"Tactical" is going to give the antis everything they want

[Davionmaximus]

Like it or not... language IS the weapon of choice used to chisel away at our second amendment rights.

"Tactical" is a marketing tool. Nothing more. Springfield Armory is the best example of this in thier XD line of handguns. There is nothing "tactical" about them. Other than the black finish. But what an incredible advertising camaign.

 

[carlrodd]

some good points have been made in regard to letting others define who you are, even to the point of determining what words you use. our end goal is to keep and bear our arms freely, regardless of public opinion, or the questionable agendas of government. taking steps backward, i.e. censoring how we term ourselves and our firearms is not progress.....by definition, going backwards is going backwards.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

It will take decades to get rid of the "assault rifle" misnomer. And "tactical operators".

Consider that politicians and talking heads still refer to "Saturday Night Specials". What the heck did that ever mean? What's so special about Saturday night? Or a gun used on Saturday night? They probably meant "cheap pistols" but that term wasn't colorful enough. Maybe they intended to refer back to the century-old term "suicide special", used for decades to describe the same class of gun. But for over forty years they've trotted out "Saturday Night Special" like it meant anything.

"Tactical gear" and "tactical rifles" carries no logical, objective meaning. The word "tactical" is an adjective based on "tactic." The same rules of tactics apply to M4-pattern carbines covered with electronic toys as apply to Winchester Model 94 carbines covered with bluing and tung oil. Similarly as between plastic Glock pistols and vintage Colt revolvers.

For years I've looked on the fat mall ninjas with disdain. But I don't blame them personally for the attacks on our rights, they're just an easy target for the banners, just as they likely have been targets for bullies and smart alecks for their entire pathetic lives.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I disagree.

The way the folks in the UK and elsewhere lost the war is by couching guns in terms of hunting/sporting uses. Obviously, public safety trumps a hobby interest, so bye-bye guns.

In order to preserve our rights long-term we MUST focus on the real reason for the 2A, and educate the public on same (standing as a last line of defense in the case of invasion or a tyrannical ruler). So we must emphasize that (a) you betcha, these are useful to the military, and (b) by the way, that's precisely what the founders wanted us to have and what we MUST have in order for the 2A to work as intended; that is, the exact same guns the the military grunt has.

The word tactical pretty much sums up as "it could be used by military or law enforcement" to the antis.

Perfect. Let the antis have at it. Sure can; that's the point. If we sheepishly withdraw to our "last stand" of "hunting/sporting" uses, we'll win a little in the short run, but we're already admitting defeat in the long run if we do that. The 2A is about KILLING MEMBERS OF THE STANDING ARMY, if need be; no point in sugar coating it.

 

[Regen]

Use of the word tactical isn't going to make a difference to the Antis. There are two types of anti politicians: 1) True believers and 2) People who derive political power from anti stances.
Type 1 antis want to ban all guns. The prototypical type 1 is Carolyn McCarthy. It doesn't matter what you call it, or whether you want to use it for hunting or not, they want to ban it. The prototypical type 2 anti is Dianne Feinstein. She derives political power from promoting an anti agenda, but has a carry permit and a .38 snubby. If every gun owner in the world stopped using the word tactical and she could derive more power from using the word tactical, she'd claim a blunderbuss was tactical.

 

[JohnWS]

Didn't I read , reciently , the use of "Sport Utility" firearm as a politicaly correct term. It worked for Ford and GM , they even sold the very tactical "Hummer" under this flag...

 

[rbernie]

When you let the other side define the vocabulary of debate you have conceded defeat without a word being spoken.

Absolutely. More pointedly, if anyone thinks that the real anti-RKBA folk will be off-put or weakened in their arguments via a simple shift in terminology, they do not grasp the essence of the anti-RKBA movement.

A little more than one week ago, Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, spoke on the on the floor of the Senate and stated that "assault weapons" are "capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute" and that they are "once again pervading our streets and neighborhoods." He has no facts to back this up. He is completely fabricating virtually every facet of his argument.

He knows this. And yet he does it.

Guys - these folks LIE. They do not stick to the facts. They do not respect the words that they use. They have an agenda. They will lie, cheat, and steal to support that agenda. Nothing you do to alter your behavior will change their behavior. The more you try to use fluffy, innocuous-sounding words to portray your position, the more they will lie and exaggerate to emphasize theirs.

