Rant - Handguns Are A Figment of Liberal Imaginations

[William R. Wilburn]

I am sensitive about about the use of words.

My Daddy taught me when I was five that there are two things you can't call back: bullets and words. As I studied the use of the English language I came to see that language and arms have much in common. They are power, and as the thought precedes the deed the issues in the hearts and minds of the people precede the laws that govern that people.

The debate concerning these laws is shaped by the words used in that debate. (eg)- The press at the Gonzales household calling the MP5 subgun a "rifle."

I considered the word "handgun" a few days ago and wondered about its origin. It is an ugly word and bears none of the noble connotations of a word such as "sidearm." I chose to seek the roots of "handgun" in my 1953 Funk & Wagnels (two volumes-about forty pounds of dead trees, and yes, I am a dinosaur). "Handgun" is not to be found in that esteemed publication. Sidearm, pistol, revolver. Yes. But, no "handgun."

I do not hold with the French idea of a state language police ensuring that nasty foreign words or unauthorized invented words do not pollute the beauty of their mother tongue, but why invent a new word unless it is needed for a new concept, technology, or discovery?

I smell Orwellian thought/word manipulation.

We are not a German based language were we cobble terms together to to name the "gunzenmittenzeboomemtupperwarrenplasticpoppenhowitzer." "Handgun" is a cobbled mess with none of the specifics or details needed in a new word. It is a wide-cast net, far-flung, and too encompassing and that is its purpose: to be generic, not specific, to stretch the mind to include any handheld extension of power.

We are not an aphasiac people in that we cannot name an object without multiple nouns and adjectives appended to its designation. "Pistol" does nicely for specifying a type of sidearm. "Revolver" or "semi-automatic pistol(adjectives not-withstanding and an example of a new word needed for advances in technology)" is even better. The newly coined word "handgun" has been slipped into our language to shape the debate on firearms. "Handgun" should not be part of our vocabulary. It is an ugly word (although, I guess that makes Glocks "handguns").

Thoughts from others on the forum?

And, yes, I know there should be no debate at all. We have right to bear arms, and discussion of such is in itself yielding to liberal agenda. So do we "wrestle with the pigs," or distance ourself from the debate? If we choose to "wrestle with the pigs" we should choose our words as if we they were bullets being sent down-range: Know your back-stop(unintended consequences of ill-spoken words), muzzle down-range at all times(think before you speak and be mindful of the power of your words-they can be as lethal as a .45), painting a college with the muzzle can result in severe consequences(dissention within the ranks due to criticism even if inadvertent), be sure of your target(no spray-and-pray and don't rant and foam at the mouth except among friends), and lastly... "Use enough gun."-R. Ruarke

Thanks for a place to share my thoughts.

One last thought; perhaps errata. I saw an eldery Japanese/American interviewed concerning he and his families internment during WW2 at a "Relocation Center." He spoke of the rights and laws that had been guaranteed him under the Constitution and how they had been violated and ignored. His final comment branded into my thoughts: He said, "The Constitution, afterall, is just a piece of paper."

Truly, the corridors of power are round, rifled, and wrought of iron.

-William

[This message has been edited by William R. Wilburn (edited May 16, 2000).]

 

[Russell]

I read in a GOA book once that the term handgun came from the old english word "Hand gonnes" which refferred to all firearms capable of being carried by one man. A "gonnes" was a cannon.

I hereby propose that from now on we call our handguns "gunzenmittenzeboomemtupperwarrenplasticpoppenhowitzer." it will confuse the hell out of any anti

 

[Oleg Volk]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by William R. Wilburn:
I saw an eldery Japanese/American interviewed concerning he and his families internment during WW2 at a "Relocation Center." He spoke of the rights and laws that had been guaranteed him under the Constitution and how they had been violated and ignored. His final comment branded into my thoughts: He said, "The Constitution, afterall, is just a piece of paper."[/quote]

I encountered the same attitude among Russians and Germans, they seem to feel that paper doesn't guarantee rights...and then shy away from doing anything that *would* defend their rights. Almost as if they were bred for docility

------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk

http://dd-b.net/RKBA

 

[Bruce in West Oz]

An interesting question.

The Australian Macquarie says "handgun" is colloquial, and refers the reader to "pistol".

The British Oxford says it's a "small firearm held in and fired with one hand". No mention of it being a colloquialism.

Merriam-Webster is the most interesting: it defines the word as "a firearm (as a revolver or pistol) designed to be held and fired with one hand" and then dates it back to the 15th Century.

B

 

[C.R.Sam]

W. R. Willburn
Your near Churchillian command of the english language is often a bright spot in my day, especially after reading my daily dose of local socialist propaganda blatently claiming to be a newspaper.

The children's book " The Chatterlings " would be an applicable primer for the masses of sheep-like citizens who are now attacking our Constitution with words of which they know not the meaning.

As to the question of swimming with the pigs or standing on the clean ground while defending ourselves against this invasion; I vote for jumping in and discussing in terms that they understand. Then educating them.

Handgun was not to be found in my library, Websters 1923, 1953 and 1969. New Columbia 1971. AND Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Pub 603 (6-71), Published Ordinances Firearms, State Laws and Local Ordinances Relevant to Title 18, U.S.C.,Chapter 44.

In the many State and City ordinances the terminology differed. We have Pistol defined as any weapon with barrel length of less than 12", which is designed to expel a projectile by the action of expanding gas: This was Arizona, a case could be made for including CO2, pump etc airguns.

