mwaterous
Regular Member
Yes firearms are still useful when hostility is needed. There, I saved you a reply. 2
Hey now I have nothing to reply to that...
Yes firearms are still useful when hostility is needed. There, I saved you a reply. 2
BTW, NEED is a communist word
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"
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.
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.
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
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?
As well they should, since that's what they are.Tony_B said:The media and [so-called] law enforcement always refer to firearms of any type as "weapons."
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.