Time, Maybe, To Toss Out The "Pro-Gun" Oxymoron?

[tucsonlib]

Just as the ridiculous phrase "war on terror" has finally been abandoned (How does one wage war on a tactic?), I'd like to suggest that we find a replacement for the term "pro-gun". Why? Lots of reasons. First of all, how can one be "pro" or "anti" an inanimate object? I mean, are you pro-waffle iron or anti-waffle iron? Do we label 1A supporters as "pro-speech"? In addition, pigeonholing people as either pro-gun or anti-gun is intellectually lazy - like declaring, "Yer either with us or agin us!" Or dividing the world into two camps - "Good", and "Evil".
Finally, you won't win any converts by employing these sorts of labels. For example, I'm pro-choice. I have respect for those on the other side who oppose abortion on moral grounds, but when they declare themselves to be "pro-life" or, worse, tell me I'm "pro-abortion", any respect I had for them instantly evaporates.....

Simply put, I think we can do better. I'd like to hear some alternative suggestions. Something a little more accurate and specific, maybe? "Gun-control opponents/ supporters", perhaps? (Yeah, I know - the temptation to lampoon the whole idea by posting humorous comments will be enormous. Please, try to restrain yourselves.....)

:pals:

[marybourg]

1. Not until we get rid of the ridiculous phrase

"pro life" for those who are only pro an embryo's potential life but anti a grown woman's life.

[tularetom]

2. RIght on!

"Anti abortion" is not the same as "pro life".

[tucsonlib]

3. Agreed

Not to mention most are pro-war and pro-capital punishment. Hardly "pro-life".

[TwilightZone]

4. A friend of mine calls them "pro-live birth"

After that, they don't care.

[marybourg]

7. Yes. that's probably the right name for them.

I'm going to use that from now on too.

[benEzra]

5. "Gun control opponents" is even more of a misnomer, IMO.

I am pro-choice on gun ownership, and oppose FURTHER restrictions on what mentally competent adults with clean records can lawfully own (which is already much more tightly circumscribed than most gun control proponents realize). But there is plenty of gun control I am OK with, or even the NRA is OK with; the existing tight controls on all automatic weapons, for example, or background checks for purchase from a dealer, or the prohibition against criminal possession, or prosecution of straw purchasers.

If you wish to call yourself a gun control advocate, that's fine. But I don't think labeling me a gun control opponent is an accurate characterization.

[tucsonlib]

10. It Was Only One Suggestion

And a pretty weak one, I know. I'm not calling you a gun control opponent, and I can't figure out where you got the idea that I wish to call myself "a gun control advocate". My OP was not intended to be adversarial or argumentative. It was, in fact, an attempt to find some amiable common ground. "I don't think labeling me a gun control opponent is an accurate characterization." Hey, I agree! But it's at least a slight improvement over "pro-gun". I'm soliciting suggestions. Do you have one or more to offer up?

[benEzra]

14. Gun rights advocate would be OK. So would pro-RKBA.

Other than that one, I actually do prefer "pro-gun" to "gun control opponent" (although neither is accurate, the former is not as much so).

Pro-choice on the issue would perhaps be more accurate than "pro-gun"), but doesn't lend itself to use without qualification.

[tucsonlib]

18. Ah!

Intelligent, reasonable suggestions! Thank you!!

[Jackson1999]

32. Pro gun rights

This is what I've been saying lately. I compare it to "pro-choice vs. pro-abortion." I hate "anti gun control" and despise it when Chris Matthews asks "So, are you against gun control?". I support background checks, don't think felons should be able to own weapons, etc.

When people ask why I "love my guns so much" i tell them "I don't love my guns. I just like them. What i love are my rights."

[benEzra]

36. Well said. (n/t)

[msongs]

6. people who advocate the manufacture and use of guns ARE PRO-GUN. not that complicated really nt

[benEzra]

15. I am pro-choice on abortion, but not pro-abortion.

Likewise, I personally choose to own guns (including plenty that the repubs at the Brady Campaign want to ban), but I do not advocate gun ownership for everyone. I just believe every mentally competent adult with a clean record should be free to choose.

[X_Digger]

8. Let each side choose..

Folks will always want to distill a complex issue into a pithy statement, or even better, a two word label. It becomes 'code' speak between members and a way to separate 'us' from 'them'. It's instilled into our culture, maybe even the human condition- we always seek to identify the 'other'. I'm not sure we can overcome that seeking / separating of the 'other' by changing the labels. Hence the growth of the 'soundbite', catch phrases, slogans, mottoes, etc. (Not a new phenomenon, either- 'Whigs', 'Tippecanoe and Tyler, Too!', 'I Like Ike', 'Remember the Alamo!', 'In God We Trust', etc etc.)

