Posted on 03/09/2018 5:22:16 AM PST by Kaslin
The Washington Post recently published an op-ed by writer Adam Weinstein in which he argues that Second Amendment advocates "use jargon to bully gun-control supporters." "While debating the merits of various gun control proposals," he contends, "Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology."
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy "faux pas" of gun controllers is to engage in "gunsplaining," a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.
"If you don't know what the 'AR' in AR-15 stands for, you don't get to talk," explains the sarcastic subhead on the piece. If you don't know what the "AR" in AR-15 stands for, you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you haven't taken the time to learn what the "AR" stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.
Weinstein -- and he's far from alone -- bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers "being forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nation's unlimited variety of lethal weapons." This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that there's an "unlimited variety" of firearms is absurd). But at the same time, it's an exaggeration of Second Amendment advocates' expectations.
As with any contemporary disputes over public policy, there will always be those who attempt to dismiss opponents who possess less expertise. It's certainly not unique to this debate. And, no, a person should not be excluded from a conversation simply for referring to a "bullet" rather than a "cartridge," or a "clip" rather than a "magazine."
Then again, much of gun control policy is driven by the mechanics of a firearm. So, while not knowing what a "barrel shroud" is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy, failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us you're dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.
Take, for instance, Michael Bloomberg.
In a debate imbued with emotion, gun control advocates rely on this ignorance. When then-President Barack Obama told a crowd that a mass shooter used a "fully automatic weapon," he wasn't concerned with the finest taxonomic distinctions of a gun; he was depending on the yawning obliviousness of a cheering crowd. When CNN featured an alleged gun expert explaining that the AR-15 he was about to fire was "full semi-automatic," he was making the functionality of the firearm sound scarier to those who are ignorant about guns.
"Jargon" is words and expressions that are difficult for a layman to understand or use. Rather than using jargon, Second Amendment advocates are usually mocking those who use jargon-sounding words in an effort to fearmonger viewers and constituents. When you claim that the streets are rife with "high-capacity, rapid-fire magazines" or "jumbo clips," you're trying to fool your audience with a veneer of expertise. When you claim that we need to ban "gas-assisted receiver firearms," you're trying to make a semi-automatic weapon sound like a machine gun for a reason.
It's not always the mechanics either. When MSNBC's Joe Scarborough misrepresents the Heller decision, he's preying on policy ignorance that has little to do with gun culture. When MSNBC analyst Steve Schmidt goes on television and passionately tells an audience that it's more difficult to buy cough medicine than an "AK-47 -- or 50 of them," he's either lying or has absolutely no grasp of how gun policy works. Either way, he shouldn't be talking to grown-ups about firearms.
All these people use a moralistic fallacy, which is often predicated on the ignorance Weinstein rationalizes -- not that it stops him from embracing the appeal to authority he condemns elsewhere.
For example, Weinstein takes Fox News personality Tomi Lahren to task for failing to mention that the family of Eugene Stoner, the AR-15's designer and champion, claimed in 2016 that Stoner would be "'horrified and sickened' to see his military rifle pattern become so common in civilian households and school shootings." You'll notice the conflation. Of course Stoner would be horrified that his gun was used in school shootings. But Weinstein fails to note that there's no evidence on the record of Stoner having been "horrified and sickened" by the notion of civilians owning his gun. Since he had been selling prototype AR-15s to civilians a decade before his military model was adopted by the United States, we have no reason to believe he would be.
Perhaps that kind of discussion spurns conversation in favor of condescension. But at least it's a debate that revolves around the veracity of facts, which is a lot more than I can say for the rest of the "gunsplaining" grievance.
Gunsplaining comes down to the perception guns look frightening and something that looks frightening needs to be banned.
The gun control policy debate isn’t being driven by the facts, logic and reason for sure.
"So paint 'em all pink and be done with all this. Denny Crane."
If they want to ban something, they damned sure do have to know what the hell they’re talking about. You can’t ban a figment of your imagination.
Socialism has killed 300 million people.
The Socialists will take your guns in the name of safety.
Socialism has killed 300 million people.
I want to ban “that thing in the back that makes it go up” as described by Congress person Carolyn Maloney.
Why do federal agencies like the IRS, The EPA, The BATFE, and the Department of education all possesses thousands of MACHINE GUNS ?
If machine guns are only useful in war why do these federal agencies all have them and the American People do not?
If the American People are not allowed to have Machine guns when are federal agencies and the police going to give up theirs?
***you’re trying to make a semi-automatic weapon sound like a machine gun for a reason***
Right out of Josh Sugarmann’s playbook, who got the anti-a-s-s-ault rifle” ball rolling back around 1988.
“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
Josh Sugarmann
I remember the Stoner designed firearms being sold way back in 1968. AR-15, AR-180, AR-7.
Has there been any outcry against the AR-7 survival rifle yet?
The 2nd Amendment is not about our concern that the deer will be a serious problem. Over 20 years ago, the list of federal agencies issued firearms exceeded 100. Something's seriously wrong with that number.
Sorta like “dolphin safe tuna!” Screw the tuna, save the cute dolphins!
Do you suppose we could talk about banning stupid “pronouns” like “xe”, “ze”, “xer” without knowing what they are?
The left normally loves to parse words and hide behind legalese.
“Gunsplaining”? When the Media has no argument they instead create a catchy-word that gets in the way of critical-thinking.
yeah....and even there they misapply. guns seldom explain things of their own accord - rightly or wrongly.
My most powerful weapon (300 Win Mag) is elegant and not the least bit scary looking. It will take you out at 500 yards with ease. But it is not scary looking.
Stainless steel barrel, walnut stock, 50 year anniversary edition of the Remington 700. It is quite beautiful and it is "not scary looking."
BEGGING for yet MORE dummy down’s??
I mean, it isn’t just in the case of the gun issue.
EVERY single issue Liberals address is at the most cursory and basic level in both their perception, their debate, their understanding, etc.
If detail and facts are incidental to your view of the world and the things in it...then you are a Liberal and approach every issue at THAT level. It’ doesn’t leave much but, that is how they see things.
It’s impossible to take people like that seriously. A child or a drunk has a better conception of how the world works.
Weinstein,
Now there’s a name you can trust.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.