The Fight's in the Vocab.

This is a discussion on The Fight's in the Vocab. within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; We've all seen it. The side that is able to define the words being used is the side that will win the argument. With that ...

Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree5Likes
  • 2 Post By Jemsaal
  • 2 Post By Alex_C
  • 1 Post By foxytwo

Thread: The Fight's in the Vocab.

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748

    The Fight's in the Vocab.

    We've all seen it. The side that is able to define the words being used is the side that will win the argument. With that in mind, it's time to redefine the arguments to better reflect what the meaning really is.

    Gun-Control. Biden wants to redefine this as "Gun-safety." In reality, it's "Gun restrictions."

    Assault Rifle. We all know that an "Assault Rife" is really a rifle with a round selector and as such, except for the lucky few with a class III license that may have gotten one of these, no civilian owns one. To call it what it really is, an "Assault Rifle" is a Civilian Defense Rifle.

    High Capacity Magazines. No one has a clue what "Hi capacity" really is. Where's the limit? It needs to be labeled properly: Personal Defense Magazines.

    Gun Lobby. Labeled properly, it's a Second Amendment Lobby.

    Gun Ban. This should be linked specifically to what it is. Second Amendment Ban

    Federal Assault Weapons Ban needs to be exposed for what it is, a Federal Civilian Defense Rifle Ban.

    Gun Reform/Gun reform bill. No gun is being "reformed." This is a Gun-Rights Reduction bill.

    Post this in every forum you're on, facebook, send it to your senators and congressmen, the NRA, etc. etc. If we stop letting those who want to reduce our right to bear arms define the argument by their use of terms, we'll make a great amount of headway in a very short time.
    ____________

    Before I send this out to my congressmen and post it on a few forums, I want some feedback. What do you all think about this??
    Poseidon and Thompsonian like this.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array high pockets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Georgia for now
    Posts
    4,140
    Good points!
    "If you make something idiot proof, someone will make a better idiot."

    - Anon

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Hey - stuck this on a new wall on facebook. If you're on it, go check it out!

    http://www.facebook.com/2apropernames

  5. #4
    Member Array relentless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    20
    Good post. I also keep seeing the term "military style" popping up in almost every news story I read on the subject of the proposed legislation. It's ridiculous conduct on the part of the media, not that I expect anything else.

  6. #5
    Senior Member Array Alex_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,056
    I'd argue that a better term for "assault rifle" would be "modern sporting rifle", and that a more appropriate term for "hi capacity magazine" is "standard capacity magazine", unless you're talking about mags with a capacity truely higher than that which is standard for a particular firearm.
    Thompsonian and TVille like this.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex_C View Post
    I'd argue that a better term for "assault rifle" would be "modern sporting rifle", and that a more appropriate term for "hi capacity magazine" is "standard capacity magazine", unless you're talking about mags with a capacity truely higher than that which is standard for a particular firearm.
    That could work. The problem however, is that our rights are not based on sporting, and since we have rifles already that can be used for sporting, I think it weakens the argument myself. The problem with standard capacity is - what's the standard? It leaves it too open. Granted "Self Defense Magazine" does as well, but it puts it in a different light - one of protecting oneself against a BG. The other side would have to argue that it isn't necessary for self defense, and it's too easy to produce scenarios where that idea is just wrong.
    Last edited by Jemsaal; January 25th, 2013 at 01:45 PM.

  8. #7
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,335
    Quote Originally Posted by jemsaal View Post
    hey - stuck this on a new wall on facebook. If you're on it, go check it out!

    http://www.facebook.com/2apropernames
    shared!
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    We've all seen it. The side that is able to define the words being used is the side that will win the argument. With that in mind, it's time to redefine the arguments to better reflect what the meaning really is.

    Rifle. [/B]We all know that an "Assault Rife" is really a rifle with a round selector and as such, except for the lucky few with a class III license that may have gotten one of these, no civilian owns one. To call it what it really is, an "Assault Rifle" is a Civilian Defense Rifle.
    The words and the definition of a "so called assault rifle" was concocted years back by the anti-gun crowd. They and the press have used "assault rifle" over and over to brainwash the American public into saying it and believing it is the most "evil" weapons there is. Even your definition is incorrect.

    The true definition of these type weapons along with so called "hunting" rifles are simply rifles. However if one is to "tag" the AR-15 and AK47 it should be tagged "utility" rifle do to its multiple options of use.

    Keep in mind(listing only those weapons used the most):

    * During WWI the M1903 Springfield was the "assault" weapon of the day

    * During WWII the M1 Garand was the "assault" weapon of the day

    * During the Korean war the M1 Garand was the "assault" weapon of the day

    * During the Vietnam war the M14 was the "assault" weapon of the day(later in the war the M16 was introduced)
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  10. #9
    Member Array foxytwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    That could work. The problem however, is that our rights are based on sporting, and since we have rifles already that can be used for sporting, I think it weakens the argument myself. The problem with standard capacity is - what's the standard? It leaves it too open. Granted "Self Defense Magazine" does as well, but it puts it in a different light - one of protecting oneself against a BG. The other side would have to argue that it isn't necessary for self defense, and it's too easy to produce scenarios where that idea is just wrong.
    Our rights are not based on sporting guns. The second amendment was written for us to keep the government in check. They had a lot of tyranny experience in england and wanted to have a way to keep the new government from taking their freedom. Our constitution was written to protect us from the government. The leaders of today think that the constitution does not pertain to them.
    Tzadik likes this.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by foxytwo View Post
    Our rights are not based on sporting guns. The second amendment was written for us to keep the government in check. They had a lot of tyranny experience in england and wanted to have a way to keep the new government from taking their freedom. Our constitution was written to protect us from the government. The leaders of today think that the constitution does not pertain to them.
    You're right. I was wonder what the heck you were talking about though, until I re-read my post and realized I left out "not." Makes a bit of difference I think. So in short, my post was supposed to say exactly what you said.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •