RSS

Can’t define it with words? Use a picture book

04 Jan

Apparently, the gun grabbing zealots are a lot like the layman art critic who says, “I don’t know art, but I know what I like”.  Only in this version it’s, “I don’t know guns, but if they are black and scary then I want them banned”.

I am speaking of the grabbers long cherished boogeyman, the so called “assault weapon”.  Why do I use the term “so called”?  Because if you ask a dozen rabid mouth foaming gun control zealots to define what an assault weapon is, after they inundate you with the vitriol of why you don’t need them and nonsense like the founders only intending you to have muskets, chances are you will get a dozen different answers.

You see, when the grabbers decided to come up with this spooky term, it was enough just to point to any black gun and say, assault weapon.  Mainstream America wasn’t as initiated in the finer points of the firearm industry as they are now.

So it was simply a matter of playing on peoples fear of the unknown.  Affixing the term “assault” to any weapon makes it sound more menacing without having to actually define it.

An assault knife, an assault ax, an assault vehicle.

See?  All I was describing was a steak knife, a double sided ax and a pick up truck…but they SOUNDED menacing and if you just accepted the term out of ignorance then you may decide these things are innately violent.

But it has been some 20 years since the term was hijacked into the American lexicon by gun control zealots and over the past 2 decades the American people have started to become familiar with these weapons.

AR style rifles are the best selling rifle in the nation.

Now the gun control zealots have a problem.  Where they once had used ignorance and terminology to scare the American public into acquiescence, a more discerning populace is looking for definitions.

Enter Dianne Feinstein and her Picture Book!

Yep, Feinstein and her gun grabbing cronies will point to pictures in a book and will ban the ones that are scary looking.

Never mind that assault weapons are hardly ever used in crime (1/5th of 1%) and that the last assault weapons ban had no impact on the reduction of crime.

Never mind that law abiding citizens are not the ones who commit crime to begin with and that criminals will ignore whatever ban is put in place.

Never mind how disgusting the hoplophobia and hypocrisy Feinstein and others display by being protected by these weapons while denying them to the average American.

Never mind all that.  They want to ban guns that LOOK SCARY TO THEM.

Think about that. At what point does every gun begin to look scary to them?  If we allow this kindergarten approach to gain any traction in the halls of congress we run the risk of opening Pandora’s Box.

Continue to contact your legislators and have them find the courage to stand up to Feinstein and her Sesame Street approach to legislation.

Speaking of which, I wonder if Feinstein will utilize the power of The Count when pitching her 10 bullet Magazine limit.

M~ Count

Todays blog is brought to you by the letters G, O, A and the number 2

About these ads
 
12 Comments

Posted by on January 4, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

12 responses to “Can’t define it with words? Use a picture book

  1. Roy Harmon

    January 4, 2013 at 10:27 am

    Apparently at a Belleville, Illinois Denny’s a police officer’s sidearm was found to be pretty scary. It won’t be long before we’ve got our police force carrying sticks and criminals are the only ones with access to firearms. That is, unless state legislators stand up to the federal government for once and defend the Constitution,

     
  2. pedrop357

    January 4, 2013 at 10:30 am

    I posted a version of this at fark.com originally:

    Imagine that heavy duty diesel trucks, that is trucks like the Chevy HD, Ford F-350, Dodge RAM diesels like the 2500, etc. are involved in a small number of incidents, let’s say no more than 30, where the driver drove over a bunch of people-let’s say 5 or more in each incident.

    A group of politicians who have always been opposed to trucks in private hands OR all vehicles in private hands (one or the other for this example), coin the term ‘tractor truck’ which sounds a lot like tractor trailer, a very different animal.

    They go on TV talking about these “tractor trucks” and the menacing they cause. They hold press conferences talking about “Cummins killers” and “Duramax Death machines” and they show pictures of or point at the large trucks behind them and say things like “You don’t need something like this to go to the grocery store” or “You don’t need this to get your kids to school”, “You don’t need a 50 gallon fuel tank to commute to work”, etc.

    They introduce a ban on ‘tractor trucks’ in private hands. ‘tractor truck’ includes any truck with a diesel engine as well as any engine with a fuel injector in the cylinder head AND two or more of the following features:dual tires mounted side-by-side on an axle (dualie tires),locking front and/or rear axles, automatically shifting transmissions, sport seats, or automatic locking 4wd hubs. Separately, the bill bans diesel engines over 6.0L , fuel tanks over 20 gallons, etc.

    Cue the outrage-neither gasoline engines with direct injection nor diesel can’t be used in automatic transmission trucks, dualies aren’t allowed with 4wd auto trans diesel trucks, etc.