Y'all need to get over the notion that the hardcore anti-RKBA folk are any different from any other radical, KoolAidDrinkin' cult. They are cut from the same cloth - only their goals are different.

The real battle lines lays not in changing the words we use (and we certainly cannot change the words that they use) - the front lines of the RKBA struggle lays in re-introducing firearms to the urban and suburban populations that grew up for the last generation or two without access to and familiarity with firearms. You need to make the RKBA issue personal to everyone that you can. That is what will allow them to filter the lies and crap spewed by the anti-RKBA buffoons.

Can you change the nature of the debate in front of these uncommitted folk? No. It will not help, because your sworn enemy will not join you in that crusade and the watchers of the debate will not grasp the nuances you seek to communicate.

If your enemy chooses to use certain pejorative words, how do you expect to success in redefining them? They are just as busy defining them as you are in undefining them.

If every gun owner in the world stopped using the word tactical and she could derive more power from using the word tactical, she'd claim a blunderbuss was tactical.

Exactly. You can only own your words, but you cannot own the anti-RKBA words. Trying to filter the words used is a lost cause. You need to show these words to be hollow via personalizing the issue with as many people as you can.

We need to help people build their own personalized filter, because you cannot change the nature of the inputs.

 

[gdcpony]

Funny that hunting and gun rights are in the same boat.
Hunting is defended by the "control population" and environmental arguments that make hunting seem "green" to many. Or the fact that many can claim to feed themselves and their families with wild game (I have several deer put away from this season).
Guns have no such umbrella. They need one. I love shooting. Hunting is merely a way to use it. Ironically, I love my bows 10x's as much as my firearms. At work it is most of my conversation, but the "gun talk" is what people hear. I have had to defend it multiple times in HR and as I am the most anti-union worker in a union shop it is gets rough.
I survive through being the guy you hate but have to love. I show up, work as hard as I can, and am so courteous even while voicing my opinion you can't find fault in it. So far I have managed a couple significant victories too. You can have a gun in your car at work now, and 6 people have bought guns, bows, or other weapons at my urging (the only way we will ever REALLY win is this way- expand our numbers). It helps that a co-worker runs a gun shop and likes the business. One of my favorite lines is that I might end up your best friend one day when you really need help.

 

[Regen]

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow (AKA Whopper Jr., sorry couldn't resist) has a really good point. Remember and remind people the purpose of the second amendment. Use the statistic that the JPFO uses:

In this twentieth century there were at least seven major genocides in which at least 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children, have been murdered by officials of governments "gone bad". The seven cases are:

# 1915 - 1917 Ottoman Turkey, 1.5 million Armenians murdered;
# 1929 - 1953 Soviet Union, 20 million people that opposed Stalin were murdered;
# 1933 - 1945 Nazi occupied Europe, 13 million Jews Gypsies and others that opposed Hitler were murdered;
# 1948 - 1952 China, 20 million anti communists;
# 1960 - 1981 Guatemala, 100,000 Mayan Indians Murdered;
# 1971 - 1979 Uganda, 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
# 1975 - 1979 Cambodia, 1 million educated persons murdered.

Remind people who say it could never happen here that is has happened. Ask the native Americans about it. Ask the LDS about it.

Remind people that after September 11th, many things that "could never happen here" have happened. If that doesn't get "Liberals" thinking, I don't know what will.

 

[john1911]

Can someone tell me when the memo came out saying we have to appease the antis? I must have missed it.

I'm not sure what world some of you people are operating in. Do some of you really think the antis would be satisfied outlawing just "tactical" or "assault weapons"? NO! These retards want to end all private arms ownership. Doesn't matter if it's an AR, Glock, 18" shotgun, bolt gun, revolver, single shot or muzzleloader. They don't want us to own guns period.

Sure, they may lie and say they support gun ownership. They don't, they want all guns in the hands of police or military only. Quit believing their BS and lies. Quit worrying what they think of us. Quit thinking we are going to appease them by giving up one type of gun.

To whoever said that we need to quit making modern guns and make guns like back in the old days, pull your head out of your posterior. Guess what, after they get all the "modern" guns they will come for your blue steel and walnut ones. Why won't you understand that the antis don't care about looks, capacity or material (unless they can use it to demonize a particular gun), they don't want you owning any gun (or knife, or bow, or slingshot, or bat, or pointed stick, anything that would lessen their control over our lives).

