We all know that this term was created by elements of our government to classify a certain set of weapons by cosmetic appearance, but that doesn't mean we have to agree and use the names THEY created. You and I both know that the gun-grabbers coined that sharp and offensive term, "Assault Weapon," for those firearms because they wanted to attach a negative connotation from the get go. They're even trying to convince US, the Pro-Gun community, that these weapons are inherently more dangerous. Think of it like the game Jenga. They will reach for easiest brick to remove, and all they have to do is convince the public that it's different before they pull it out. It the most efficient method for segregating and removing our rights one at a time.
And it's so much easier for the uninformed public to believe that the firearms designated as "Assault Weapons" are indeed more deadly than those not designated as "Assault Weapons", and more importantly, used to initiate conflict rather than resolve it. I refuse to believe that they would have gotten as much traction on this issue had they named them "Teddybear Rifles". The name says it all, and the worst part is that the name attached is presumptive, negative, and FALSE. We, the educated public, know that "Assault Weapons" have accounted for approximately 2-3% of crime involving firearms, far less than handguns. Yet we allow them to tell the world that they are far more deadly.
The same goes for so-called "High Capacity" magazines. Once again we let them coin terms that tells a story to the public that when weapons were invented, nobody could figure out how to create a magazine whose capacity was over 10 rounds. Then, in 1994 somebody BENT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS and broke the 10 round barrier to create "High Capacity" magazines. You and I both know that if we were in on the meeting where they developed those names, we would have demanded that they used terms such as "Standard Capacity" and "Low/Restricted Capacity". I believe anybody can agree that those terms are much more accurate to the situation.
I think that the worst thing may be that we, the firearms community consisting of manufacturers, distributors, and enthusiasts, have promoted these misnomers by accepting and repeating them. Rather than resisting and correcting, we have sat back and said, "Oh sure, you call them what you want. Sounds good to me." And it makes me sick that we have been so passive in such a powerful arena as propaganda. Have you forgotten how wars are fought? Certainly they involve manpower, but don't you forget the usefulness of persuasion in lieu of education. The uninformed public can only make decisions from what they hear in news snippets and movies.
So what could we call "Assault Weapons" from now on? Maybe Tactical Rifles and Shotguns? Maybe we go back to Black Rifles and Shotguns so we can stay within the theme of what it looks like rather than what it does. Maybe we call them "Low Crime Rifles" or "Really Expensive Rifles". Or do we get cutesy and call them Teddybear Rifles? Fine by me, as long as we're projecting the image we want into the community.
Now, I'm sure you're saying that it's too late, that those terms have been around for more than 15 years, that it's referred to in law, news articles and by those ever so endearing and naive hollywood actors. I believe you're wrong. It's never too late to rebrand an issue. There certainly would be bumps, but in time people will come to accept these new terms. BUT, an undertaking like this must be done strategically so that there is consensus and communication. Somebody or some organization (cough*NRA*cough) must take the responsibility to spearhead the overhaul so that it is done properly. Then manufacturers and distributers must change their naming system on their websites and invoices so that when they sell a 10 round magazine for Glock in California, it is indeed referred to as a Restricted Capacity Magazine. You tell people what it is, and they will believe you.
So that's it, I'm done with those terms. From here on out, I'll never use the term "Assault Weapons". If I talk about one of those beautiful rifles with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, collapsable stock and a 30 round magazine, I will refer to it as my Teddybear Rifle. And when somebody asks, "What do you mean? Are you talking about an Assault Rifle?", I will say, "No my friend, I'm talking about my Teddybear Rifle with a standard capacity magazine. That's the correct term, didn't you hear?" And then maybe they will tell their friends, and they theirs.
... well, maybe for now I'll call them Tactical Rifles.
Good luck friends.
And it's so much easier for the uninformed public to believe that the firearms designated as "Assault Weapons" are indeed more deadly than those not designated as "Assault Weapons", and more importantly, used to initiate conflict rather than resolve it. I refuse to believe that they would have gotten as much traction on this issue had they named them "Teddybear Rifles". The name says it all, and the worst part is that the name attached is presumptive, negative, and FALSE. We, the educated public, know that "Assault Weapons" have accounted for approximately 2-3% of crime involving firearms, far less than handguns. Yet we allow them to tell the world that they are far more deadly.
The same goes for so-called "High Capacity" magazines. Once again we let them coin terms that tells a story to the public that when weapons were invented, nobody could figure out how to create a magazine whose capacity was over 10 rounds. Then, in 1994 somebody BENT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS and broke the 10 round barrier to create "High Capacity" magazines. You and I both know that if we were in on the meeting where they developed those names, we would have demanded that they used terms such as "Standard Capacity" and "Low/Restricted Capacity". I believe anybody can agree that those terms are much more accurate to the situation.
I think that the worst thing may be that we, the firearms community consisting of manufacturers, distributors, and enthusiasts, have promoted these misnomers by accepting and repeating them. Rather than resisting and correcting, we have sat back and said, "Oh sure, you call them what you want. Sounds good to me." And it makes me sick that we have been so passive in such a powerful arena as propaganda. Have you forgotten how wars are fought? Certainly they involve manpower, but don't you forget the usefulness of persuasion in lieu of education. The uninformed public can only make decisions from what they hear in news snippets and movies.
So what could we call "Assault Weapons" from now on? Maybe Tactical Rifles and Shotguns? Maybe we go back to Black Rifles and Shotguns so we can stay within the theme of what it looks like rather than what it does. Maybe we call them "Low Crime Rifles" or "Really Expensive Rifles". Or do we get cutesy and call them Teddybear Rifles? Fine by me, as long as we're projecting the image we want into the community.
Now, I'm sure you're saying that it's too late, that those terms have been around for more than 15 years, that it's referred to in law, news articles and by those ever so endearing and naive hollywood actors. I believe you're wrong. It's never too late to rebrand an issue. There certainly would be bumps, but in time people will come to accept these new terms. BUT, an undertaking like this must be done strategically so that there is consensus and communication. Somebody or some organization (cough*NRA*cough) must take the responsibility to spearhead the overhaul so that it is done properly. Then manufacturers and distributers must change their naming system on their websites and invoices so that when they sell a 10 round magazine for Glock in California, it is indeed referred to as a Restricted Capacity Magazine. You tell people what it is, and they will believe you.
So that's it, I'm done with those terms. From here on out, I'll never use the term "Assault Weapons". If I talk about one of those beautiful rifles with a bayonet lug, flash suppressor, collapsable stock and a 30 round magazine, I will refer to it as my Teddybear Rifle. And when somebody asks, "What do you mean? Are you talking about an Assault Rifle?", I will say, "No my friend, I'm talking about my Teddybear Rifle with a standard capacity magazine. That's the correct term, didn't you hear?" And then maybe they will tell their friends, and they theirs.
... well, maybe for now I'll call them Tactical Rifles.
Good luck friends.
