It’s Civilian Disarmament, Stupid

TTAG has been using the terms “gun control” and “civilian disarmament” interchangeably for quite some time; leaning heavily towards civilian disarmament. ‘Cause that’s what gun control is, really. An attempt to disarm civilians. At the risk of offending [both] PC readers amongst us, that’s what’s called calling a spade a spade. Gun control advocates, on the other hand, are in the obfuscation business. They scored a major success by rebranding modern sporting rifles as “assault rifles.” And now they’re at it again, looking to ditch the term “gun control” for “gun safety.” Ha friggin’ ha. Gun safety means being safe with a gun. As in following the four safety rules. The gun control lobby’s attempt to sell civilian disarmament as gun safety is almost as stupid as it is lame.  And yet the media’s buying it! MSNBC has adopted the term. And check out this headline and lead from seattletimes.com . . .

Editorial: Another voice for gun safety

THE public campaign for gun safety and accountable gun ownership received a serious infusion of talent, energy and resources.

Formation of the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility will help promote legislation to require background checks for all firearms sales in the state.

Responsibility, safety, horseshit. And if you can’t fool them with Orwellian double-speak, just flat-out lie.

Promoting sensible, responsible gun ownership does not trample on Second Amendment prerogatives to own firearms.

Nor should gun ownership preclude reasonable expectations of public safety and accountability.

Translation: pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Fortunately most Americans — certainly most American gun owners — don’t. No matter what you call it, Americans are against civilian disarmament. To paraphrase the Bard, gun control by any other name still smells like government tyranny. Look that up in your Funk & Wagnalls.

comments

  1. avatar anonymous says:

    > TTAG has been using the terms “gun control” and
    > “civilian disarmament” interchangeably for quite some time

    I prefer the term “gun-owner control”

    > And now they’re at it again, looking to ditch the
    > term “gun control” for “gun safety.”

    They did that back in 1999 – 2000, with “,a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_for_Gun_Safety_Foundation”>Americans For Gun Safety”

    Due to the organization’s being established by Andrew McKelvey (the founder of Monster.com), a former member of the board of directors of Handgun Control, Inc. and the primary founder of the Million Mom March, gun rights activists frequently made the claim that AGS had all the appearances and affiliations expected of an anti-gun organization. It was thus usually identified as a gun control organization rather than a gun rights organization.

    Eventually, AGS merged with Third Way, which describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan strategy center for progressives.” The site provides a direct link to the Brady Campaign as well.

    The organization is now defunct.

    John McCain was one of their spokesmen back in 2000.

    1. avatar muh says:

      hm, i would rather call it “liberty control”.

      1. avatar Mark says:

        Could just call it “tyranny”.
        Tyranno Equus africanus asinus

    2. avatar anonymous says:

      > i would rather call it “liberty control”

      If you did, most people wouldn’t know what you’re talking about.

      There are many other “liberty control” issues besides gun-owner control.

      1. avatar Brian says:

        But it’s much easier to ‘control’ the other liberties if you first take away the means to fight back. As many others have pointed out in the past, without the 2nd all your other rights can go away.

        If that did happen I can see other rights being regulated heavily, huge protest, 70% of the regulation rolled back so protest stops. Rinse, repeat until we are at war with Eastasia. Toasting our buddies in Eurasia and screaming hate at Goldstein for two minutes.

      2. avatar anonymous says:

        > But it’s much easier to ‘control’ the other liberties
        > if you first take away the means to fight back. As
        > many others have pointed out in the past, without
        > the 2nd all your other rights can go away.

        If your goal of calling it “liberty control” is simply to make yourself feel better, go ahead.

        If you’re trying to communicate to your audience, the term “liberty control” doesn’t work if you have to explain it to them.

        Sometimes I really get the impression that gun-owners would rather just wallow in their sense of superiority, rather than actually working to persuade others. Maybe we deserve to lose our guns.

        1. avatar Sammy says:

          “Maybe we deserve to lose our guns.”

          Kindly speak for yourself, sir.

        2. avatar muh says:

          I am no gunowner, ’cause i live in a country which practically forbids private gun ownership (Germany). Liberty is nearly just as limited as gun ownership, so I know what I’m talking about … and I don’t believe it’s only coincidence.