    Truck companies immediately comply and begin removing dualie tires from 4wd diesels with auto trans and only putting dualies on manual trans 4wd diesels. They begin equipping all trucks with dual and triple 19 gallon fuel tanks, 5.9L engines, manual locking hubs, etc.

    These compliance measures are immediately called ‘skirting’ or exploiting ‘loopholes’ and the truck control groups go right to work on a stronger ban that languishes for 15+ years.

    in the meantime, a very small number of people engage continue to in mass street slaughter primarily with cars and small trucks, as was the case before the ban. The day-to-day vehicle death rate, which was dropping before the ban continues to drop even though more people buy post-ban trucks, as well as cars and small trucks.

    10 years after implementation, the ban sunsets and ‘tractor trucks’ are available again. For 8 years, they’re widely available, and there’s no increase in mass street slaughter or overall traffic deaths. in fact, the latter which was declining before the ban started is still declining very rapidly despite people buying cars, small trucks, and ‘tractor trucks’ in greater and greater numbers than any other point in time.

    In that 8th year, a guy using a truck that would have been compliant with the now sunset ‘tractor truck’ ban kills his own mother, steals her truck and runs over a bunch of kindergartners with it. We hadn’t seen anyone kill large number of children like this before, so everyone’s quick to say things like “it feels different this time”.

    The same people who’ve been pushing a revised/renewed ‘tractor truck’ ban for the last 18 years are right on time to push their proposal before those all of those kids are even buried

    So now car owners, truck owners, vehicle rights enthusiasts are dealing with people saying things like “that much torque capacity makes it easy to run people over” in response to points that far more people are killed with far less capable vehicles.

    Anti-vehicle or uninformed people talk about how a ford escort never killed 20 people at once while ignoring that much less capable vehicles kill tens of thousands and that all trucks (rifle comparison) are only responsible for about 3% of vehicle deaths. They outright dismiss the idea that a small 4-cylinder truck could run over as many people if the driver made some small changes (at best) to their plans. They talk about how cars could get high centered running over that many people or driving on the sidewalk, etc.
    When countered, anti-gun people whine “I guess we should just do nothing”, demonstrating that they had exactly one response to vehicle slaugher-more vehicle control.

    In discussions about ‘tractor truck’ bans, they put forward statistics for ALL vehicle deaths to make their case about narrow vehicle type bans.

    They talk about how large fuel tanks encourage long distance massacres and that forcing people to refuel will give the police a chance to stop them; to make that case, they talk about one of the few times a killer was stopped by someone other himself after his cheap aftermarket fuel tank partially dissolved and clogged the fuel lines. In this case, had he stuck with some 10 (or 19) gallon tanks, he wouldn’t have been stopped so easily.
    [As I recall, the Aurora shooter had some crappy aftermarket mag that jammed his gun forcing him to spend time trying to unjam it rather then reload]

    In nearly all other cases, the driver ran people over, seemingly at will for as long as 10-15 minutes in many cases and only stopped when they encountered resistance or apparently tired of running people over. Most then committed suicide by running themselves over. A few simply waited near the vehicle to be arrested (Aurora shooter, handful of others)

    To make it worse, aside from MAYBE 10 incidents in the last 15 or so years, every mass vehicle slaughter happened in an area already off limits to vehicles.

    THIS is how gun control appears to gun rights supporters-purely agenda driven, impractical where it might be effective, ineffective where it might be practical, overall grossly ineffective, simplistic, and overreaching with the added insult that it is merely gun control for gun control’s sake. Gun control is not supposed to be the endgame, reducing violence is, and gun control does not work in reducing overall violence.

     
  3. Jim Thompson

    January 4, 2013 at 10:32 am

    They are Idiots ! A gun is only as good, as the man that holds it ! Plus Assault weapons ? are fully automatic weapons !

     
    • stevarooni

      January 4, 2013 at 11:29 am

      Close, but your terminology’s a little bit off, Jim. An “assault weapon” is a politically contrived word for something that…basically…has two or more scary-looking attributes (bayonet lug, folding stock, etc.). An “assault rifle” is a precise technical term with several specific attributes including being capable of fully-automatic fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle).

       
      • msalzbrenner

        January 4, 2013 at 2:35 pm

        No offense but those who are seriously going to continue micro-managing semantics are most likely going to loose any legitimate or productive debate. The simple truth is the English language grows and develops. By trying to a “static” set of parameters you simply limit its expansion. What we must concentrate on is expressing ourselves in a manner that is meaningful to the audience we are addressing. Now unfortunately, the current “bureaucracy” is accomplishing this very well. They haven’t “limited” the language they use to “specific” definitions. They have specifically utilized the breadth of definition to specific words to induce support for their agendas. They have continuously done so in regards to the constitution. And to this point it has been working for them.

