I know it’s tough at times but as a civil rights activist it’s important to use the proper words. And when you hear people use the improper words point it out to them so the communication is more exact and truthful.
One of the most visible instances is the phrase “gun safety” which, as we all know, is code for “gun control”. Almost no one who claims to be a “gun safety advocate” has ever taken a gun safety class, let alone taught one, or has even talked to a gun safety instructor.
Don’t let them get away with this deception. Alan Korwin is the first person I know of to take this on. He sent out this email on February 29th, 2000 and he did an awesome job. See my 2007 blog post for a quick summary.
Here is something newer via Twitter. It’s not exactly serious like the tutorial from Korwin but it makes the point more succinctly:
“Whatever we may do to private individuals …”
It’s important to be clear that there is a dichotemy between “whatever you may do to private individuals” and “what you may do to a government”.
Whether it’s right or wrong, there is a clear definition between private individuals vs a government.
For example, you may verbally mistreat (and threaten) a private individual, and it my often be construed as a personal difference of opinion.
The same dialogue against a government may sometimes be construed as a threat.
I know it’s not fair, but it’s true. The laws of libel are “special” for a dialogue between individuals. But when you seem to threaten a government, there is a higher level of “incivility” involved. It may encroach upon the level of “terrorism”, which (like it or not) Governments respond in a much more aggressive manner.
So please consider that the flame war between you and your personal rival may include language which encroaches upon illegality when directed toward a govenmental entity.
Bottom line: always be civil in your thoughts, words and actions.
I like Alan Korwin’s list but rather than “Racist Gun Laws”, I would suggest “Jim Crow Laws”; as in the Democrats are attempting to resurrect Jim Crow laws.
The views of the “Gun Safety Advocates” on firearms is remarkably similar to Abstinence-Only programs in sex education. Doubtless the same people who believe that ignorance of the tools and knowledge to apply effective self-defense is a good policy simultaneously ridicule that belief when it comes to sex education.