Redefining the Terms: Tactics Of The Modern Day Anti-Gun Movement

Reader Dave Dalton writes:

There is a subtle yet effective tactic being used by the modern day anti-gun movement in the United States. One that probably flies under the radar of most citizens. Over the past several years anti-gun legislators such as Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, and anti-gun groups have repeatedly called some semi-automatic rifles ‘weapons of war’ and ‘military grade weapons’.

While most pro-gun people just rolled their eyes at the stupidity of these remarks (myself included) the endgame was something no one was paying attention to. That endgame was normalizing those terms in the public forum, just as they did “assault rifle.” With this tactic, they’re literally changing how people thought, and now, unfortunately, changing reality.

I couldn’t help but be struck by this reality when a recent district court ruling came out in favor of Massachusetts’ assault weapons ban. The ruling stated that because these rifles were originally marketed to the military, they were in fact “military grade” weapons.

The judge even went so far as to quote the late Justice Scalia in the Heller decision where he wrote “weapons that are most useful in military service; M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the second amendment and “may be banned.” (More on this later.)

That’s when it struck me. I had, so to speak, ‘read this book’ before and knew exactly what was happening. The left had used the tactics of the government from one of my favorite books in high school, George Orwell’s 1984, to change the thought and reality of the gun debate. Several excerpts from the book came flooding back to me:

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

The tactic had finally paid off to perfection with a federal judge that has now incorrectly classified an AR-15 as a military grade weapon.

How exactly have words altered reality? You only need look to the news as one ‘reporter’ after another uses the term ‘assault weapon,’ a description that is so inaccurate it smacks of ‘the big lie.’ One that is told over and over until it becomes a truth, to most.

The ‘truth’ is any weapon can be used for an assault; rocks, bats, knives and yes, firearms. But they say these guns are ‘more deadly’ than others. Why? Because they have things like adjustable stocks and flash suppressors? The ‘truth’ is these things no more add to the ‘deadliness’ of the rifle than the man in the moon.

When asked why an AR-15 is more deadly than a Ruger Mini-14, which they don’t classify as an ‘assault weapon’, they stutter and stammer, trying to answer. The ‘truth’ is both rifles fire the same round, at the same rate of fire, with the same muzzle velocity and both have detachable magazines.

But the AR-15 somehow has a magical power to be more dangerous. The simple answer is this…the AR-15 looks scary while the Mini-14 doesn’t so it should be banned.

Then on March 31, 2018 something peculiar happened that most people didn’t notice. Merriam-Webster changed the official definition of an ‘assault rifle,’ a term that had previously been defined semi-correctly. The changed from:

noun: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use

to:

“noun: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire; also: a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire”

Essentially Webster has accepted the term ‘weapon of war’ and ‘military grade weapon’ with this change because no other entity that I know of classifies them as such. But look at the language in the new definition, particularly “a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle”. How can a rifle that only resembles a military assault rifle, but has no other firing characteristics of those weapons, also be an assault rifle?

Coincidence? I don’t think so. Reality is being altered by the words of those who shout the loudest.

The same can be applied to the much-misused term ‘high capacity magazine.’ The anti-gun crowd throws this out every time there’s a shooting, claiming that if they were banned, fewer people would be shot. But they ignore the facts once again.

The Virginia Tech killer, one of the worst school shootings in modern history, used two handguns with a backpack full of 10-round magazines to murder 32 people and wound 17 more. The Parkland Florida shooter used 10-round magazines, too. The Baltimore Navy Yard shooter used a handgun and a shotgun. The Fort Hood shooter used handguns.

But none of that matters to the left. They will continue to demonize ‘high capacity magazines’ to push the disarmament cause. And the more they repeat it, the more people start to believe it. Again, a big lie repeated over and over until the general public accepts it as fact.

And accept it they have. Just listen to the kids that are protesting after the Parkland shooting. These terms keep coming up over and over, repeated louder and louder. An entire generation is being brainwashed into using these false terms in their passionate arguments for stricter gun control.

So let’s backtrack to the most potentially damning example of this tactic’s outcome, the federal judge’s ruling that an AR-15 is a ‘military grade weapon.’ He stated in his decision:

“Assault weapons and LCMs [large capacity magazines] — the types banned by the Act — are not within the scope of the personal right to ‘bear Arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

The judge, again using the inaccurate term ‘assault weapon,’ claimed that because the rifle was first marketed to the military it could be banned but he left out one very important detail. The rifle, which was first made in 1950s, was a ‘select fire’ rifle. Meaning it could fire in either semi-automatic or fully automatic mode.

The modern day AR-15 rifle owned by civilians is semi-automatic only (the sale of new automatic weapons to the public has been banned since 1986). Secondly most of the M-16 internal parts are completely different (as mandated by law) to allow for fully automatic fire. So how exactly does the initial marketing of a select fire rifle equate to a modern semi-auto rifle, other than the fact they look similar?

Secondly how exactly are LCMs, as he describes them, military items when 75% of all semi-automatic handguns have standard magazines that hold anywhere from 13-20 rounds?

Again, I look back to the news outlets and to the politicians that continue to use the terms ‘weapons of war’ and ‘military grade weapons’ and have to wonder. Has a federal judge fallen into the trap of these false terms that are becoming more pervasive, and accepted, by the day? Is our reality being changed by language as Orwell ‘predicted’?

Anyone who knows anything about debating someone who challenges your position knows the best way to shut them down is with facts. What happens, though, when language and thoughts have been altered into illegitimate ‘facts’? What happens when the general public, politicians and judges become victims of an altered reality that accepts made-up terms and arguments as fact?

That’s what gun owners are facing today and if they don’t start standing up and correcting these people, our reality will become more and more immersed in facts that have no basis in reality. We will have fallen into an Orwellian trap and it will soon be too late to turn back the tide.

 

Dave Dalton is the founder of the American Gun Owners Alliance.

comments

  1. avatar Shire-man says:

    Correct all you want it won’t make any difference. They are willfully ignorant and openly disingenuous. This is witch trial tier Kafka level madness. They want total bans and all of us dead. Nothing less. You can’t argue, reason with or correct that.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      correct and that brings the solution to a painfully obvious place. those who advocate removal of any right are in fact committing treason and must be dealt with harshly and with finality. this is not happening today

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        Join your states Militia. This isn’t going to get solved at the ballot box.

        1. avatar Texas native says:

          best to keep a low profile, stay under govt radar. Most if not all “Militias” are labeled terrorist orgs. by the SPLC and FBI and are monitored.

        2. avatar Pg2 says:

          @TX, exactly why they staged the OK city bombing, to set the stage to label patriots and home grown militias “terrorists”.

    2. avatar Pg2 says:

      Yep, 5 years ago this was conspiracy theory to those who cling to the false paradigm we grew up in, but communists have no interest in facts or the truth. The last time they overthrew a country, they murdered 20-30 million Christian men, women, and children. But this gets no press, we’re not really allowed to speak of it in the west, maybe someone should’ve payed attention to Alexander Solzhenitsyn,

      1. avatar Toni says:

        i have his book and have read it. have also read a couple others of ex russians who got out while the iron curtain was up

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu36R_tfyUM

          One of his more stark warnings.

      2. avatar David Dalton says:

        Funny you should mention that. I sat on a panel at a local college a few weeks ago and brought up that very fact. One of the other panelists was a Chinese graduate student who really didn’t believe it. I told him to do his own research.

        Funny thing is I also re-researched that fact the next day and new research claims Mao could have killed up to 78 million political disidents

    3. avatar David Dalton says:

      I beg to differ. I have had two instances where I had conversations with both high school kids and college kids and the results were nothing short than amazing.

      The first instance was a TV show I was on last month with 3 high school kids. I used the facts and afterwards every one of them cam up to me and told me they had to ‘re-think’ their positions based on the facts I had presented

      Then just two weeks ago I sat on a panel at as local college about gun control and again after explaining the facts I had multiple students come up to me to want more information and to say they really didn’t realize the issue and the facts.

      If we can get to there students early enough we have a chance .. if we ignore them we are doomed

  2. avatar Sammy says:

    The term assault weapon was designed to scare the stupid and the gullible. Because it worked so well they seek to increase their leverage by adding the terms weapon of war and military grade.

    Tell a lie often enough and the stupid and gullible will think its true

    The stupid and gullible will ultimately win in a few short years due to their high breeding rate

    Don’t forget Tidepod eaters will be voting in the next Presidential election

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    ” Justice Scalia in the Heller decision where he wrote “weapons that are most useful in military service; M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the second amendment and “may be banned.” ”

    While many 2A supporters hail Scalia as a staunch defender of the second amendment, while POTG claim “Heller” was a definitive victory for gun owners, Scalia’s own words show that even champions of “gun rights” do not understand the intent of the second amendment at all. The constant, consistent, immutable theme in restricting “gun rights” is that the second amendment did not intend to allow citizens to arm themselves against tyrannical government. This is what we got for all our clamoring about the “right of self-defense”. We got our unalienable right to defense against despots dumped on the trash heap of history.

    Words matter. American “English” is astoundingly sloppy in transferring meaning. The second amendment has revolution in its DNA, for a good reason – and we are living it. 2A supporters better get their ashcans in gear, and start refusing every effort to retain the second amendment as a secondary “right”.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      correct. yes the second amendment is about self defense but not just against the common street grade criminal. it is also against corporate and govt thugs who wish to control the populace. this means that any attempt to regulate ANY arms whether used in war or otherwise is in direct violation of the 2A.
      the fact that the founding fathers by and large were better armed than the british (the govt of the day) and the fact that the puckle gun which was, although flintlock and still muzzle loading identical in operation to the gatling gun, had been invented 70 years before the war of independence speaks volumes of the founding fathers true intent and that is that the populace be BETTER ARMED than the govt. the reverse in now true

    2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      Scalia’s “own words” aren’t necessarily his own words. Some of them, especially in a starkly divided 5-4 decision like Heller, are the compromising words necessary to pull over the mushy minded 5th vote to cobble together the majority.

      Who is that mushy moderate? Same one it always is: Anthony Kennedy. So if anything, those are basically his words.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        There is something to take comfort about. There are two parts to a SCOTUS decision. The conclusion, which is usually short and at the end of the decision, is the part that has precedential value. Lower courts must obey this part. The explanation for the conclusion appears at the beginning and is often very lengthy. This part is called “dicta”.

        The interesting part is that lower courts are free to take the dicta, or leave it. Generally speaking, lower courts have ignored the dicta in Heller confining its impact to a handgun-in-the-home. You want a handgun in your home? You are safe. Your shotgun? Maybe not. SCOTUS has said not a word about shotguns in the home or anywhere else.

        So far, with the exception of Caetano, SCOTUS has refused to say anything about the 2A since McDonald. Likely, that situation will continue until we get a new justice on the court. Thereafter, SCOTUS might take a case and might decide to put teeth in parts of the Heller dicta. And – this is the good news – they are relatively free to flesh-out what they said in the Heller dicta.

        The “dangerous and unusual” doctrine is one which is likely to be reconsidered. Likewise, “in common use”. Both of these doctrines are pretty mushy and SCOTUS could decide as much and toss them. They might take seriously the Miller doctrine of “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. They might say that the AR-15 is in-common-use and that it has a “reasonable relation”.

        IMO, I think it would be unwise to ask SCOTUS to apply the “in common use” to machine guns. Thanks to the NFA and the Hughes Amendment, Congress has strangled the machine-gun out-of “common-use”. Getting SCOTUS to reconcile the machine-gun to “common use” is unlikely to happen.

        Eventually, with a friendly court and Congress, I think the preferable route to go would be to challenge the Hughes Amendment. This would be a very modest prayer for relief. Our argument should be that the machine-gun has a “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Thus, it deserves protection under the 2A.

        Our argument is that the current stock of machine guns in the hands of the militia is only about 175,000; and, these are aging. More importantly, they are gradually growing obsolete. True, the M2 may remain effective for hundreds of years; but we have very few M-16’s and now SAWs. How will our veterans provide a modicum of training to young militia[wo]men who don’t serve a hitch in the Army or Marines? The unorganized militia has a legitimate need to have at least a few modern machine guns available to train non-vets.

        We can withhold – for the moment – objections to the $200 stamp tax on transfers. For the time being, we will pay the $200 tax in order to avoid paying the 11% excise tax on new production machine guns. (For a mini-gun, $200 would be a bargain!). We can point out that the NFA’s scheme of taxing and registering machine-guns has proven to be the most successful gun-control measure in history! Google reveals only 3 known cases of a murder by a registered machine-gun. There is no reason to assume that this historical situation would have turned out differently had the Hughes Amendment not passed in 1986.

        In case of invasion, insurrection, or threat to the security of a free state, we gun-holders are confident that we can produce lightning links and drop-in auto sears in time (e.g., a weekend) to meet the immediate need for the militia’s machine guns. Within a month or two, enough AR-15s would be converted to full-auto or select fire to sustain a lengthy engagement. Therefore, for the foreseeable future, we don’t have a pressing need to move machine-guns off the NFA and onto the GFA. (Likewise for Destructive Devices).