If you wanted to make both sides feel better about the labels they use, then let each side choose. As you mentioned, folks tend to get pissed when you choose their label for them- 'anti-choice', 'pro-abortion', 'gun grabber', 'gun nut'. If a label isn't offensive on it's face, why bother to worry what moniker a group chooses to identify its members?

[Jackson1999]

33. Because YOU need to be proactive to not let the other side choose.

Pro-choice is a good example of a proactive campaign to frame a position.

[jody]

9. I like pro-RKBA because it is consistent with Heller "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,

to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

That's the law of the land and precisely why I have encouraged Skinner to change this forum's name from "Guns".

ON EDIT ADD:

For those opposed, anti-RKBA

[thread-bear]

23. thanks

Thanks for your efforts on behalf of our freedoms.

[Pullo]

11. probably could do better than terming it 'gun rights' as well

....not that I've come up with anything better, I do see your point, however.

[Jackson1999]

34. You are correct..

I need to rethink that. The "gun" is not the issue.

[yay]

12. How the is that an oxymoron?

Do you even know what an oxymoron is?

[tucsonlib]

16. Actually, I Do.

If one goes by the definition "conjoining contradictory terms", I believe it qualifies, since "gun" is a noun, and you can't be pro-gun any more than you can be pro-oxygen.
Granted, it may be a bit of a stretch. It's not as straightforward as "jumbo shrimp", or "deeply superficial", but it's the best descriptive I could come up with. What would you call it?

And why are we veering off onto an irrelevant tangent? How about remaining on topic?

[yay]

21. I wouldn't call it anything.

In your position I would just call it stupid. But really it isn't an oxymoron.

So you're saying we can't be pro-gay rights since it's a noun, so there for an oxymoron?

[tucsonlib]

24. Pro-GAY rights, sure

Just as you can be pro-gun rights. But not PRO-RIGHTS. Or PRO-GUN. Get it?

NOW can we get back to something relevant?

[malti_poo]

13. It boils down to this...

If you are for greater restrictions on the purchase and transfer of guns, then you are anti-freedom. An armed man is a free man. Gun control in the US started when slave owners began fearing armed rebellion from their slaves and had laws passed prohibiting the possession of firearms by slaves.

Well, guess what? The more Congress fears an armed rebellion by the peasants, the more they push for more gun control.

[tucsonlib]

17. An armed man is a free man?

The mind boggles......

:silly:

[benEzra]

19. Being armed does not alone make one free...

but the right to choose to be armed is one facet of individual liberty, and to a large percentage of the population, it is a very important one. Many, perhaps most, gun owners rank the RKBA at least on par with freedom of speech, religion, the right not to be imprisoned without trial, the right to be free from warrantless search and seizure, and the right not to be tortured.


------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

[jody]

20. Exactly, that's what SCOTUS said in Heller that anti-RKBA types ignore or have never read.

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

[tucsonlib]

22. Careful....

Before you defend the comments of a troll like malti_poo, you should be aware that he's been banned from DU (after a dozen or so posts) due to his general wing-nuttiness and overall douche-baggery....

[benEzra]

29. I wasn't defending his comment; I was defending a belief that I and a whole lot of others hold,

whether progressive or not. And I went into a great deal more detail in my other post that I linked to.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, roughly half of U.S. gun owners are Dems and indies, and it's a freedom thing for us, too.

[jody]

39. Precisely, it's not a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, etc. view, it's a civil-rights view. nt

[virginia mountainman]

25. Pro Civil Rights...and..

...Anti Civil Rights....


Clear, concise. and straight to the point.

[tucsonlib]

27. not bad.......

maybe a little preachy, though. Kinda like the anti-abortion crowd labeling pro-choicers "Anti-Life".

[Jackson1999]

35. Pro second amendment? Second Amendment supporter? nt

[tucsonlib]

26. So, Summing Up....

I think we can all agree that the term "pro-gun" could use some updating. And, thanks to benEzra and jody, "pro-RKBA" seems to be the front-runner in the search for an acceptable replacement. A definite improvement. Bravo!

However, because I savor the role of devil's advocate, but mainly because I think we can do better, I'd like to address what I see as an unacceptable fatal flaw in the proposed new moniker -

"Pro-RKBA" implies, of course, that there are those who are "Anti-RKBA". That is, it still treats a complex issue as an either-or, black or white, all or nothing affair. It's an over-simplification; useful for keeping both sides polarized, but a hindrance to finding any common ground. Besides, it's too, um........uh.....well, Republican! Republicans are incapable of recognizing shades of gray. They are clueless to the concept of "nuance". I'm pretty sure some of you do see the gun issue as a war between "pro" and "anti", and that's okay - but it indicates you lack certain specialized brain synapses which we Progressives are cursed with.

