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

[Grey_Mana]

Replace tactical with Masculine (if you are a man) and Feminine (if you are a woman). Replace Assault with Heritage and Culture.
This is my manly .308. This is my masculine AK.

Tie up any discussion with victim identification. Change the argument, attack them where they are weak. When they talk about taking your guns, make them waste time saying they aren't trying to take your masculinity. Make them apologize for bringing it up.

Whenever they mention banning a gun, pretend to mishear them and claim they want to ban your bible and your gun. Holler and rant until they beg permission to clarify, that they only want to ban your gun.

If any politician mentions fees, licensing, and registration, start your response by calling him racist, bigoted, and culturally insensitive.

If you want to win, you have to get this most-effective never-fail scam to work the other way for once.

 

[Duelist]

The Libs are the ultimate hypocrites when it comes to gun ownership. For years, we've had multiculuralism and "acceptance" shoved down our throats, but no, they can't accept firearms culture or accept that law abiding people should be armed and free. They'd have us disarmed no matter what adjectives we used to describe firearms.

That being said, manufacturers labeling anything with a magazine well, light rail and a no-glare finish to be tactical, is downright annoying. I have some suggestions to replace tactical though:

Strategic, as in "Strategic Rifle"

SEW: Strategically Enhanced Weapon

FPF: Freedom Preserving Firearm

and for ha-has:

CDIFF: "Chicks Dig It Factor" Firearms

IOOD: Inanimate Objects Of Doom!

 

[expvideo]

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

Of course they do. What you fail to understand is it's not about the antis!

It is about the fence sitting masses that the antis are trying to gain the support of, and the uneducated politicians that only care about what their voting record looks like. Voting to ban "modern weapons" looks worse for a politician than voting to ban "assault weapons" or "tactical weapons".

It is NOT about the antis. You could call them baby wainbows and they would still want to ban them. It is about what the antis can lump together and try to convince the masses are "evil". Giving them a cool sounding name makes it easier to make them sound evil to the fence sitters. That is the problem.

The antis are happy to try to convince the masses that nearly everything is an "assault weapon", but we are making it really, really easy for them to lump all of the non hunting weapons into one ban by lumping them together ourselves under the word "tactical".

 

[Duke of Doubt]

You know what's ironic?

If I really thought that detachable magazines made a semi-automatic gun more deadly or more likely to be criminally misused or more likely to inflict mass casualties, I'd actually entertain the idea of tighter controls on them. But they DON'T.

Fixed magazines may be loaded with stripper clips faster than detachable magazines may be replaced. The reason for the detachables is their capacity -- reloading a high cap non-detachable mag from stripper clips isn't all that fast, and AUTOMATIC rifles chew up that ammunition fast. Semi-automatic rifles do not, at least not so fast that reloading a fixed magazine from a stripper clip is impractical for them.

So controlling detachable magazines wouldn't lose us much in the way of semi-automatic rifle performance, other than the option to use larger or smaller magazines on short notice (this actually matters to me a little, as concealing my AK is a lot easier with 20 round magazines than with 30 round magazines). But therefore, it follows that controlling them WOULD NOT GAIN any public safety advantage concerning semi-automatic rifles. The fixed magazine rifles are at least as effective for criminal misuse in mass-casualty events.

Accordingly, controlling detachable magazines makes no sense at all. Mass murderers would merely have a (lighter weight) duffle bag filled with stripper clips rather than with magazines, and therefore more cartridges by weight.

 

[markfh]

Tactical smactical... It doesn't matter what you call it the anti's won't like or dislike it any more than they do.

They want us disarmed plain and simple.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The only correct tactic for 'tactical 22lr' is to leave it home

LMAO, just found my new sig line! :

 

[MT GUNNY]

I have a Sporting Rifle that has a some cool Sportical Hardware on it!

 

[BADUNAME37]

Well, think of it in these terms. When the Bill of Rights was introduced, the common people who could afford a musket would basically have the same thing the military was using.

Why should our 2A Rights be any different?

When you think of the technology that is available to the military in terms of Rifles, not to mention anything else, a Semi-Automatic AR-15 available to law-abiding civilians does not even begin to compare.

By the way, I have a Bushmaster M4 and I appreciate the lightness of that rifle for deer and black bear hunting (with 5-round Bushmaster magazines). I load Barnes Triple X 62g bullets for it. I really appreciate not having to lug around a 10-12 pound gun over hill and dale. I also like hunting with my S&W 500 Magnum 4" barrel, but that's for another thread!

