Well, after a fashion, they are correct... guns do need to be controlled - use both hands, and stay focued on the target.

May as well do everything you can to ensure you hit what you desire to.

I don't think there's an equivalence between the two sides, at least on the disarmament issue. "Liberal" became a dirty word when their former party of choice was flooded with authoritarian socialists who are the opposite of classical liberals. It's too bad that it's become a slur, but let's be honest: if the social engineers didn't insist on keeping the label while still pushing their agenda, it probably wouldn't have happened this way.

That the disarmers have so much trouble with words should be encouragement for our side. They apparently believe that their attempts at manipulating the language are subtle, yet effective. I find this very humorous. Even the most stereotypical, backwoods, gun-toting yokel instantly grasps the joke in a bumper sticker that reads: "Gun Control Means Hitting Your Target"

The disarmament movement is producing these nonsense code-phrases in record numbers. While the literal meaning of "guncontrol" makes it easy to lampoon, most of the other ones don't make much sense at all. The "other side" is simply combining "gun" and words with a negative connotation, producing phrases such as "gunviolence", or "gundeath". No one is really sure what these words actually mean, even the disarmers. (I commented previously on this, surprised to learn that "gunviolence" has nothing to do with crime or acts of violence.) You have to give a chuckle at the unintended humor of the author, who implies that the disarmament movement would have better success if it broadly repeated a message -- a message presumably containing code-phrases that no one really understands.

The truth of the matter though -- or the lack of it -- is that disarmers are doing it this way because there is not overwhelming public support for disarmament. That's why they feel the need to disguise their goals behind code-phrases and work within activist groups with misleading names, (or purchase other unrelated groups and inject a disarmament agenda.) If the pro-gun groups worked in the same fashion, the NRA would probably be called something like the "Washington-area Professionals for Better Defense".

To round out this excursion into cluelessness, the author drops the new and rare code-phrase "gunextremist" into the mix. (Romney in gunshop: "Can I get me an extreme weapon?") I visualize a "gunextremist" as someone who shows up to the range with a NAA mini in .22 Short and a Phelps revolver in .45-70.

I don't remember where I heard it, but I am reminded of the phrase, "Socialists are chameleons."

It's amusing how they're constantly looking for ways to repackage themselves in order to fool the public about their intensions, while simultaneously claiming "overwhelming support".

I remember during Washington State's Initiative 676 campaign, they had a web site listing the great number of fabulous people who were on their side, and only a few dunces who were against this hugely anti-gun initiative. Group think is a really big thing for them. I guess if you don’t have reason behind your assertions, you have to appeal to people's desire for group affiliation or identity.

I-676 went down in flames-- 69:31 as I recall.