I’m not talking about convincing people like Michael Bloomberg or Dianne Feinstein. There’s nothing that will ever convince them that mere peasants should possess arms. I’m talking about how to speak to the targets of their propaganda; those who know nothing of firearms other than what they see on TV or in the movies.
“......I’m talking about how to speak to the targets of their propaganda; those who know nothing of firearms other than what they see on TV or in the movies.”
If they know nothing of firearms they don’t care about the topic, and are less than useless to those of us that do.
If we look at the responses to the assault on the 2nd Amendment by the Left, the very exciting leap in participation/membership in the NRA, the recall petitions in Colorado, to name but a few activities I think we see those that care are in full activism mode without a need to redefine whatever Leftist mischief makers define our weapons as.
I appreciate your intent with this thread, and the thought you have put to the topic, but I see such response to the Left as a road to compromise with an ideological lot that don’t compromise period. Compromise to the Left means they win, and you lose. They feed off of such responses to their crafted terminologies, and guide suckers into their web of deceit, and consume them.
Those people on the Left are mental, but they are crafty, diabolical, devious, and quite dangerous. One has to be very careful when constructing response to their crafted premise(s). I say the best response is to never engage them on their terms, let them spew, and go about business knowing what they are after, and prevent them from winning at all costs.