Terminology suggestion

C

cornered rat

Moderator
Given that the enemy classify weapons by intended use and do well with that, perhaps we can adopt that tactic. Instead of trying to explain the techical difference between "assault rifle" STG44 and M16 and AR15 and so on, why not refer to our arms by their purpose.

I, for one, object to any efforts to take away my self-defense arms.

Tell us, Senator, why would you try to take away self-defense rifles from lawful Americans? And while disarming everyone else, how dare you let your own bodyguards keep their own rapid-fire high-capacity assault guns!?


------------------
Cornered Rat
http://dd-b.net/RKBA RKBA posters
http://dd-b.net/olegv Portrait, nature photos
 
I had an old gun shop dealer years ago that was always telling us to refer to "weapons" and "Firearms" as "sporting firearms" ... to avoid using the word "weapon" completely......well.. being still in the service at the time, we continue to refer to them as "weapons"........ that term has now come back to haunt me(us).....and the new terms used for vilification are getting more and more time on the media than ever before....
 
Nothing wrong with self-defense weapon . The argument is not about hunting or clays or target shooting, it is about -- primarily -- protecting life and limb from all and any predations. Don't let the enemy sidetrack the argument into "needing a 30mm chaingun for murdering Bambi" -- that is not relevant. What is relevant is the improvement in safety that weapons (not limited to but including firearms) afford.
 
WEAPONS are not a problem. The problem is making the word "weapon" a problem. I listend to Bill Bradley say on Crossfire the other day that we couldn't get rid of all handguns, because they're a featured event in the decathelon. WHAT? NO!?! We can't get rid of handguns, because I may have to use it as a weapon, and you can't tell me that it's wrong to do so under all cases!

Don't EVER fall for that "legitimate sporting use" BS! The 2nd Amendment was NOT about target shooting, or about hunting, or about collecting. It is about the right of the individual to possess and carry an arm (read: "weapon"), to defend himself against all real threats to himself and his household. NOWHERE in the Constitution has my right to defend myself been ceded to the government.

Why should it be okay to use an "improvised weapon," such as a table lamp, 2X4, etc. to dispatch an attacker, but not an effective, designed-for-the-purpose weapon[/i] to accomplish the same task? I'm 6'5", 235lbs-- why am I so lucky as to be allowed to lord my physical prowess over a 5'2" 100lb woman?



------------------
Will you, too, be one who stands in the gap?

Matt
 
cornered rat,longpath,you guys are right!our opponents always try to move the argument over to -sporting purposes-i beieve that is why hunters,target shooters,and just everyday run of the mill gun owners do not oppose gun restrictions in a more voiciferous way.after all most of them believe in sporting purposes they accept that what they do with guns is -just-a hobby.after all was it not the n.r.a. who accepted the sporting purpose language or clause in -gca of 1968- thankyou ---arthur
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top