 

[Duke of Doubt]

Inspector, Heller explored those issues and arguments.

I consider those arguments basically harmless, but ineffective.

Had a case arisen around 1808 rather than 2008, I doubt the Supreme Court would have held that the 2nd Amendment authorized cannon and powder storage in private dwellings, or protected greek fire or other common weapons of the era. Powder storage was regulated even back then in most metropolitan areas.

Further, while muskets were standard infantry weapons in some armies at the time of the 2nd Amendment, they were not standard weapons for all members of the armed forces, nor were they universally issued. It's not clear that the 2nd is intended to put our militia on some sort of even footing with the regular army in conventional battlefields. If it is so intended, I'm going to get an awful lot of new toys for Christmas.

 

[expvideo]

Tactical smactical... It doesn't matter what you call it the anti's won't like or dislike it any more than they do.

They want us disarmed plain and simple.

Having trouble reading? It's not about what the antis think. It's about what they can use against us in convincing the rest of the public that our guns are the problem.

 

[Gungnir]

Like I said earlier.

Its in all of OUR best interests to educate the non-gun owning masses, forget about the Anti's they're too tied up in their own perfect worlds to see the risks they're proposing.

When people learn about firearms, and how they work, it's amazing to see their perceptions change, they realize that a point, fire, kill scenario is not as easy as Hollywood makes it out to be. THIS is how the majority of the non-gun owning public see firearms.

Educating them as to the purpose of the 2A is important too and it's not hunting, without the backstop of the 2A how long would the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th or 10th last, or for that matter the COTUS in its entirety? The second in essence is there to protect all other rights that might be usurped by an unconstitutional government. Adams and Jefferson in particular discussed this at length.

So how about this, we all pledge that sometime within the next month (local laws allowing), we take someone with us while shooting, who wants to see what it's about but has never been before. Spend some time shooting, but when kicking back later over a beer, coffee, or whatever, tell them what the whole thing is about and why you own and believe in the RKBA.

 

[expvideo]

Its in all of OUR best interests to educate the non-gun owning masses,

Agreed, and while we are doing our best to educate the non-gun owning masses, the antis are doing their best to convince the same people that our guns are evil. And while we can't change the antis' minds, we shouldn't be giving them ammunition to use against us.

 

[TRGRHPY]

You have let the anti's suck you into their game of skirting around the actual issue. This is stupid.

Now there's a suggestion that we don't call certain weapons "tactical" because anti's might use it against us? Are you kidding?


And in 20 years if this catches on, should we then change the term "modern"?


The legal firearms that are referred to as "assault, tactical, sniper, etc." are always going to be attacked regardless of what we call them.


Just changing the name alone gives the aniti's a reason to attack. We would be guilty for trying to mitigate damages by renaming our horrible weapons...otherwise why change the name? If we didn't think they were everything that the anti's claim they are, why make the change?


Would the masses that the anti's are trying to educate be the same ones that are still on a buying spree?


Besides, trying to change the term "assault" hasn't worked, has it? In practically every news article the term assault is still used, so don't you think that you're wasting your time?

 

[yokel]

Had a case arisen around 1808 rather than 2008, I doubt the Supreme Court would have held that the 2nd Amendment authorized cannon and powder storage in private dwellings, or protected greek fire or other common weapons of the era. Powder storage was regulated even back then in most metropolitan areas.

Further, while muskets were standard infantry weapons in some armies at the time of the 2nd Amendment, they were not standard weapons for all members of the armed forces, nor were they universally issued. It's not clear that the 2nd is intended to put our militia on some sort of even footing with the regular army in conventional battlefields. If it is so intended, I'm going to get an awful lot of new toys for Christmas.

In D.C. v. Heller Justice Scalia writes that “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.” Maj. Op. at 25

The people cannot hope to realize their future warfighting militia capability without the appropriate hardware providing extremely robust firepower against ground-based infantry and armored vehicle targets.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

. .Tactical, Smacktickle

...Oh Fer Cryin' Out Loud Homer. My g..g..g...g....g...gg...g.g..gg....GUN is not an 'Assault Weapon'. Only the military has those. Mine is a 'Sport Utility Rifle'.

