The Friendly Stranger

Please Select From These Links:

HomeResumeEnd EnglishWorld-Wide Auxiliary Languagee-zee-englishCommon $en$e About Our Right To Change Our MindsCommon $en$e About Our Right To Defend OurselvesCommon $en$e About Our Right To TravelCommon $en$e About Capital PunishmentCommon $en$e about the Construction of BuildingsCommon $en$e About Health CareCommon $en$e About RefrigerationAmerican's Other WarCanadiansIt's No Fun for the Dentist, EitherNurdwordzFully informed juryLiving In A CarWar on Human NatureFreedom and LibertyYour Car Gets 120 MPGSnotting Joe Camel
Print E-mail

COMMON $EN$E about Communicating Our Right to Defend

Ourselves and Others and Property by any means necessary

"It's not what you say; it's how you say it." My mother used to complain about the tone of my voice. The words we use are even more important than the tone of our voice. "The difference between the correct word and the almost correct word is the difference between lightning and the lightning bug" Mark Twain didn't say that; I did. He used the word right, but correct is a better word because right has two meanings: correct and a direction. Three, if we count the homonym write. If the difference between the correct word and the almost correct word is that great, what is the difference between the correct word and the totally wrong word?

We all know how Pavlov conditioned dogs to salivate when he rang a bell. We all have seen how people react to certain words. They don't salivate; they are irritated and erect an Invisible Shield. Whatever else you say is stopped by or filtered thru that Invisible Shield. Before you use a word, any word, think about it. What effect will it have? Will it convince, or will it alienate? We need both a "hit them over the head with a two by four" way of communicating to wake them up, and a kinder and gentler way of communicating to avoid that Invisible Shield.

We don't have much time - only a few seconds - until they lose interest or go back to sleep or erect that Invisible Shield. We don't have time to explain anything that isn't "perfectly clear" (a cliché; don't use it). By the time you are explaining "What we really mean is . . ." it's too late. SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND MEAN WHAT YOU SAY.

What we mean is Our Right to Defend Ourselves and Others and Property by any means necessary. "The right of self-defense is the first law of nature." Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone's Commentaries. It is not only a Right, it is a Duty and a basic drive. If we did not have this basic drive, our species would have long been extinct. When we put it that way, how can the Liberals and Statists argue with us? On the other hand, Right to Keep and Bear Arms sounds aggressive or potentially aggressive. Altho any way you can is shorter, by any means necessary will attract the attention of "brothers and sisters" ("Malcolm said `by any means necessary'") and won't alienate any of us "whiteys."

Some "Constitutional crazies" claim that the Constitution is a perfect document. Nonsense! If it had been perfect, it wouldn't have been necessary to immediately add ten Amendments. Some people claim that all of the Amendments are equally important. Nonsense! Without our most basic Right and the Power to demand all the rest of our Rights, they are merely requests, pleas by bleating two-legged sheep.

"Nobody remembers who came in second" is a basic axiom of sporting events. Instead of calling it the Second Amendment, we should call it our Basic Amendment or the Enforcement Amendment. What's in a name? A rose would not smell as sweet if people had been brain-polluted into hating or fearing it as has happened in the case of The Most Useful Plant on the Planet and The Divine Plant of the Incas.

Manufacturers are becoming aware of the importance of language, altho belatedly. "Its name killed the .41 Magnum" a friend said. "Public sentiment was against police carrying Magnums. It would have been more popular and sold to the police and the groupies if it had been called the .41 Police." Groupies?!! Hey, that's what he called them. Maybe you'd prefer "civilians."

"So it's not surprising that when Sigarms, importer of the SIG pistols, developed a new 9mm cartridge, it called it the .357 SIG rather than adding one more 9 mm to the endless list." (The American Rifleman, May 1994) A few pages later I was amused to learn that Smith & Wesson's "new line will be know, no doubt to the annoyance of one prominent importer, as the Sigma Series. . ."

Other writers have created excellent glossaries of What To Say (in We the People's Freespeak) and What Not To Say (in Big Brother's Newspeak and Narkspeak or Liberals' Libspeak). We shouldn't use the word concealed. It sounds like we are doing something we shouldn't. Check dictionary definitions to confirm that. Covered or protected is better. A writer in a recent Rifleman challenged the expression "assault weapons." I agree! None of them are "rifles" as I understand the term. They are carbines, short-barreled rifles. Well, aren't they? And the militia is the reason to own them. They are militia carbines. Now that the Establishment are trying to turn militia into another "m" word, it is necessary to explain what the militia is. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." George Mason

Sometimes, but not always, the people who created our government said it best. The people who created our government. The expression founding Fathers reminds everyone - not just women - of women's less than equal involvement in that war. Why remind everyone of it and continue to antagonize those who Rush Limbaugh calls the femiNazis? Founders is ok.

We have to stop wimping! Whenever a politician or Liberal asks: What do you need military-style weapons for? we should reply "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, at last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Then ask them: "What radical revolutionary said that?" We need guns because the government has them. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we didn't need guns? Let's disarm the biggest, most dangerous threat first: all the world's governments.

Once when a Liberal newspaper reporter asked me if I owned any guns, I was tempted to reply "Of course" but instead said "I have what Conservatives would call a well-balanced gun collection and Liberals would call an arsenal. "What would a sane man call it?" he sneered. I had him in the cross-hairs; now I squeezed the trigger. "Would you consider Thomas Jefferson a sane man? Would you like to know what he would call it?" He fled. Literally. He turned and hurried away as I called after him "Come back here! I haven't finished with you."

When Prohibitionists ask "How many guns do you own?" I sometimes reply "Almost enough. Do you ask a stamp collector how many stamps they own or a mechanic and tool collector why they need so many tools?" "But you can't kill people with stamps" "And if I wanted to kill you, I wouldn't need a gun."

Yes! Go on the offensive and attack! But don't be offensive and don't attack an Invisible Shield.