Paul, I respectfully disagree. Words matter, and I think most of us are pretty damn tired of having our heads handed to us by mental midgets that have spent their time, profitably, on marketing. We must use our heads in this war.
I concur, lp. My personal choices are 'full capacity' magazines (which is exactly what they are, thank you), and 'reduced capacity' magazines. And, when the idiots ask you 'why does anyone need more than 10 bullets?', or 'if you can't get it done with 10 bullets, you're probably dead anyway' and other such drivel, ask them this: why do LEO's need more than 10 bullets? They'll usually say something brilliant such as 'well, they're facing criminals!'. Then ask why we call those people criminals? They'll roll their eyes, and say something like 'well, they've committed crimes!'. Then ask them who the crimes were committed against? They'll probably throw up their hands in exasperation at your density - but, point out that we call them criminals because they usually committed crimes against people like you and like me - civilians.
So, let me get this straight - LEO's need more than 10 bullets because they're facing criminals, but we call those BG's criminals because they attacked civilians. But, civilians don't need more than 10 bullets, even though they are facing the same BG's? BS. You could also talk about the hit rate for LEO's in lethal force situations, but that is usually too cerebral for these airheads.
Other very important semantic clarifications, from my perspective:
1. They aren't anti-gun activists - they are the
'anti-self defense movement'. And, make no mistake about it, they are definitely anti-self defense, and they are practicing moral imperialism.
2. Guns are not made to kill people - they are used to
'terminate violence'. And if you think about it, that is clearly logical. Do we issue firearms to LEO's so they can kill people? I don't think so - we issue them so that LEO's can terminate violence. And, what percentage of firearms are ever used in a crime? I believe the Department of Justice indicates it is well less than 1%. Why would we typify guns as being made only to kill people, when that is their use well less than 1% of the time? Cars rarely kill people, but we don't say they are made simply for killing.
3. I try not to call it a handgun - they have damaged the term. Call it a 'sidearm'. And, do you have any GUNS in the house? Oh, just a few 'household guns', such as AR's, AK's, ...
(Thank you Alan Korwin -
http://www.gunlaws.com )
4. We're not talking about gun rights - we are most definitely talking about
'civil rights'.
5. It isn't just the 2nd Amendment we are concerned with - we are concerned about the
'Bill of Rights' (which just had a birthday on December 15 - it was ratified December 15, 1791).
6. The RKBA is under attack by statists and pacifists. But, these aren't the old fashioned pacifists who simply won't lift a finger to defend themselves - these are
'aggressive pacifists', who will work hard with statists to prevent you from defending yourself, your family and innocent others. If they win, I suspect they will rue their collaboration with statists - hopefully, they will not win.
7. And, one of my favorites - these anti-self defense, liberal zealots are absolutely
'gun bigots'. Think about the absurdity of their behavior. They try to give the impression they are enlightened intellectuals. But, they have a cramped view of history, and they are absolutely intolerant of our philosophy of self defense. They are ignorant of almost everything regarding firearms, and they despise and loathe those who are knowledgeable regarding their proper use. These people are bigots, and next time they call you a 'triggerhead', 'knuckledragger', 'Neanderthal', 'pistol packer' or any other ignorant epithet, look the SOB in the eye and tell him he is a bigot! They know what the word means, but they haven't looked into the mirror lately. Use the term in your letters to the editor as well, to help these people see the truth of their behavior.
Sorry this is so long, but this subject really irritates me.
Now, before I get the obligatory post that says we shouldn't change our language because of our opposition, let me just say this: consider how these ba***rds have run us ragged for years with 'high capacity magazines', 'assault weapons', 'sniper rifles' 'guns are only made to kill' and other mentally-disabled terms. I'm damn tired of it. Damn tired of it. If the enemy made a flanking attack, would you still fortify your frontal positions, or would you counter their new attack? Let's use our heads in this fight - words matter. And, many of our fellow citizens are swayed by these words, because they are ignorant of the truth.
Let's resolve to begin using logical and smart terms in this war with the statists and aggressive pacifists who would destroy the ancient right to keep and bear arms. These people deserve no quarter, and they are the enemy of free people everywhere. I don't care whether it takes better marketing, more lawyers, academicians doing research or civil disobedience. This is a war we can't afford to lose, and we need to use every moral arrow in our quivers to defeat their anti-self defense movement.
Thanks. Regards from AZ
[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited December 21, 1999).]