        Here is an example. Lets say that some would declare that “Senator Fienstien is a bitch.” Those that are unaware of the “definition” of the word “bitch” will understand what I meant. Those that are a little to “collegiate” for their own good may choose to ridicule this statement simply because she is not a member of the canine species. (Which quite honestly in my opinion would be equally arguable.) Once again its all a matter of semantics.

        The important thing we focus on at this point is the “message” that is being articulated.

        MY message (and I hope many others as well); That arms (for those who wish to adhere to semantics : “arms” being used in reference to “weapons” specifically of the “firearm” persuasion.) are our individual common law RIGHT. They are our means to self defense from ALL aggressors, both foreign and domestic.

        Or

        THEIR message (I’m painfully aware is that of many others as well); That guns CAUSE aggression and the common citizens should have no access to them for their own safety.

        The “MESSAGE” being portrayed should be the focus, so let us continue to focus on the “MESSAGE” and not the “verbiage”.

         
  4. Scott C

    January 4, 2013 at 10:53 am

    Don’t blame Sen. Feinstein and the Anti-gunners, it’s not their fault they need to simplify their cause to the level of using picture books. In order for her and her cronnies to have any impact they need to target the most impressionable group of individuals out there in order to get as much backing for their cause as they can and who better than the uneducated, paid for obama voters.They are educated enough to see the pictures yet not smart enough to read captions and certainly not smart enough to form their own opinions. After ther training program they went through this last fall they have come to learn one important thing : when you make the choice that your trainer wants you to make you gets rewarded, something similiar to a welfare recipient getting an obama phone for voting properly. The pro gun movement needs to do nothing more than educate people of what they have to loose if guns ARE taken away, why they should not fear firearms and what THEIR government can do to them if they have their guns taken away( Now THAT’S something to be afraid of ! )

     
    • msalzbrenner

      January 4, 2013 at 11:40 am

      I evoke a sigh of relief in knowing there are still a few that understand IGNORANCE is the fundamental problem. This administration is quite aware that the majority of American citizens have fallen down a deep whole of apathy. And they are very willing to capitalize on that portion of our populace. It got Obama elected, and it will also get a LOT more legislation pushed through in the next 4 years. This group of citizens has learned NOTHING from their mistakes, nor have they been forced to accept ANY responsibility for their actions. They won’t care until they are no longer able to elicit their entitlements. Then and only then will they realize what their ignorance has cost ALL of us. The bad part is, they still probably won’t even care.

       
      • ian1775

        January 5, 2013 at 6:05 am

        Until they learn to think, they won’t know enough to care.

         
      • msalzbrenner

        January 5, 2013 at 4:22 pm

        They will care. When it is THEIR paycheck that gets smaller, or THEIR hobby that gets outlawed, or THEIR opinion that is ridiculed. But until that happens they will continue to be blind to the truth. It is only when THEY are affected that they will choose to learn more and begin to understand how ignorant they really were. The problem with that is, by that time it is already to late.

         
      • ian1775

        January 6, 2013 at 7:47 am

        Maybe. But I am skeptical. I suspect that people who are unaccustomed to thinking will not suddenly learn. They will just place blame wherever they are told to place it by those they trust to do their thinking for them. Self-interest should motivate thought, but what if you never developed the habit, and haven’t the faintest idea how, or why?

        I agree that it will be too late if the majority doesn’t catch on soon. I have read of people who supported Hitler before the war, expressing their regret afterwards, saying they didn’t know, when the consequences were inherent in his speeches. And there were Bolsheviks who found out the predictable results of communism only when they caught a bullet as “an enemy of the people.”

         
  5. ian1775

    January 4, 2013 at 10:59 am

    According to Ayn Rand (who survived the Bolshevik revolution), it is typical of what she called an anti-conceptual mentality, to avoid essentials when defining words. Essentials meaning those characteristics of an existent which best serve to differentiate it from any similar existent. The purpose of this avoidance is to replace clear thought (rationality) with rationalization, and hide what they mean from themselves (mostly) and from others (as a side benefit).

    Thus, Liberals replace the essential characteristic of Assault weapons (selective fire), with something inessential (military style), thus avoiding rigorous thought with something more flexible: feelings. Liberals are anti-conceptual.

    For the historical development of assault weapons, see:

    http://world.guns.ru/assault-e.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

     
  6. ian1775

    January 5, 2013 at 5:56 am

    I should have worded the second paragraph of my comment: Thus, those who replace the essential characteristic of Assault weapons (selective fire), with something inessential (military style), are are anti-conceptual. The word “Liberal” was unnecessary collectivism on my part. Sorry.

     

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 358 other followers

%d bloggers like this: