Gun control self defense pt 3

In my last post 'Gun control self defense pt 2' I explained how today's intellectuals use anti-concepts to deceive the public. Talking about the concept 'gun violence' I pointed out that:

"The method used to pull this off is as follows: the word 'violence' in 'gun violence' is not aimed at the listener's reasoning mind. It is aimed at his feelings. It is designed to evoke an emotional response on the order of "ewe" or "ugh" or "no" or "no I don't want violence in my life."

The hope is that these emotional responses will translate into an action favorable to the gun grabbers such as support for gun control laws and candidates. The tactic is to package a noun with a potentially evil or dangerous attribute of the noun while ignoring any life preserving attribute. With the designation of violence as a negative, unwanted attribute of guns, the positive attribute of guns--self defense--is removed from public discussion. Another concept that serves the same purpose is 'assault weapon' (next post)."

And so 'assault weapon' is another package deal designed to deceive. Like 'gun violence' it packages a noun 'gun' with an undesirable attribute 'assault', condemns both as evil under the newly packaged 'assault weapon.' With the designation of assault as a negative, unwanted attribute of guns, the positive, life preserving attribute of self defense by retaliation is removed from public discussion.

So 'assault', like 'violence' is aimed at the listener's feelings in hopes of triggering an emotion like "no" or "no I don't want to be assaulted so I should support more gun control."

We have to be on the lookout for package deals that combine nouns with certain attributes which are then condemned as evil. We have to ask the question are there any positive attributes being ignored here? If certain human activities can be a danger to human life, does that activity have any human benefits that are being evaded? These questions are not being asked in our media today.

The push for gun control depends on the public being unaware of the nature of principles and how they grow. For example, if the public can be convinced that some government gun control can make them safe, then logically, a little more control will make them safer and still further, complete government control (confiscation) will make them safest.

So if safer and safest are ideals to be achieved, then gun confiscation will be the ideal method of achievement given the original premise. But is the original premise right? Does government gun control make us safe?

I have a drivers license and had to take a written test to get it. Does that license make me a safe driver? No. Just about everyone in an accident has one. I also have a weapon in my house and took a class in safety. Does that mean I'm a safe gun owner?Of course not. What makes my gun ownership and driving safe are the decisions and attention to both I give them.

Gun control is a euphemism for people control. I will close repeating the fact that if you don't have a right to defend your life, then you don't have right to life and that is the  gun grabber's ultimate goal, your right to life in their hands not yours.

This concludes the thread on gun control self defense. I will of course continue to post on gun control in other contexts if the need arises.