"Gunsplaining" is apparently offensive to liberal gun grabbers.

[Vol Texan]

Make sure you don't eat anything before you read this article from the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... d04d2f9fdb. You might just lose your lunch if you did.

While debating the merits of various gun control proposals, Second Amendment enthusiasts often diminish, or outright dismiss their views if they use imprecise firearms terminology. Perhaps someone tweets about “assault-style” weapons, only to be told that there’s no such thing. Maybe they’re reprimanded that an AR-15 is neither an assault rifle nor “high-powered.” Or they say something about “machine guns” when they really mean semiautomatic rifles. Or they get sucked into an hours-long Facebook exchange over the difference between the terms clip and magazine.

Has this happened to you? If so, you’ve been gunsplained: harangued with the pedantry of the more-credible-than-thou firearms owner, admonished that your inferior knowledge of guns and their nomenclature puts an asterisk next to your opinion on gun control.

One great retort in the comments section was as follows:

Well, we shouldn't HAVE to be anal about terminology, but ever since the Left deliberately lied about terminology (in order to confuse the ignorant into supporting bans on what they honestly think are machine-guns), we've had to fight back:

"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." - Josh Sugarman of the anti-gun Violence Policy Center.

So yes, facts matter - tough that you don't like them, but we're going to keep hammering them home so that we're all on the same page, despite the attempts from anti-gun people to control the narrative.

[LDB415]

Frankly, I hope it offends them so much they either leave the country permanently or go apoplectic and stroke out. As long as we're rid of them it doesn't really matter. They've used up all the straws.

[twomillenium]

One of the boys on my grandson's 6 year old baseball team showed up with a black bat, I do not know who started it but they call it the assault bat and everyone want to use it. (I can only quietly giggle to myself)

To be honest, I am one of those who ask, "How did that rifle assault anyone or anything?" or "you mean semi- automatic?"
When someone say clip, I say magazine, but I realize that is just my OCD kicking in. LOL (there I go, giggling to myself again)

[Soccerdad1995]

Yes, because liberals don't care at all about using incorrect terminology when we refer to criminals who have broken our immigration laws, or boys who like boys, etc. They are 1,000 times more pedantic about terminology than any 2nd amendment supporter.

Words have meaning. And whoever gets to define the terms wins the argument. Pure and simple.

[BBYC]

Aren't facts and logic in general offensive to them?

[canvasbck]

Three comments on this article

1. We're picky about terms because WORDS MATTER. Terms that are being thrown about like "assault weapons', "weapons of war", "machine gun", "gun show loophole" etc are being used not because the people developing the talking points are ignorant to the incorrect application of these terms. They chose those terms because they create a mental image to the uninformed listener that will elicit an emotional response that makes the otherwise neutral person more inclined to support restrictions on the items being listed. This is why those of us who do not support these restrictions demand that the other side call things what they are and not use emotional buzzwords that are factually inaccurate.

2. Any pro gun person who picks nits over clip vs magazine does come across as petty. Even to someone like myself who calls a magazine a magazine and a clip a clip.

3. At the end of the article the only argument that is made in support of banning the AR-15 is "It's the go-to weapon for mass shooters". So, let's say the AR-15 is banned. Then we do nothing to reverse the trend of fatherless homes (all high profile school shooters to date were from a fatherless home), do nothing to fix our broken mental health system, do nothing to harden our schools, and the shootings continue. What then? They will go after whichever weapon becomes the "go-to" in the absence of AR-15s. Lever actions maybe? (FYI, I'm preparing a video that shows one of the best AR shooters on the planet, Jerry Michulek, can get about 4 aimed rounds a second. One of the best lever action shooters on the planet, Randi Rogers, can get off about 5 aimed rounds a second out of her competition lever gun)

[Soccerdad1995]

Three comments on this article

1. We're picky about terms because WORDS MATTER. Terms that are being thrown about like "assault weapons', "weapons of war", "machine gun", "gun show loophole" etc are being used not because the people developing the talking points are ignorant to the incorrect application of these terms. They chose those terms because they create a mental image to the uninformed listener that will elicit an emotional response that makes the otherwise neutral person more inclined to support restrictions on the items being listed. This is why those of us who do not support these restrictions demand that the other side call things what they are and not use emotional buzzwords that are factually inaccurate.

2. Any pro gun person who picks nits over clip vs magazine does come across as petty. Even to someone like myself who calls a magazine a magazine and a clip a clip.

3. At the end of the article the only argument that is made in support of banning the AR-15 is "It's the go-to weapon for mass shooters". So, let's say the AR-15 is banned. Then we do nothing to reverse the trend of fatherless homes (all high profile school shooters to date were from a fatherless home), do nothing to fix our broken mental health system, do nothing to harden our schools, and the shootings continue. What then? They will go after whichever weapon becomes the "go-to" in the absence of AR-15s. Lever actions maybe? (FYI, I'm preparing a video that shows one of the best AR shooters on the planet, Jerry Michulek, can get about 4 aimed rounds a second. One of the best lever action shooters on the planet, Randi Rogers, can get off about 5 aimed rounds a second out of her competition lever gun)

Make sure you include Michulek's speed with his "military style" revolver while you are making that video.

On your point #1 above, I am tempted to agree with the liberals that we need to ban "machine guns" and "assault rifles", and that we need to close the "gun show loophole". We can then point out that machine guns and assault weapons are already effectively banned since they are class 3 weapons, and that there is no "gun show loophole" since all gun show sales need to follow the exact same laws as sales made elsewhere. So net-net, no need for new laws!

[Pawpaw]

Well, I'm offended by the Libturds incessant racesplaining and womansplaining, so I guess we're even.

[The Annoyed Man]

I’ll stop gunsplaining when they stop virtuesplaining.

[anygunanywhere]

I’ll stop when the left commie dumbo rats stop confiscationsplaining.

[Jusme]

So he thinks, the gun rights supporters, should simply stand by quietly, and allow uninformed, leftists, to provide their narrative, using, incorrect terms, and definitions, to run roughshod, over the Second Amendment?
Why does the left, get to make definitions, and generalizations, to exchoriate our rights, when they get triggered by anyone using non-gender neutral words and phrases? Why do they get to define border jumpers, as "immigrants"? This is just another attempt to try to get us to "sit down and shut up" so the omnipotent minds of the progressives, can expand their message, with no resistance, while trying to make us out to be villains, for injecting facts and logic, into their echo chambers. JMHO

[Pawpaw]

So he thinks, the gun rights supporters, should simply stand by quietly, and allow uninformed, leftists, to provide their narrative, using, incorrect terms, and definitions, to run roughshod, over the Second Amendment?
Why does the left, get to make definitions, and generalizations, to exchoriate our rights, when they get triggered by anyone using non-gender neutral words and phrases? Why do they get to define border jumpers, as "immigrants"? This is just another attempt to try to get us to "sit down and shut up" so the omnipotent minds of the progressives, can expand their message, with no resistance, while trying to make us out to be villains, for injecting facts and logic, into their echo chambers. JMHO

Of course! The Left's entire message to Conservatives... "Shut up!!!"

[TexasJohnBoy]

Well, paint me purple and call me offensive then.