I’m pleased to report that the civilian disarmament industry’s push to replace the words “gun control” with “gun safety” has failed to find favor amongst the Average [Non Morning] Joe. The most mainstream of the mainstream media—ABC, CBS, etc.—are sticking with “gun control” as well. As well they should. “Gun safety” means being safe with a gun. “Gun control” means controlling guns. Not that guns have a will of their own. Or do they? The term “gun violence” has wormed its way into common parlance, indicating that the guns are responsible for violence. In the same sneakily subconscious way that “assault rifles” assault. And now we have “gun amnesty.” What do gun grabbers expect these “guilty by their very existence” guns to do? Why they expect them to die, Mr. Bond. Obviously. I’m going with another catchphrase: a gun is a terrible thing to waste. They deserve a good home and a proper education. That’s just common sense.
Funny that you have this topic first thing this morning…on my commute I heard NPR refer to the Senate bill as “gun regulation” – and all I could think was, “Huhm…isn’t that a convenient phrase.” NPR has done a decent job thus far, but…
I recall some very anti-gun bits on NPR a few weeks ago.
I wonder how the mainstream media would like free speech regulation with a 6-9 month wait for the permitting process?
Speech control? Speech safety? I love it.
Correct speech.
Good-speak.
Barack Obama Thought.
NPR has a long history of leaning left.
I ignore them like the rest of the alphabet soup networks.
They’re known unofficially as “National Petroleum Radio”. But their stance says “Ford Foundation” and “Pacifica”.
I would be more than happy to open my heart and home to these poor, neglected, unwanted guns.
Your right about being a waste, but I don’t really have a problem with the way they’re presenting this. Maybe it’s just typical midwestern understatement, but it seems like they’re presenting this much like the annual “get rid of your hazardous chemicals for free” week. They seem to be emphasizing the “if you don’t know what to do with it” angle vs. the “take back our streets” angle that many gun buybacks have (which this isn’t, by the way; they’re not paying for them). Again, maybe it’s just midwestern understatement. Yes, it’d still be a shame if something valuable went away, but this doesn’t get my hackles up.
OK, lets say that they want to view it as “get rid of unwanted objects safely” – why not institute a PSA for locations of FFL’s where people can turn in unwanted guns and the FFL’s can then ensure those guns find a good home?
I would enthusiastically support such a program.
Who is that female interviewer?
Gina Glaros
You’re welcome.
Pretty, but I prefer Melissa Theuriau myself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9lissa_Theuriau
No doubt they were both hired for their brilliant minds.
Yes, their firm, smooth minds….
Indeed, thanks.
Don’t forget adding “common sense” to the narrative…it’s still red hot…and working. Facts be damned, what kind of moron can argue against common sense?
Added.
I’d rather argue gun control in Belleview mental hospital. I’m willing to bet I could get more critical thinking & reasoning there than the grabbers use. At least the people that “see things” like inatimate objects controling people are in one place, yes, the nut house, Randy
It’s crap like this that illulstrates how truly disingenuous the gun control lobby is. If you really wanted to give justice to the families of those murdered/maimed by morons with guns, you’d prosecute the hell out of commiting those crimes. No amnesty. They say “Well, getting guns off of the streets is a good thing.” But as we know, rarely do crime guns ever make their way into these turn-ins/buy-back programs. It’s not that I think these are nefarious ideas in principle, but that they show an utter lack of planning, logic, effort and commitment to their stated goals. They just want people to think they are “doing something” about a problem that cannot be easily solved. It’s just shear laziness as a substitute for real police work.
Meanwhile, this site should keep labeling “gun control” as civilian disarmament. That’s what it is.
Speaking of which, Harry Reid screws up and honestly calls it “anti-gun legislation”:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/345695/reid-anti-gun-legislation