The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 15, 2013, 10:25 AM   #1
psyfly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 777
Free States and terminology

I read frequently on this and other RKBA-friendly sites entries such as:

"You should move to a free state" and "I'm fortunate to live in a free state".

This appears to be a normal evolution of the use of language to indicate a state that does not attempt to restrict a person's constitutionally-protected natural rights and, lately anyway, always appears in connection to exercise of RKBA. There's little indication that any other rights-restriction is involved.

1.) The term is unfortunate in that it calls forth unintended (for the most part, anyway) associations to our history of civil rights in general and can be criticized as such.

2.) I have yet to see a consolidation around any kind of term to describe a state that restricts or limits such rights, perhaps in part due to 1.), above.

While this might, of course, apply to any of our liberties, let's restrict this to gun-related or RKBA issues for the purpose of this question/discussion (and to adhere to the rules of the forum).

My question, however, is simpler: Can we (or have we) come up with a widely acceptable term for those states that seek to restrict our RKBA rights?

Best,

Will
__________________
Show me the data

Last edited by psyfly; March 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM. Reason: spelling
psyfly is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 10:52 AM   #2
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
We'll leave this open for now, but it will be closed following any posts invoking terms such as "Kommiefornia," "People's Republic of New Jersey," or anything else along those lines.

That said, psyfly, I'd ask "Should we?" Why do you see a need for such a term? (If you do... )
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 10:58 AM   #3
WillyKern69
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2012
Location: Texas
Posts: 160
I vote for Free America and Nanny States.

WK
WillyKern69 is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:04 AM   #4
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
My question, however, is simpler: Can we (or have we) come up with a widely acceptable term for those states that seek to restrict our RKBA rights?


We already have. It's in common use and is understood by most RKBA advocates.

It's called a "Free State"


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:08 AM   #5
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
Quote:
My question, however, is simpler: Can we (or have we) come up with a widely acceptable term for those states that seek to restrict our RKBA rights?(My emphasis.)
Willie, I'm afraid you misunderstood the question.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:32 AM   #6
psyfly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 777
My desire for proper terminology springs, in part, from observing that people have in frustration chosen other, somewhat unfortunate (and warned against, above), terms which only serve to accentuate our differences and to frame the user as a hostile witness.

I'd like to avoid that.

Something like "Nanny-state" appears inadequate as it implies the need for the state to supply every need without necessarily implying the state's desire to control and restrict.

I certainly see no need to create any more divisiveness; we have enough of that to deal with already.

Perhaps my problem is that the use of "free-state" carries what semanticists refer to as "excess meaning".

Perhaps there is no such term that isn't pejorative.

Thanks,

Will
__________________
Show me the data
psyfly is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:35 AM   #7
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
Something like "Nanny-state" appears inadequate as it implies the need for the state to supply every need without necessarily implying the state's desire to control and restrict.

So why not just call them restricted and non-restricted states. You could also further this by stating moderately restricted (ie. California) versus non-restricted (AZ) which is constitutional carry.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:37 AM   #8
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
Texas, and other states which require a concealed license could simply be a permit state.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:42 AM   #9
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,612
Since the issue is never restricted to a single issue and the politicians who make these decisions are typically reelected ad nauseum, which means that it truthfully a consequence and the fault of the voters....

any such designation should factually lay the blame at the feet of the voters.

Unfortunately, any such term would be seen as derogatory and/or invective against the many fine folks who are sadly outnumbered by the not-so-fine folks.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:43 AM   #10
gunloony
Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2012
Posts: 97
One could refer to relatively "free" unrestricted states such as Arizona as "Citizen States," and restricted states such as Massachusetts as "Subject States."
gunloony is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 11:49 AM   #11
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
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.
MLeake is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:00 PM   #12
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,399
Books? The Army has books? Every briefing I ever got was done in hyroglyphics and cave art.

In regards to the OP, I somewhat detest the application of the term Free State, but I think a lot of that has to do with my background as a Southerner.

Along those same lines, I think the term "Commonwealth of ..." is also outdated.

States are states. We are bound by the Constitution as a nation of seperate states, and according to the tenets of dual federalism, the states should make thier own laws according to the desires of thier populations.

I often times have a hard time reconciling my belief in State's Rights with the sweeping power of the Federal Government, be it for good or ill.

Unfortunately, as Brian stated, a lot of the states in which draconian gun laws exsist, have perpetual victories of anti-gun politicians.
__________________
NRA Life Member
"Had King Kong showed up in Texas, Frank Hamer would have taken him down with his Model 8 in .35 Remington...well, he was kind of big, so maybe his BAR"
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:13 PM   #13
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,249
I like th term "restricted" when refering to States that don't see fit to fully recognize the 2nd amendment.

