Manipulation by vocabulary: the gun-control lobby

Many of the terms used by the gun-control lobby are incorrect, loaded, abusive, or proffered in bad faith. Efforts to ban rifles like the AR-15 make broad use of manipulative terminology, ignoring the usefulness of these rifles for home defense as well as recreation and hunting.

The choice of the terms used in a policy debate or political issue can have a large, even determining effect on the outcome. For example, the sudden flip in public attitudes towards marriage of homosexuals has, I believe, much to do with the terminology used, such as the near universal “gay marriage ban.” The word “ban’ suggests that somehow state and Federal law singled out homosexuals by not recognizing their marriages. Singling them out would be discriminatory, which then brings the issue under the argument-closing umbrella of civil rights. But of course there was no “gay marriage ban.” Marriage was understood and legally defined as between a man and a woman. If the issue had been framed as expanding marriage beyond what it had been for millennia and not restricted to homosexual couples, as opposed to triads of different kinds or other arrangements, the issue might well have been viewed differently. The same could be said for the phrase, “marriage equality.” All marriages were and are equal. By assuming the existence of the goal to be attained, the terminology universally and reflexively used by the media and politicians helped frame the debate in ways that promoted their goals.

The term “gun control” is itself a bit of a misnomer, as if there are no controls whatsoever or something is so out of control that government needs somehow to “do something” to clamp down on firearms. In fact over the decades there have been increasing restrictions (controls) on the type of firearm permitted and on the number of people eligible. When I was younger, purchasing a rifle was simple and did not involve getting government permission. Now buying even a single-shot .22 rifle is restricted by Federal law.

But the cake has to go to the term “assault rifle.” A true assault rifle is select fire, meaning it is capable of firing a single round with one trigger pull or many rounds automatically with that pull. Assault rifles are already illegal and have been for a very long time. The gun control lobby abetted by Big Media claims that AR-15 style rifles are assault rifles, suggesting that the AR in AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle. In fact AR stands for ArmaLite, the U.S. manufacturer that started the style in 1954. ARs cannot be converted to select fire. The first or original assault rifle was used by Nazi troops in the latter years of World War II. It was called Sturmgewehr 44, meaning Sturm, storm as in storming the enemy and Gewehr, rifle. In automatic mode it could fire at the rate of 500 rounds/minute. Similar versions were called Machinenpistolen, machine pistols. The Soviet version is the AK-47. These weapons had the now familiar and distinctive curved magazines holding up to 30 rounds. They were deadly combat weapons. But the only commonality of the AR rifles sold today with true assault rifles is the appearance. To use visual similarity and the AR letters to confuse the public to get ARs banned is of course dishonest, though effective. Thus the ineffective Federal “Assault Weapons ban” of 1994-2004 was based on appearance, cosmetics, not on functionality.

Are AR-15s weapons of war as claimed? Contemporary combat troops use the many varieties of true assault rifles, nothing like the semi-auto ARs except appearance. No self-respecting terrorist would want anything less than an AK. That so many started talking about banning “weapons of war” right after the Parkland Florida shooting suggests school indoctrination or coordination (collusion.). As a teenager I had a reworked German Mauser rifle, prized because of its high-quality steel. It had a bolt-action and a small magazine, so that rapid multi-round fire was not possible. I believe it was very similar to the Spanish Mauser used quite effectively against our troops in the Spanish-American War. So as a teenager did I have a true “weapon of war” in my bedroom?   

Troglo (L. H. Kevil)



Roseburg and the Rose Garden: Obama goes for the slime

In much too typical fashion President Obama feigned indignation over the massacre at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon in order to deflect attention from the horrors of the recent videos about Planned Parenthood’s grisly procedures. Also typically the mass media have not pointed this out. Not only does Planned Parenthood murder children in the womb by burning them alive with saline solution or ripping off their limbs one at a time – like drawing and quartering regicides and heretics centuries ago –, it also dispatches those unfortunates born alive. Then it sells the body parts for cash. President Planned Parenthood stands so much behind this criminal organization that even in the Illinois Senate he would not support legislation to spare children born alive. To him and others the right to choose is the right to have a dead baby, no matter the means or the torture inflicted. He threatens to veto any spending bill that removes the money Planned Parenthood receives as direct appropriations from the Federal Government. Scores of millions of deaths since Roe v. Wade have not moved him. Retaining the political support of those supporting abortion on demand – the central dogma in their religion – is too important to let something as inconsequential as his conscience stand in the way.

But in response to the murders of the nine students in Oregon the President steps up to the bully pulpit, but not to offer prayers, or a word of consolation and healing. Rather does he divide the country and attack Republicans for not passing legislation that would remove “easy access” to guns. In his world evil should be confronted with legislation and rhetoric. But if access to guns is no longer easy, those who need them for their line of work, like drug dealers and future mass murderers, will make all necessary efforts to procure them. This is Obama at his partisan, destructive worst. He offered no positive proposals, stating he is mainly going to talk about the problem. But he could have done the following.

  • Use the bully pulpit to encourage abolition of gun-free zones, which offer mass shooters easy targets.
  • Encourage cities like Chicago and Washington, D.C. to allow citizens to defend themselves against armed criminals.
  • Direct administration agencies to enforce existing gun laws strictly.
  • Encourage the news media not to publicize these mass murderers by showing their photos and revealing their names. Notes from the Roseburg murderer show he was a Satanist who wanted to be in the “limelight” and then welcomed in hell. There is some research suggesting a copy-cat effect in mass shootings and teen suicides. Giving the murders international attention and ordering the national flag lowered gives the shooter just the kind of infamy he wanted. It also might encourage others.
  • Obama also could have announced that he will veto the criminal sentencing reform bill going through the Senate. This bill would release felons who carried guns when committing their crimes.
  • He will of course do none of these.

It turns out that Alek Skarlatos, one of the three Americans who subdued a Muslim would-be mass murderer on a Paris-bound train last August, is a student at Umpqua Community College. Who would you rather have in the classroom with one of your children during an attack, Alek, recipient of the Légion d’honneur and Christian, or President Pusillanimous? Troglo