It is widely held that the RKBA is for hunting. Canada and Europe have this is limited form.
It is widely held that the RKBA is for gun tournaments. Canada and Europe have those.
But where on earth is the RKBA held for self-defense? Here in the USA is one place under the 2A. Canada does not recognize the RKBA for self-defense. Neither do Europe.
Even Switzerland, where citizens are required to own rifles and are issued limited amounts of ammo, recognizes the RKBA as far as having a citizen militia, but not for personal self-defense. In effect they have the tyranny fighter narrative (but more to defend their government who they believe will never turn tyrannical, but to defend their country from the other governments who will be tyrannical).
If we start emhasizing the 2A as the human right for self-defense, tell me, are the hunters going to turn into antis? Of course not. Are the hunters going to disagree with this? Why would they?
If we start emhasizing the 2A as the human right for self-defense, tell me, are the tyranny fighters going to turn into antis? Of course not. Are the tyranny fighters going to disagree with this? Why would they? In effect they believe that fighting tyranny IS self defense!
So why is there such a pushback for emphasizing that the 2A is a human right of self defense?
The benefits are many fold. We will stop the antis in their tracks. We can accuse them of trying to take away power from ordinary people and giving it to criminals and thugs - and it will stick due to the self-defense narrative.
What do you call people who are not antis and not pro-2A? I'll just call them non-2A people in my statements below:
Right now, look at non-2A people how see "gun rights" - negatively. I'm not talking about the antis, they'll always see the 2A negatively - as a license to murder. The non-2A people hear about the people who go hunting and like guns and are like "Well, I don't go hunting so I do not have a benefit from the 2A." The non-2A people hear the narrative of the tyranny fighters and say "I don't want to shoot Jim the Cop, who's my friend if the government goes evil so the 2A has no benefit for me." These people have been sold a bill of goods about the 2A and see it neutrally or negatively - but unlike the antis - they can be reasoned with. The numbers of these non-2A people far out number the pro-2A crowd and the antis put together. They would be an asset to the pro-2A side.
But if we emphasize the narrative of self-defense and it being a human right, this is something the non-2A people can see the benefit of and then they will be on our side. We can bring them into the fold and the support for 2A would be much higher.
So, again, why is there such pushback for changing the narrative of the 2A to self-defense and human rights? Even the NRA describes itself as "America's longest-standing civil rights organization." - so why can't we make the change in the pro-2A narrative? I'm not saying not talk about the tyranny fighter aspect (just realize not everyone buys this) and talk about the hunting aspect (not everyone buys this). But let's talk more about
the self-defense aspect and push that as the primary narrative. Even the NRA does this sometimes in its magazines, where they talk about the DGU's.
Edited by BobPistol, 01 April 2018 - 08:00 AM.