I had a conversation with someone this morning that does not seem to know what "shall not be infringed" means.
He made the claim, through his choice of words, that the state grants rights.
I was told that if you're not guilty of anything then you should have no problems proving that you're not to be able to even carry a gun.
"Everyone should have to prove they are not a felon to be allowed to carry a gun."
So, while I don't know about other people, the trigger words that tip me off to warn me that the person I am talking to/dealing with does not believe in rights is when they say words like "allow, permission, background check, not a criminal, etc".
What are some of the warning words that you pick up on?
How do we get these, self proclaimed, pro-gun people to understand that they are not, in-fact, pro-gun(freedom)?
How do we open them to the truth?
How do we them to drop their elitism when it comes to rights (guns)?
I'll take a crack at it.
The first thing I would say is that no matter what, always keep in the back of your mind that a certain percentage of the population prefers to see others doing worse, not getting ahead, and so forth, and are even happy to actively trip things up. So, if the person you're talking to just refuses in the face of all sensible arguments, then realize that he
may have an emotional investment in others not being free.
With that said, ask plenty of questions. Gently.
For example, "Oh, the state grants rights?" "Wow, hadn't looked at it that way, before." "Hmmm. I wonder where government gets the rights it grants?" Of course, he can't answer that sensibly because there is no sensible answer. Government is not some vague, shapeless abstract. It is actual people, doing actual things. So, if a government agent, say a judge, grants a right, he must have had it somewhere or somehow in order to grant it. But, since he and the rest of government are people, they couldn't possibly have any rights to grant that a citizen himself didn't also already possess.
Just to continue this example, lets say that when you ask where government gets the rights it grants, your target replies, "Well, its government. It just can." The first thing to understand is that since there is
no sensible answer, you are
guaranteed to get a nonsense answer. Just know you're going to get a nonsense answer. Expect it. It is entirely too predictable. Just be ready for it. Expect it. Its guaranteed the reply will be nonsense.
So, he replies, "Well, its government. It just can." So, you gently start pulling it apart from there. For example, "Okay. But, where does government get the power to dispense rights?" "Unless the people delegate the power to government, then government is just making it up out of thin air and doing whatever it wants, in which case rights depend not on government, but who has the muscle to back up their viewpoint, which is hardly a definition of rights. Its just force."
Him, "Yeah, that's it!
The people delegate the power to government to grant rights!"
You, "Which people?"
Him, "Why,
the people. Its just
the people." This, of course, is a socialist vagueness, so the trick is to take it down to individuals.
You, "You must mean
some of the people because not everybody--by a very long shot--agrees on which are rights and which aren't. So, at best, government is claiming a power to dispense rights that only
some of the people have agreed it can dispense. And, those
some people can't possibly delegate to government a power to dispense a right those some people don't already possess themselves. And, if those some people possess that right themselves, then, necessarily everybody else must also already possess that right. So, at best, government is dispensing rights people already possess." (Which is just another way of saying government denies rights so it can dispense some rights--the rights it sees fit to dispense, the rights it doesn't perceive as a threat, the rights it can dispense profitably.)
And, once you've got it to that point of delegating or
some people, you just keep taking apart his answers,
gently, by figuring out the fallacy and either explaining it gently or reversing a statement of fact into a question.
The key factors, near as I can tell, are:
- consent
- force/coercion
- equality
- unalienable rights (you're born with them; they're based on you being alive; they can't be removed from you)
All statist arguments reduce to force. Every time. I've never encountered one that didn't. If its not based on consent, the only other option is force/coercion. By this I mean, whoever controls the force gets to enforce their opinion, coercing others to do what they want.
But, statists
never dare cleanly admit to force/coercion. The instant he does, the statist exposes his lie: he thinks he's more equal than you. For, if all are equal, then where does he get his authority to rule/govern/coerce you? The statist will resort to the most fallacious arguments to divert you. He might claim, "Majority rules!" Just ask, "Oh? Where did they get that power? Who gave it to them? How are they more equal than the people who dissented or refused their consent?" Of course, the statist goes thru the most deceptive gyrations to avoid the equality question; because as soon as it is exposed that he thinks he's more equal than others, or you, the pseudo-legitimacy of his power is destroyed. From another angle, as soon as people recognize it is a pseudo-legitimacy, his power starts to evaportate. Now that I think about it, its no wonder government argues so hard, and so deceptively. Their "legitimacy" depends entirely on enough people agreeing with their deceptive statements/buying into their lies.
The only other thing I might add is to think through on the various points I mentioned yourself from a number of different angles until you are pretty familiar.
So, if I had to summarize, I would say,
1. Reduce the argument to individuals.
2. Ask how those individuals are more equal than others?
3. All arguments are either consent or force.
4. If its not based on consent, it necessarily is based on force, and it necessarily means somebody is more equal than others.
So, there you go. I'm not much of a philosopher, so I can't guarantee I've presented it well. You understand, I've never tried to codify it before. But, to the degree I can articulate them and organize them, those ideas have served me well. I guess the most important thing is to understand the subject matter well, and then apply gentle debate tactics--like asking questions.