Giving up the high ground?

[Aguila Blanca]

Has anyone here seen this poll & discussion on The High Road (.us) site?

http://www.thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=416257

I have to say, I am thoroughly dismayed, disappointed, disturbed and disgusted to see so many people who supposedly support the RKBA who don't even have the intellectual honesty (or fortitude) to acknowledge that when the Constitution guarantees us the right to keep and bear "arms," "arms" means "weapons."

I just don't get it. Why do we allow the antis to back us into the corner of pretending that our Constitutionally-protected arms aren't weapons? How does that in any way help us over the long term?

[Rich-D]

People are easily led and many times fooled!

[Rich-D]

I posted this on THR.us:

A baseball bat was not designed to be a weapon, like many other objects it becomes a weapon if utilized to assault or defend. A firearm was designed to be a weapon and retains that title even when NIB.

If an LEO asks the question, do you have any weapons in the vehicle. You cannot rely on the fact that you only utilize a .17 cal for punching holes in paper targets and respond with a NO!

Dictionary.com
fire⋅arm  /ˈfaɪərˌɑrm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fahyuhr-ahrm] Show IPA
–noun a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

Mirriam-Webster.com
Main Entry: fire·arm
Pronunciation: \ˈfī(-ə)r-ˌärm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

thefreedictionary.com
fire·arm (frärm)
n.
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

We can not change the English language to suit our own personal beliefs.

Best of Luck!
Rich-D

[Patriotic]

Let me provide something from my perspective. If I have a hammer and am driving nails with it, it is not a weapon. If I take that same hammer and use it to harm, injure or threaten someone or to kill an animal, it is a weapon. If I have a hunting knife on my belt, a pocket knife in my pocket or a pistol in a holster on my belt, it is just that and not a weapon until I make the intent to use it as one. I believe “to bear arms” is specific to the use of a weapon and RKBA is the Constitutional right to use a weapon for defense.

I think the main concensus of the 2A is that it pertains only to firearms but the wording is not that specific and maybe the reason the founding fathers wrote it as they did. My feeling is that the wording is such that RKBA means weapons, items used for the purpose of defending self, family, property, state, country etc. that can be done with other items not intended to be weapons but can be, although not as efficient as a firearm.

I think we have all heard the terms “police armed with a search warrant…” or “men armed with baseball bats…” or “ so in so armed with the knowledge of…” I think “armed” indicates a specific purpose for the object which can indeed be a firearm with the intent of it being a weapon.

So does it really hurt our cause to refer to a firearm as a firearm and not a weapon? Do law abiding citizens own and carry firearms or do they carry weapons with intent to injure or harm another? I think our laws pretty much determine the intent.

I fully support the 2A and our RKBA and to the right to self defense by using a firearm as a weapon.

Hey AB, you must have been in the Army around the time I was, late 60s? “This is my rifle this is my gun….” Fort Benning?

[Martin32]

My opinion on this, if you want to know, is that the definition of the word "weapon" as "a tool used to apply force for the purpose of causing harm or damage to persons, animals or structures" is basically wrong.

My definition, as I think it properly should be, is "anything used for defense or attack", which could be interpreted also as "anything, that is used for defense or attack, is a weapon" (so no matter what it is, when it's not currently used for defense or attack, it's not a weapon - it becomes a weapon when it is used for defense or attack). That as a definition is good enough, and it doesn't matter whether the defense or attack is physical or psychical, and what is the target, because there are other definitions and laws for that. Also weapon doesn't neccesarily have to cause harm to take effect. And it doesn't even have to be a physical object, but also the mind or speech. A good argument can be used for defense, therefore it fulfils my definition of weapon, but it doesn't really cause harm. Or weapon can be effective for defense as a deterrent, so no physical harm is present, it's consequence is fear which someone might interpret as psychical harm. I'll leave that for others to decide, because I'm not absolutely sure if a fear from deterrent ONLY used for DEFENSE is really a (psychical) harm, but I rather think it's not.

