Home » Blogs » AIM_SMALL_MISS_SMALL's blog

Building a Grand Strategy for Restoring the 2nd Amendment

An overwhelming majority in the United States of America, regardless of how some might interpret specific application of the 2nd Amendment to daily life, will agree that every law-abiding citizen in the land has the right to defend himself with the best means available in the face of any given threat.

Two things need to be noted immediately:
1] the issue of how most people feel about the right of self-defense and
2] the fact that that same majority recognizes the right of self-defense as objectively correlative to, and inseparable from, the fact that each human being is born with the right to existence (at least in principle and prior to any forfeiture of that right consequent to bad acts).

Why should we care about these two facts?

Because these two points constitute the fulcrum by means of which we can raise the anti-2nd-Amendment crowd to see over the wall of anti-gun prejudice that blinds them to understanding the relationship between exercising freedom and the potential need of exercising the use of force on another person.

In other words, we shoud care about these two facts because both the anti-gun crowd and the 2nd Amendment crowd do have points of agreement.

And it will be quicker and more practicable to persuade them than to attempt to outnumber their votes by increasing our numbers through prodigious procreation (which would be fun at first but slow in results and unacceptably costly) and patriarchal indoctrination (which yields haphazard results at best).

So it is from those points of agreement that we must start and then move them along gradually with the kinds of things they will find persuasive (even if they are not the kinds of things we think they should be most persuaded by).

In other words, we need to meet them (on the rhetorical and philosophical battleground) where they are instead of where we wish them to be.

So if America's anti-gun folks agree that every law-abiding person has the right to exist and even the right to defend his existence, and if they agree that the 2nd Amendment seems to recognize that right (I say "recognize," not "grant"), what do they get stuck on?

The anti-gun crowd fails to see the necessary connection between being free and being able to use lethal force at any given moment, if need be, for the sake of remaining free (and/or alive).

(I include in the anti-gun crowd people who are not deeply committed but who simply don't actively support full, free exercise of the 2nd Amendment.)

What they fail to see, therefore, is exactly what we need to show them in order to win them over. Namely, that it is healthy and normal to feel a bit squeamish about using potentially lethal force on someone, but that it is not only justifiable but their duty to do so--since the SCOTUS has ruled that government has no specific duty to protect individuals and it is morally wrong to burden other people with your duties if it was at all within your means in the first place to prevent so burdening them.

And at this point in my thinking on how to construct a grand strategy for restoring the 2nd Amendment, I think we all need to focus our main efforts on winning over the largest number of people in the shortest period of time.

The ultimate goals I espouse--enactment of Vermont or Alaska style CCW laws nationwide and nationwide repeal of laws and regulations prohibiting specific types of weapons (i.e., "Assault Weapons," .50 calibers, etc.) and specific weapon parts (i.e., magazines, silencers etc.)--are fraught with deep, philosophical implications when considered from the point of view of those unconvinced about the meaning and relevance of the 2nd Amendment.

Why we should have these goals as our ultimate goals is clear enough to readers who have thought carefully about the stakes.

What is less clear to committed supporters of the 2nd Amendment (and of course to those who oppose it), is why we should seek, in my best estimation, a gradual restoration of the 2nd Amendment rather than simply vociferously advocating radical immediate change to a philosophically pure pro-gun application of the 2nd Amendment.

In my next entry, I'll explain how the target audience's psychological characteristics reveal 1] how we should approach them 2] why we should not espouse a radical departure from the current admittedly unacceptable situation, and 3] why we should instead take a slightly circuitous and paradoxical route to restoring the 2nd Amendment--via reform, followed by the later abolition, of CCW and assault weapon laws.

Nicely worded

I'll copy it onto my blog and credit you, I'd like to see my readers thinking about the pragmatic take you have on the 2A debate.

  • By Pro Gun Progressive at 2006-09-04 22:20
  • Login or register to post comments

While I can appreciate

While I can appreciate ASMS's enthusiasm and desire, I have to say that I think he's being a bit naive. There is just no arguing with hard-core anti-gun extremists. Having said that, the "self defence" angle just *might* pursuade the middle 80% of people who don't make up either the 10% hard core pro or anti gun people, so it could be worth a try. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.

  • By Nimrod45 at 2006-09-06 16:49
  • Login or register to post comments

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my initial entry.
I am very interested in improving the thought which I have propounded thus far in the argument.
Allow me to clarify what I mean by "argument."
I use the term, in a rather strict way, to refer to the following components of the thought I expressed:
1] the stated premises
2] the unstated premises
3] the conclusion(s), and lastly,
4] the inferences, i.e., the step or connection between
the body of premises and the conclusion which the premises are meant to support.
Having articulated all that, now I am ready to ask:
Which premise comes across as naive in what has been posted so far?

Please be as specific as possible in quoting that to which you refer.

I would specifically like to thank you for surmising that reasonings such as those in my initial post "just *might* pursuade the middle 80% of people who don't make up either the 10% hard core pro or anti gun people."

(To clarify: I would never assume that it would be possible to persuade an entire population on an issue like this. Such an assumption would not be merely naive but indeed the musing of one who is simple minded. I hesitate to project even 80% acceptance.)

What I think would be worth aiming for is something along the lines of 67% of the population of every state supporting shall-issue permit law in every state.

67% would be a respectable and adequate percentage--for in the political arena, 67% of a vote can win 100% of an election.

THAT is the point of my endeavor here, viz., to rehearse a theory of how to lay a foundation in society of 2nd Amendment support sufficiently wide and sufficiently deep to allow us to then further deepen and expand, in graduated stages, from shall-issue CCW laws on the books in every state (along with "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" laws), to uniform, nationwide CCW (no permit required)--and from there, to the repeal of judicially enshrined infringements of the right to keep and bear arms in the United States of America.

Again, thanks.

1. Aim small, miss small.
2. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
3. Slow is smooth; smooth is fast.

  • By AIM_SMALL_MISS_SMALL at 2006-09-06 21:43
  • Login or register to post comments

I understand what you mean

I understand what you mean by "argument", as being a coherent and cogent set of statements that support your premise and lead to a logical conclusion.

While you include the disclaimer:

(I include in the anti-gun crowd people who are not deeply committed but who simply don't actively support full, free exercise of the 2nd Amendment.)

your repeated use of the term "anti-gun crowd", however, leaves the impression that it is exactly those 10% of the hard-core, virulently anti-gun types you seek to convince with your argument.

If you really do mean the 67% for which there seems to exist the possibility of convincing, you should be precise, and say exactly that.

I agree with you that the vast majority of people who espouse one sort of "anti gun" sentiment or another aren't exactly "anti gun", that's just what they've come to believe, because that's what they've been spoon fed over and over and over again, all their lives. They just haven't bothered to actually stop and think about it.

Somehow, I don't think that referring to them as the "anti-gun crowd" is going to have the desired effect - much the same as would calling *us* "gun nuts" have on us.

It's not so much your *argument* that is naive, it's perhaps more your presentation and approach. While your plan is noble, and, on the face of it, a relatively workable approach, I, myself, would hesitate to call it a "Grand Strategy".

Remember, it's not just the "gun nuts" who are reading this...

  • By Nimrod45 at 2006-09-07 15:11
  • Login or register to post comments

thanks for all of the observations & suggestions

"I understand what you mean by "argument", as being a coherent and cogent set of statements that support your premise and lead to a logical conclusion."

Hm.
I guess that is a fair paraphrase.

"your repeated use of the term "anti-gun crowd", however, leaves the impression"

My aim is to write exactly what I mean rather than leave the reader the room to "read into" what I wrote.

So, to correct what you read into it: No, I am not, contrary to what you imply, seeking to convert those who might best be regarded as unconvertible. As I wrote earlier, it would be simpleminded to imagine it possible to convert anyone who is dogmatically, which is to say unthinkingly, committed to a position.

"If you really do mean the 67% for which there seems to exist the possibility of convincing, you should be precise, and say exactly that."

That is the plan. However, that level of specificity is unwarranted at this stage of my explication of the strategy.

"I agree with you that the vast majority of people who espouse one sort of "anti gun" sentiment or another aren't exactly "anti gun", that's just what they've come to believe, because that's what they've been spoon fed over and over and over again, all their lives. They just haven't bothered to actually stop and think about it."

I was once among them. Two things happened during a ten year incubation period. During that time, a close relative began to suggest the importance of exercising 2nd Amendment rights. After much reflection on (and this is the second thing) multiple experiences with face to face violent criminality, I began to explore and, over time, understand the 2nd Amendment as I currently do.

"Somehow, I don't think that referring to them as the "anti-gun crowd" is going to have the desired effect - much the same as would calling *us* "gun nuts" have on us."