        The need to move silencers, SBSs and SBRs off the NFA and onto the GFA is a far more pressing objective.

        The most important objective should be Shall-Issue, National-Reciprocity and gradual elimination of GFZs.

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          “The most important objective should be Shall-Issue, National-Reciprocity and gradual elimination of GFZs.”

          You bet. And remember, Rosa Parks didn’t get her seat assignment upgraded on the bus by asking please.

  4. avatar nativeson says:

    One of the most articulate and insightful explanations that I’ve read at TTAG on the societal bias that has been created by the left. While it applies to firearms, we must understand that the left has been using the same strategy to undermine our other freedoms and traditions as well. Orwell was right and unless we find a way to combat this cancer, the left will continue to brainwash and corrupt the minds of our fellow citizens.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      Exactly. All while spewing their own true hate speech, bigotry and intolerance

    2. avatar Dave Dalton says:

      Thank you … I really wanted to ‘go down the rabbit hole’ so to speak while showing it’s really happening as Orwell predicted

  5. avatar Sammy says:

    “to retain the second amendment as a secondary “right”.

    The second amendment is not a right nor does it grant a right. It protects our right

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The second amendment is not a right nor does it grant a right. It protects our right”

      Afraid you entirely missed the point; my fault.

      1. avatar Removed_californian says:

        He isn’t wrong. The second amendment only serves to protect an already established right: a right given through natural law. The second amendment doesn’t say that we can own firearms, it says that the government cannot preclude us from having and taking up arms when the need arises.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Didn’t mean to indicate someone was wrong about the second amendment, only that my intended message about what has happened to it, at our own hands.

    2. avatar Joe R. says:

      Only as a promise, TO EACH OTHER, that we’ll get capital in defending it, and other rights.

      So, we need to keep the promise.

  6. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    Why are we so skittish about the moniker “weapons of war”?
    Weapons are for war. We have the second amendment to allow for a civil war – one which likely comes about in the process of resisting tyranny.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      Why? Because it scares the stupid and gullible who are the vast majority in this country

      1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        Why would you care about scaring stupid people? Those stupid people are smart enough to manipulate the lexicon, wage a culture war practically uncontested, and openly call for your death or permanent interment.

        When people want you dead, its time to stop worrying about hurting someones fvking feelings.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Why would you care about scaring stupid people?”

          Because there is an inexhaustible supply of them? And they vote?

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          I think we should always be very objective, dispassionate, dignified; and, remind our fellow citizens that we are the ones bringing the guns to the political debate. As Chairman Mao taught us: Political power emerges from the barrel of a gun.

          We don’t want violence; such as the violence inflicted upon Shaneen Alan or Meg Fellenbaum. We insist that every peaceable, law-abiding, individual be treated with respect including respect for her Constitutional rights. If we insist on rights of speech, press, religion, sanctity of our homes and persons from unreasonable search, attorney, silence and so forth, why should we forego the right to the means to an effective self-defense?

          Why, fellow voter, do you imagine that we will forego our right to arms without a fight? What – exactly – will the gun-controllers bring to the gun-fight?

    2. avatar CalGunsMD says:

      And it constantly puts us in a weak, defensive position.
      While we’re parrying and deflecting, the other side gets closer and closer to their goals because they out-maneuver us rhetorically.
      Let the fragile minority be shocked. Like all shocks, it will pass and we can follow through with changing the conversation and possibly education.

  7. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Any of these can be distilled down to the few things that can remain. The chain of
    which, meanders through human inclusion, the formulation being quite absolute, although not necessarily linear in its custody.
    The overall standards of previous civilization, mores, norms, beliefs, have been vastly
    varied, each and all of which were continued until they were not, or until they could not be.
    What are considered lasting standards might vary over the length of a decade, but not
    over the length of a century, and certainly have not over the length of millennia.
    You could say [it could be postulated] that nothing then has lasted that long. If true
    discernment be had, however, what past society has been replaced with, or supplanted with, has always returned to reaffirm the same true bedrock standard[s].
    Survivable standards.
    These standards can only be described in Terms, of ACTION and INACTION; FOR and
    AGAINST. What are described therein have been called many things, and they are not likely to maintain their current names, however, what we communicate when we use such Terms will remain.
    Returning then to the first exercise, conflict has been determined to be inevitable and
    permanent.
    Do you surrender?
    I would certainly hope not.
    Nor do I.
    In addition, in our conflict, I promise you not a second of rest that could be considered utopian “peace.” As such, I cannot also accept any of your assurances for anything of the same.
    Therefore, to avoid the outright violence of the first exercise, and I sincerely wish to
    (where we can),I propose an Armistice,
    a cessation of hostilities.
    I propose that we continue our conflict [we two] without great outward hostility and
    without the present employment of arms. We maintain the check and balance to our conflict by the measure of our action and inaction, for and against.
    The appraisal of the success of our efforts may hereby be measured.
    These are the Terms.
    Δ” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012 Pgs. 17-18]

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Just thought I’d leave this here:
      “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes And clever in their own sight!…”

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        Isaiah 5:21

        Woe to those who fail to quote.

        Whoa yourself there.

        Woe to the MF’rs that think they are immune to woe.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Those who recognize a quoted statement get it; those who don’t recognize it likely don’t care.

          Actually, the quoted words are from Isiah 5:20 and 21. (NIV)

        2. avatar Joe R. says:

          Those who quote the Bible, for recognition, without quoting, don’t get that we don’t care.

          Thank you for the citation clarification. Had you strayed to 5:22 [“Woe to those who are heroes in drinking wine And valiant men in mixing strong drink,…”], the thrust of your message would’ve likely been lost completely.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Maybe a statement of wisdom and insight should be left to stand alone, needing no bibliographic reference to lend it credence?

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          No quote – assumes self-attribution.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No quote – assumes self-attribution.”

          well, I have submitted that quotation before, so I guess I am quoting myself, after all.

  8. avatar neiowa says:

    A significant effort needs to be undertake to force the Senate Judiciary to issue recall (pink slips) to these lawless judges. The Judiciary approves nomination they can “deapprove”. A hearing with a decision that judge ________ has violated their oath of office to defend the Constitution.

