The Fight's in the Vocab.

[Jemsaal]

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??

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[high pockets]

Good points!

[Jemsaal]

Hey - stuck this on a new wall on facebook. If you're on it, go check it out!

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

[relentless]

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.

[Alex_C]

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.

[Jemsaal]

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.

[tangoseal]

hey - stuck this on a new wall on facebook. If you're on it, go check it out!

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

shared!

[Crowman]

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)

[foxytwo]

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.

[Jemsaal]

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.