      3. avatar muh says:

        sure there are other liberty controls out there, but gun control is usualy the fastest way to liberty control. i think gouvernments want to control guns because they want to control and limit liberty. so why not name this? why should we use a different word for every control-agenda if it’s just another side of the same medal each time? gun control would become a lot more difficult if more people would realise that gun control is not about guns but about liberty …

    3. avatar travis m. says:

      Someone should make a parody group, who tells it as it is, explaining that civilian disarmament is good because civilians cannot be trusted with anything and need to be controlled and suppressed, as only the government and politicians are entitled to any and all power.

  2. avatar NS says:

    so when was the last time one of these groups sponsored a firearms safety course at the local shooting range, if they’re so concerned about safe ownership but are sill respectful of the 2nd Amendment?

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      Their respect of the 2A only goes as far as allowing…I mean tolerating people hunting with a bolt action rifle. Anything more than that is a no-no.

      1. avatar Herb says:

        When MikeyB & his friends say “we only want to ban assault weapons”, that is Hitler saying “All I want is the Sudetenland”. And just as morally equivalent.

        They’ll let us keep our bolt action rifles? By U.N. definition a bolt action in a military caliber with a telescopic sight in a glass bedded stock that can easily group at 500 yards is no `hunting rifle’ but a “medium range sniper weapon” and as for owning one:

        “Citizen, you can’t have such things. You must give them to the state.”

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          You ought to give the Hitler comparisons a rest. The make you sound stupid.

    2. avatar OODAloop says:

      They have a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/WashingtonAllianceforGunResponsibility?fref=ts and someone’s already posted to it. How about asking them directly?

  3. avatar Chuck in IL says:

    NBC has become the Pravda or Der Stürmer of our times. It is state run media. Don’t watch it. Any of it.

  4. avatar Narcoossee says:

    Regarding “gun control” / “gun safety”: This is called “framing” and it’s critically important that we continue to recognize this, and call them on it. Here’s a brief description: http://www.vanseodesign.com/web-design/framing-expectation-exposure-effect/

    Likewise we do that when using the term “civilian disarmament”, to correctly frame the practically all the anti-2A’s efforts, in terms of their ultimate-if-unspoken ultimate goal.

  5. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    Resorting to euphemisms to describe your position is an admission that you’re wrong and you know it.

  6. avatar rc says:

    “And yet the media’s buying it! MSNBC has adopted the term.”

    Well not so much buying it, as selling it…they are the propaganda arm of the current majority party, IYKWIMAITYD.

    1. avatar LC Judas says:

      I need a decode on that acroynm.

      1. avatar Thomas Paine says:

        AWGTHTGTTA?

      2. avatar dededede says:

        IfffffYaKnowWhadIMeanAnnnndIThinkYouDo

  7. avatar Bob says:

    “Accountable gun ownership” – sounds like tyranny to me.

  8. avatar William says:

    Personally, I think “victim disarmament” get the point across best. Everyone, at times, imagines themselves a victim (where true or, more likely, no); the term “victim disarmament” tends to draw them into the debate. Which is where they’re confronted with the errors in their thinking.

    Although, technically, it’s not “thinking”, usually. It’s called “parroting”.

  9. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

    Robert, shame on you for leading your simple-minded readers by the nose like that. The term “civilian disarmament” and that picture up there are perfect examples of the con job you’re pulling. At least with La Pierre we know he’s being paid handsomely by the gun manufacturers. What’s your angle?

    1. avatar Casey T says:

      It is civil disarmament. Denying citizens the ability to protect themselves is not safety or gun control, it’s manipulation with intent to dominate citizens. This presidency is a power hungry, thug t type administration who lies and intimidates people and reporters.

    2. avatar CZ-PA says:

      God I hate you smug bastards. What do you do for a living MikeyB? I ask because I think the average “simple-minded” TTAG reader is smarter, more responsible, and more successful than your burger-flipping ass.

      Grabbers created the myth that the NRA is a front for the gun business. Guess what? Those businesses have a long history of selling us out. See Bill Ruger and S&W. And they have their own org, the NSSF, which is politically incompetent. The NRA gets its power from regular people, not business interests.

      1. avatar Don says:

        I too have been long interested in what mikeb does for a living and why he has moved to Italy.

