Here is something germain that I posted a while back:
Let's call them what they are MODERN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As most of us are aware, liberals tend to appeal to peoples emotions rather than using facts, reasons or logic to sway peoples opinions on gun issues.
"Assault weapon" is a term with a strong negative connotation. This phrase carries the presupposition that these weapons are suitable only for committing a criminal assault. Our enemies in Congress knew what they were doing when they named the Assault weapons bill.
Using loaded language to exploit the subtle shades of words meanings, neutral or even pleasant things can become unpleasant. Conceder the difference between:
fragrant and smelly a mobile home vs a trailer inexpensive vs cheap
Using this method it's easy to take something as innocuous as your scoped mini 14 ranch rifle and turn it into a high capacity semiautomatic assault rifle with no legitimate sporting purpose, the weapon of choice of disgruntled snipers.
Now how can we counter this? Let's look at some facts and reasons.
One of the most effective ways of doing this is to use "loaded" words and phrases.
Certain words have negative connotations that invoke an emotional response.
Suppose you read a news story that starts with the phrase "disgruntled former employee". You immediately start thinking "Another nut goes on a murderous rampage" simply because you have heard that word used so many times in that context even though the word disgruntled simply means disappointed and unhappy.
Even a purely technical term like "semi automatic" can evoke negative emotions in uninformed people whose primary exposure to that term has been in connection with story's about crime and mass murder.
Since the invention of the musket, men have endeavored to make firearms more accurate, handier, faster to load and to increase the number of shots.
Muskets have to have long barrels to get even marginal accuracy. With the advent of rifled bores, this was no longer true. Although long barrels were retained for military rifles because no one wanted to give up the extra reach they afforded in a bayonet charge. Also, with iron sights the farther apart they are the more accurately they can be aimed.
Now days bayonet charges are no longer in vogue and improved sighting systems make long cumbersome barrels unnecessary.
Traditional firearm stocks were made of wood. With the development of synthetic stocks more ergonomic shapes evolved. Pistol grip stocks feel more natural in the hand to many people but were difficult to make out of wood which tends to split along its grain. That's not a problem with plastic.
Since the invention of the self contained cartridge faster and easier ways to load have evolved. Semi automatic operation and detachable magazines eliminated down time.
To put it all into perspective, these so called assault weapons are simply
MODERN FIREARMS
which are in use by every established military in the world. Just like the brown Bess musket was in 1776! (remember, everyone who ever lived lived in modern times)
So the next time you debate an anti gunner be sure to call these guns what they really are
MODERN FIREARMS !
Why Senator Foghorn, Do you really believe the second amendment is not meant to apply to modern firearms?