It is absolutely certain, that the arms in the 2nd amendment mean weapons. It is not more closely specified what kinds of weapons, so then it may only mean any kind of weapons (probably WMDs don't fall in this category, but i bet founding fathers didn't know them, and nobody sane will carry concealed WMD, and insane one will do it anyways, no matter what the law is, so law prohibithing personal use of WMDs can't possibly oppress anybody sane. That kind of thing is a government issue and that way it should remain).

I reject the dividing of weapons to "offensive" and "defensive". Any weapon intended for attack can be also used for defense, and vice versa, and by the way, we have here a saying "attack is the best defense".
I'm now refering to the UK's "Offensive weapons ACT", which states "any item made or adapted for use in causing harm to a person is illegal to carry". Note especially the word "adapted".
We all know that screwdriver for instance was unexpectedly made to drive screws, but anybody can adapt it to an item for causing harm to person only by thinking of using it such way, so that act actually makes it illegal to carry a screwdriver, and if policeman stripsearch you (which I belive he can there in UK), it's then up to you to prove that you're not intending to cause harm with it.

Some might say that this act actually doesn't prohibit carrying of anything, only prohibits using it to cause harm, but the in practise it doesn't work that way, and presumption of guiltiness is preferred here over the presumption of innocence.


Unfortunately these currently used definitions are by far not the only ones that are set completely wrong.

[Aguila Blanca]

I think we could debate the dictionary definition(s) of "weapon" all month without arriving at a consensus, but doing so sort of misses the point of my post. What I'm getting at is that, by even entering into a debate over whether or not a firearm (or a knife, for that matter) is or is not a weapon if the owner does not intend to use it against another human being, we are playing right into the hands of the anti-gun faction. It is this that allows them to divide gun owners into hunters, trap shooters, bullseye shooters ... and the rest of us. It is allowing this discussion to take place at all that will allow the anti-gunners to come after those who keep and bear arms for self defense, by placating the hunters and target shooters with soothing words about not targeting "legitimate sporting arms."

And then incrementally tightening the definition of what constitutes a "legitimate sporting arm" until the only thing left (if we're lucky) is a single shot, bolt action .22 rifle. (And even those are illegal in England today.)

Divide and conquer. It's an effective strategy, and it has been working for the antis. I am just dismayed because THR.US is supposed to be a pro-2nd Amendment site, and yet it seems over half the members who bothered to respond to the poll are unwilling to man up and admit that a firearm IS a weapon, regardless of whether I bought it to resist an armed invasion of zombies or to eliminate groundhogs in my garden or just to punch holes in pieces of paper.

In short, this proves to me that the antis have already won the battle to control the terminology. We are obviously in retreat ... and more than half of us don't even recognize that they have been (in street lingo) "pwned."

[Martin32]

So if we stick with current definition (which I still believe is wrong) that weapon is something used for harm ...
I though that having a firearm for self defense is not having it for causing harm, because self defense is not causing a harm. It's repelling the attack, it is a resistance against the agressor, protecting your or someone elses health, life and property. That can't be possibly seen as causing harm. Only pseudohumanists who'd rather give the thug a free way to go than defend themselves see it like that, but that way of thinking is not rational.
What we need to do is to prove that defending yourselves is something not to be though as crime, and thus the means used for self defense are not used for crime, and keeping and bearing them is not crime either, so there is no way they can be banned, because
a) there is no reason for it
b) the relationship "law-gun-felon" is pretty much known to everybody so I don't need to repeat it

[Frank]

Kathy Jackson (pax and co-author of Lessons From Armed America) posted this in a similar thread on TFL (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=395870) Actually, the whole argument really highlights why it's the "good girls" who get pregnant in high school (the bad girls plan to have sex, and are on the pill) and why it's the "good boys" who knock them up (the bad boys plan to have sex, and have condoms in their wallets).

It's also why MacGyver was a good guy even though he regularly blew his enemies to smithereens using cobbled-together field expedients. Heaven forbid that he had instead actually come prepared to do the job he fully intended to do!