Let me give you a personal example:

If a stranger asked me where I stood on the gun issue, I would tell him honestly that I considered myself Pro-RKBA. Yet because we see things differently when it comes to some finer points, I'm automatically labeled "Gun-Grabber" and thus a flame-worthy target by some here in the Gungeon. (Indeed, I'm donning my asbestos long johns as I type.) Because I don't get all bent out of shape at the prospect of a new AWB (stupid and annoying though it may be); because, like most people in the civilized world, I find it absurd to suggest that one's liberty or freedom is dependent upon the possession or availability of certain specific types of firearms; because I am absolutely confident that wholesale gun confiscation by the government ranks high on the list of "Sh*t That's Never Gonna Happen", I believe there are more than just two legitimate positions one can take on this issue.

How about: Pro-RKBA, Anti-RKBA and BasicallyPro-RKBA?

WishywashyAnti-RKBA?

Or maybe just Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed.....


:headbang:

[X_Digger]

30. In summary, you can't help but..

insult those who hold a pro-gun position.

Your 'forced teaming' exercise, trying to become part of the group, trying to redefine the debate is a failure.

There are those, even here, who are Anti-RKBA.

"In my own opinion, it is careless to have firearms anywhere. "
"The Star's opinion, and I agree, is that there is simply no good reason for such arsenals to be kept on the premises of private residences and businesses."
"I do believe people have the right to self-defense, of course, but not the right to own a gun."
"A line drawn at arms that are manufactured to resemble automatic weapons..
and otherwise serve no useful purpose for responsible, law abiding gun owners."

Yes there are a spectrum of opinions on the issue, but these quotes demonstrate that there is an extreme point of view that you seem to dismiss. On the other hand, I can't seem to find many quotes advocating 'no regulation' (on DU), as would be the logical other end point of that spectrum. Those of us who seem to like the line exactly where it is more typify the 'pro-gun' side of the debate, at least on DU. As the logical center between the two extremes, I'd assert that we are already sitting square at the point of compromise, and it's up to you to come to us, rather than the reverse.

[Caliman73]

38. What X_Digger said...

You said:

"because, like most people in the civilized world, I find it absurd to suggest that one's liberty or freedom is dependent upon the possession or availability of certain specific types of firearms; because I am absolutely confident that wholesale gun confiscation by the government ranks high on the list of "Sh*t That's Never Gonna Happen", I believe there are more than just two legitimate positions one can take on this issue."

Rights are rarely taken away wholesale anymore, especially in modernized industrial nations. It is done incrementally and usually painted as "necessary for public safety". People take the position you stated because that is just another step towards the goal of groups against private ownership of any firearms to have them all go away. Firearms owners have ceded ground quite a bit. There is a chance however small that the government would move further in the direction of more restriction to the point where England is today. I own semi-auto rifles that are perfectly legal in my state of California, but were I to add one ergonomic improvement, a pistol grip...they become illegal "assault weapons". If they are "assault weapons" with the grip, then they are "assault weapons" now because they function and lethality is identical. The logic of gun control would dictate that semi-auto weapons are "assault weapons" and with that should be regulated out of the hands of the citizenry. That is why we oppose the AWB. The death rate from firearms has been decreasing as has all violent crime in the last several decades but the media coverage on crimes, especially those involving firearms has gone up over 400%! That fact is NEVER mentioned. That we are a safer society is not mentioned. I would not attribute the increase in safety to guns, but they are certainly not the cause of increases because crime has not increased. To listen to the media however, you get the idea we are living in Mogadishu. That turns citizens into frightened people willing to do whatever it takes to get a little security. People say, "I don't mind that the government taps our phones and monitors the internet. I'm not up to no good". But they fail to realize that tapping communications to combat terrorists can turn into tapping private conversations between soldiers and their loved ones talking about sex. Did we ever hear what happened to those officials who were listening in on those private conversations? They are probably still working, listening, recording. So private communications are still being monitored for "our safety". It is not that far a step for private ownership of firearms to be restricted to the point where it is impossible to practice the right. My lovely state has just introduced legislation to have ammunition restricted to 100 rounds every 90 days. I used to shoot at least that many rounds in two trips to the range. That is restriction. It may seem unlikely, but it isn't that unlikely.

[slackmaster]

28. I'm pro-choice on guns

And pretty much everything else.

[Jackson1999]

37. I like it but....

I am trying to see how it could be used by the media. "Pro choice on guns groups oppose the measure" just doesn't sound right. (and remember, the point is to get others to adopt your terminology."

Pro RKBA-eh, a little too long.

[old mark]

31. I'm pro choice on guns - If you don't like them, I won't force you to get one...nt