Other states define pistol as being a firearm of stated dimension, revolver or magazine fed, expelling a projectile by means of an explosive.

Our first choice of ammunition should be words. This is made difficult by the propaganda mongers colouration of what used to be very definitave words of the English language. There used to be no true synonyms in our language; each word had it's own unique meaning. Now we have a Kommander in Heat who will argue the meaning of the word " is ".

May God be with us if we are forced to use the next level of ammunition.

Off my pedestal of pomposity.


------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."

 

[AllanHampton]

C.R.Sam, good post and my thanks. IMO it matters not what handle is attached to a rose, it is still a rose. No doubt in my mind Americans are losing the war of words and I see very little, if any at all, chance of winning that war. The simple reason being what effect can words possible have on the irrational? Irrationality does not want, nor seek the truth. The very idea of "arms" as in the Right "to keep and bear arms" means simply what it says and it is the supreme Law of this Republic. Evidently the irrational don't believe either, the Law or meaning.

The only method of legally changing the Constitution or the meaning of is by ratification and I am not at all sure even ratification could legally be used against the Bill of Rights alone. The irrational apparently do not understand, or care, that they are advocating the destruction of the Constitution and therefore this Republic and their own freedoms. Not to mention helping start an all out war, as with those mean evil ol' guns.

I suggest trying to avoid the war with guns by switching the war of words from guns to voting. The evidence is overwhelming that members of the republican and democrat political parties are the very people enacting unconstitutional legislation. And no need trying to explain that to the irrational. However, it is clear the elected in office are the enemy of this Republic, the Constitution and We, the people, by enacting unconstitutional legislation and enforcing it.

IMO the war of words used by Americans should be VOTE THIRD PARTY.

 

[CHEMNCO917]

The "American Heritage Dictionary of the English language" also states that a "handgun" is A firearm that can be used with one hand"

Gee..... does that mean that Arnold Swarztenegger (SP?). can carry a M203 as a sidearm???

I like that thought!!

 

[William R. Wilburn]

Thanks to all who took time to research their sources and reply.

Bruce In West Oz killed my contention that "handgun" is a word of recent origins with his 15th Century attribution from Merriam-Webster. Another good reason to rant amoung kindred thinkers. Now, I will not advance that premise and find my foot firmly wedged in my mouth.

Russell: "Gunzenmittenzeboomemtupperwarrenplaticpoppenhowitzer" would be to difficult to use in a discussion with antis. With them, it is best to keep to monosylabic words with a minimum of modifiers. Otherwise their eyes glaze over and they have go watch Rozie on the TV.

Oleg: Your insights into repressed societies is invaluable to us. We, in this pampered nation, literally, cannot conceptualize the oppression endured by many of the peoples of the world. Every now and then, a good hard slap in the face is needed to bring us back to reality. Thank you for providing the reality check (I'm so CZ happy right now that you almost became a Reality Czeck!).

C.R. Sam: Your reference to Churchillian writing on my part must have been tongue-in-cheek. After reading the post I found several mis-spellings, errors in grammer, and typos.

As for swimming with the pigs; I would normally disdain such activities.
When I know I am correct in my views on a subject or know the solution to a problem, I seldom argue: I let people fail. Learning takes place during failure and if no harm is done, let failure take place. Who said, "Good judgement comes from experience and experiece comes from bad judgement?" People learn to take risks if they first learn to fail in a safe environment. Good teachers, on occassion, will allow a student to fail, but in such a way that there is no irreparable harm. Recovering from failure is an important part of maturing.
But, in this instance, I fear we are not in a safe enviroment to pracice failure.

This is not the laboratory of the dojo, the debating society of at the halls Harvard, nor even the "playing fields of Sandhurst." We are in a struggle for the future of this nation, our progeny, and, perhaps, the world. This is the time we will be called upon to..."live free, or die." I do not mean a death of the body, but of the spirit. The spirit of risk, resposiblity, and reward for individualiam.

Sorry, C.R., I got carried away. Dismounting from soap-box.

Since you brought up Churchill and language, I will share with you a favorite Churchill anecdote concerning dangling particples. Memo to a clerk(paraphrased): "This the type of non-sense, of which, I will not up-with put." The Old Lion could torture a sentence like a tax-evader on the rack in London Gaol.

AllanHampton: I considered a "rose by any other name," and you are correct. Now is not the time for subtly and nuance. We must now, "Use enough gun." These destroyers of freedom are indeed irrational and logic will serve us poorly in our struggle. These self-propelled, emotional bags, of mind-altering chemicals will not be influenced except by more powerful emotions. Maybe it will take a squirt from the adrenal medulla caused by the basest emotion in existence in humankind: fear and the desire to survive. That might cause them to do a Reality Czech. Oleg might be just the man for that mission.

A long-dead Brit observed: That, even though the pen is mightier than the sword; "One does not go amoung the barbarian with but an umbrella (must have been a very long-dead Brit judging from England's conditon today)." People must understand that words, laws, and more government cannot protect us from personal harm. That is our resposibility and that requires force of arms.

The question is: Since logic is of limited use, how do we influence the neurosecretions of these socialists in-training? This is Plato's nightmare of the Republic: the un-educated, un-informed, and un-responsible in a society in charge at the polls. We already provide "bread and circuses," now must we provide an environment with total safety for the irresponsible?

Got to go. Back to reality on my part.

Thanks again for the information and thought provoking commentary.

-William