TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:

Vol Texan wrote:One great retort in the comments section was as follows:

Well, we shouldn't HAVE to be anal about terminology, but ever since the Left deliberately lied about terminology (in order to confuse the ignorant into supporting bans on what they honestly think are machine-guns), we've had to fight back:

"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarman of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center.

So yes, facts matter - tough that you don't like them, but we're going to keep hammering them home so that we're all on the same page, despite the attempts from anti-gun people to control the narrative.

Thank you - that was me

Actually, I thought it was, but I didn't want to be presumptuous. I recognized the first name, last initial, and the common-sense approach.

The thing is that the banners want to ban something they have to be specific and technical to describe exactly what they want to ban. The "I know it when I see it" doesn't work well in our legal system. The Mad Mommy and company goals aren't to eliminate a single rifle platform but to eliminate as broad of a base as they possibly can. The current democratic gun ban bill is proof of this scope creep. Which basically strives to eliminate every modern gun. except mouseguns, and ancient designs like 1911s and revolvers. Soon they will go after those.

If they are going to call for the elimination of something they need to explain what the features are that they want to eliminate. How does a shroud or adjustable stock make a weapon more dangerous to the public? Why is a Glock 17 more of a public threat than a 1911 platform? To understand all this and the targets of the banners we need to get technical. They certainly have in their bills.

I wrote a post in my blog, that does 'gunsplain' a little about the AR15 and I try to dispell some of the mistruths about the AR-15 and related platforms.

Liberty wrote:The thing is that the banners want to ban something they have to be specific and technical to describe exactly what they want to ban. The "I know it when I see it" doesn't work well in our legal system. The Mad Mommy and company goals aren't to eliminate a single rifle platform but to eliminate as broad of a base as they possibly can. The current democratic gun ban bill is proof of this scope creep. Which basically strives to eliminate every modern gun. except mouseguns, and ancient designs like 1911s and revolvers. Soon they will go after those.

If they are going to call for the elimination of something they need to explain what the features are that they want to eliminate. How does a shroud or adjustable stock make a weapon more dangerous to the public? Why is a Glock 17 more of a public threat than a 1911 platform? To understand all this and the targets of the banners we need to get technical. They certainly have in their bills.

I wrote a post in my blog, that does 'gunsplain' a little about the AR15 and I try to dispell some of the mistruths about the AR-15 and related platforms.

In my recent experience in discussing the school shootings with gun banners, they have no interest in the specifics of anything. I tried to talk about the difference between .223 and .308 in lethality. They don't care. They see that the ARs have been used in crimes and that is all they need. Ban anything that has been used in crimes. When I brought up that handguns were use significantly more in crimes than rifles, their response was "ban those, too." Their wishes are being carried out by the introduction of the semi-auto ban in the US Congress. When I suggested that the Connecticut ban on ARs was less than successful, the response was that the National Guard should have been sent door to door. They are rabid. They want the 2nd Amendment repealed. When I reminded of the processes to amend the Constitution, they had no interest in that information either. Congress should be able to do away with the 2nd Amendment. Reality is not strong in that group.

Our mission isn't to convert the gun banners, Their minds are all ready made up. I just hope to explain to our side, the truth and the unreasonableness of the banners

Liberty wrote:The thing is that the banners want to ban something they have to be specific and technical to describe exactly what they want to ban.

Semiautomatic firearms capable of accepting a detachable magazine.

To start.

I saw someone on Twitter quote the following to one of the offended "journalists". It was attributed to someone else (popehat), so I searched for it and found it, but it does not meet our guidelines due to language. But a snippet of the quote is below and you can read the whole article if you want. Best analogy I have seen about wrong terminology and this is over two years old:

It's hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn't. So imagine we're going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I'm trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

Me: I don't want to take away dog owners' rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What's an "attack dog?"
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren't military dogs. In fact "military dogs" isn't a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don't be ridiculous. Nobody's trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn't own fighting dogs...


popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns

In Defense of 'Gunsplaining'

Pointing out inaccuracies in your opponent's arguments is a cynical ploy to stop discussion. Or so I gather from Adam Weinstein, who just published a Washington Post op-ed taking gun control critics to task for "gunsplaining"—Weinstein's name for when one is "harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner" after one makes some incidental factual error about guns, such as calling AR-15s "high-powered" or confusing clips with magazines.

"Gunsplaining," Weinstein declares, "is always done in bad faith. Like mansplaining, it's less about adding to the discourse than smothering it." Were it not for those condescending gun snobs picking apart every rhetorical misstep, we would spend less time arguing over little details and more time having reasoned discussions over just which firearms restrictions we should implement next.

There's the problem. Laws need to be made with facts in mind, not rhetoric.

I was thinking that gun people correct each other on terminology all the time. People who are ignorant of guns getting upset about that is just funny.

MechAg94 wrote:I was thinking that gun people correct each other on terminology all the time.

True. That reminds me of a time I was at a commercial range shooting my M1 Garand. I was looking for one of the clips that got away from me after it was ejected. The RO asked what I was doing, and when I said I was looking for my clip, he smugly replied, "you mean magazine?" I said, "no, I mean clip."

It makes you wonder if they would correct somebody who called the morning after pill a partial birth abortion.

I’m beyond caring if my speech offends a liberal who is ignorant about what they’re talking about. For decades, they have not cared one whit if their speed offends me. Why should I give a cup of warm spit if educating them offends them?