It's why audiences feel terribly disappointed if the movie heroine resorts to -- gasp! -- carrying a firearm to protect herself when she knows she'll be facing extreme personal danger. They'd rather see a cute little 90-pound blonde wandering stupidly into trouble, or traipsing merrily into it, unarmed and unprepared, than to cheer her on for intelligent planning and foresight.

Lesson: stupidity is always popular in the movie theater, intelligent planning notsomuch.

But back in the real world, it's why good citizens say utterly stupid things following an otherwise completely-justifiable act of self-defense ("the gun just went off!" "I didn't mean to shoot him!" "It was an accident!") -- statements that can & will get them in serious legal trouble because an accidental shooting is not legally or morally defensible, but a deliberate act of self-defense is. But people mess up the Hollywood lie that planning ahead is evil, while schlepping stupidly into danger is just what good people do.

All of that is an aside, appropos of nothing and utterly opaque to people who reject even the dictionary definitions of words in favor of their own emotional reactions. (The next time I hear that gun people "aren't emotional," I'm going to laugh in the speaker's face.)

Meanwhile, I stick with my first and most important contention: there is nothing wrong with planning to defend yourself effectively if someone tries to kill you. There is nothing wrong with being prepared to do that. There is nothing wrong with learning how to do it and there is nothing wrong with owning the tools to do it.

Pretending really, really hard that the guns we keep on the nightstand to defend our homes, or that the pistols we keep in our holsters to protect ourselves and our families, aren't actually intended for such a task is self-defeating. Any kindergartener could see right through such transparent denial, so clinging to it is a waste of time anyway. Any adult capable of defending himself should also be able to man up and admit that the actual and intended purpose of his defense firearm is -- to defend himself.

All the word-twisting in the world doesn't erase that....

Glenn E. Meyer in post 114 in the same thread on TFL posted this This one of the stupidest arguments out there to be perfectly blunt. It brings out internet experts without expertise who just like to argue points for the fun of it. It also is an incredibly dangerous argument for the RKBA.

1. Guns were developed as instruments of lethal force (to avoid the idiotic angels dancing on the head of pin fans).

2. They were used on people and then animals as instruments of lethal force.

3. The sports usage are directly or evolved from practice in using them as instruments of lethal force.

4. The RKBA is not to protect sporting events. It is maintain a resevoir of lethal force in the citizenry for self-protection, protecting the country from external enemies and the protection of freedom from tyranny.

Bowling balls are not protected. Guns are because they are instrumentsl of lethal force.

Guns are too dangerous not to regulated if their sole use was sport.

The sport argument was made to protect guns in the UK and Australia. No one bought it and it failed drammatically.

5. Since I am a professionally trained expert in this kind of material, I know a plethora of scholarship on gun attitudes by the vast majority of folks, not internet self-proclaimed linguists or psychologists. It is clear that guns are seen as instruments of violence and lethal force.

If you make an argument based on questionable semantics, like I can stick a pencil in your ear - you would laughed at as an idiot.

The only defense of the RKBA is that they are instruments of lethal force. If serveral thousand folks killed themselves each year with a bowling bowl - I would ban them.

Geez. Listen, trying to convince folks that guns are not weapons to hope someone will be convinced and let you keep your guns NEVER will work and has failed.

And then Kathy posted this at post 129 But that's the problem, not the solution. By surrendering the proper use of the language, you are also tacitly conceding the point these people are trying to make. They believe that there is no justifiable reason for people like you or people like me to own (gasp!!!) weapons. So you shift the language and pretend your firearm isn't a weapon. But that is exactly the point of disagreement between you and them, and when you shift ground, you give away your best territory.

There is nothing wrong with ordinary people like you and me owning weapons. Nothing! Not a darn thing.

When anti-gun people get the vapors about us having "weapons," they are grasping, exactly and intuitively, the point that so many in this thread are shying away from: owning firearms gives ordinary people the physical ability to defend themselves against other people and against military force. That's exactly why they are protected under the 2nd Amendment, not for any other reason.