    Chair is my Senator Chuck Grassley 202-224-3744

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      Chuck Grassley went off the rails somewhere, broke-di1ck MF is challenging Trump’s right to fire Rosenstein and, thereafter, let Mueller go. Now that Rosenstein’s out on his ass, the rest of the DOJ and much of the top half to 2/3 of the FBI NEED TO GO THE FV<K HOME QUIETLY.

  9. avatar JohnS says:

    I had occasion to look this up yesterday.

    Back around 1989/90, San Jose PD officer Leroy Pyle made this video, explaining and demonstrating the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic, and swapping stocks from a ‘wooden’ Ruger rifle to a ‘plastic’ Ruger.

    A classic, really. Seems not to have influenced anyone on the left, though.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      It’s still black, thus anti gun white people find it scary, there it should be banned.

  10. avatar Joe R. says:

    “Truth is the physics of the consideration what is. It is an idea devoid of a need of an idea for its existence [1].
    Truth does not have to be understood, it does not have to be defined, or disseminated, or even experienced. Destroy the evidence of truth, the holders of truth, and the belief in truth and truth will nevertheless reveal itself to what’s left or stand silently alone in epitaph. Forever.
    All of what is, is contained within truth, but not all of what is, is evidence of it.
    Truth is the physics of the consideration of what is. The term physics is used here only to infect the mind of the reader with a known quantity to describe in a single word the quality of something that can only be otherwise derived by ever widening circles of inductive accumulation [inclusion] of separate notions [2].
    Truth is permanence indefeasible by the relatively fragile notion of ‘facts’ as they interrelate temporally with and within the existence of Man. Truth does not change, it constantly undergoes false definition and revision, only to slough off the dust of this momentary obscuration to reveal its virgin self.
    Man (mankind) is not the source nor is it the sole repository of truth. Man is not the creator, owner, or possessor of truth. However equally untrue is the notion that Man is not
    subject to it as Man experiences truth. That Man is subject to truth is absolute, as is the
    resignation to it, however parsed by its piecemeal revelation. A great philosopher once said that Truth does not exist without man to experience it.
    That man is dead, the facts surrounding his existence now suffer from the entropy of conjecture even in the short period of recorded history following his death. Other men (mankind) will experience truth, and possibly come to know various aspects of it. However, if the universe is pushed through a pin-hole tomorrow and suffers annihilation, that will be the latest exposition, without venue, of the reality of truth.
    Truth evades definition, but does not entirely escape the notion of defining terms. Such terms create a lattice or sieve that captures the broadest workings of truth which survive through the narrowest definition of logic.” [J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012, Pg. 132]

  11. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    We’re past the point of reason. War is coming because the willfully ignorant won’t settle for anything less. All the “safe spaces” and twisted lexicon in the world won’t amount to a hill of beans when reality kicks in the door.

    The left wants you, reader, dead. Period. They openly admit it. You think differently than the herd and must be purged. As I’ve said before: fight with everything you have and then some, or surrender and die.

    1. avatar Pg2 says:

      KLP, you can put yourself in the willfully ignorant category. Your troll quality vaccine posts put you solidly in the group that wants us disarmed, and according to you, “dead”. You are part of that “herd”.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        I find you hilarious, Pg2. I’m the first to be sceptical about pretty much any claim, and I’ve done my due diligence on vaccines and germ theory. I’ve never said that those who choose not to be vaccinated should be killed or anything like that, just that they must remain separated from the public sphere as they are *choosing* to biologically endanger everyone around them.

        I get that you think you are the smartest person in the room. Cool. What you think and what you are are two entirely different concepts. You can dismiss over two hundred years of biology and germ theory if you want. In the mean time, I’ll continue to believe what I have seen and created first hand. It says something pretty profound when fools like you can be proven wrong with a sixth-grade science experiment, or in my case an AP Bio lab way back in high school.

        As to my post, if you think those on the left are interested in debate or leaving you alone for being different, then tell me how that works out for you when you are six feet under.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          Lol, you’re a troll, nothing more , nothing else. If vaccines are safe and effective, cite the science, not your opinion. Won’t hold my breath, trolls always full of 💩.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Right, because polio and smallpox are still a thing in the U.S. Oh wait… there are these two weird words starting with ‘v’ that can explain it… huh… if only I could remember them…

          But don’t take my word for it (or you know, history):

          https://www.livescience.com/57488-vaccine-safety-numbers.html

          I’m not a huge fan of livescience, but this articles has lots of nice links for you to click on if you are so inclined.

          A better use of both of our time is for you to stop making every post about friggin’ vaccines and stick to the topic of the OP. I doubt that will happen though.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          Literally laughing, your link is full of CDC Statements, not science KLP. The only actual study referenced is an HPV vaccine study, where no true placebo control was used. You sound like an anti gunner herd member repeating agency statements that have little bearing on the truth to attack gun rights. Polio was not eradicated by the polio vaccine. Maybe you were unaware they changed the disagnostic criteria for Polio the year the vaccine was introduced? Poof. Polio seemingly disappeared. That’s a fact. Nice try TrollLikePie.

        4. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          See, while I am more than willing to debate the merits of the studies linked, you reveal the real problem. You’re not interested in debate. You reject anything a government agency says without even bothering to verify it. Doesn’t matter if it is a trurth or a lie, you immediately deny whatever is presented. That is not scepticism, that is paranoia.

          Also, let me get this straight: You honestly believe that Polio is still a thing, just that the diagnostic criteria has changed? Do you not know what Polio is? And are you really advocating for a completely medically unethical study whereby you expose two groups to a dangerous illness while only one is vaccinated? Have you never done a simple controlled study lab in high school or college? This is where our discussion ends. Call me whatever you like, claim victory, or mentally masturbate with some anti-vaxxer friends. I just don’t to waste my time with a hypocrite that screechs about how bad the left is on guns, then mirrors their tactics to a ‘t’ about vaccines. And before you think you’re being clever, an inamimate object =/= a living organism like a germ. I’m done dealing with you.

        5. avatar Pg2 says:

          You didn’t actually post any science, it you had, I’d be happy to debate you. You posted agency statements, and maybe you don’t understand the difference between reproducible and verifiable studies and agency statements, and that’s ok, just stop pretending you have a handle on this conversation.

    2. avatar Higgs says:

      Control of the language of guns has be a huge concern for me.

      We have to be vigilant and start to push back.

      1) Never use the term High Capacity Magazine. Always use standard magazine.
      2) Use Modern Sporting Rifle. Broaden the term to include any semi auto produced in the past 50 years.
      3) There is no gun show loophole. The law intentionally requires FFLs to do checks, but Private citizens may sell or give there private property to any one they want to.
      4) Never let the term Gun Violence stand. Guns are not violent, they are a tool. Criminals who commit assault are violent.

