The shifting semantics of anti-gunners

First it was “gun control” and the “National Coalition to Ban Handguns,” the latter being a group formed back in 1974 that included religious, nonprofit and —according to an online history of this movement — labor organizations; 30 in all, determined to rid the country of privately owned sidearms.

Then it became “gun safety” because “gun control” was politically toxic. The effort to ban handguns became the “Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence.” It was the same group with the same goals but a different name, sort of like Ted Bundy changing his name to Tom Brown and dyeing his hair blond.

Of course there were exceptions to the desired handgun ban. Police, the military and licensed private security guards could have handguns in working condition, but nobody else. There could be, as the online history explains, “licensed pistol clubs where firearms are kept on the premises.”

But public attitudes about personal protection began to change, thanks largely to groundbreaking research and education efforts by folks such as David Hardy and the late Don Kates. They had the audacity to challenge the popular notion the Second Amendment applied to a mythical “collective” right of states to form militias. It was nonsense then, and thanks to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller which specifically says handguns are protected by the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms applies to individual citizens not affiliated with a militia, it is even more nonsensical now.

Weasel Words

So gun prohibitionists started changing their rhetoric and repackaging their extremist crusade. What was “gun control” has become “gun safety,” “gun responsibility” and “gun reform.” But, like bags of horse manure relabeled “natural organic fertilizer,” the smell remains the same, rubber gloves are still required and you don’t walk in it without ruining your shoes.

The worst example of this clever social bigotry is the widespread use of the term “gun violence.” It has infested news reports and political discourse; a disturbing broad-brush slur now encompassing homicide, suicide, accidents and even the justifiable use of force by peace officers and private citizens. How many times in recent history have we heard or read reports that described the number of victims in a multiple shooting “including the shooter”?

Ask a reporter, politician or anti-gunner why they can use such a reference applying to firearms-related homicides and assaults while never alluding to other weapons used in thousands of fatal and non-fatal crimes, including knives, hammers, crowbars, golf clubs, baseball bats, hands, fists or feet. They’ll stare dumbly back at you, unable to answer, their tongues tied by years of subconscious social conditioning leaving them convinced the gun is at fault rather than the individual pressing the trigger.

It is the subtle, and admittedly clever, changes in the anti-rights rhetoric keeping this prejudice alive to feed the irrational fear of firearms. It has divided friends and even family members — and gun prohibitionists love it.

Newspeak

Instead of “assault weapons,” it is now “assault-style weapons” one reads about. Instead of “gun control advocate” it is now the “gun sense candidate” seeking your vote.

You can turn this tide, but it takes discipline. Be careful with your own words.

When someone says he/she supports “gun reform,” you reply, “What does that mean? Oh, well, that’s the same thing you wanted last year, isn’t it?”

When someone insists people should get a permit before purchasing a firearm, counter by asking whether we should require a permit to run for public office, work at a newspaper or broadcast news facility, or attend church services.
If we shouldn’t require photo ID to vote, why demand it to purchase a gun?

As this column has explained in the past, have your facts straight and keep them in your gray matter to be used at a moment’s notice. Always refer to the annual FBI Uniform Crime Report for data on homicides so you can speak with authority about how many more people are murdered with knives or blunt instruments in any given year than are killed with rifles or shotguns of any kind, not just semi-automatics. Someone may call you a liar but they’re not likely to declare FBI data to be fraudulent.

Status No

Today’s gun prohibition movement has refined its message, but instead of “proponents” — a term making movement leaders sound oh-so reasonable — this crusade is now led by extremists who have decided they have the right to erase your rights.
Gun prohibitionists are hoping the public remains foolish to their mission. But someone is standing in their way. You, and millions of other savvy gun owners, can fight back as you have been fighting, not just to protect your rights but the rights of everyone you know, their children and their children’s children.

Understand this: Defending your rights is a full-time commitment, and nobody can state your case better than you can. Don’t depend on some tailored suit from back east to come to your rescue. The fight is on, the first punch was thrown long ago and it’s up to you to knock the other guy out cold.

Let’s work to put the other side down for the full count.

Subscribe To GUNS Magazine