Enough about "Gun Rights" already!

[TheEggman]

I am constantly reading on the Net and in the media about so-called “gun rights and gun control.”

Some examples;

“The final briefs seeking to shape the Supreme Court’s coming decision on the reach of the Second Amendment’s protection of gun rights suggested Friday that states might be free to violate other parts of the Bill of Rights…”

“The National Association for Gun Rights, often referred to as "NAGR", was founded to assist the growing movement of pro-Second Amendment organizations, especially state-level gun rights groups.

“The National Rifle Association is the largest gun rights lobbying organization in the United States.”

On one hand, we preach that guns are mere machines, inanimate objects and tools. On the other, we appear to be attempting to give ‘rights’ to these inanimate machines.

I submit to you a request; that we remove the phrase “gun rights” from our vocabulary and replace it with the more human, and more accurate, “gun-owner rights.”

The First Amendment does not guarantee rights to printing presses as machines; it guarantees the rights of people to use printing presses, radios, televisions and the Internet without restriction.

The Second Amendment guarantees no rights to guns themselves, as they are mere machines. However, it does guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear them.

The psychology behind what may appear as a minor ‘grammatical nit’ should be clear.

It is relatively easy for most people to hate an object. You can make up lies about an object, demonize an object and attempt to regulate and control objects. You can do so without fear of insulting the object, hurting its feelings, being sued by the object or facing any repercussions, it’s just a defenseless, soulless object.

When we replace gun rights with gun-owner rights, however, the issue becomes personal. Where many people and politicians [as opposed to people] find it easy and guilt-free to demonize guns as objects, it is far more difficult to for them to demonize a large segment of the population, gun-owners, as people.

Laws can not control inanimate objects, only what law-abiding persons do with those objects. Therefore, it's technically not gun control, or a war against guns, it's gun owner control, and a war against gun owners.

So let us end this futile battle for so-called, non-existent gun rights and gun control, and renew the charge in support of the very real and very important rights of the people who own defensive and recreational firearms.

It may seem like a grammatical nit, but impressions are everything.

That’s my opinion, and you’re welcome to it!


Egg

[ricbak]

That will work...

[JJFlash]

No problem, here.

[ConditionOne]

I totally agree. I'm generally a grammatical nit-picker anyhow, at least with my own writing. At times it can be a somewhat negative personality trait, but I was taught to take my time and express my thoughts as clearly and as logically as possible. I want to be as accurate as I can, to avoid misunderstanding and confusion.

What you've pointed out above is a small change which makes a large difference to the overall meaning, and I would say it more accurately conveys how most gun-carrying people I know feel about the matter: we are being attacked, our rights are being eroded. The guns are just tools, and as such have no inherent rights or privileges which can be attacked.

[SPXD9]

Amen!!!!!!

[Unfettered Might]

Good catch Eggman, I completely agree.

I propose that anyone who reads this thread makes an effort to correct any future readings or writings of supposed "gun rights" in favor of "gun owner's rights".

Given enough diligence it will catch on, the meaning behind it is too profound not to.

[Red Hat]

I agree too! Semantics can change outlooks.

[HK4U]

Works for me.

[dangerousman]

I like it

[HardCorps53]

I agree with the spirit and intent of this very compelling argument. However, since we are discussing semantics, gun-owners rights is too restrictive. Do these rights not apply to someone who does not currently own a gun? Do they not apply to past and future owners? For simplicity sake, I prefer Second Amendment or Constituional rights, which apply to all citizens (barring criminal/mental histories).