      1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

        I honestly feel like at this point, there is no hope in arguing with those who choose willful ignorance. In a more personal environment where the time can be taken to show them why they are, sure, a difference can easily be made. I think speaking directly to people and showing them in person that their preconceived notions are wrong can be very effective.

        In terms of mass media or online? No. The sum total knowledge of mankind is but a few keystrokes away, yet people *CHOOSE* to be ignorant. That is a choice and can’t be helped.

        1. avatar Pg2 says:

          100% troll.

        2. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          “Hi, my screen name is Pg2 I eat three square meals of Tide Pods a day”

          Is that more your speed? You seem to have nothing better to do than post your oh-so-indepth rebuttals to all arguments posited. Get a life, dude.

        3. avatar Pg2 says:

          TrollLikPie, always a pleasure calling out hypocritical trolls. Your last link was a joke, next time you reply to someone asking for scientific evidence of something, provide it or don’t reply, because when you post a disingenuous or ignorant link it exposes you as a liar or a fool.

        4. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          Cool story, bro.

        5. avatar Pg2 says:

          Except that’s is true, bro.

  12. avatar Tumbles says:

    Great article, scary stuff.

  13. avatar anarchyst says:

    The problem is, we have allowed the anti Second Amendment crowd to define the terms.
    A firearm is a tool which possess no evil intent on its own. Assigning intent to an inanimate object is the epitome of insanity. Demonizing a weapon on “looks alone” also marks the accuser as an unstable individual who is also insane. Call them out on their illogic and insanity.
    Another dirty tactic the anti-Second Amendment crowd uses exposes children to potential and actual harm by putting them in “gun-free zones”. These people care not one wit about children, but uses them for their own nefarious purposes.
    We need to TAKE BACK the argument…
    When the antis blame the firearm for the actions of a criminal, state that: “a firearm is an inanimate object, subject only to the intent of the user. Firearms ARE used to preserve life and make a 90 lb. woman equal to a 200 lb. criminal.
    When the antis attempt to justify their “gun free zones” counter their misguided argument with “you mean, criminal safety zones” or “victim disarmament zones”. State that “we protect our money, banks, politicians and celebrities, buildings and facilities with PEOPLE WITH GUNS, but protect our children with “gun-free zone” signs”.
    When the antis state that: “you don’e need and AR-15”, counter with, “Who are YOU to considere what I need?”
    When the antis criticize AR-15s in general, counter with: “you mean the most popular rifle of the day, useable by even the smallest, weakest person as a means of self-defense. Besides, AR-15s are FUN to shoot”. Offer to take them to the range and supply them with an AR-15, ammunition and range time. I have made many converts this way.
    When the antis state that: “You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt with”, counter with “AR-15s ARE used for hunting, but in many states, are prohibited from being used to take large game because they are underpowered”.
    When the antis state that: “AR-15s are high powered rifles”, correct them by stating that “AR-15s with the .223 or 5.56mm cartridge are considered medium-powered weapons–NOT “high-powered” by any means”.
    When the antis state that: “the Constitution was written during the ime of muskets, and that the Second Amendment should only apply to “weapons of that time period”, state that: “by your logic, the First Amendment should not apply to modern-day telecommunications, internet, television, radio, public-address systems, books and newspapers produced on high-speed offset printing presses. Only “town-criers” and Benjamin Franklin type printing presses would be covered under the First Amendment”.
    When the antis state that “only law enforcement and government should possess firearms”, remind them of the latest school shooting, as well as Columbine, where “law enforcement” SAT ON THEIR HANDS while children were being murdered, afraid to challenge the shooter, despite being armed to the hilt. The government-run murderous sieges at Ruby Ridge and Waco are also good examples of government (mis)use of firearms.
    This tome can be used to counter any argument against any infringement of our Second Amendment.

  14. avatar anarchyst says:

    Quite often, firearms owners are their own worst enemies. The duck hunters don’t like the AR-15 “black rifles” so they see no problem if attempts are made to ban them. The traditional rifle owners don’t like machine guns, so they have no problem with them being legislated out of existence. Some pistol owners see nothing wrong with certain long guns being outlawed just as some rifle owners would have no problem seeing pistols banned.
    Friends, ALL firearms advocates must “hang together” and realize that an assault on ANY means of firearms ownership and self-defense is an assault on ALL forms of firearms ownership and self-defense.
    There is absolutely NO ROOM for complacency among ANY Second Amendment supporters. An attack on one is an attack on ALL…
    ALL firearms laws are unconstitutional on their face. Imagine the hue and cry if “reasonable” restrictions were placed on First Amendment activities, especially with the “mainstream media”. The Second Amendment is clear–what part of “shall not be infringed” do politicians and the media not understand…of course, they understand full well…it’s part of their communist agenda…
    The NRA failed when it allowed the National Firearms Act of 1934 to stand without offering opposition, the 1968 Gun Control Act, the “instant check” system, the “no new machine gun for civilians” ban in 1986, the so-called “assault weapons ban” in 1991, and other infringements on the Second Amendment. Let’s face it. What better way to increase membership than to “allow” infringements to be enacted and then push for a new membership drive. Yes, the NRA has done good, but its spirit of “compromise” will only lead to one thing…confiscation.
    If the NRA is truly to remain the premier “gun rights” organization, it must reject ALL compromise…

  15. avatar John Locke says:

    In my opinion if the Mass., judge is going to quote Scalia, the judge should at least recognize/understand what Scalia had written.
    For prosperity I’ll quote Scalia’s section on the M-16″

    ” It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

    Now while I may not be a Supreme Court Judge, what I can infer from this quote, Scalia here seems to make the argument, that weapons such as the M-16 being banned is objectionable and is against the intended spirit of the enumeration of the 2nd Amendment.
    I’d also like to point out that, throughout the decision, Scalia makes quite a few references back to Miller, whereas protected firearms are of those that are in common use, of which the AR-15 and the like would fall under as being “in common use”
    Link to Heller decision: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

    Note: If I am reading this incorrectly, I welcome the opportunity to be corrected and shown where I have gone wrong with my interpretation.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      Just being a reader, it seems Scalia walks up to admitting, even declaring, that the second amendment does include weapons of war…then backs away. He was at the point where he should have declared that the second amendment is a check on government overreach, is intended to announce a threat to tyrannical leanings of government, and taxing an enumerated right violates the fundamentals of constitutional protections of per-existing human rights. Scalia had the opportunity to push the meaning of the second amendment as being absolute. Instead, the opinion had an escape clause where in Scalia noted that “reasonable restrictions” were permissible, and that government had a right to limit the ability of the people to discipline an overreaching government. That, in essance, is the “loophole” that allows for controlling “weapons of war”. Scalia should have clearly stated that the second amendment intended the people to possess weapons of war. Instead, he remained in the stratosphere of “it could be argued”. Scalia left us with only the argument that the real import of the amendment is personal self-defense (in places allowed by governments). In the end, all the “gun rights” groups argue that while permissibly whittled down for the protection of government, the right of personal self-defense implied in the amendment should be retained.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “He was at the point where he should have declared that the second amendment is a check on government overreach, is intended to announce a threat to tyrannical leanings of government,…”

        Based on tone of justice Thomas’s dissent in the court’s refusal to grant cert. to Peruta, I have a sneaking suspicion he is chomping at the bit to not repeat the error made in Heller, et.all.

