Many of the pro-freedom community don’t realise that we place ourselves at a severe disadvantage when the debate over civil rights is framed as ‘pro-gun/anti-gun’. Since our principles of liberty and individual rights are based in common sense, their defence is pretty straightforward and forthright.

Not so with the authoritarians of the anti-liberty left. These are people who prioritise governmental power and controlling people’s lives and property – if not owning it outright. Such people have always been on the wrong side of history, so deception and lies are all part of what they do on a daily basis.

“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it.” – Lysander Spooner

Anti-liberty Leftists depend on propaganda and outright lies to muddy the water and deceive the public. This is why they spend so much time pushing lies such as certain national socialist workers’ party wasn’t a national socialist workers’ party. This is why they have deliberately chosen certain labels for themselves that are outright lies.

When you accept their words, you accept their argument.

There is a reason authoritarians exploit the labels ‘progressive’, ’anti-fascist’, and ‘liberal’. They subliminally win the argument when people accept and use those labels. Anti-liberty Leftists are shaping the rhetorical battlefield before the debate even begins. They put 10 points on the scoreboard before the game even begins, and we have to fight upstream when those on our side persist in using their deceptive terms.

Leftists exploit terms such as ‘liberal’ or ‘progressive’ when they have no interest in liberty or progress. In the battlefield of ideas, those that are quickly understood usually win out over those that have to be explained. Their ideas never work but they have the advantage of slick marketing and compliant media organs perfectly willing to pass along their lies and obfuscations.

Losing the debate when it’s framed as ‘Pro-gun/Anti-gun’

Anti-liberty Leftists love that we keep on framing the debate over our common sense civil rights as ‘Pro-gun/Anti-gun’. It’s easy to see why by taking into account the typical ‘mindset’ of an authoritarian socialist in that they consider guns to be ‘evil’ and ’dangerous’ or a similar negative appellation. This is best illustrated by just substituting the word ‘evil’ for ‘gun’ in the debate formulation:

‘Pro-gun/Anti-gun’

Becomes:

‘Pro-evil/Anti-evil’

Consider how this subliminally changes the entire landscape of the debate. We on the pro-freedom side look like we’re arguing in favour of ‘evil’ or ‘danger’. While the anti-liberty Left is bravely fighting against ‘evil’ and ‘danger’. Which sounds better to the audience?

Remember that the whole point in any debate is to change the minds of the uncommitted audience. Who sounds more reasonable? People who are fighting the good fight against ‘evil’ and ‘dangerous’ ‘weapons of war’? Or those who are ‘Pro-evil’ as implied by the rhetoric of the Left?

Anti-liberty Leftists will never say this out loud.

It should go without saying that the authoritarian socialists cannot say this out loud because it would make it clear that we have to change our ways. They want to avoid tipping us off to what we are doing to ourselves. Nevertheless, rest assured this why they are perfectly happy with the debate framed in this manner. Their usual tactic is to attack en masse when we have ‘displeased them’ by using certain words or phrases.

This is why they nearly lost what is left of their minds when the decision rendering California’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban unconstitutional – at least for now – dared to compare the venerable AR-15 to Swiss Army knives. They’ve spent years demonising inanimate objects as evil incarnate. So any normalisation of the modern-day musket as a useful and common tool of everyone cannot stand.

Properly framing the debate over our common sense civil rights.

Author Alan Korwin made this point in an exceptional article entitled: Politically Corrected.

In which he explained why we need to avoid framing the argument in these terms at all costs, substituting something other than the term “pro gun”:

The reverse term, which describes them, is “anti rights.” Misguided utopian disarmament advocates love the phrases “pro gun” and “anti gun,” because they automatically win when those terms are used. They believe guns are inherently evil, so the only righteous path from their point of view is to be anti gun. Only devils and maniacs would be pro gun from their perspective, and they feel vigorously self-righteous about that. You flat-out lose if you allow a debate to be framed that way.

[Emphasis added]

Consider this unhinged reaction to the previously mentioned decision edited for language taking note that following the link to the bowels authoritarian socialist left will display the full flower of their insanity:

Moloch is Hungry
…
F…k that judge. Just f…k him. I’m not going to bother fisking his m……y 97 (NINETY-SEVEN) page opinion that seems to think that because other states permit weapons of mass murder, California must too. I’m not going to trot out careful arguments or mortality data or international comparisons or suicide numbers or any of that stuff because this is not a reasoned, coherent legal decision.

It’s just guns=good and if the tree of liberty gets watered from time to time, too bad.

Moloch is Hungry

I’m done. Guns wreck civil society. There’s no justification for allowing some a…….e who has doubts about his sexual prowess to make life/death decisions whenever and wherever they want. Etc.

[Emphasis added]

Here we see the formulation from the far-left that ‘Guns wreck civil society’ and that he disagrees with the contention that guns are good. This is also why they couch everything they can in terms of guns or poll-tested variations, ‘weapons of war’ or their new favourite ‘ghost guns’. The pro-freedom community has a healthy respect for these inanimate objects and we see them as vital tools in the defence of liberty.

Anti-liberty Leftists see guns in the hand of their opposition as the embodiment of everything evil in this world. They excel at pushing an emotion-based argument and we are helping them immensely with it based on pro-gun/anti-gun.

Winning the debate when framed as pro-freedom vs. anti-liberty.

The second part of Alan Korwin’s point on this messaging also gives us a way forward in rhetorically beating the authoritarian socialist left at their own game. Couching the argument as between those in favour of freedom against who want political power and control, although we prefer slightly different verbiage for reasons that we will explain:

The debate is really between people who are “pro rights” and “anti rights” — and then you automatically win — because the righteous choice between pro rights and anti rights is obvious. You’re pro safety; pro self defense; pro freedom; pro liberty; pro Bill of Rights (correctly casting them as anti safety; anti self defense; anti freedom; anti liberty; anti Bill of Rights). This is an accurate depiction of people who would restrict, repress and flat-out deny civil rights you and your ancestors have always had in America.

[Emphasis added]

Now compare the subliminal shorthand between labeling leftists as ‘anti-evil’ or ‘anti-liberty’. The first phase makes them look good, the second makes them look bad – instantly. They don’t have to explain being ‘anti-evil’ or ‘anti-gun’, not so with the second phrase.

Leftists love to use terms to corner the pro-freedom community, forcing into long-winded explanations as to why we don’t want dirty air or kids to die. This turns the tables on them, making them explain why their socialist national agenda always seems to run counter to the Bill of Rights. It rhetorically traps them makes them explain themselves for once instead of playing that tactic against the pro-freedom Right.

The Bottom line: Using honest labels against the anti-liberty left.

Leftists also love to use deceptive labels for themselves, giving them a winning hand right from the get-go, with ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’ popular in the genre. Anti-liberty throws that right back in their faces as a direct attack on one of their favourite false monikers. They usually expect to have a leg up from the start, this flips the script and puts 10 points on the board for the pro-freedom side.

Leftists will proudly wear the moniker of being ‘Anti-gun’ because of the reasons already outlined. That won’t be the case if we say they are ‘Anti-liberty’. Changing one word will change the whole tenor of the debate, throw them off their game and force them to explain themselves for once, isn’t that worth it?