re: #130 Hecubaâs daughter
An NRA fanatic acquaintance of mine sent to his email list an essay by another gun nut John Boch that blamed the shooting on the FBI and the Hillary supporting sheriff. I replied that âWeapons of war donât belong in the hands of civiliansâ. His response? An insult: âAR15 is NOT a weapon of war. âŚ. It only looks scary to ignorant people who donât know what they are talking about.â
I realized that the âgreatâ Frank Luntz understands this. To control the debate, itâs important to control the language to frame the discussion â and the exact truth doesnât matter. We win the debate by defining the terms used to describe the weaponry. And getting people out to vote.
It is a weapon of war. It was designed to be a counter in the Vietnam War for the AK-47. The existing field rifle at the time, the M-14, was too bulky and slow for effective combat in those conditions.
Thus, the AR-15 was designed as a lightweight, easily-maintained weapon for the Army as a counter to the AK-47. With a burst-fire selector, it becomes the M-16.
It is in fact a weapon of war, no matter how many times they try to deny it. The term âweapon of warâ should be kept in the arguments about why this weapon should not be in the hands of untrained civilians. Weapons of war are not protected under the II Amendment for civilian use.
Conservatives will always try to redirect terminology of any issue they are on the wrong side of (see also pro-life, pro-family, &c). The term âweapon of warâ should not be given up because that is what it is.