        I agree with others that think he was forced to phrase it that way in order to get Kennedy’s vote on Heller.

        All we have to do is balance the court properly (more pro-2A) and submit a case for consideration of finally getting the granting of that cert.

        So we sit, waiting. Thankfully, more cases are in the pipeline for future consideration…

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Trump has been told there is no room in the senate calendar for a new SCOTUS appointment this year. ” baby better come back later next week,cause you see I’m on losing streak.”

    2. avatar Timothy Lassiter says:

      Your read is correct. In context, Scalia DID NOT say banning m16s was OK. But in the saddest betrayal of the election of a supposed Second Amendment supporter – which supposedly is justified in large part because of Gorsuch ‘s appointment, that scumbag “Justice” wouldn’t even vote to HEAR the critically important gun cases brought since his appointment.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        You’re privy to votes on granting and denying cert? By the way, Gorsuch joined one of Thomas’s dissents from denial.

        “EDWARD PERUTA, ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
        ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
        STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

        No. 16–894. Decided June 26, 2017

        The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.”

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      What Scalia is saying there is just “I’m not saying that all gun control is unconstitutional, especially the NFA.” You’ll notice what that statement doesn’t say. It doesn’t say “the NFA is constitutional.” The “we’re not saying this type of law is unconstitutional” type of statement usually means that the next opinion is going to say “this type of law is unconstitutional.” For example, the decision that Roe v. Wade is based on does say that the Court isn’t saying that abortion is a constitutional right.

      Furthermore, the weakest part of the opinion is where Scalia says or implies that “dangerous and unusual” arms may be banned. Some argue, somewhat convincingly in my opinion, that Scalia was setting up “type of arm” restrictions to be knocked down when the Court became more friendly. (See https://works.bepress.com/daniel_page/1/).

  16. avatar Survivordude1090 says:

    If they get to redefine what is and what isn’t when it comes to guns, then we need to start defining what “treason” and “traitor” are.

    KYPD.

  17. avatar Craig says:

    The left is fully aware of this tactic.

    It’s why they use the term unathorized immigrant instead of illegal alien.

    The term ‘immigrant’ alone refers to someone who has the right to be here. Hell, most times now they don’t even include ‘unathorized’ and only say immigrant. That was likely the plan all along.

  18. avatar wrench says:

    Years ago the left said that you can’t say “Fire” in a crowded theater.
    So went the first down the tubes.
    Now they are using the same logic against the second.

  19. avatar William says:

    “most of the M-16 internal parts are completely different (as mandated by law) to allow for fully automatic fire”

    Fit an auto sear and select fire FCG into an AR and it’s fully automatic. Fit a DIAS and it’s fully automatic. Fit a lightning link and it’s fully automatic. The AR and the M16 have a lot in common. I find this quote misleading.

    A citizens right to keep and bear arms should extend to all small arms, not just a subset. I know the grabbers spread all kinds of misinformation to scare people, but we shouldn’t have to concede that machine guns should be illegal when refuting the lies.

  20. avatar TheOtherDavid says:

    So by definition a 1911 is a weapon of war.
    A Jeep driven by a tech bro in Palo Alto is a military vehicle.

    Fair enough – when will drivers of the Nazi VW Bug be charged with hate crimes?

  21. avatar CZJay says:

    I will repost a comment I made on this topic:

    People shouldn’t use the propagandists’ terms or phrases. When you do use them you are aiding the propagandists in their manipulation of the public. Don’t take part in that disinformation campaign.

    People don’t even know how a gun works. So the terminology isn’t set in stone. The ignorant just parrot what they hear from people “more informed” than them or from sources of entertainment. Which means there is an opening to insert a proper understanding as people don’t like sounding dumb.

    If you let young people go around calling certain guns “sniper rifles” and magazines as “clips,” of course you are going to have a problem retaining the 2nd Amendment (or anything else). You have to use proper words because what words you use is very important and kids need to know that. When you get older the nuances of words are a big deal because people will always try to take advantage of your ignorance. For instance, when you sign a contract, definitions of a word or the way a sentence is worded can have a different outcome than what you were lead to believe before signing.

    When I was very young I was already strict in the words I used and the clarity of my sentences. A family member would get upset with me because I would take their speech for what it was rather than what they meant. I did that to prove the point that the words you use and how you put them together is very important. They would get agitated because I knew what they meant, but I would either ask for clarification or would take their speech as is. I did not concede regardless of the arguing that would come from not doing so. They eventually started to speak more accurately as they weren’t happy with the heavy resistance and they realized my point when they had to work with strangers everyday.

    Kids get a lot of their information from entertainment. Most males learn about guns from video games. If a game calls a bolt action a “sniper rifle,” when those kids become adults they will go into a gun shop asking to see the “sniper rifles.” When a TV show uses the word “clip” to refer to a magazine, everyone that watches that show will start calling a magazine a “clip.” People take a fictional world to be reality because they get no counter to the fantasy. Hence why people think you can shoot someone in the thigh and they will live instead of dying within 5 minutes. People need someone to make it clear what is fact and what is friction, otherwise they will live a fantasy/lie.

    I stay away from words/terms like: assault rifle, sniper rifle, sporting rifle, hunting rifle, machine gun, sub machine gun, assault weapon, armor piercing, silencer. I stick to the more literal, basic or long winded. I do that to counter the disinformation that is constantly being spread by the majority (including gun owners). The more people do that the less the propagandists’ words will be effective in confusing the public and the more it exposes their agenda of trying to get people to ignore the “fine print.”

    Using “natural orange flavor” doesn’t mean they actually use oranges in their drink.

    1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

      when i say that “my aunt flo’s in town” when i actually mean that i am hemorrhaging blood from an orifice, it is misleading and inaccurate. perhaps it is a social nicety.
      we have a gentleman in the neighborhood that pretends not to understand subtlety or colloquialism, instead substituting a literal interpretation.
      no one speaks to him humorously anymore.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Humor has it’s place. The government shouldn’t be such a joke and gun terms shouldn’t be ludicrous.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I agree with you in principle, but disagree with your list of words to stay away from. Assault rifle, machine gun, and silencer have actual specific meanings. Two of them (machinegun and silencer) have specific, actual, statutorily defined meanings.

      When someone on the left uses them incorrectly, I can pose the question of whether they are ignorant or a liar. When someone who is just ignorant uses them, I try to gently correct them. Then they will know that the “expert” they were listening to either wasn’t an expert or is a liar.

  22. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

    so, poorly informed, mildly interested but curious individuals are swayed to accept popular but erroneous beliefs propagated by passionate information suppliers deliberately providing inaccurate data sets.
    been true before sanscrit.

  23. avatar Uh-huh says:

    The Bible tells us things are going to turn to crap (Revelation) soon, this is just the beginning.
    Unless one hundred million armed patriots stages a coup in DC nothing will change.
    Stop putting your faith into the delusion that govt will auto correct, man will change, or guns will save us.
    Put your faith in, and trust Jesus. “don’t fear the man who can destroy the body but he who can destroy your body and soul in hell.”

  24. avatar Mack Bolan says:

    Conservatives treat the debate over the 2nd amendment as a boxing match. They wrongly think that the constitution and the justice system are the referee. They keep getting punched in the balls, cry foul and appeal to the law and lament “But Muh CoNsTiTuTiOn!!!”

    In reality its a street fight. Arguing with facts and reason will never win against emotion and rhetoric. Fight as if your way of life depends on it, because it does. Kick, gouge, spit, and never relent. Take away their will to fight by every means necessary until they cry and scream uncle. Better yet leave them lying in a crumpled mass, toothless and choking on their own blood.

    Only fools worry about the moral high ground, while losing actual ground.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Only fools worry about the moral high ground, while losing actual ground.”

      Welllll, I never….

      If we adopt the means and methods of the enemy, why then, we are no better than they are. Better to lose honorably, than to win acting like scoundrels and scalawags.

      1. avatar Mack Bolan says:

        …and that is why conservatives couldn’t even save bathrooms.

        Enjoy the view from your moral high ground watching a 12 year old getting finger banged by some dude dressed like chick in the Target ladies room.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Oh please. Take a deep breath, sit back, and light up a Camel. The reread my comment.

          Sometimes, POTG sound like the Taliban (there is no humor in Islam)

        2. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          Sarcasm aside, the point still stands.

      2. avatar Toni says:

        so are you saying that if they win you would gladly live on your knees as an abject slave and see the same for your kids and grandkids till they grew the cojones to do what was needed to get it back?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Take a bit more time to read the commentary. We should be beyond superficial sloganeering as a pastime.

          “Take the obvious, and reverse it.”

      3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I know you know that you need the sarc tag. Even with the use of the term “scalawags.” Just sayin’.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          What is life without a challenge?

          If POTG intend to win the fight, they need to be more sophisticated in their thinking. If absurdity and sarc can pass for seriousness, we have a “youge” problem.

  25. avatar ironicatbest says:

    So what the fuck, they’re military grade weapons, what part of shall not be infringed leaves out military grade weapons?

  26. avatar MDH says:

    The left wishes to lay the blame for bullying related school shootings and suicides on firearms (guns). In reality, the only solution for US Schools is to create and enforce a ban on cell (smart) phones, all social media, and directly upon bullying – anywhere, backed up by real adult court, and non-lenient adult prison sentences for young adult (juvenile) offenders.

    Forget gun free zones. They simply don’t work. Outlaw under 21 internet, and any form of online social communication, hunt down, prosecute and punish bullies (and their parents) for the consequences of their actions and hold accessories, and accessories after the fact to the same legal standard as other felons, let them get a taste of life serving significant sentences as the ‘cell block bitch’, and watch school murders and suicide rates drop like a rock.

    You want do “do something”? Then goddamnit, do something that will actually save lives.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      So we shouldn’t get rid of the 2A; we should get rid of the 1A?

  27. avatar former water walker says:

    Never forget who has MOST of the firepower…the American Revolution was literally fought for less.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      To be quite blunt about it, the sunshine patriots here need to study the American Revolution quite carefully. Hint: it was not a spontaneous uprising of “the people”. The infrastructure for the revolution had been built over a period of time, with major political leaders involved. We have nothing like this available today. Even the Second American Revolution was not a spontaneous uprising, there was infrastructure in place.

      Waco, Ruby Ridge and Bundy1 were the Lexington Green of old. Nothing happened. Why? I submit because there was no political infrastructure (involving known 2A support leaders, or an “underground” that was waiting for a spark).

      Our current revolution is being fought in the press, the courts, and legislatures. POTG are losing this revolution because even we have political concerns that cause us to trade RTKBA for other, more important/immediate demands.

      If we are honest with ourselves, we would admit that there has been so much violation of the second amendment in places not our home, that a revolt should have already happened. When the violations are far away, we really don’t have connective tissue with the oppressed. We seem to be content to wait for the SWAT time to crash through the front door. And that’s the truth of it. We are a content lot, for better or worse.

  28. avatar anonymoose says:

    WEAPONS OF WAR ARE PROTECTED by the Second Amendment (“hunting” and “sporting” arms come second, but they’re still protected). Whatever is useful for defensive purposes of both the organized and unorganized militias are the arms that shall not be infringed upon. Bolt-action fudd guns and long-barreled shotguns are still quite useful in militia roles, as are semi-auto mag-fed pistol-gripped high-powered rifles with adjustable stocks and bayonet lugs, as well as REAL MACHINEGUNS, silencers, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, pistols, and whatever the heck a “destructive device” is. You should be able to own explosive weapons even up to landmines, grenades, and artillery. Banning ballistics missiles is the only “reasonable restriction” because the primary purpose of those is attacking and not defending.

    1. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

      IMO, you ban them because they are destructive devices, not because they are for attacking and not defending. People have a right to weapons for attacking, as war can involve pre-emptive attack. You don’t fight a tyranny defensively, you fight it offensively. You don’t always want to fight an attacker even defensively, but sometimes offensively.

