Don't Let Gun Rights Haters Intimidate You

Terry Rumsey and Robin Lasersohn of Delaware County United For a Sensible Gun Policy [sic] telling us what they really want to do with guns.

I can hear many gun owners laughing saying “I not afraid of those gunless and gutless morons”, but it's not physical intimidation I'm talking about. Think about it. They can't use force to shut us up but many of us are intimidated into silence by their rhetoric.

A prime example came from Pres. Obama during CNN's “Guns in America”. They went to great lengths to mock those concerned that the government might one day try to disarm us. Why do this? Because they want to bury the fact that they've long been saying that they do indeed want to disarm us. (See here, here, here, here and here.) True that they aren't going to require turning in guns nor are they sending out SWAT teams to take guns from people but they are trying to implement an incremental disarmament strategy. Obama said he wants to “make progress” and “incrementally make things better” with his anti-gun rights diktats. He was talking about gradually disarming us. It is discussion of this strategy that they want to intimidate us out of.

Ayn Rand referred to it as the argument from intimidation. Here's how she summed it up:

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. “Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?” And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: “I am,”—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: “Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!” “Really.” “But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!” “I don’t.” “Oh, come now!” “Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!” “Will you tell me the reasons?” “Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

In order to fool gun owners into accepting background checks and restrictions on the ownership, transfer, and transportation of guns they have to hide the real purpose of these measures. It's not about safety, Obama admitted they won't reduce crime during the clown show on CNN. To repeat, it's about gradually disarming us.

To restore our rights we're going to have to be mentally tough enough to stand up to gun rights haters. What Ludwig Von Mises wrote about economics applies to guns:

The enemy is not refuted: enough to unmask him as a bourgeois. Marxism criticizes the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person. Few have been able to withstand such tactics. Few indeed have been courageous enough to oppose Socialism with that remorseless criticism which it is the duty of the scientific thinker to apply to every subject of inquiry.

The answer is clear, since they want to bury the idea of incremental disarmament we have to have the courage to shout it from the roof tops. Bring it up anytime gun control is discussed. Whether it's in comments to online articles, letters to the editor, or opinion columns, bring up incremental disarmament. In online forums, bring up incremental disarmament. In face to face conversations, bring up incremental disarmament. In videos and television interviews, bring up incremental disarmament. Our gun rights and, therefore, our lives depend on it. Once again Ayn Rand:

How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.

When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy's sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one's sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone's approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one's own.

The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy's moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said: "If this be treason, make the most of it."

Obixon

This article was originally published at the Nolan Chart on November 2, 2008. With Obama now ramping the Iraq war back up by sending 1500 more troops there I'm republishing this article on this blog.

Many have said that there isn’t much difference between Sens. McCain and Obama and taken to calling them McBama. I’d like to offer a prediction about how things will go under the next President, who at this point looks like it will be Sen. Obama, and suggest that there will be a strong parallel with Pres. Richard Nixon’s administration, hence the name Obixon.

In 1968 while campaigning Nixon said he would “end the war and win the peace in Vietnam.” After posturing as a peace candidate he went on to escalate the war in many ways, not concluding it until 1973. During the five years that the war continued under his administration Nixon ordered stepped up bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia, and ground attacks into Cambodia and Laos. In this author’s opinion there is no other conclusion to come to but that Nixon lied during his campaign and had no intention of ending the Vietnam War quickly.

In 2008 Sen. Obama is running as a peace candidate, promising to end the war in Iraq in sixteen months or perhaps less. His website states, “Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: successfully ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased.” More can be read on the subject here,[link edited for length]

Perhaps he will end the war in Iraq quickly, but with history as a guide there’s little reason for optimism. Just like in Vietnam, the local forces the US is supporting in Iraq are doing poorly, the political and economic situations are unstable, and the enemy is committed to a long war of attrition. No doubt there will be surprises from Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents that Pres. Obama will have to deal with. Pres. Bush has already escalated the war by attacking into Pakistan and Syria. No doubt Pres. Obama will do the same. As pressure to end the war increases his administration will become more aggressive, hoping that will defeat the enemy. If Pakistan becomes unstable or is taken over by an anti-American regime how else will an Obama administration react but violently?

Therein lies the parallel with the Nixon administration. The peace promises mean nothing. Guerrilla wars such as these carry their own momentum that no administration committed to maintaining the American empire can overcome. As Ayn Rand said, “There is no proper solution for the war in Vietnam, it is a war we should never have entered. We are caught in a trap: it is senseless to continue, and it is now impossible to withdraw”. So it now seems the political class views the occupation of Iraq.

The only way out is to renounce foreign intervention and begin bringing home all American troops and intelligence operatives from around the world. This way we will not be seen as having been defeated, but as having learned to live at peace with the world. Unfortunately, Sen. Obama doesn’t see things this way. We’re in for a long war.

**********************************

Feb. 8, 2009 update: Associated Press published an article entitled “Obama considering at least 2 Iraq withdrawal plans”. To quote from the article, “At the White House’s request, top military officials recently offered an assessment of the risks associated with the 16-, 19- and 23-month withdrawal timetables, without saying which is preferred. Obama’s top two defense advisers, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, have not yet provided a formal recommendation to the president on a timetable, an official said.” Is Obama backing away from his campaign promise to end the war quickly? It would seem so.

May 11, 2009 update: Andrew Bacevich said on Democracy Now! “…I think its worth noting the comment that General Odierno in Iraq made over the weekend at a press conference. I think the question was something to the effect that, ‘Hey, how about the continuation of violence in Baghdad after the success of the surge?’ And Odierno, I think rather petulantly, said, ‘Hey, look. This insurgency is going to go on for another five, ten or fifteen years.’ I agree with that assessment in Iraq.”

Sept. 1, 2009 update: Looks like the same comparison is now being used about Afghanistan. Gene Healy wrote “Afghanistan may be Obama’s Vietnam”.

January 26, 2010 update: Ivan Eland is predicting a restarting of the fighting in Iraq in “The Next Crisis for Obama?“.

July 5, 2011 update: Ivan Eland compares Obama & Nixon, “Like Nixon, Obama Will Waste Lives to Get Reelected“