Pro-2A groups need to reclaim the language of the debate

page: 1
9

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
While watching some of the debates by pro-2A supporters with Pierce Morgan, and the coverage of the topic on fox news (the only source that is somewhat supportive on the matter) I don't know if it is by choice or by error, we keep arguing the debate in their (the liberal left's) terms.

We supporters of 2nd Amendment need to reclaim the terminology that better reflects the issue.

When they say assault weapon. we must say modern sporting rifles.

When they say high capacity, we must say standard capacity.

Most importantly when they say gun control, we must say rights restrictions.

"Assault weapons" as they use it is a misnomer. "High capacity" is a catch phrase. "Gun control" is a lukewarm term that is tossed around to whitewash the fact that, as a practice, only serves to restrict and or eliminate the rights of free men.

I don't expect to see such a change by any national organization or member of the MSM. I think that it helps to remove the veil of political correctness from the eyes of people we may encounter daily when discussing the topic.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
While watching some of the debates by pro-2A supporters with Pierce Morgan, and the coverage of the topic on fox news (the only source that is somewhat supportive on the matter) I don't know if it is by choice or by error, we keep arguing the debate in their (the liberal left's) terms.

We supporters of 2nd Amendment need to reclaim the terminology that better reflects the issue.

When they say assault weapon. we must say modern sporting rifles.

Personal defense weapons. That is what the government calls them when they order them. They only get labelled assault weapons when democrats want to ban them.

The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” (PDW) — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians.

If ‘Assault Weapons’ Are Bad…Why Does DHS Want to Buy 7,000 of Them for ‘Personal Defense’?
edit on 28-1-2013 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 

i agree the language needs to change.
personally, i prefer Liberty Tool.
self-defense/PDW is redundant, generalized and could apply to anything.

one's Liberty Tool of choice is none of the government's business.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


A resounding YES to this.

Language can be a weapon far more powerful than even the purported "assault weapons" they wish to ban, and if anyone including you and I can help to seize that weapon and turn it back against those who use it against the populace I'm in support of that.

It's insulting to the intellect of the people to attempt deception by twisting names to bastardize the nature of an object.

My only area of disagreement would be the term "modern sporting rifle", why not simply "rifle" , that's all they are, modern or otherwise. Some of the weapons they wish to ban go back to the 20's and 30's even.

"The pen is mightier than the sword".

+ Star
edit on 28-1-2013 by TurtleSmacker because: Clarification



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I rather like the term Utility Rifle myself. It hunts, target shoots, defense shoots and tears down so easy a kid could learn it in a 10 minute instruction.

Utility Rifle.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I rather like the term Utility Rifle myself. It hunts, target shoots, defense shoots and tears down so easy a kid could learn it in a 10 minute instruction.

Utility Rifle.


It's a good term. But the US government already uses the term Personal Defense Weapon. It's an official title of sorts. So you can take that and run with it. The government wants to ban Personal Defense Weapons. That's their classification.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

isn't the purpose to CHANGE the perception the government and anti-crowd are pushing ?
if so, they why in the world would or should we adopt THEIR terminology ??
that makes -0- sense.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I am NOT EVER going to let ANYONE get away with the term "Assault Weapon" again.

If the government calls them PDW (Personal Defense Weapons) when they purchase them, then
that's what we ALL are going to call them....

So let's STICK IT in the lexicon and use the MSM tactic of inundating the media with

PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON (PDW) PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON (PDW) PERSONAL
DEFENSE WEAPON (PDW) PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON (PDW) PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON
(PDW) PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON (PDW) PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON (PDW) PERSONAL
DEFENSE WEAPON (PDW)....

OBAMA SIGNS EXECUTIVE ORDER TO BAN PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS (PDW)

HOUSE CONSIDERS REINSTATING THE BAN ON PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPONS (PDW)

JOE THE SEPTIC TANK GUY SAYS, "THEY CAN HAVE MY PERSONAL DEFENSE WEAPON WHEN
THEY PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD DIRTY FINGERS!"



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

isn't the purpose to CHANGE the perception the government and anti-crowd are pushing ?
if so, they why in the world would or should we adopt THEIR terminology ??
that makes -0- sense.


Did you even read the OP and my posts? If you did I have no idea why in the world you would make your ignorant post.
Current perception: ASSAULT WEAPON
Changed perception: Personal Defense Weapon

You adopt their terminology because they cant say that is NOT considered a PERSONAL defense weapon, as that is what THEY call it. It's easy to sell an ASSAULT weapon ban. Not so easy to sell a PERSONAL DEFENSE weapon ban. Can I spell it out any more clearly for you? I think you seriously look for my posts to take issue with them for the stupidest of reasons.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Exactly. Then people start saying .. wait, I can't defend myself?? And they display the outrage they should.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by rival
 


Exactly. Then people start saying .. wait, I can't defend myself?? And they display the outrage they should.


Reminds me of "The Patriot Act." How can anyone be expected to be against something that sounds so
patriotic especially at the time it was enacted. Should have been called "The Tyrant Initiative 101 Act".

These guys pushing the NWO are smart and they are walking around with a copy of
the "Pro-Edition Field Guide to Euphemistic Propaganda" in their back pocket...not to mention
they OWN the MSM,

Problem is they let this one slip out unawares....



