May I suggest a different choice of words when referencing one's firearm?

Merlin said:

Yes firearms are still useful when hostility is needed. There, I saved you a reply. 2

Click to expand...

Hey now I have nothing to reply to that...

papa bear said:

BTW, NEED is a communist word

Click to expand...

Is "want" a capitalist word? I'll use it to harm someone if I want to, god forbid I ever want to... that makes me sound dangerous. That's the only time I saw myself use the word need, so I'm not entirely sure what this refers to. Nevertheless I do see your point... I'm just still not convinced making such a change is going to be the big win for the firearms toting community. I guess we'll just have to see what happens.

papa bear said:

if you are using a firearm to kill someone, then i agree it is a weapon. just like the military is out to kill personnel. but if you are carrying a firearm for self defense, i hope you are not out to kill someone

i stand by my post. if you use the POLITICALLY CORRECT term of weapon then you are the same as the Brady bunch. using the same tactics against them is a good thing

don't understand the "head in the sand" comment, i find the old term of weapon to be stagnant. here in NC the term weapon is used to describe anything used to kill or harm another human being. the other day i ran into a traveler that asked "can you carry your weapon in NC", to which i replied " no, you can only carry a firearm in NC, not a weapon"

Click to expand...

I don't know why you carry a firearm, but I carry a firearm so I can defend my life or that of others if the need arises. I carry my firearm because I intend to use it as a weapon, and that is the only reason. I carry a hammer in my tool belt to use it as a tool, however, if I smack someone up side the head with it in self defense then it would then be classified as a weapon. I don't carry my firearm to show off or for any other reason, I carry it as my weapon of choice should someone try to threaten my life or that of a loved one. If you are carrying your firearm in your range bag to the range then it is a firearm, however, once you strap it on your side in a defensive manner it becomes a weapon, and there is no avoiding the facts. The MSM is going to call a firearm whatever the government and globalists tell them too, because over 90% of MSM networks are owned by 3 globalists pigs. WE can call a firearm a weapon of death or mass destruction and it will not matter. We are living in a country today that is much like Nazi Germany started as back in the 30's, the media is controlled, the Federal Reserve is privately controlled, the Federal government is privately controlled, and it is getting worse. We have won the battle and firearms are mainstream, and 5,000,000 a month are being sold because the United States citizenry realizes something is wrong, and they are right. They are going to attempt to get our firearms sooner or later, and what we call them will not change their minds.

In AL, there are different reasons for using different words.

We have a pistol license.
Some people are forbidden to have pistols.
Yet they can bear and carry rifles and shotguns.

So I call a spade a spade; a dirk a dirk -- and a knife, a knife.

Kirbinator said:

In AL, there are different reasons for using different words.

We have a pistol license.
Some people are forbidden to have pistols.
Yet they can bear and carry rifles and shotguns.

So I call a spade a spade; a dirk a dirk -- and a knife, a knife.

Click to expand...

in which case they all can be called "weapons"

exactly what is a dirk

basically another type of knife.....long skinny 'blade' for sticking into folks, not used for cutting or slashing folks. Think a pirate with a cutlass in one hand a dirk in the other.

I call a tanto a tanto, a katana a katana, and a jo a jo....

OC for ME said:

basically another type of knife.....long skinny 'blade' for sticking into folks, not used for cutting or slashing folks. Think a pirate with a cutlass in one hand a dirk in the other.

Click to expand...

anything like an Arkansas toothpick, or a frog/pig sticker,etc....

Sometimes.....though, a pig sticker could be a 'traditional' looking knife too.

name them, odds are if you name them, like your children, you wont sell them.

not such a big deal

The only time I really get irritated about terminology is when people call them "assualt rifles." I usually just then attach the word "assault" to every other noun until they see my point.

"Your other choice is to use your assault phone to call the public assaultman."

Not too worried about gun, weapon, etc, etc.

How about "Say hello to my lil' friend..."?

Just call it "the widow maker" ... Brady bunch will thank you for it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0&feature=related

Brady bunch folks use idiotic logic..

I approve that logic.

They are called zombie repellant dispensers. Close thread.....

Merlin said:

Nope, no fret, just discussion. Part of seeing our agenda of OC succeed is getting civilians on our side. If I have to friendly up my language a bit to achieve that, a small price to pay.

I prefer the term constitutionally-protected-constitution-protector.


Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

I have a weapon, and I'll refer to it as such. What I don't have is an agenda.

Why is this in the Alabama forum, anyway? Y'all figure there's not enough activity here?

Brimstone Baritone said:

I have a weapon, and I'll refer to it as such. What I don't have is an agenda.

Why is this in the Alabama forum, anyway? Y'all figure there's not enough activity here?

Click to expand...