Perhaps. However, I see my audience as "anti-gun" rather anti-self-defense. I know many "anti-gun" folks. None whom I know and refer to as "anti-gun" receive it as disparagement--probably because it is a purely neutral, factual, descriptive term rather than an evaluative one.

"It's not so much your *argument* that is naive, it's perhaps more your presentation and approach. While your plan is noble, and, on the face of it, a relatively workable approach, I, myself, would hesitate to call it a "Grand Strategy"."

I too have hesitated, and continue to hesitate, to call my initial entry a 'Grand Strategy'. It's simply a prolegomenon, hence my habit of calling it an "initial" entry.

"Remember, it's not just the "gun nuts" who are reading this..."

I remain mindful that this is visible to all.

1. Aim small, miss small.
2. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
3. Slow is smooth; smooth is fast.

  • By AIM_SMALL_MISS_SMALL at 2006-09-08 01:29
  • Login or register to post comments

I don't know why you bother

I don't know why you bother asking for opinions, if your mind is already made up on the subject...

This will be my final post on your website.

Good luck, you're gonna need it.

  • By Nimrod45 at 2006-09-08 21:04
  • Login or register to post comments

Your comments are always welcome.

"I don't know why you bother asking for opinions,"

I didn't ask.
I am receptive to comments, however.
But I didn't ask, per se.
And receptivity is not coterminous with passivity, so while I might hear you out and thank you for your input, I still might not find it necessary to incorporate it.
But thanks anyway.

"if your mind is already made up on the subject..."

How I articulate a thought is almost always in its final form.
If a suggested change is significant enough, I'll incorporate it.
Yours did not strike me as being significant enough.
Nothing personal.

"This will be my final post on your website."
That's o.k. too.
I hope you read my next entry.
It might change your mind about that decision.
And that would be o.k. too.

"Good luck, you're gonna need it."
We all are.
The anti-gun crowd seems to have us outnumbered for the moment--but definitely not outgunned when it comes to cognitive matters.
We understand why the 2nd Amendment exists.
Now our job is to ensure that as much of the rest of the population as possible understands.
Keep the faith.

1. Aim small, miss small.
2. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
3. Slow is smooth; smooth is fast.

  • By AIM_SMALL_MISS_SMALL at 2006-09-08 21:50
  • Login or register to post comments

My take on ASMS's post

My take on this topic over here, Boss.

I oppose permits as an ultimate goal . . . please read this.

A reader seems to have jumped to at least one invalid conclusion about CCW laws in Alaska and Vermont.

Neither Alaska nor Vermont (based on my reading of entries on Packing.org) require their law-abiding (i.e., non-felon) citizens-residents to obtain a permit prior to carrying a concealed loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense in those states.

The CCW permit in Alaska and Vermont is, then, an apparently optional legal device. (Look this up at Packing.org if you wish.)

While I oppose even a law providing for an "optional" CCW paper permit as a best FINAL position, I believe that such a law, enacted nationwide, could be a useful INTERMEDIARY step on the way to a situation in which no permit at all is needed (or even an option) anywhere in the U.S.A. for the carrying of a concealed loaded firearm for the purpose of self-defense by a law-abiding (i.e., non-felon) citizen-resident.

An "optional" permit could be abused in the same way New York City's rifle and shotgun laws of the 1960s were abused.

At the time New York City's rifle and shotgun registry laws of the 1960s were enacted, lawful rifle/shotgun owners complained that the registry could be used to confiscate the long guns at a later date if the law changed.

These same lawful long gun owners were poo-pooed as "gun nuts."

In the 1990s (I forget the exact date, but you can learn about it from a movie called "Michael and Me," which advocates the 2nd Amendment), New York City used the long gun "registry" as a convenient "long gun locator tool" aimed at lawful long gun owners for the sake of confiscating the long guns--after a 1990s law prohibiting long gun ownership within city limits was enacted!

So why do I advocate an Alaska/Vermont style "optional" permit nationwide?

Quite simply because it seems like an unavoidable intermediary step.

The final step (at the state level) is to have CCW laws in every state that unequivocally interpret the 2nd Amendment as meaning that any law-abiding U.S. citizen may carry a concealed loaded firearm for the sake of self-defense (under the usual conditions: not adjudicated to be insane/drug-addicted, not a felon, not "defending" himself or anyone else during the planning or commission of a crime, etc.).