Our Founders recognized this when they adopted the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting. It isn't about "sporting purposes." It isn't about sports or games. It isn't even about winning the Olympics and bringing home a shiny little medal so your fellow citizens can cheer about what a great country this is. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting the right of ordinary people to own weapons -- arms, instruments of war, instruments or devices used in offense or defense against other living beings. It isn't about protecting your right to own tools or toys. It is expressly about your right to own weapons.

Shy away from that, and you have no Constitutionally-established right to own firearms at all, and precious little moral ground to stand on either when you splutter that you want to own one so it should be allowed under the law. After all, if you don't have the right to own a tool designed for the express purpose of defending your very life, what moral right could you possibly have to own a mere toy that disturbs others or causes them to fear for their own safety?

Give up the moral high ground here -- that it is just and right that ordinary people always be allowed to possess the necessary devices to defend themselves -- and you're left with no rational argument for protecting firearms ownership in the first place. After all, if lawn darts could be banned as a danger to the public, why not firearms?

I think both of them are spot on.

[Patriotic]

Boy, do I feel like the odd man out here. When I purchased my first pistol, I never intended it for self defense. I always enjoyed shooting since I was a boy; it was a skill I enjoyed. My stepfather and I would go out in the winter and I would shoot spent shotgun shells on a frozen lake with a .22. I enjoyed doing that. Even as a young man I enjoyed competing in rifle and pistol matches but the intent was not to hone my skills to shoot humans. I don’t hunt but should the need arise I could. When I entered the military, my skill took on a whole new meaning; it was a matter of survival. I qualified Expert with rifle and Sharpshooter with pistol which gave me the incentive to work toward Expert in pistol also which I did achieve later. I competed in shooting matches in the military which I enjoyed but the intent was to do the best in marksmanship. With that being said and years of experience with the bad side of life, I can use my skill to defend myself. I am neither a LEO nor a hunter but I enjoy the challenge of sending a hunk of lead down range and hitting a target I am aiming for. I do keep my 1911, cocked and locked, in the nightstand just in case there is a threat to myself or my family. I do have a CCW license and will carry when I feel there may be a threat to my safety but I point out that self defense was not the primary reason for me learning to shoot and only developed out of necessity.

I think of Bernie Goetz in NYC who was mugged a number of times before he went out and bought a pistol and numbers of others who did the same to protect themselves. Maybe I am just one of the few who likes shooting for the sake of shooting, the challenge of being very good at that but can also be used to defend myself as a secondary option.

[Aguila Blanca]

I do have a CCW license and will carry when I feel there may be a threat to my safety but I point out that self defense was not the primary reason for me learning to shoot and only developed out of necessity.
I like nice tools. I own a couple of the old Estwing hammers, the ones with the stacked leather washers for the handle. I bought them new because I like them, and I have never used either for driving even a single nail because I keep other, less expensive hammers for doing work.

By your definition, then, since I bought the hammers with no intention of ever using them as hammers, and I have not done so, they are not hammers.

If I go to one of those fantasy knife sites on the Internet and order a set of Samurai swords to hang over my fireplace ... because they are displayed rather than used to fight off the roving bands of mutant Ninja turtles, does that mean they are not weapons?

My point is the same as Pax brought out in the articles Frank quoted: By allowing the antis to control the language, we allow them to control the argument. Guns are weapons. Pretending they are anything else is stupid and self-defeating. Particularly, any handgun you might choose to carry is certainly a weapon, even if you never have to use it as such. If it isn't a "weapon of self-defense," why would you carry it? I know some Marines who never deployed outside of the United States, and never fired their issue rifle at another human being. How far would they have gotten in Boot Camp if they had tried to tell the drill instructor that long stick with the hole in the end wasn't a "weapon"?

[Patriotic]

AB, by your own analogy, if you carry your hammer to defend yourself, it is a weapon otherwise it is a hammer. The Samurai sword is a sword unless you intend to use it as a weapon and yes, when I carry my 1911 for self defense it is a weapon but when I take it to the range it is a target pistol. I didn’t become proficient with a firearm to use it as a weapon but it surely can be used as such.

