When USA Today contacted me to write an editorial I asked the Gannet guy why his employer stopped using the term “gun control.” Why’d they adopted the language of the civilian disarmament industry (see what I did there?) and substituted the term “gun safety”? He didn’t miss a beat. “The words ‘gun control’ come with a lot of baggage,” he declared. “So does the term ‘gun safety,'” I countered. “It indicates a clear bias for gun control.” “We are biased,” he admitted. “We’re in favor of it. That’s why we use the term ‘gun safety.'” Bonus points for honesty, I guess. Only USA Today doesn’t restrict their Orwellian language choice to the editorial page. And I didn’t become an OCD gun blogger by leaving well enough alone . . .
“‘Gun safety’ means being safe with a gun,” I said, risking being labelled a pro-pistol pedant. “The people trying to pass new laws are trying to control access to guns. That’s why it’s called ‘gun control.'”
He wouldn’t budge. “We don’t want to give new gun laws a negative slant.”
“Slanting words to suit an agenda is propaganda,” I said. “Are you guys really in the business of propaganda?”
It was a rhetorical question. But there’s no question that Americans agitating for gun control bend words to obfuscate, mischaracterize and mislead the general public about their fervent belief in civilian disarmament.
Check out this lead under msnbc.com‘s Meet two Brooklyn designers fighting for gun reform.
Last month, after 45 U.S. senators struck down gun reform legislation that 90% of Americans supported, two Brooklyn, New York, designers weren’t convinced those lawmakers were representing the people who elected them to their jobs.
“Gun reform”? Guns aren’t bad, deep down, underneath. They just needs to be reformed. Into a peace brick, for example. And this story of anti-gun activism is a perfect example of how gun control advocates try to fly under the radar.
The thing that’s really interesting to us as designers is that we’re not using any of the usual tropes of activism or web language. There are no pictures of guns and we don’t even say that these kids have been killed by guns; you have to click on their names and go to an external site to find out what happened to them.
Thankfully, most of the anti-gunners’ subtlety is lost on low-information voters. But not all of it. Think “assault weapon.” Then think — and say — civilian disarmament. Just because gun rights advocates know the truth about guns doesn’t lessen the importance of telling it like it is. As powerfully as they can.
They should just say they are loaded and then not carry a single round of ammo among them. That way it would be very difficult for the police to try to slap them with a felony charge rather than a misdemeanor, but they’ll still come out and show people what a police state looks like.
That picture is correct in one sense: The senator from Montana does not work directly for a child from California. But more broadly, Baucus was working for all citizens when he supported gun rights. Of course, he’s retiring, so soon another senator from Montana will do the same thing, presumably.
The job of a Representative is to do exactly that: represent the will of your constituents … though if you’re a Democrat, that takes back seat to the “party Line.”
The job of a Senator is not necessarily to represent, but to act by using intelligence, past experience and individual “industry” to modify the individual issue for the good o the country — yet within the parameters of the Majority within his/her state. To do otherwise would deny the principles under which the Senate was concieived.
The Senate never has, nor was it designed to, pander to the majority mob in any state … but to attempt to incorporate those ideals into federal legislation.It was, unlike the House which is organized Mob Rule, to be the slow moving, deliberative body that should emerge from debate with the correct answer. In essence, Senators work for the Senate … and only panderto the residents of their state by telling them that stuffing up their @$$ is, in reality, good for the entire country.
So the problem is the “loaded” aspect of the guns the marchers will be carrying? What if:
Marcher 1, unloaded gun
Marcher 2, ammo
Marcher 3, unloaded gun
Marcher 4, ammo, and so on. Problem solved. Protest carried out. Technically no laws broken.
Thanks for sharing. the story is so darned funny… It just demonstrates how ignorant and stupid a lot of sheeple are in this, what used to be a, great country.
I hope the lot of you realize that the real reason the govt wants you to surrender your firearms is that the end results are:
1) You can’t uprise ( Important especially when tyrannical leaders are in power ).
2) Your other rights are on the table as well.. Forget about due process. Forget about your rights to vote. Forget about your right to speak up. Forget about privacy. Forget about life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Forget about any and all of your rights and privileges.
3) They realize 100% that criminals won’t follow any laws that they don’t want to.
4) Your levels of fear will rise; crimes will rise once criminals have no resistance; the now disarmed public will cry out for more govt resources to protect them; surrendering more rights in the process. It will encourage large govt; govt that in the end will fail because it can’t stand its own financial weight. They’ll print money to cover it for as long as it can, but at some point, there will need to be a purge of the dead-weight.
5) ultimately, you will be living in a caste system of some sort; govt by the rich and those in power, and everyone else- mindlessly slaving over and doing whatever the govt and the rich dictate. You won’t have to worry about getting rich; it won’t happen unless you are already there.
6) if you oppose in any manner, you will be detained in one of their facilities and quietly disappear into the night- never to be seen or heard from again.
It’s interesting, USA Today admits they are very anti gun and yet allows you to write editorials. Any thoughts on their angle?
Oh, I guess they could be seeking a fair balance, but that’s hard to believe.
This would be the same Max Baucus that decided to retire recently? Way to spend your propaganda budget, guys.
R.F, you really ought to alter your typecasting of the law enforcement community.
Calaveras County ain’t L.A. or Boston.
Just one of the reasons why I love my wife and why she’s an incredible mother:
I gave her her Mother’s Day gift and card, she was grateful but I sensed a slight tinge of disappointment. When pressed she said, “It’s lovely, but part of me was kind of hoping it was that Beretta I’ve been asking about.”
A woman after my own heart.
(Don’t worry, her birthday is next month.)
It’s amazing that those same educators who are aghast at the idea of parents or schools educating children about guns are the same adults who push the hardest for demonstrating the most graphic aspects of sexual education regardless of parental permission. Imagine if the same arguments floated for teaching sex-ed to children could be used to teach gun safety to school children.
how insensitive of these people to parody and stereotype the Indian culture like this… 😉
A firearm like this has so many mind-boggling ramifications, this is a game changer of international proportions. Could this arm a revolution? Could this embolden and arm criminals? Could this open a new method of firearms sales, like an FFL Vending Machine? Could this weapon change the ways that existing arms manufacturers make future guns – and affect the price of the next generation of them?
I constantly lecture my guns on their need to reform, to control themselves, to be better guns. But they don’t listen. All they want to do is go to the range and make a lot of noise. The older all-steel Colts and S&Ws are a bit more mature, but there’s no talking sense to these new polymer jobs. They just have no respect.