      Bolt-action Fudd guns are military, as the bolt-action mechanism is a military-design. So is the lever-action. Both were created for war. The current military uses the Remington 700 bolt-action hunting rifle as a sniper rifle for example.

      1. avatar anonymoose says:

        That depends on your definition of offensive and defensive. An offensive weapon is one used primarily for indiscriminate destruction, but libbies want to define it as anything scary that can injure a person including sharp sticks. A defensive weapon is one primarily used for the protection of people, their homes, or a movement of people while they attempt to reach a stated goal (such as going to work, or overthrowing a dictator), etc. For example, battleships and tanks are defensive weapons, but they can also be used to shell enemies. No one has a right to nuclear weapons, biological agents, or nerve gas- not even governments.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I am confused. Has there ever been a weapon that was not suitable for use offensively and defensively?

    2. avatar Toni says:

      agree military grade weapons have the highest protection under the constitution for the as stated reason being that a MILITIA (civilian operated and funded) as opposed to military (govt run and funded) which these days would also include the national guard and police of multiple agencies, BEING NECESSARY TO THE MAINTENANCE OF A FREE STATE. there is little mention of a govt run military in the constitution but there is strong reference to a Civilian Militia

  29. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    It doesn’t help when you have gun rights people claiming that this and that weapon are not weapons of war or gun people using terms like “assault weapon” and “high-capacity magazine” which unfortunately many do. But we should not be skittish about the term “weapon of war.” We just need to explain to people what exactly it means. Technically, all the firearms commonly owned and used in this country are in some way military or based on a military design or have a military component or were used by the military or are used by the military.

  30. avatar Jeremiah Anthony Kindel says:

    I find it funny how these liars forget that the musket was the military grade weapon at the time.

  31. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

    The solution is simple. Demand your right to own military weapons. That is the whole point of the second ammendment. For most of American history, citizens had access to better arms than infantry soldiers. It wasn’t until the NFA was enacted and the M16 was adopted that this changed.

  32. avatar Pg2 says:

    Same people behind push to disarm the US.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu36R_tfyUM

    Explains some elephants in the room that we not allowed to speak about.

  33. avatar Anonymous says:

    Quick! Hunters and FUDDs. Put down your rifle! It was once a military grade rifle!

  34. avatar EU says:

    It seems that “right-speak” is now the *lex orandi, lex credendi* of the secular religion of progress.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_orandi,_lex_credendi

  35. avatar Seizure doc says:

    “One of the conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers Communist and the disarming of the bourgeoisie, the middle class.
    V.I. Lenin

    All the word games and evasions are simply a means to an end. Did any of you OFWG’s (I am one) think 30 years ago that we would have gay marriage and transgenders in the military ?

  36. avatar Geoff says:

    obama stacked the Courts with anti-gun Democrat Judges. What did you expect?

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      This guy was appointed by Reagan. However, during the tenure of Reagan, not a single judge was approved by the Senate when both senators from the nominee’s home state turned in a negative blue slip. http://congressionalresearch.com/RL32013/document.php. This judge was appointed when Massachusetts senators were Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

  37. avatar tjlarson2k says:

    It’s called lying.

    What’s worse is the fact that most people don’t fact-check or bother researching for themselves or consulting actual experts to verify. Rather they just want to be spoon fed.

    No excuse now that the internet exists — people have just become more lazy as a result.

    People / sheeple are so predictably disappointing.

  38. avatar Wheelgun Kat says:

    The ‘destruction of words’, is exactly what I have been saying for years now. Only instead of in the gun world, it is in the “illegal” people. Since the Obama/Clinton times we have changed the term from “illegal citizens” to become the “undocumented citizens”. For years I have been saying, “What part of illegal don’t they (leftist) get?” Now I am corrected, they are not illegal, just undocumented. The destruction of words has begun…They have just moved on to guns.

  39. avatar David Keith says:

    Fuck the left wing judges. They know ARs aren’t military weapons. The judges are the most corrupt and contemptible people in government. The rest of the left still hasn’t caught on to the difference between automatic and semi automatic because they are genuinely brain addled, but the judges know.
    Just do what you need to do as a gun owner and forever repeat the mantra “there are a lot of things worse than death”.

  40. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    Democrats have been changing the meaning of words to there opposite since at least FDR.

    And now, for something completely different:

    This judge is either a blithering idiot (unlikely) or is a liar.

    He almost certainly is aware of the dissent from denial of cert written by Thomas and joined by Scalia which states that AR-15s are protected under the 2A. “Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.” Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ____ (2015) (on page 5 of the slip opinion). Thomas implies that the Court should “summarily reverse” the lower court’s decision.

    If the judge isn’t aware of the opinion, then he is grossly incompetent. Scalia had already made his position on whether or not AR15s are protected perfectly clear. This judge basically said Scalia would have ruled the same way. Not the Heller Court, but Scalia himself. There is no way a rational human being with the facts before him can honestly come to this conclusion. Assuming the judge is both a rational human being and meets the barest minimum of competency to practice law, this judge can only come to the conclusion he did dishonestly.

  41. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    Exactly so. Nice work.

    Anyone who doesn’t want to commit to a novel (1984), Orwell’s essay “Politics and the English Language” is shorter and directly on point. Read it online:
    https://genius.com/George-orwell-politics-and-the-english-language-annotated

    Wikipedia doesn’t get it too wrong:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language

    A pamphlet-sized edition:
    https://www.amazon.com/Politics-English-Language-Penguin-Classics/dp/0141393068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=U

    A reading:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBu0yPaGpsU

    Strunk & White’s classic The Elements of Style makes a great complement to Politics… Both are about clarity, really. (These are so good, I am so far batting 100% positive feedback & results when I’ve used these as resources for teaching *programming* for their focus on clarity, precision, and accessibility. Good code has the same characteristics as good prose, for the same reasons.

    Orwell’s Animal Farm also illustrates the political abuse of language: “Four legs good; two legs bad better!”

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The two links you provided are instructive not only for insight into how the leftists/statists/liberals/dimocrats use language as a weapon of mass confusion, but also important for POTG. We are just as guilty of imprecision in writing and speech, though we too often claim otherwise.

      Spoiler Alert: if you are one of those who find information/education TLDR, you forfeit an opportunity for personal growth and improving your communications skills; to your (and our) detriment.

  42. avatar David W. Walters, Ph.D. (ex-Marine Infantry Officer) says:

    This is easily the most sentient article I’ve ever read which directly confronts the verbal mind control tactics of the anti-gun left. Bravo.

    1. avatar Dave Dalton says:

      Thank you so much!

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