the government as it does from the people. The logic behind it simple - it is easier to kill people with a gun than without a gun, thus banning guns would make it more difficult for people to be killed, thus the number of murders will fall.

While I will agree with you that the above reasoning is not sophisticated enough to capture the full intricacies of the situation, and thus wrong, it is at least possible to see where (at least the honest) would-be amenders of the 2nd Amendment are coming from.

That having been said, an effective line of reasoning against a person who would want to ban guns just struck me:

I do not think that arguing that guns actually serve a good purpose would work with them in the foreseeable future - when one views something as evil, it is difficult to get them to accept the opposite - you will only be dismissed as a "gun-nut" or "whacko."

So instead try to subvert some of their own reasoning, albeit applied to other issues - namely the Prohibition and the related campaign for the legalisation of (some) drugs. Point out how much extra crime and abuse of alcohol the Prohibition caused. Argue that restricting gun sales would do the same - drive the gun trade underground, making no difference to the criminals, but creating much tougher circumstances for the law abiding citizens.

Answer 2

Well, the last thing we need are vigilantes with guns and a 100 yard awareness watching over us. We have a police and armed forces network for that. The reason guns are a hard sell is because too many idiots with short fuses, illegal interests, and impaired judgment are carrying them.

So the answer isn't persuading Americans that bearing arms is a good thing. The answer is preventing idiots from getting and using them in the first place, stricter regulation and reporting of who buy, carry, and manufacture them, very severe penalties for people carrying unauthorized weapons (especially assault weapons) who use them illegally, and better self-policing and appeal of the organizations that advocate the freedom to carry weapons. Perhaps if some of those organizations would work harder with lawmakers and the public to make sure people carrying them are responsible instead of copping out with "guns don't kill people, people do" and "an armed society is a polite society" crap the idea would sell better.

EDIT:
There is something quite interesting about a republic form of government (which we have.) We elect people on our behalf to represent our interests. It is more efficient than a full democracy. Since we are a republic form of government, it is quite conceivable that:

"the RIGHT of The People to leep AND BEAR arms
shall
not
be
infringed."

is NOT being infringed when elected local, state, and national governments have been given the right by their voters to appoint individuals to carry weapons on the behalf of those citizens.

It would be very easy to get into a debate. However, this is the Answers forum and not the venue for it. You asked a question. I gave a reasoned answer. You have the choice to accept or reject my answer based upon whether it is useful to you. I assume that from your edit, it is not useful. Perhaps someone will provide an answer more to your liking, or you can just make one up of your own. Good luck.

Answer 3

Criminals don't pay any attention to laws... If guns were ever banned than only the bad guys would have them..Criminals prefer unarmed victims!! Having a gun will not help all the time but being defenseless will never help.. When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option. Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!! **Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.** @

Answer 4

Teach that people should have lessons when purchasing a gun. The paramilitary groups tend to get all the news time. Get the hunters involved. Maybe they could mentor kids with absent fathers or something to put a positive spin on it.

Answer 5

I'm just suprised they would disagree with you knowing you have a gun haha, but anyway,

funny thing is, in canada we have tonnes of guns and a very low amount of them are used in murder, where in the states, there are tonnes of murders with guns. Thats why people are afraid of them.

I don't think you can convince people guns are a good idea.

Answer 6

Supposing I knew, why would I tell you.

Gun-whacko