I started this thread, Bunky, to get people to contemplate their choice of words so that they might not label or characterize themselves as those who seek our destruction. In political discourse words are rarely defined except by innuendo and implication in the media by those who would direct and manipulate our thought processes and behavior. The very foundation of any debate or discussion is defining the terms and words used so that everyone is on the same page.

Some would say, 'Oh, everyone knows what that means,' or 'Everyone knows that,' when, in fact, everyone has a completely different understanding of given words and meanings or hasn't a clue at all.

In passing, I wouldn't want this thread to be a catalyst for you to actually approach communication in a new light, or give you an idea that you may not have previously contemplated. By all means, please ignore it altogether as it clearly wasn't meant for you or those like you. It was intended for critical thinkers and you've shown yourself to be without that group of people.

Well, since you personally called me out by quoting my post I suppose I have to defend my honor. *snicker* It turns out I was being polite in my post. Since I feel no need to feign politeness with someone who calls me "Bunky" (what does that even mean?), I'll give your argument the full weight I wanted to originally. It's been so long, though, I had to go all the way back to your OP. Allow me to clarify my points by responding to individual sections of your assertion.

Tony_B said:

The media and [so-called] law enforcement always refer to firearms of any type as "weapons."

Click to expand...

As well they should, since that's what they are.

The term weapon, at least to my ears and I suspect the majority of the brainwashed masses, tends to connote an item used in an offensive nature as opposed to a defensive nature. A weapon sounds menacing.

Click to expand...

Okay. You know what else sounds menacing? The word "brainwashed". Maybe someone who is worried about the way others perceive them should try not to use such confrontational terms.

Might I suggest that we use the term "firearm" when referencing those items we own that are best characterized as "firearms?" I'm not sure when and where the term weapon came into play in describing what we know as firearms, but I'm certain is was calculated to elicit a specific response in those people who hear that term. A negative one at that.

Click to expand...

I prefer the term "boomstick". I find it more accurately describes the form and function of the tool than the term "fire arm". I'm not 100% on the etymology of the word "weapon" but I doubt it was invented by the media to cast aspersions on your precious defensive weapon. Oh, great. I used "that word" again.

Furthermore, using an opponent's terms to define us and our property can never be a good thing. Just a thought I've had for some time that I'd throw out for consideration.

Click to expand...

The "other side" in these sorts of situations always tries to control the language. If you can control the language, change the meaning of words, or make certain words fall out of favor, you can control the thoughts of the people. If you haven't read 1984, I think it makes a great example of this with the idea of Newspeak. The way to fight Newspeak isn't playing by their rules. "Sanitizing" your language, so that you aren't labeled as "one of them" helps them strip away not just words, but the ideas they represent. That is why so many of us find your suggestion repugnant.

Tony_B said:

I started this thread, Bunky, to get people to contemplate their choice of words so that they might not label or characterize themselves as those who seek our destruction. In political discourse words are rarely defined except by innuendo and implication in the media by those who would direct and manipulate our thought processes and behavior. The very foundation of any debate or discussion is defining the terms and words used so that everyone is on the same page.

Click to expand...

Then the solution cannot be to "sanitize" the language. It must be to educate the population as to the true meanings of words, and the true weight of the ideas they represent. Anything else is playing to lose.

Some would say, 'Oh, everyone knows what that means,' or 'Everyone knows that,' when, in fact, everyone has a completely different understanding of given words and meanings or hasn't a clue at all.

Click to expand...

That's right. Ask 10 people for an opinion, and you're likely to get 20 different answers. The only real solution is education. The battle for our minds cannot be won by playing by their rules.

In passing, I wouldn't want this thread to be a catalyst for you to actually approach communication in a new light, or give you an idea that you may not have previously contemplated. By all means, please ignore it altogether as it clearly wasn't meant for you or those like you. It was intended for critical thinkers and you've shown yourself to be without that group of people.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can see by the frequency of your visits that these thoughts will only be expressed en passant. Hopefully my responses to your ill-conceived "advice" will cause you to re-evaluate your position. I highly doubt it, considering you ignored so many better responses just to single mine out. Also, I hope you've now reconsidered the idea that I would bother to respond to a post at all if I were simply ignoring it. I considered your assertion, weighed it against my knowledge and prior experience, and rejected its validity. I should have done a better job explaining why. I hope I have corrected that error.

BUNKY. i would like to point out that the term weapon is the word that means to Kill or to do extreme damage to a human being. that is what the antis promote, is that you are just out to kill some one, that's the only reason you carry. if you do stick to this way of thinking i would suggest you don't post anymore, because it will be used against you in a court of law. if you do have to use it to protect you or your family

i hope that i never have to shoot another person again. my present carry firearm never has, one of the arguments i use for the anti's is that i will bet you a 1,000$ that if i lay my firearm on the table it will never jump up and shoot somebody

i carry because i want to be prepared to stop a threat on my, or someone close to me, life. i will only shoot to stop the threat, and only the amount of shots it takes to stop the threat.