And some of you wonder where the Antis get it...
The inflamatory war of words from both sides is starting to get under my skin a bit. Assault weapon, high-capacity magazines, military-style equipment--all these things the Antis throw out there; and we counter with our own words and reasoning--sporting, hunting, self defence.
Who do you think is feeding the Antis this image of military firearms? In short--we, the pro-gun folks and firearms-related industries.
Do you wonder what scares them, what fuels them and keeps all this in the forefront of their minds, sans the endless spouting of the mass media? Pick up any monthly gun publication and take a look at it; look with an unbiased and assuming mind. What do you see? Ads, lots of ads, which is how the magazines pay for themselves.
Look and see how many ads use the word "tactical" and then ask yourself where the Antis get the "military-style weapons" from?
How many ads show someone dressed in camouflaged clothing mimiking military wear? How about the Sig ad with a M11-A1 spread across the F-18? What does that say to an Anti? Why is a military appearing weapon being advertised to the public, who staunchly claims its fireams aren't "military"? Do we really to plant in their heads that we need that "combat sling" for our military-style assault weapons?
Pages of military-style, combat, tactical, and we then argue back that these are for sporting purposes?
I think this is one point of issue we may have brought down upon ourselves.