I seem to feel that it is better to desensitize the public on firearms so they don’t think of them as strictly weapons to harm or kill. Having that negative connotation makes people afraid and wanting to dispel that fear by eliminating them. People who have experienced violent crime tend to look for a means to protect themselves and look for some type of weapon, maybe even a baseball bat but yet we let our kids play baseball and never consider that baseball bats have been used as deadly weapons. I tend to look at “weapons” in terms of an object being used in the context of combat with another human being. A rifle used for hunting deer is a deer rifle but certainly can be used as a weapon as your Estwing hammers could be used as a weapon.

[Frank]

As I said on TFL I can not believe how hard folks are willing to work to keep guns from being called weapons -- notwithstanding what dictionaries say. Is it really that bad to have a weapon? Are folks embarrassed to have weapons in the house? ...

[Aguila Blanca]

AB, by your own analogy, if you carry your hammer to defend yourself, it is a weapon otherwise it is a hammer. The Samurai sword is a sword unless you intend to use it as a weapon and yes, when I carry my 1911 for self defense it is a weapon but when I take it to the range it is a target pistol. I didn’t become proficient with a firearm to use it as a weapon but it surely can be used as such.
I said nothing about using a hammer as a weapon. You said that a firearm is not a weapon unless/until it is used as one. The hammer was to show you the flaw in that analogy. Hammers were invented to pound things. If a gun isn't a weapon unless it is used to shoot someone, then a striking tool isn't a hammer unless it is being used to drive nails. Since I have never used my Estwings to drive nails, by your logic they are not hammers. What, then, should I call them? It's a hammer, whether I have ever used it to drive a nail or not. If I was showing you my workshop and you saw the Estwings on the wall, you'd say "Hey, nice hammers."

Firearms were invented to kill things. Initially, they were invented to kill people, but it became immediately obvious that they were also useful for putting food on the table. They are weapons. The primary (in fact, the sole) use for which the firearm was invented was to kill. The fact that some people use them only to kill defenseless pieces of paper cannot alter that.

You are a perfect example of what Pax talked about in her article, and the reason I started this thread. You are afraid to acknowledge publicly that your gun is a weapon, because you somehow feel that stigmatizes you and that by avoiding the truth you can somehow "desensitize" people to guns' weaponess. I have news for you -- you cannot desensitize anyone to anything by keeping them away from whatever it is you wish to desensitize against. Desensitization occurs through repeated exposure in increasing intensity over a protracted period of time, and no other way. That's a primary argument of those who advocate open carry. If we keep guns a dirty little secret, anyone who sees a gun will be traumatized because they have just confronted evil incarnate. But the same people don't freak out if a patrolman walks into McDonalds for lunch with a pistol on his duty belt. Desensitization will occur when more of us "civilians" wear our weapons openly and allow the world to see that there is nothing inherently evil about an honest man (or woman) carrying a weapon for the purpose of being able to defend himself/herself.

[Patriotic]

AB, agreed, you never said anything about using your hammer as a weapon but it could be used as such. If I walked into your workshop and saw your Estwing hammers I would indeed comment “nice hammers”. Likewise if I were to see your 1911 pistol lying on a table, I would say “nice pistol” you have there. Would a pistol without a firing pin or a spiked barrel be considered a weapon? Could be but not in the context of a fully operational pistol. What I am getting at is that people should not be afraid of guns, they are tools, they should be more afraid of the intent or mental state of the person having the gun.

Take for example your statement:
”But the same people don't freak out if a patrolman walks into McDonalds for lunch with a pistol on his duty belt.”

In this case you used the terminology “pistol” and not “weapon”. Is that because being a police officer removes the threat of his pistol being used as a weapon? Shouldn’t the same be said about a law abiding citizen with a pistol strapped to his belt?

