GobbleGobble 0 #51 January 21, 2013 QuoteQuoteNo conspiracy, just your average everyday lazy incomplete article masquerading as journalism. First of all, there is no gun show loophole. Semantic BS. I love how it's only semantic BS when it isn't falling out of your mouth. I've bought and sold guns privately, among a small group of friends. I knew for certain that they were eligible to possess them. I've sold 1 gun to a person I didn't know. We met at a gunshop and the owner ran the background check. To do anything less is incredibly irresponsible. I kind of like the idea of the Iowa system (if we really need to go there). This incident is negligence through and through. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #52 January 22, 2013 Quote>As incorrect as the semi-automatic weapons you call "assault weapons". Uh, you do realize that the gun industry came up with that label, right? Quote “The term was first adopted by the manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearm owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.” So you'd have to ask them what they meant. As I said, precision in language is generally considered a good thing, unless you're trying to sell something. It turns out that the catchy, and not well-understood, name was useful both for selling firearms and for selling legislation to ban a bunch of random features deemed "scary" by the Brady campaign in an effort to affect as many firearms as they could get away with. I'm less concerned with the etymology of the term, though, and more concerned with the lack of interest ban proponents had/have (in 1994 and today in calling for its reinstatement) in the details of the term's definition. More recently the terms "military-style," "high-capacity," and "high-power" are getting a lot of publicity too. I think "military-style" is a stupid description for a firearm. At its core its toothless because it's "just a style" and you could use the same term about a hat or a memorandum, but on the other hand people hear "military" and think "military things are for the military!" "High-capacity" is arbitrarily defined and is a bit like a fast food place offering only regular, large, and extra large because "small" feels like you're not getting a lot for your money. If you think 11 rounds is high-capacity then you might also be interested in a t-shirt at a designer clothing store that's $399.99 $199.99 $99.99 omg! 75% off! amazing value! And "high-power" as many others have pointed out here has been misused into meaninglessness too. It's used as a generic pejorative without bother to try and answer the question "relative to what?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #53 January 22, 2013 > It's used as a generic pejorative without bother to try and answer the question >"relative to what?" And as a generic figure of merit. "Stopping power" is another such term. I agree with you that any legislation has to have accurate and specific language. I just get a kick out of people who will talk amicably for hours about weapons but get incensed when other people (whose politics they disagree with) use the same language. (This isn't restricted to guns, of course. Happens in a lot of fields.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #54 January 22, 2013 Using existing language (and redefining it as needed when the actual legislation is written) that gun owners are willing to repeat is actually a genius move by the gun control crowd. They have most everyone on both sides of the issue speaking their modified language now. I think it would be a smart move to start calling the "assault weapon" ban the "ban on the part that goes up." I was watching the Daily Show the other day and Stewart was trying to make a point that the second amendment was written when people had muskets. And during the bit he said, "you can even have assault muskets if you want" and the graphics department had this ridiculous photoshopped thing up on the screen and my first thought was, "I wonder if he's aware that the ridiculous thing he just put up on the screen was banned in 1994 because it had a pistol grip and a bayonet mount." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #55 January 22, 2013 QuoteUsing existing language (and redefining it as needed when the actual legislation is written) blah blah blah... Giving a strict legal definition to existing words is done all the time in legislation. Nothing new to see here. Get over it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #56 January 22, 2013 QuoteQuoteUsing existing language (and redefining it as needed when the actual legislation is written) blah blah blah... Giving a strict legal definition to existing words is done all the time in legislation. Nothing new to see here. Get over it. My post was about how language is being used to lead the public's perception of the issue and about what is being proposed. More specifically how one side of the issue is doing a much better job at it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #57 January 22, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteUsing existing language (and redefining it as needed when the actual legislation is written) blah blah blah... Giving a strict legal definition to existing words is done all the time in legislation. Nothing new to see here. Get over it. My post was about how language is being used to lead the public's perception of the issue and about what is being proposed. More specifically how one side of the issue is doing a much better job at it. Yeah. Gun-grabbers and gun-o-phobes are good at that kind of stuff. After all, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. And as we know, if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. Or maybe, like with most issues, both sides do it with gusto. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #58 January 22, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteUsing existing language (and redefining it as needed when the actual legislation is written) blah blah blah... Giving a strict legal definition to existing words is done all the time in legislation. Nothing new to see here. Get over it. My post was about how language is being used to lead the public's perception of the issue and about what is being proposed. More specifically how one side of the issue is doing a much better job at it. Yeah. Gun-grabbers and gun-o-phobes are good at that kind of stuff. After all, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. And as we know, if you criminalize guns, only criminals will have guns. Or maybe, like with most issues, both sides do it with gusto. I'm not suggesting that both sides aren't involved in this, or that there isn't a reciprocal peppering of gusto, I'm saying one side is doing a much better job at it. This is evidenced by the near-universal use of the "banner" (and "ban-curious") preferred language, and the laughing off of all the tired NRA slogans. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #59 January 22, 2013 >I'm saying one side is doing a much better job at it. The NRA is doing a far better job of spinning this. When even GOP leaders are telling people "we're surrounded! The gun grabbers are coming! They want to BAN ALL GUNS!" - then you have one side doing a MUCH better job of doublespeak. A few examples: =========== My friend, our freedom is under direct assault. From those who want take your guns. From those who want to shred our Constitution, and as our good in friend Rand Paul from Kentucky says, from those who want to be King. Let me tell you, Mitch McConnell is ready to lead the fight to protect your rights. ========== You and I are literally surrounded. The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment. On your rights. On your freedom. Just the other night, President Obama urged them to act. And then he went one step further, spelling out the 23 different Executive Orders he will take to get your guns. ============== Can you produce a similar quote from a Democrat that says the NRA wants to kill all our kids? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #60 January 22, 2013 Quote>I'm saying one side is doing a much better job at it. The NRA is doing a far better job of spinning this. The NRA isn't spinning this or controlling the tone of the debate at all, they are just making louder and wilder accusations. Judging by how well that worked in the election last November, I wouldn't equate that with "doing a much better job" than your opponents. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #61 January 22, 2013 >The NRA isn't spinning this or controlling the tone of the debate at all, they are >just making louder and wilder accusations. Given that the "gun grabber" meme is propagating quite well, I'd say they had a lot of influence on the language of the debate. Remember this: ============= A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November. . . .NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep." "All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said. "We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution." ========== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #62 January 23, 2013 Right, and that didn't work. Beating drums to get the usual suspects from the conservative side of the spectrum to the polls isn't the power play it used to be. Meanwhile, gun owners are on their back feet trying to defend "high-capacity magazines" as though that was actually what people were proposing getting of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #63 January 23, 2013 >Right, and that didn't work. It didn't work? The NRA's pushing of the "gun grabber" meme hasn't resulted in increased gun sales? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleGobble 0 #64 January 23, 2013 Quote>Right, and that didn't work. It didn't work? The NRA's pushing of the "gun grabber" meme hasn't resulted in increased gun sales? How's it a meme if it's what the president has asked congress to pursue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,672 #65 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuote>Right, and that didn't work. It didn't work? The NRA's pushing of the "gun grabber" meme hasn't resulted in increased gun sales? How's it a meme if it's what the president has asked congress to pursue? Which of the President's proposals asks Congress to confiscate ("grab") guns?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #66 January 23, 2013 >How's it a meme if it's what the president has asked congress to pursue? I rest my case. People actually believe that shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleGobble 0 #67 January 23, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuote>Right, and that didn't work. It didn't work? The NRA's pushing of the "gun grabber" meme hasn't resulted in increased gun sales? How's it a meme if it's what the president has asked congress to pursue? Which of the President's proposals asks Congress to confiscate ("grab") guns? What myself and many others expected was a return of the 90s era AWB with modifications. The NRA is leaning hard to toss out a lot of FUD. Not denying that one bit. I don't know that it's any more egregious than the far left. I didn't express myself very well, and I apologise for that. I would point out that an outright banning and confiscation of civilian firearms has all but been given up. The not so new way ahead is death by a thousand paper cuts. EDIT: I'd also add that a lot of the guns that sold out very quickly are ones that are suspected to be targeted by updated legislation. So perhaps gun grabber isn't wholly applicable, but there is incentive to have your ownership "grandfathered". Make sense? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #68 January 23, 2013 Quote>Right, and that didn't work. It didn't work? The NRA's pushing of the "gun grabber" meme hasn't resulted in increased gun sales? It may have sold more guns but I was talking about the debate over what legislation (if any beyond the EOs Obama issued) will come out of all of this. Drumming up the usual suspects to yell louder about more ridiculous things does not improve the chances that a bad/ineffective idea put forth by gun control advocates will be stopped. Just like drumming up the usual suspects to yell louder about more ridiculous things did not get Romney elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,466 #69 January 23, 2013 >It may have sold more guns but I was talking about the debate over what legislation >(if any beyond the EOs Obama issued) will come out of all of this. Drumming up the >usual suspects to yell louder about more ridiculous things does not improve the >chances that a bad/ineffective idea put forth by gun control advocates will be stopped. I agree there. Both sides would be better served by less incendiary rhetoric. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #70 January 23, 2013 QuoteWhat myself and many others expected was a return of the 90s era AWB 70s, dude, not 90s. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