One could also argue that these State are "limited", "restrained", "constrianed" and "inhibited" with respect to the 2nd.

Then again "suppresive state" may be a better description. Maybe we can coin the term "authoritarian state" and have that stick.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:28 PM   #14
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
The term "authoritarian state" is already in wide use, referring to countries such as North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. It may be tempting to apply the term to states we believe are too restrictive -- but conditions in those states are nothing like those in such countries.

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.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:37 PM   #15
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
2.) I have yet to see a consolidation around any kind of term to describe a state that restricts or limits such rights, perhaps in part due to 1
Why would we? In the first place, it's just another Assault Weapon/Modern Sporting Rifle game to waste time. In the second, and hinted at in the first, what we call them won't be what they call them, nor will it be what the undecided will call them. Constitutionally Compliant and Non-Compliant is as far as I need to go.
JimDandy is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:47 PM   #16
btmj
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2011
Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 761
Maybe I am confused... or tone deaf....

...but what exactly is wrong with the terms "free state" and the implied alternative "non-free state"...

Quote:
1.) The term is unfortunate in that it calls forth unintended (for the most part, anyway) associations to our history of civil rights in general and can be criticized as such.
I think one of the very compelling advantages to the term "free state" is that it DOES use the same language that has been successful in past civil rights struggles... after all, is not our quest for the universal recognition of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms a civil rights struggle?

This terms allows us to claim the moral high ground, which is altogether fitting because WE ARE ON the moral high ground.

Or am I missing something ?

Jim
btmj is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:48 PM   #17
silvrjeepr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 6, 2009
Posts: 213
Free States and terminology

How about pro 2nd states.
silvrjeepr is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:50 PM   #18
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
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.
Yeah, "authoritarian" is a pretty harsh, unpleasant term that no doubt would offend.

Yet, sometimes, when using language to present your ideas and argue against others ideology, offensive words do make a point.

But, it is better to not provoke and simply accept the resentment of your own beliefs?
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 12:58 PM   #19
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyoredman
Yet, sometimes, when using language to present your ideas and argue against others ideology, offensive words do make a point.

But, it is better to not provoke and simply accept the resentment of your own beliefs?
If we want to win people over, we should be talking not with people whose minds are made up to the point of having a fixed "ideology," but with people whose opinions aren't set in stone, who may be uninformed, neutral, or just see no reason to care. Hard-core anti-gun people are in the minority.

So why start out with the idea that it's OK to provoke or offend people whose minds we seek to change?
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 01:11 PM   #20
Wyoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
So why start out with the idea that it's OK to provoke or offend people whose minds we seek to change?
I do agree. Thus, I did say I do like the term "restricted state" when refering to those U.S. states that don't see fit to fully recognize the 2nd Amendment.



Quote:
Hard-core anti-gun people are in the minority.
Somtimes I wonder. There are some who would take "authoritarian" as not offensive, but rather complimentary.
__________________
Go Pokes!
Go Rams!
Wyoredman is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 01:45 PM   #21
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
The words I use to descibe those states were already banned by Vanya.

It gets the point across, and people know what I mean. Thankfully, I live in a free state.
Gaerek is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 01:57 PM   #22
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaerek
The words I use to descibe those states were already banned by Vanya.
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.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 01:59 PM   #23
psyfly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally posted by Vanya:
If we want to win people over, we should be talking not with people whose minds are made up to the point of having a fixed "ideology," but with people whose opinions aren't set in stone, who may be uninformed, neutral, or just see no reason to care. Hard-core anti-gun people are in the minority.
That's pretty much my aim; to stimulate some ideas around which we can begin to get our message out to those people of good intention who don't understand our issue(s) and who are becoming convinced, too often, that our freedom(s) are too dangerous to keep.

I fear that too many of us are too resentful that we are required to "win over" anyone to ideas that we think should be obvious and should be universal.

Will
__________________
Show me the data
psyfly is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 02:01 PM   #24
Texshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 17, 2006
Posts: 261
In modern lexicon it is very clear, and we all know, what is meant by Free and Non-Free states.

So it is written yady yady ......
Texshooter is offline  
Old March 15, 2013, 02:01 PM   #25
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,551
What about the term "constitutional state?" It seems to better describe the state of the state, so to speak, in terms which are positive and which should engender trust and acceptance.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is online now  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12741 seconds with 7 queries