 

[gallo]

The argument holds no water. Regardless of what you call a firearm, the antis will find a way to demonize the term. The voice of reason has to prevail in this quagmire of name calling. The rest is just hot air.

Think with your head, vote with your wallet, and keep in touch with your representatives. Politicians care more about votes than principles. I bet even Obama would think twice about signing a gun ban if every gun lover in the country wrote to him and told him he would be out of the white house if he messes with the 2nd amendment.

This would be my message to him:

1. Protect life from the time of conception
2. Protect the 2nd amendment
3. Turn the deficit into a surplus
4. Balance the budget

Do all this and my vote is yours, even if you call yourself a socialist, Nazi, republican, communist, libertarian, etc...

 

[Impureclient]

1 vote here for using "modern."

 

[TRGRHPY]

1 vote here for using "modern."

And in 20 years when "modern" is no longer modern, and "modern" has become today's "assault" and "tactical", what do you suppose we call them then..."Post-modern"?

 

[Lovesbeer99]

I think we need to be more vocal about all our interests and teach everyone that 'tactical' does not equal evil. A lot of people are led to believe that if you like guns and hunting, keep it quiet. At the water cooler at work when people are talking about knitting and golfing and the superbowl just never, never, ever, ever mention your rifle scores or weekend hunting trip. This offends people. Now it's perfectly ok to talk about anti rally's and the Brandy Campain fund raiser, but not hunting or shooting EVER.

Well not me. I leave my guns and ammo magazine in plain view on my desk. I often talk about my new guns and weekend outings and proudly speak of my NRA membership. All of this I found that people might think poorly of you initially, but the more vocal you are (without being a loon) the more people just get used to it. The longer we're just keep quite the worse it will get.

So, before the anti's get a hold of 'Tactical' we can bring it to the level of not so bad, it's just a term. Think about it. If they do get 'tactical' any other word will soon follow and then another, and then another.

 

[BUGUDY]

You can call it "Warm and Cuddly" But if it poops out a bullet. It Is BAD!!!!

 

[Lovesbeer99]

you said 'poop'

 

[brandnew]

Good point. I'm somewhat itching to amend my OP on the AW, but I'll leave it there. Good followup.

I'm glad you brought this up because I do believe that the terminology is a large key to persuading the public that the firearms we own are indeed safe for civilian use. Using AW or Tactical can have good or bad connotations to them depending on who you talk to, but Modern just sounds... modern.

Good to go.

 

[solareclipse]

So while at it, why not just give up your tactical stuff to appease the antis and go hunt with a muzzleloader?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

I am personally sick of the politics of language defining criminality.

I would love to own an "Assault Rifle".

Preferably that first German model they used to always show on the History channel when it was called "The History Channel". Simply because it is a nifty, rare firearm. Not because I am somehow a Nazi. I would not "assault" a soul "tactically" with it unless they tried to hurt me or my family. Without an "assault rifle" handy, I would promptly "assault" said loser with an auto-loading rifle, a pistol, a shotgun, a single-shot .22, a baseball bat, a knife, a rolling pin, a rolled-up newspaper or my hands. Whatever I was "bearing" at the time. Tactically.

I think that's pretty much a good definition of both "assault weapon" and "tactical". Whatever weapon you've got when you need it.

I have an "assault/tactical sock" on my foot to be filled with a bunch of "assault/tactical" coins plus an "assault/tactical laptop computer" I will use for blunt force if anyone ever tries to take over my airplane.

I am also sick of compromise. A gun is a gun is a gun. Any gun fires a bullet that can kill a person if so-intended or if mis-used.

We are either citizens who keep and bear guns or we are subjects who are not allowed to keep and bear guns.

Somehow, in 1939, Americans made this simple yes/no, razor-like distinction into a morass of legalise.

-Don't propose to take all my guns and then "compromise" by only taking a few guns.
-Don't propose to take all my guns and then "compromise" by telling me where I can carry my gun.
-Don't propose to spend a trillion dollars on pork projects and then "compromise" by only spending 1/2 a trillion dollars.
-Don't pee on my head and tell me it's raining.
-Don't threaten me with murder and them "compromise" by cutting off my hands.

I am sick of it.

I hadn't read it for a while until this post. Please actually read the following and think about how it applies today:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[Grassman]

I think you could re name it "flower" gun or "marshmellow" gun or "rainbow" gun and the anti's would still want to ban it. It's about power, we have it, they want it.