Buyback? What's this "buyback?"

[elephantrider]

Speaking of "language" we should probably constantly remind people that it isn't "gun rights" but a "civil right" as it is 1 of 10 found within the bill of rights, which are ALL civil rights.

Uhhhh, aherm, if I can make a quick point of personal privilege, I'd say it's a natural right. Alternatively as the crowd that cries endlessly about "free" medical care, and housing would say, a "human" right.

[exkc135driver]

Control the narrative, control the debate.

This is a very, VERY important point that the gun community has largely missed.

For example: since the early 1940s, an "assault rifle" has been defined as a shoulder-fired weapon with select-fire capability chambering a medium-power cartridge. An M4, M16, or AK-47 is a true assault rifle. An AR-15, other non-select-fire clones, an Uzi (even if full auto), or an M14 isn't. Most of the folks who frequent this forum own some version of an AR-15, but few of us own honest-to-God assault rifles. However, because WE -- the gun community -- have allowed Congress, the various state legislatures, and the media to define an AR as an "assault rifle", we ALL own "assault rifles." It's a really easy sell to convince Mary Soccermom or Joe Liberal than an assault anything is unreasonably dangerous and should be banned. By controlling the narrative, the libs are well on their way to winning the debate ... and WE let them do it. Hell, how many of them think “AR-15” stands for “Assault Rifle 15”?

Another example of controlling the narrative is “buyback” vs. “confiscation.” One of the libs' goals is to make their ultimate scheme of confiscating and banning firearms as gentle, reasonable, and "common sense." Many people who are undecided on this issue would probably think that a couple of hundred dollars is a fair price for a KAC, Colt, or Noveske.

Anytime we hear someone refer to an AR as an assault rifle, we should correct them. Anytime we see an article or an editorial about so-called assault rifles, we should write a letter of correction. Most of the time those corrections will be ignored, but here and there we may be able to educate someone.

It’s up to us.

[SteyrAUG]

Uhhhh, aherm, if I can make a quick point of personal privilege, I'd say it's a natural right. Alternatively as the crowd that cries endlessly about "free" medical care, and housing would say, a "human" right.

Sure but in political discussion "natural rights" become a philosophical discussion where as "civil rights" are "pay attention / very important."

[Uni-Vibe]

Sure but in political discussion "natural rights" become a philosophical discussion where as "civil rights" are "pay attention / very important."

4x as true when you get to court.

[SteyrAUG]

4x as true when you get to court.

Yep, when shit gets serious "natural rights" and "human rights" usually get grouped in with the "free inhabitants" crowd, but the words "civil rights" actually means something, especially if you can define them and the nature of the violation.