But we either have to have state laws that interpret the 2nd Amendment or we launch a campaign to pass another amendment to make the 2nd amendment say exactly what we want it to say.

As it stands right now there is so much ambiguity to the 2nd Amendment, in the eyes of those we have chosen to interpret it, that it is treated as NOT recognizing the right to carry a concealed loaded firearm.

We need to aim for an intermediary goal.

Pushing for immediate recognition of philosophically pure firearms rights, without first taking the intermediary legislative step of creating state-level permit-less "permission" for CCW is bound to fail (at least in the real world)--for reasons that I will explicate in a later entry.

People won't buy it (and I'm referring to anti-gun folks--see definition thereof in my first blog entry).

We need to aim for an intermediary goal: shall-issue Alaska/Vermont style ("optional" permit) laws in every state, so that legal concealed carry does not "require" a permit (but a permit can be applied for and obtained on a shall-issue basis provided that all the requirements are met).

In a later entry I will articulate in more detail why an intermediary step must be taken.

1. Aim small, miss small.
2. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
3. Slow is smooth; smooth is fast.

  • By AIM_SMALL_MISS_SMALL at 2006-09-16 20:50
  • Login or register to post comments

The right direction!

You've really got the right idea there. The key to preserving our rights long-term is not in rallying the same people again and again. We have to expand our constituency. You're half-way there and I'd like to run on at the mouth a bit about exactly how to do that.

In order to do that you MUST disentangle the NRA and the face of gun culture from the Republican Party and from other conservative issues. As a Democrat I've been fighting a constant battle to win converts from the left. And I've had a lot of success. Democrats and liberals are very much willing to support the Second Amendment when it is explained to them politely.

The problem is that most gun enthusiasts do not do so politiely. They become aggressive, rude and partisan. Creating a situation where liberals won't support gun rights out of a sense of partisanship and ego rather than any philosophical conviction. There's actually nothing in liberal philosophy that is in opposition to gun ownership.

If the NRA is to be our primary tool of group action (yes, I am a member), then they have got to get better about supporting pro-gun Democrats. If the policies we want depend on pure partisanship then we always have a 50/50 chance of losing in any given election cycle. The thing is that when we lose we very rarely get that right back later. Cut something in half every 4 or 8 years and it doesn't take long before there's not much left. Does anyone really think that the GOP will have a monopoly hold on federal power forever? The strategy of aligning gun rights consistently with the GOP is a strategy that can never win but only delay defeat.

Shower pro-gun Democrats with support. If the Democrats win the House in November then Nancy Pelosi will want to start looking at more gun control. The key to cutting her legs out from under her is ensuring that there are enough members of her own caucus who will withhold support and kill those bills. If she has a 2 seat majority and there are 10 new pro-gun Democrats in the House then she's pretty well screwed. We can create a situation where even the anti-gun leaders in the Democratic party are unable to move on the issue and gun control proposals eventually become a thing of the past no matter which party is in control.

The case that I usually hear against this approach is that those pro-gun Democrats will also vote in support of liberal issues like gay rights or checks and balances on federal power (heh heh, couldn't help that one). Which only illustrates the fundamental problem we have where so-called 2nd Amendment supports are effectively holding our future hostage for the sake of their other partisan demands.

For advice on how to win liberal converts I suggest a blog entry that I wrote on the matter at http://rule-303.blogspot.com/2006/07/excessive-gun-control-is-inconsistent.html

  • By Jackson Landers at 2006-09-20 11:56
  • Login or register to post comments

more Libertarian than Republican, but NOT a "Democrat"

While I am more of a Libertarian than a Republican, I usually throw my vote where it won't be wasted (i.e., to the Republicans).

I AM glad, however, that someone sees that we pro-2nd Amendment folks need to stop preaching to the choir, get off our butts, and actually win the hearts and minds of the
"I hate/fear/know-nothing-about-guns" crowd.

In an upcoming entry, I'll elaborate some ideas about how to approach this explosive topic and touchy task.

Parting thoughts courtesy of Ronald Reagan:

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."

"Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

"Of the four wars in my lifetime none came about because the U.S. was too strong."

1. Aim small, miss small.
2. Speed is fine, but accuracy is final.
3. Slow is smooth; smooth is fast.

  • By AIM_SMALL_MISS_SMALL at 2008-04-29 00:10
  • Login or register to post comments