        1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          Yeah, I flip burgers.

    3. avatar Ross says:

      Mike, my dear boy, there is no reaching you as you simply refuse to acknowledge what the Second Amendment is really all about, what it’s there to stop.

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        Oh, I acknowledge what the 2A is really all about – nothing. It’s an obsolete anachronism that you guys have distorted to have some pseudo-meaning. You do that because your other arguments for gun ownership and use aren’t good enough. You need to fall back on the supposed inviolable truth of the 2A.

    4. avatar Russ Bixby says:

      I fervently hope that you are wearing your Sarcasm Hat.

    5. avatar Leo338 says:

      Hey Mikeb, have you heard the great news? You know that person you hate because he is black AND he likes guns? You know who I am talking about, you make pathetic blog post that attempt to discredit him and all it does is make you look like the fool that you are. Well, Americans have spoken and they appreciate someone with common sense and a message based on facts! Something that is foreign to you which is why he is moving up in the world and is now part of NRA News, and you still have a crappy little blog and a FB page with a measly 98 likes LMAO 😛

      1. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

        Leo, first of all I don’t hate him. Secondly, “Americans” have not spoken. The NRA is taking advantage of his impressive Youtube popularity to expand its membership. You gun-rights fanatics are still a fringe element of the gun owners of America.

        1. avatar Tom Ozment says:

          There are only about 100,000,000 of us and we will not have our right to keep and bear arms infringed another millimeter.

        2. avatar Tom says:

          There are only about 100,000,000 of us and we will not have our right to keep and bear arms infringed another millimeter.

        3. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          There are not 100 million of YOU. Many of those 100 million gun owners think you’re nuts and agree with the gun control side of the argument. The true gun-rights believers are relatively few.

  10. avatar dededede says:

    The Atlantic had a little article about this and how it got fought about on the wikipedia gun safety page. Someone tried to reframe the gun safety page to be about gun control, and the editors weren’t having it.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-surprisingly-tangled-politics-of-gun-safety-starring-wikipedia/266601/

  11. avatar Javier says:

    These people want accountability in gun _____(you fill in the blank). Yet they keep insisting that every body else should be accountable except the disturbed individual who commits the crime. They fail to grasp the actual truth that those responsible should be the only ones held to account for their actions. Criminals don’t obey the laws and the only ones who these laws affect are the law-abiding.
    The pols believe themselves above the laws the are going to impose on US. They have forgotten WE gave them power they are OUR employees they work for US not the other way around. WE need to hold them accountable for STUPID.

  12. avatar g says:

    I read the Seattle Times and generally find the paper to be fair when it comes to most issues, but yeah… framing the issue as “gun safety” is a huge misnomer. They’ll be getting a letter to the editor from me, without a doubt. Whether or not they publish it? I doubt it.

  13. avatar crndl says:

    biden used the term “civilian disarmament” within a week after Sandy Hook…don’t let a good crisis go to waste 🙁

  14. avatar crndl says:

    biden used the term “civilian disarmament” within a week after Sandy Hook, maybe we don’t hear it as much now, but it was there loud & clear…don’t let a good crisis go to waste 🙁

  15. avatar Lance says:

    Thats why we will not use Fascist terms call a AR a Modern sporting rifle and stick to it.

  16. avatar Chris McLain says:

    I still have my parents Funk & Wagnalls… time to hit the books

  17. avatar Jason says:

    What I really dont understand is that gun ownership is at an all time high, yet they would take all of them if they could. That has got to show them something. Even if they could, how would they afford it? They obviously cant afford anything now. Maybe Rosie could eat them? Other than that, not many more options. They can barely pay the light bill in downtown D.C.

  18. avatar Ronald Vaughn says:

    In exmilitary citizens, eyes, any attempt at Disarming the Public, comes from Stupid People. When you Have Seen What happens to the People at large in war torn countries, it Wisens a Person. Send all the Gun Control Fools to Government Controlled Countrys and see how they Feel about Freedom then. Gun Control is an attempt at total Government Control With no Rights. Our for Fathers Couldnt see far enough ahead to Block the Government from taking control, and as I see it thats now what is Beeing Done. I hate to think it, but the next war will be the People against the Stupid People, But we will have the Guns, I wonder how long it will Last?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email