As I have said for years, the controlling word in the phrase "gun control" is control, not gun. I've followed with interest many of the threads on various forums arguing about "terminology"...if, for instance, we all agreed to call black rifles "modern sporting rifles" or we were careful to never refer to firearms as "weapons." I used to agree pretty wholeheartedly with those arguments, but over the years I've come around to a different view. Our enemies aren't antigun, they're anti-people-with-guns. It's not the guns they hate...it's us.I think it's worse than that. Back around 2004 ex-blogger Ironbear from the now-defunct blog Who Tends the Fires wrote something I've quoted repeatedly here:
The reason there is no middle ground (and Mike Thompson, now would be a good time to take notes) is this war is between two fundamentally opposed world views. After living in New York City and spending a lot of time in California, I've come to see the fight as one between the adults and the perpetual children of the Nanny State.
It would be a mistake to paint the conflict exclusively in terms of "cultural war," or Democrats vs Republicans, or even Left vs Right. Neither Democrats/Leftists or Republicans shy away from statism... the arguments there are merely over degree of statism, uses to which statism will be put - and over who'll hold the reins. It's the thought that they may not be left in a position to hold the reins that drives the Democrat-Left stark raving.One of the few things Patrick J. Buchanan has ever said that I agree with is that "Our two parties have become nothing but two wings of the same bird of prey."
This is a conflict of ideologies...
The heart of the conflict is between those to whom personal liberty is important, and those to whom liberty is not only inconsequential, but to whom personal liberty is a deadly threat.
Interesting that more people seem to be awakening to the idea. Sad that more haven't.
Edited to add: Read also Michael's earlier post, A Certain Kind of Peace. Excerpt:
The point that I want to make here is that just because we have the facts on our side doesn't automatically mean that we win. Every word that Mitt Romney said about Barack Obama in the last election has proven to be true, yet you'll notice that BHo is the President and Mitt Romney is a future trivia question on Jeopardy. This is not a debate, and we are not a debating society. This is an all-out war for the soul of the United States. I don't want to win this debate; I would rather borrow this quote from Conan the Barbarian (channeling Genghis Khan of course), "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
Facts are indeed weapons of this war! We must have those weapons at our fingertips (and I'll do my best to help in that arena), but weapons alone do not win a war. Strategy wins a war. And in this war we need to be thinking of ourselves as guerrillas facing a large, heavily funded, absolutely ruthless oppressor.