Free States and terminology

[Wyoredman]

What about the term "constitutional state?"

I think psyfly is looking for a term to describe those States that are not so 2nd amendment friendly. Would we refer to them as "un-constitutional" states?

[noelf2]

In modern lexicon it is very clear, and we all know, what is meant by Free and Non-Free states.

I agree, but the modern term "free state" doesn't mean the same thing to us as it did to the framers of the 2nd Amendment. To them, the term "free state" meant free country. I read somewhere that the original 2nd Amendment, before being edited, actually said "free country", but in lexicon of the time (English origin I guess) was "free state". They also referred to foreign countries as foreign states. Maintaining a free state was protection from despotism / tyranny and had nothing to do with an idividual state. Lexicon is different today, but the term still works. Expecially since, IIRC, "free state" only shows up in the 2A.

To answer ops question, I don't there is a reasonable answer. Besides, the only true "free state" would be a state that has a high enough degree of RKBA to affectively oppose tyranny. Not sure that can be calculated, but I'm sure it would be inversely proportional to the Brady state scorecard.

[Gaerek]

No, Vanya did not ban the use of those particular invectives.

I did, back in 2008, for the old L&P forum and carried them over to the new L&CR forum. The board (TFL as a whole) picked up the idea and applied it to the general rules, a year or so ago.

So don't blame anyone but me.

Not really blaming anyone. I was sort of half joking anyway. I know that the battle we're going through is a battle of words, and the way we describe certain locations has the ability to turn people off to our cause. In that regard, I'm glad the ban was put in place.

To be honest, it's tough to come up with an appropriate name for those states that accurately describes what they're doing, but at the same time isn't going to turn someone off to our cause. Un-constitutional is close...but it implies that everything that state does goes against the Constitution, which just isn't the case.

Maybe we should just make up a brand new word, and define it as the states that wish to restrict 2nd Amendment rights. I vote for, Caljeryork states.

[Tom Servo]

I wonder if we really need the divisiveness that's implicit in such labels.

[KyJim]

I think psyfly is looking for a term to describe those States that are not so 2nd amendment friendly. Would we refer to them as "un-constitutional" states?

No, he was looking for an alternative to "free state" to describe states that follow the Second Amendment. Go back and read his post.

[Aguila Blanca]

How about just "gun friendly"?

[Texshooter]

Or, "2nd Friendly" or "2nd Amendment Friendly"?

[KMAX]

2A friendly is good for me, but then there are certain degrees of 2A friendly. I mean permit required, no permit, open carry, no open carry, etc.

[Mike38]

Vanya wrote:

So I'd say that applying the term to U.S. states is a considerable exaggeration, and also has the potential to offend many who live in them.

Totally agree. Just a few weeks back, members of this forum were calling my home state of Illinois “draconian” because of less then desirable gun laws. Yet ignoring New York’s new 7 round magazine limit. I looked at my perfectly legal 15 round pistol magazines and perfectly legal 30 round rifle magazines and wondered what the heck they were talking about…..

[Al Norris]

Mike, that's one of the reasons why the invective rule is in place.

Demonizing the place where you live is counter-productive to real activism. Demonizing the places where others live is downright divisive.

Neither one helps our cause. Fact is, in the eyes of the anti-gunners, it merely gives them more fuel to stereotype us, yet again.

[egor20]

I do find it amusing that Maryland "the Free State" http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual...nickname.html]
has some of the most restrictive gun laws.

[KyJim]

How about just "gun friendly"?

But that doesn't attract those in the middle and might even scare some off. Why do you think certain groups want to be identified as pro-choice instead of pro-abortion or pro-life instead of anti-abortion? The proper choice of words can be very powerful.

[Ludwig Von Mises]

This reminds me of the difference between Army, Air Force, and Navy aviation mindsets.

In the Army, if the book does not say you can do it, then you can't do it.

In the Air Force, if the book says you can't do it, then you can't do it.

In the Navy, it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Reminds me of like my favorite memory from childhood, that rulebook thing is hilarious, but once my dad made full bird, he would once in a blue moon buzz our house/street, often during street hockey games. Air force mindset. No rule against rattling your own family. "flight path" is a loose term.

And to the original poster, I'd say something along the lines of secession but I don't want homeland security doing somersault action rolls into my bushes . So I'll just go with "Milton Friedman Friendly Zones."