2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 111,973
- 52,245
- 2,290
There is a column in the Washington post this week where the anti gun weenie complains about 2nd Amendment supporters who correct anti gunners when they don't use the correct terminology for guns, or don't actually know what the hell they are talking about in the gun debate.....
The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...
If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics
Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. Itās improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.
The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use ājargonā to bully gun-control supporters. āWhile debating the merits of various gun control proposals,ā he contends, āSecond Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.ā
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy āfaux pasā of gun controllers is to engage in āgunsplaining,ā a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.
āIf you donāt know what the āARā in AR-15 stands for, you donāt get to talkā explains the sarcastic subhead. If you donāt know what the āARā in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you havenāt taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.
Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers ābeing forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nationās unlimited variety of lethal weapons.ā This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that thereās an āunlimited varietyā of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, itās an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocateās expectations.
----
Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a ābarrel shroudā is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless youāre a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us youāre either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.
The author is trying to shame gun Rights supporters into being quiet by labeling this "gunsplaining,"as if actually talking about actual guns and the truth about the issues is a problem...
If You're Trying To Ban Guns, The Least You Can Do Is Learn The Basics
Can anyone imagine a major newspaper running an op-ed justifying public ignorance on public policy? Actually, not merely justifying the ignorance, but rather arguing that facts only help smother discourse rather than enhance it. Itās improbable. Then again, this is the gun debate. And one side benefits from policy illiteracy.
The Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Gawker writer Adam Weinstein arguing that Second Amendment advocates use ājargonā to bully gun-control supporters. āWhile debating the merits of various gun control proposals,ā he contends, āSecond Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology.ā
-------
How dare Second Amendment advocates expect that those passionately arguing to limit their constitutional rights might have some rudimentary knowledge of the devices they want to ban? To point out the constant glaring technical and policy āfaux pasā of gun controllers is to engage in āgunsplaining,ā a bad-faith argument akin to intimidation.
āIf you donāt know what the āARā in AR-15 stands for, you donāt get to talkā explains the sarcastic subhead. If you donāt know what the āARā in AR-15 stands you still get to talk. But if you want to ban or confiscate AR-15s and you havenāt taken the time to learn what the AR stands for, then gun owners have every right to call you out.
Weinstein bemoans the unfairness of gun controllers ābeing forced to sweat the finest taxonomic distinctions between our nationās unlimited variety of lethal weapons.ā This statement is illustrative of the emotionalism and hyperbole of the debate (the notion that thereās an āunlimited varietyā of firearms is absurd) but also, at the same time, itās an exaggeration of the Second Amendment advocateās expectations.
----
Then again, much of gun-control policy isdriven by the mechanics of a firearm. So while not knowing what a ābarrel shroudā is should not prevent anyone from pondering gun policy (well, unless youāre a politician who goes on TV to advocate the banning of barrel shrouds without knowing what they are) but failing to understand the distinction between a semi-automatic and automatic weapon tells us youāre either dishonest, unserious or unprepared for the debate.