Where Is Your 2nd Amendment God Now?

I come down on the “pro life” side of the abortion issue*. I realize that is a shocking revelation to you all, knowing that a) I lean conservative and b) I’ve been pretty open about my faith here. However, I hope you’ll overcome your surprise and bear with me here for a sec.. this isn’t going to be a post on the merits/problems of abortion, it’s a post on how the two sides talk (or rather, don’t talk) to each other.

One thing that annoys me is how we Christians prepare ourselves to talk about this issue: We load up on Bible verses which defend our point of view and then are shocked, SHOCKED that they’re not a persuasive argument in the debate with people on the other side of this issue from us who don’t believe in God. Bible verses supporting the pro-life side work GREAT with us evangelicals, but they’re not that useful when debating abortion with an atheist.

Similarly, we gun owners can say “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!” and wrap ourselves around the Constitution, but if we’re debating gun rights with someone who thinks the Constitution is an outdated, antiquated document that has little to no importance to today’s world, those arguments are pretty much useless.

We need to develop good arguments for gun ownership that are based on the principles of the Second Amendment, but don’t quote it directly. People are scared, and they’re scared of what guns can do in the wrong hands. This is a very real and very healthy fear… heck, I have that same fear. Rather than relying on some politician to pass a law that will make the scary things go away (good luck with that…), I chose to do something about it by doing what it takes to not be a victim of violence.

Everyone wants to FEEL safe, the question is, what are you willing to do in order to BE safe? Not someone else’s doing, not a legislator, not gun owners, not the NRA… you. You are, and always will be, your own first responder.

Deal with it.


* Don’t even bother arguing abortion in the comments: I’ll delete your comment right away, because that’s how I roll.

This Post Has 7 Comments

  1. I think what you’re asking for is a way to explain the Constitution and 2A without mentioning it? You’re trying to get the person to agree with you on things. Maybe you don’t agree on 100%, but maybe you believe 75% of the same things. Be inclusive not decisive.

    You’d have to start talking about Rights, and where they come from, leaving out God and the Constitution. “One has the Right to not be killed, correct? From where did we gain this Right? Let’s say it’s a natural Right that all people have, Okay?
    Then, once that’s settled, and hopefully it will be easy to do so, you build on that, not mentioning guns or killing; trying to add self defense. “Next, do we have the Right to stop someone from killing us? Let’s call this the Right of Self Defense.” This argument might be hard as there are already places like the UK where it seems like you don’t have this Right. However, I’m trying to go from easy points to harder points.
    Assuming you get past that, you might want to go with discussing the degree of force you can use in Self Defense. You may want to pivot to the use of generic force, but discuss how far you can go in inflicting force, the severity. You may want to take this easy and get agreement before ratcheting this up to more sever uses of force. Again, avoid mentioning guns, but a time aspect should be discussed (e.g. poisoning someone may kill them eventually, but not before they kill you).
    At some point late in this discussion, or when you’re stuck, discuss the loss of a Right. “Does the person trying to kill you lose their right to not be killed?” Do any actions void a Right? Do/Should Felons lose Rights, and why.

    1. A person trying to attack and kill you forfeits his rights.

      Rights require nothing from other individuals except to leave you alone in peace. If an individual attacks you, he is actively infringing on your right to life. This is a crime, and you are able to act to defend yourself without concern for the attacker’s rights.

      Essentially, rights come from the self, for the self. You are the guarantor and owner of your rights. Those rights require that you not violate the equal rights of others. If you do, you create a condition where others can and must act in their best interests, and your right are second to theirs as you chose to put them in that situation.

      Like the law of agency – if you willingly enter into service of another as their agent, you are obligated to act to make reasonable efforts to act to their benefit over your own, within the boundaries of your contract or function. Dereliction of your responsibility can result in penalties.

  2. 1. When I said I’d nuke any comments about the abortion debate, I meant it.
    2. Everything that’s been suggested so far is trying to present a Constitutional argument without mentioning the Constitution. This will not work, because a logical argument works against logic, not emotions, and our opponents freely admit their arguments are based on passion not facts.
    Here’s where a lot of you will say “Well, that’s ridiculous. My logic overrides my emotions.”
    Sorry to bust your bubble, but modern marketing theory and psychology both agree that you make decisions with your emotions and then back them up with your logic. We need better emotional arguments.

    1. Ah. I see what you’re saying.
      Try this:
      Draw your knife, slash them across their chest, while yelling, “I’m going to kill you!” Then calmly put your knife away and ask them if they’d like a gun to defend themselves. You’ve provoked a emotional response that’s pro 2A.

      More realisticly, would an appeal to their paternal/ maternal instincts be along the right path? Save your child from harm? I assume patriotism wouldn’t work.

      There many issues where both sides appeal to emotions, and they still have a hard time changing the minds of the other side. For example, tariffs. Do we want more local jobs or lower prices.

  3. That bring up the question of how does one base an emotion? What causes it to exist, in regard to a subject? I’m thinking it’s like an opinion, which usually turns out to be based on incorrect facts that match up with a person’s ideology/belief system. We are hard-wired for belief systems. Deliberately walk away from belief in a higher power, you, by default, end up with something else. That void has to be filled.

    IIRC, the number of abortions, since it was legalized, is approximately the same as the number of immigrants (legal and illegal) that have arrived here in the same time frame. I think the country would have been much better off with the home grown population growth, since they would have been raised in the same culture as the rest of us.

    I live in Silicon Valley, and the base differences between cultures of the immigrants I have encountered here are startling. Those differences DON’T go away, even with decades of time in country. Those are hard-wired, it seems. The children of these people still get a lot of this basic programing, since it is acquired at home, and by associating with family and friends of fellow immigrants. There is little assimilation in reality. That “melting pot” is a myth. Unless they are coming from a culture that is VERY similar/near identical, they will always be “other”. This has been a very disappointing conclusion to me. I moved here 40 years ago, so this is not an overnight observation.

    1. “That bring up the question of how does one base an emotion? What causes it to exist, in regard to a subject?”

      You tell stories. Stories about people. Stories that grab the emotion. Build a narrative that begins with stories, not facts… the facts come in later to bolster the story.

Comments are closed.