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.