On ‘Code-speak’

It is GOOD to have the argument finally opened to the light instead of hiding behind coded slogans and organizational names that have been run through any number of grossly overpaid marketing operations and focus groups, meticulously crafted to offend the fewest number of people.

The 'newest' attempt to update the phrase, while masking the intent, is "Common sense gun legislation". I personally was much more comfortable when these operations were honest enough to have names like 'The National Council to Control Handguns' (1974) later re-named 'Handgun Control, Inc', and later combining with 'National Coalition to Ban Handguns' being AGAIN re-named the 'Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence' in 2001.

Now we have warm, fuzzy-sounding organizations like 'Every Town for Gun Safety'.

If you notice a 'softening' in tone since 1974 there is a logical reason... a frontal assault on The Second did not play well with the general public; code-speak polled much better, but the intent has never wavered. The 'language' has since been tempered to "Common-sense gun..." (insert: safety, laws, reform, etc.) You don't hear "ban" much anymore, at least not concerning handguns. That fight has been lost and as of July 2017 16.4 million pragmatic citizens are now licensed to carry concealed handguns. This number was only 2.7 million in 1999 when the handgun-ban movement was ramping up.

Having failed dismally in convincing America to out-law handguns, the movement now fixates on 'black rifles'.

No one was interested in rifles, initially. They were not, and still are not a statistically large problem, no matter how black they are or how many rounds they carry. "Weapons of War" has surfaced quite recently as the newest inflammatory descriptor. One must wonder why… perhaps the nebulous and ill-defined term 'assault rifle' was not frightening enough? In the carefully crafted vernacular, calling for a ban on 'weapons of war' certainly does play as 'common-sense' to uninformed folk. I’m unconvinced that AR-15s may be appropriately equated to Claymores, but then I am no longer in high school and have long since abandoned simplistic, though heart-felt solutions to complex problems.

The utopian goal of universal civilian disarmament is sophomoric at best, and can never be pursued in earnest as long as The Second stands. The Founders knew this, and this is why the Right is articulated in our founding document. It is refreshing that the argument has finally fallen where it appropriately belongs. Indeed, let us discuss the legitimacy of The Second Amendment and stop pretending that the goal is to 'protect' anyone.

Best of luck, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!