Using jargon to bully press control supporters
Mrs. Harvey Weinstein, Jr., spokeskitten for Hermaphrodites Of The World, typed a WordStar podcast for a Better Homes & Gardens investigative journalism piece calling for a ban on inorganic molecular printing presses with neutronium moveable type of the sort used by the Parkland shooter to disintegrate 17 people in a blast of gamma ray particulate radiation. In a radiation-free school zone, no less.
Well… no. Mister Adam Weinstein, an editor, wrote in a WaPo Op-Ed column that RKBA supporters are unfairly expecting those who would regulate and ban defensive and hunting tools to know WTF they’re talking about.
Words. Effing. Matter.
Gun owners want to know what you plan to ban next, so we can plan accordingly ourselves. Are you going to ban semiautomatic rifles based on the original AR-15 pattern, or are you going to ban double-single action 1911s, bullet-piercing bullets, ghost bullets, heat-seeking bullets, 30 caliber rapid-fire magazines, shoulder things that go up, and multi-burst trigger activators? None of which exist, but all of which have been proposed for bans.
The Supreme Court will want to know, too; “unconstitutionally vague” laws get tossed. Banning imaginary stuff is pretty darned vague.
We tend to object to “assault weapon” for similar reasons. Weasels like Weinstein think we should just know what that means. But in most of the country the term has no meaning; we aren’t being glib and obfuscatory. It means jacks**t. Sure the term is defined in a few states…
…with definitions that vary by state. A California “assault weapon” may or may not be an “assault weapon” in Connecticut. Tell us what you mean. Know what you mean. Be able to tell the courts what it means. Be able to tell the courts why your definition makes one model of a given firearm an “assault weapon,” but somehow excludes an operationally identical model without being “unconstitutionally vague.”
You don’t like us condescendingly telling you that AR-15 doesn’t mean “assault rifle?” That isn’t condescension, that’s because “assault rifle” does have a specific, uniform meaning, and it is physically freaking impossible for a stock AR-15 to be one. We want you to tell us WTF you’re talking about. SCOTUS will expect the same thing.
You might as well be demanding a bill to make pi equal to 3.2, or to square circles. When your language — your words — don’t reflect physical reality, we tend to think either 1) you’re an idiot, 2) you’re schizophrenic, 3) deliberately confusing people to force a ban they wouldn’t actually want, or 4) All of the Above.
What Weinstein actually said:
In this kind of war over words, both sides probably need to give a little. But the pro-gun side needs to give a lot more — not just because it’s been disingenuously gunsplaining to shut down discussions and close minds for years — but because the onus should be on those citizens who own the weapons technology, and purport to understand it, to share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed. That’s a responsibility that goes along with the right to bear arms.
In short, the “pro-gun side” needs to give up accuracy and reality. We’ve tried to “share that understanding with the skeptical and less-informed,” only to be told we’re “gunsplaining.” The fact that uninformed people with no interest in facts have trouble grasping facts does not mean the reality-based gun owners are shutting down discussions.
Weinstein is the victim-disarming equivalent of someone who heard that the Internet runs on tubes, and wants to regulate PVC and cast iron plumbing, and guarantee firehoses to everyone in the interest of “net neutrality.”
If you don’t know what you’re talking about, the “onus” is not on your opposition to reduce their IQ to your level by voluntary lobotomy.