Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Taking back the Second Amendment? From whom? 'Great' Britain?

I need to thank Keep and Bear Arms for finding this "progressive" strategy (pdf) for "taking back the Second Amendment." The strategy was put together by Third Way, who seem to want to present themselves as "moderately progressive" (or maybe "progressively moderate") Democrats.

The Policy: Supporting Second Amendment rights, closing gun law loopholes that terrorists and criminals can exploit, fixing the broken background check system, and reversing the Bush gun crime policy by vigorously enforcing the major federal gun laws on the books.
Hmm--I'm not finding much difference (hell--any difference) between that policy, and what the Brady Bunch advocates.

A major part of the gist of the strategy seems to be a single word substitution:
Step 3: Redefine the Issue from Gun Control to Gun Safety

Gun control has become a loaded term that leads voters to believe that the candidate supports the most restrictive laws, including a ban on handguns. Voters don’t define enforcement of existing gun laws or closing the gun show loophole as gun control — neither should candidates.

“By a margin of 70-20% (77-13% among gun owners), voters prefer a Democratic candidate who supports gun safety over a candidate who supports gun control.”
Don't get me wrong--I'm 100% in favor of "gun safety," myself. The problem is that there is exactly ZERO difference between mandating "gun safety" legislatively, and imposing "gun control" (which I prefer to call by its much more accurate description: citizen disarmament).

There's more, such as "enforce existing gun laws" (hey, where else have I heard that?), but you get the idea. I don't suppose I should be surprised by "Third Way's" positions--they refer to Obama as--get this--"a moderate in moderate's clothing" ("Obamism?").

The strategy's last point is "Implement Your Gun Plan and Watch the Gun Votes Roll In."

I'd like to be able to say that I know that gun owners aren't nearly that gullible.

I'd like to.


Bitmap said...

Here are some word substitutions:

"reasonable controls" -> ban all guns

"child proof guns" -> guns that are so complex that they won't work when you need them to

"assault weapon" -> any gun

"Saturday Night Special" -> any handgun

"close the gun-show loophole" -> ban the private sale of private property

"support the Second Amendment rights of hunters" -> allow rich, well-connected Fudds to take their $4000 shotguns out of the federal storage facility long enough to shoot some farm raised quail

Anonymous said...

Actually, if the switch it to "gun safety" we have them. Then we can play up that safey comes from education and familiarity. Just like with sex ed. Teach them all about it at an early age and instant safety (and there are DOJ and CDC stat to back that up). And who better to teach safety than NRA, GOA, Cal Rifle & Pistol Assn., Pink Pistols, et al?

Can you say Law of Uninteded Consequences?

And bitmap has a good point, we ve let them define the terms of the debate.

Here are some of our own:

Assault weapon = personal protection rifle.

Saturday night special = self protection for the disadvantaged

reasonable controls = restriction of civil rights

Joe in CA

Thirdpower said...

"ThirdWay" is the think-tank that the Americans for Gun Safety front group folded into after it collapsed.

Telling. Isn't it?

Kurt '45superman' Hofmann said...

"ThirdWay" is the think-tank that the Americans for Gun Safety front group folded into after it collapsed.

You know--I think I'd known that at one time, but had forgotten. Thanks.