Contro The Language, Control The Argument

Those who wish to disarm American citizens would seem to have a powerful ally as the debate moves forward. They have the vast majority of the media on their side. These are the people who choose how they will phrase the information they decide to report. In this case, they have chosen to apply the term “Assault” to the weapons they are seeking to ban.

You may be asking yourself why is that important?

Well, the reason is that the word “assault” is an emotionally charged word. Webster defines assault as: “a violent physical or verbal attack”. So as they choose to call these weapons assault weapons, they are positioning it in the listener’s mind as the aggressors weapon, thus cannot be a “defensive” weapon.

The other straw man the media and the anti-gunners prop up is that these are “military” weapons that should not be in military hands. This fallacious argument positions it in the listener’s mind that these weapons are designed for war. When in fact the actual military version of these weapons are capable of full automatic fire and are in fact, assault weapons. The true military assault weapons ARE banned from ownership by the general public.

The “military” style “assault” weapons that the anti-gunners’ are attempting to ban are neither military nor assault. They look like a military assault rifle but do not function like one. The operator must pull the trigger every time they wish to fire a round, as opposed to a military weapon capable of automatic fire where one pull of the trigger will initiate continuous fire until the trigger is released. This is tantamount to saying that you should charge insurance rates on a Volkswagen Beatle with a Ferrari kit on it the same insurance rate you would levy on a real Ferrari. While they may look a lot alike, they are, in fact, different.

By having the media in favor of disarming the American populace, they control the language a large portion of the populace uses, and thus are able to place those who disagree with them in a defensive position. In point of fact, the media and their cohorts in this argument are the ones who are actually conducting the assault. It is an assault on your rights.

As the old saying goes about fighting with the media, “Don’t pick a fight with someone who buys paper by the ton and ink by the barrel”. In this case though, it was those exact folks who picked the argument, not those of us who support the Second Amendment.

We are faced with trying to respond and defend against ad homonym attacks against gun ownership. Arguments such as, “these weapons are not necessary for hunting”, or “these are not for self-defense, these are military assault weapons” , or “why would you need more than 7 bullets to stop an intruder?”.

Those who are arguing against the second amendment are totally ignoring the premise upon which it is based, which is, so the citizens of this country would be able to defend themselves against a government that over reached its authority. One that placed onerous demands and regulations upon its citizens.

Those who support an all powerful central government don’t want the citizenry to be able to resist.

Or so it would seem to an old country boy.