Wake up people and see what's going on here.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Regen, how could you include a pissant little genocide like Guatamala and leave out Rwanda 1994, Bosnia 1995, Central/Eastern Europe 1945-1955, et al?

 

[woad_yurt]

I just googled Feinstein to verify that she carried a gun. I didn't know that she did until now. Holy frickin' crap! What a hypocritical weasel! I am absolutely stunned. Unreal....

BTW, maybe "poly" would be better than "tactical." It is a neutral term, merely signifying a manufacturing material.

 

[Funderb]

i always thought of calling something "tactical" as a joke, meaning, pointless.

 

[Regen]

Duke, I copied that from the JPFO, I didn't come up with the list myself.

 

[GEM]

Trying to portray guns as nice and not instruments of lethal force is ridiculous. It won't help anything.

That route was tried in the UK and Australia. They tried to protect gun ownership as 'sport'. In the UK, the IPSC types mocked our humanoid targets as they showed that we were blood thirsty. So now they have very tight gun control. Oops.

The 2nd amend protects guns because they are lethal and not because they are supporting. If you go that route - there is no reason for EBRs and Glocks - you could compete with 'nice' guns and still have fun.

It is true that inflammatory rhetoric can be used but avoiding the core purpose of the 2nd Amend. for gun ownership will not work.

 

[Boats]

"Assault" and/or "tactical" is used to market "the cool stuff?" There's a misconception right there.

Those tags are not just useable by the antis. They are two of the surest signs that the purchaser is about to pay a sucker tax.

TACTICAL! should be avoided by the smart buyer, not merely to appease the sheeple.

If the antis had any sense at all, they'd be more scared of what my S-R K-31, made in 1939, is capable of at 800m than they would be of Joe Schmoe's angle of barn "tactical" WASR at any range.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Boats, what you have there is a "sniper rifle." Just like every soldier in the world carried from 1898 to about 1954.

 

[Kind of Blued]

Call it what it is. I don't live my life trying to avoid offending people or scaring people who hold irrational fears. In reality, we could call them "Rainbowmakers" and they'd still want to ban them.

I don't use "assault weapon" because it's the incorrect term 99% of the time. I don't use "bullet" or "clip" for the same reason; 99% of the time it isn't the proper term.

While I can't even remember having used the word "tactical", to me it means the same rifle that isn't tactical, but painted black and marketed as such. Nevertheless, I do think it's silly, so I'll continue to not say it so as to avoid scaring people with irrational fears.

 

[Zundfolge]

Yeah, right, we replace "Tactical" with "Cute and Fluffy" and the antis are still going to want to take them away from us.


Don't fall into the trap of letting your enemies define the terms of the argument. That is the sure way to lose.

 

[Duke of Doubt]

I consider my Colt revolver and my Winchester 94 very tactical.

I consider all that electronic crap on top of somebody's .223 useless clutter, hence non-tactical.

 

[eye5600]

The only correct tactic for 'tactical 22lr' is to leave it home. The reach of the word is silly, and really just means 'it looks somewhat military."

Marketing, marketing. LL Bean was selling fleece as "technical clothing."

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Speaking as a Mainer, I can tell you that LL Bean could sell a bag of dog turd by mail to New Yorkers and charge a premium.

That company has done a very good job over the years of keeping a few hundred Mainers unhappy and poor, but still here and employed, and a family of very bad people very rich.

 

[Justin]

The terminology in use means nothing. Any proposal for further gun control must pass through the requirements of the Heller decision. Regardless of some of the rather poor wording in that decision, we now have a legal weapon with which to defend against further encroachments on the RKBA.

Any such defense will be undertaken by pro-gun groups such as the Second Amendment Foundation, CATO, or the NRA. This is why it's important to support such organizations, regardless of whether you wholeheartedly agree with everything they say or do.

 

[CoRoMo]

[strike]"Tactical"[/strike] another "sensible" compromise is going to give the antis everything they want

This version is more accurate.

The antis don't care what you or I call it, they just want to rip it out of our hands and control you from cradle to grave, period.
You might think that they are after your AR15, but no... they are after your freedom.

 

[Owen]

expvideo, what you fail to understand is that the antis want to ban EVERYTHING.