Author Topic: High Tech rifles  (Read 12202 times)

Boulderlaw

  • Active Forum Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
High Tech rifles
« on: July 02, 2007, 10:12:42 PM »
Michael:

I applaud your effort to change the parlance. You are right on in your assessment of the popular terms - they stink!

The problem with "high tech rifles" is that, like "assault rifle," it doesn't convey any intrinsic meaning. Therefore, it is a term susceptible to highjack. I can hear it now: "The .22 I had growing up and my dad's 12 gauge weren't high tech, you don't need high tech guns to shoot pop cans and clay pigeons. High tech guns use technology to kill people. Period." Arrrrg.

How about describing the gun in concrete terms? Either by model (AR-platform) or function (gas-gun/semi-auto). Those are less fungible terms.

DonWorsham

  • MWAG
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 795
  • I feel more like I do now than I ever did
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Tech rifles
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2007, 07:03:41 AM »
fungible

I had to look that one up! interchangeable...ahhh...
Don Worsham
Varied Movements Performed Intensely

JohnJacobH

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 234
    • JohnJacobH's RKBA Commentary
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Tech rifles
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2007, 08:03:40 AM »

The problem with "high tech rifles" is that, like "assault rifle," it doesn't convey any intrinsic meaning.

And therein hangs a tale.

When the left does this kind of stuff they usually start with a Public Relations Firm top heavy with Rat Psychology 101 graduates who conduct focus group studies to learn what mind meld manipulation will work with the "General Public". They then co-ordinate a cross-the-board education campaign with all the electronic, print and advertising media at their disposal (which as we all know is formidable)

To understand this, consider the word "gravitas" introduced in the Year 2000 elections. Maybe it is a real word, I had never heard of it and it certainly is not in any
dictionary in my possession, but within a few short days it had achieved nearly total penetration of the public discourse because:

A. You could not turn on any TV or radio and not hear a public personality use it in a knowing and authoritative way or pick up a newspaer or magazine and
not read some editorial reference to it.

B. More importantly, everyone who heard it THOUGHT they knew what it meant and how to use it.  It just "felt" right. Even Bush defenders immediately picked up the term.  *Of course candidate Bush has sufficient gravitas to be President. I would not support him if he did not.*

So there you have it. Unless or until 2nd Amendment Supporters develop their skills in this arena they will just flop around like a trout in a blender.

As you observe, the trouble with the term 'high tech rifle" is that is DOES NOT 'feel right' to supporters or detractors.

It will be a begrudging uphill battle to adopt it into general use.

Hazcat

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10457
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: High Tech rifles
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2007, 09:39:32 AM »
And therein hangs a tale.

When the left does this kind of stuff they usually start with a Public Relations Firm top heavy with Rat Psychology 101 graduates who conduct focus group studies to learn what mind meld manipulation will work with the "General Public". They then co-ordinate a cross-the-board education campaign with all the electronic, print and advertising media at their disposal (which as we all know is formidable)

To understand this, consider the word "gravitas" introduced in the Year 2000 elections. Maybe it is a real word, I had never heard of it and it certainly is not in any
dictionary in my possession, but within a few short days it had achieved nearly total penetration of the public discourse because:

A. You could not turn on any TV or radio and not hear a public personality use it in a knowing and authoritative way or pick up a newspaper or magazine and
not read some editorial reference to it.

B. More importantly, everyone who heard it THOUGHT they knew what it meant and how to use it.  It just "felt" right. Even Bush defenders immediately picked up the term.  *Of course candidate Bush has sufficient gravitas to be President. I would not support him if he did not.*

So there you have it. Unless or until 2nd Amendment Supporters develop their skills in this arena they will just flop around like a trout in a blender.

As you observe, the trouble with the term 'high tech rifle" is that is DOES NOT 'feel right' to supporters or detractors.

It will be a begrudging uphill battle to adopt it into general use.

Garvitas http://m-w.com/dictionary/gravitas

BUT I do agree with what you mean.  I use EBR as the general 'scary gun' label and laugh at it when used as a pejorative.  Otherwise if you want to talk guns lets 'name names'.  You don't talk about and compare sports cars without names, why try it with guns?
All tipoes and misspelings are copi-righted.  Pleeze do not reuse without ritten persimmons  :D

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk