Not saying you have to like it, but this one is hardly gun-related jargon.Erno86 said:"dressed to the nines"
aka Tacticool Tommy, Counter Commando, & Gun Shop Warrior."Mall Ninja"
^^^^^"tacticool"
"magazine dump"
"crack-off a shot"
"dressed to the nines"
"Let's make some noise"
"range nazi"
"Let's ring some steel"
"Can't hit the broadside of a barn...that is ten feet away"
"put another round in the pipe"
"space gun"
target pulling --- "working in the pits"
"Scout rifle" is another that bugs me.
You hit the nail on the head 44....the term Scout Rifle is not jargon but describes a specific weapon. Obviously touted by Col Cooper.I always thought Cooper's concept for a "Scout rifle" was a rather elegant and practical concept. Just 3/4 of a century or so too late for serious consideration by military scouts. And, of course as people started making them, they deviated from Coopers original concepts often.
IF you create something new, you're allowed to name it, anything you want, even if it doesn't make sense to the rest of us.
making up new names for existing things just for their cuteness appeal or shock value doesn't fall in the category of creating a new thing, to me.
Technobabble is a popular pastime for a lot of folks these days.
I must disagree with you here; many are used by those who would restrict our rights and end up as part of the jargon used by fellow shooters. There is a reason there are a subset of owners known as Fudd's.
buck460XVR said:While we hate trendy gun jargon, we insist on using it ourselves, even tho it alienates us to other, fellow, responsible, gun owners.
Isn't the point of the term fudd that the person isn't a responsible owner in that he irresponsibly endorses restrictions?
If an individual is alienated by an accurate description of his position, who is to blame for the alienation?
buck460XVR said:IMHO, a responsible owner is someone who obeys the law and shoots, hunts and stores their firearms in a safe and responsible way. When someone is next to me at the range, in the field or in the deer woods, I'm more concerned about how responsible they are with whatever firearm they have, than I am in how they feel about high capacity mags and AR type platforms.
buck460XVR said:Also, even tho they may not see a need for certain platforms/accessories, most would support them, if and when the time comes, that their choices are challenged.
A gun-owner who supports traditional hunting guns but favors gun control for other guns such as handguns or tactical rifles.
I respectfully submit that whether or not a gun owner endorses restrictions on firearms use or ownership that some other gun owners don't support is not a factor that defines whether or not that owner is a "responsible" firearms owner. Supporting restrictions that you or I don't support is a personal and political choice, but making a choice with which we disagree does not make the person "irresponsible." If you're going to go there, then in any presidential election year roughly half the population of the United States must be irresponsible, because they don't vote the way I voted.zukiphile said:Isn't the point of the term fudd that the person isn't a responsible owner in that he irresponsibly endorses restrictions?
If an individual is alienated by an accurate description of his position, who is to blame for the alienation?
Aguila Blanca said:I respectfully submit that whether or not a gun owner endorses restrictions on firearms use or ownership that some other gun owners don't support is not a factor that defines whether or not that owner is a "responsible" firearms owner. Supporting restrictions that you or I don't support is a personal and political choice, but making a choice with which we disagree does not make the person "irresponsible."
Again, that's a personal/political assessment. To us, they risk a harm. To them, they are advocating for what they perceive to be a potential benefit.zukiphile said:Certainly. What makes a choice irresponsible isn't the disagreement of others, but the likelihood of a resulting harm. Where a subset of shooters militate for restriction of 2d Am. rights, they risk a harm.
Aguila Blanca said:Again, that's a personal/political assessment.
Aguila Blanca said:To us, they risk a harm. To them, they are advocating for what they perceive to be a potential benefit.