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by rival
 


Then the National Defense Authorization Act .. we obviously have to authorize national defense! This is the problem. My father is a Democrat. When the Patriot Act(R) came out he was all up in arms about losing rights. When the NDAA(D) came out he thought it was no big deal.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Y'all do know that PDW is a real class of weapon right? The gov didn't make that up. Here are some examples of PDW's

Kriss Vector
FNH SCAR PDW
FNH PN 90
Knight PDW-8/10

They call AR and M4's "assault" and SBR's "person defense weapons" . . . however, only one is a real term.

PDW's are designed for close quarters battle, has a short (12" or less) barrel, and a lot of times fires handgun caliber rounds. Think urban warfare weapons with select burst.

If DHS is ordering PDW's . . . they aren't getting AR's. They are getting modern day uzi's . . . to mow you down with quickly.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
While watching some of the debates by pro-2A supporters with Pierce Morgan, and the coverage of the topic on fox news (the only source that is somewhat supportive on the matter) I don't know if it is by choice or by error, we keep arguing the debate in their (the liberal left's) terms.

We supporters of 2nd Amendment need to reclaim the terminology that better reflects the issue.

When they say assault weapon. we must say modern sporting rifles.

When they say high capacity, we must say standard capacity.

Most importantly when they say gun control, we must say rights restrictions.

"Assault weapons" as they use it is a misnomer. "High capacity" is a catch phrase. "Gun control" is a lukewarm term that is tossed around to whitewash the fact that, as a practice, only serves to restrict and or eliminate the rights of free men.

I don't expect to see such a change by any national organization or member of the MSM. I think that it helps to remove the veil of political correctness from the eyes of people we may encounter daily when discussing the topic.


I've been saying this for years . . . It is the main reason I don't support the NRA, either they are too stupid frame a simple argument or they are in on the infringement. They should be fighting the lies and disinfo head on, instead they've been playing political checkers for decades while the other side is playing chess.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
Y'all do know that PDW is a real class of weapon right? The gov didn't make that up. Here are some examples of PDW's

Kriss Vector
FNH SCAR PDW
FNH PN 90
Knight PDW-8/10

They call AR and M4's "assault" and SBR's "person defense weapons" . . . however, only one is a real term.

PDW's are designed for close quarters battle, has a short (12" or less) barrel, and a lot of times fires handgun caliber rounds. Think urban warfare weapons with select burst.

If DHS is ordering PDW's . . . they aren't getting AR's. They are getting modern day uzi's . . . to mow you down with quickly.

My point exactly is that PDW is a REAL term. However if a citizen tried to own something the government classifies as a PDW it would be labelled an assault weapon. That is the exact point. They say these are great for personal defense .. unless a citizen wants one, then theyre bad and only for assaults.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Okay . . . but my point is that isn't a "government classification". The DHS directive is calling them by their platform name. It would be like saying they are ordering AR's, as that is what the platform is. Everyone in this thread keeps claiming this is a government invented term or classification and it is not.

I can't agree with you point or the Blaze article, because they are claiming the gov is calling them that for rhetoric sake. However, they didn't come out and say they were ordering PDWs, this is coming from the RFP. The RFP is ording a specific platform and has to specify that. While alarming that they are placing the order, they aren't trying to "decieve" the ignorant masses with nomenclature.

Since they are bound to use NATO rounds that means they are probably going to be FNH SCAR PDW's or HK416's. If you read the RFP, you'll also notice that this was submitted by ICE, specifically. Not sure what big immigration battles they forsee, but they'll be ready.

It actually bothers me more that they are transitioning to these types of weapons, as opposed to a traditional assault rifle. These will serve urban sweeps very well.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I'd note something about PDW.......and it's NOT HELPFUL to us. Some of the weapons that specifically incorporate 'PDW' into their model names are sub-machine guns and designed for high concealment with maximum lethality for the size of the 'package'.

In the recent DHS requisition order on, I believe Part C, the last area defines terms for their order and there it defines PDW for the M-4 purchasing as capable of maximum concealment. It makes me think more of a Kel Tec 16 than an M-4 when they put it that way...

So before we end up seeing a great sounding word come back to be the club being used to beat us all over the head with, I thought I'd note that. In some definitions, "Assault Weapon" would be the less objectionable and aggressive term for debating with the other side.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Been saying for a while now the best way to make them look foolish is by beating them at thier own game. Awesome thread OP S+F!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 

why would you need a reason for my contribution ?

yes, i read your post, that's what i responded to or are you in the mood to make stuff up again ?

PDW is what the government WANTS, and you suggest cooperating
... whatever floats your boat man ... i choose a different path.

if you cannot see the fallacy of your suggestion, that isn't my problem.
hmmmm, resorting to a veiled stalking accusation

you really are reaching these days


ok then, be well and pop another placebo, eh ?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
I think the real question is why in the blue hell do they NEED submachine guns to begin with? They are not likely to be needing them to sweep entire rooms full of terrorists.

If there are 10 terrorists holding 30 hostages in a room all those weapons are going to accomplish is lots of dead hostages in my opinion.





 
9

log in

join