I remember some years ago at a local university, there was a big flap over the campus police carrying “weapons” and patrol cars marked as Campus Police. It was decided that “weapons” and the term “Campus Police” was detrimental to the atmosphere at the university. The campus police force was disarmed and patrol cars re-labeled “Public Safety”; that was until violent crime and rape rose on campus. Today the campus police or I should say campus security, carry “guns” but not “weapons” which seems to be more agreeable to the university community.

I agree with your next statement:
“Desensitization will occur when more of us "civilians" wear our weapons openly and allow the world to see that there is nothing inherently evil about an honest man (or woman) carrying a weapon for the purpose of being able to defend himself/herself.”

I would only change the word “weapon” to “pistol” because I feel the term “weapon” has a more negative connotation than “pistol” in many people’s eyes. I am sure you have seen the statement that “guns don’t kill people only people kill people”, well this could also be stated as “guns don’t kill people only weapons kill people.”

We differ on terminology but not on substance. As you, I feel it is important for “civilians” to wear their guns openly to illustrate there is nothing inherently evil about an honest man or woman carrying a gun for the purpose of being able to defend themselves by using it as a weapon should the need arise.

[R.D.Wylie]

If you look at some of the laws they don't consider black powder either flint lock
or percussion cap to be weapons due to the fact that they to long to load call and
ask the local LEO'S if you carry one if they consider unlawful carring.IF they don't
consider them weapons,then what where our FOREFATHERS CALLED ARMS IT'S
ALL IN THE WORDING!!! :butthead:

[R.D.Wylie]

I guess that cordless BLACK & DECKER drill warrants me to be on the FBI 'S
most wanted list.Let's just rid of the POLITICANS and just start over from scratch
and we can pick and choose who we want depending on their mind set.It would be
truly nice then all we would have to do is worry about what the other guy is doing
and we all know that is!!!!

[Bea Dogworthy]

Kathy Jackson (pax and co-author of Lessons From Armed America) posted this in a similar thread on TFL (http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=395870)

Glenn E. Meyer in post 114 in the same thread on TFL posted this

And then Kathy posted this at post 129

I think both of them are spot on.
Yup! They nailed it!
-Bea

[Bea Dogworthy]

I posted this on THR.us:

A baseball bat was not designed to be a weapon, like many other objects it becomes a weapon if utilized to assault or defend. A firearm was designed to be a weapon and retains that title even when NIB.

If an LEO asks the question, do you have any weapons in the vehicle. You cannot rely on the fact that you only utilize a .17 cal for punching holes in paper targets and respond with a NO!

Dictionary.com
fire⋅arm  /ˈfaɪərˌɑrm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fahyuhr-ahrm] Show IPA
–noun a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

Mirriam-Webster.com
Main Entry: fire·arm
Pronunciation: \ˈfī(-ə)r-ˌärm\
Function: noun
Date: 1646
: a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder —usually used of small arms

thefreedictionary.com
fire·arm (frärm)
n.
A weapon, especially a pistol or rifle, capable of firing a projectile and using an explosive charge as a propellant.

We can not change the English language to suit our own personal beliefs.

Best of Luck!
Rich-D
I bet the same patrolman would never believe me if I told him I was using the bullets in my gun to drive nails either even if I could shoot it well enough to do so! "Oh no officer. It isn't a gun, it's a more of a nail gun really. A mechanized hammer if you will. I have arthritis and it is difficult for me to pound nails any other way...I also sometimes use it to drill holes so I guess you could call it a drill if you'd rather."
-Bea

[Patriotic]

Going back to the LEO asking you if you had any “weapons” in your vehicle: if you have a firearm you would answer yes but what if you had a hammer under the seat or a screwdriver kept for self-defense? What about a pellet gun or air rifle? If I have my gun on my nightstand it is intended to be there for self-defense and certainly a weapon just as a hammer on the night stand or a meat cleaver are weapons due to their “intended” use but when I pack up my guns and go to the shooting range I surely don’t intend them to be used as weapons. Can they be used as a weapon, assuredly yes but that is not my intended usage.