Ottawa Citizen Letter: Terms used to demonize gun use
Date: Feb 14, 2007 10:06 AM
PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Citizen
DATE: 2007.02.14
EDITION: Final
SECTION: News
PAGE: A17
PNAME: Letters
BYLINE: Bruce N. Mills
SOURCE: The Ottawa Citizen
WORD COUNT: 247

————————————————————————
——–

Terms used to demonize gun use

————————————————————————
——–

Re: Rapid Fire: Collectors want them? … too bad. Feb. 10.

The Citizen claims to be defining the debate over semi-automatic
firearms, presumably in an objective manner, but when it starts using
such imprecise and biased terminology as “assault rifles” to describe
such guns, it is anything but. When it adds in such adjectival
descriptions as “military style,” it becomes nothing more than egregious
sensationalism.

Let’s get one thing straight, once and for all: semi-automatic-only
firearms are not “assault weapons” in any way, shape or form. Period.
End of story. There is no modern army in the world that would equip its
soldiers with semi-automatic-only firearms. Army “battle rifles” are
most commonly “select fire,” which allows them to be fired in either
fully automatic mode or semi-automatic mode.

The phrase “assault weapon” is an anti-gun lobby propaganda term, used
as an attempt to demonize certain guns. This gives leverage to pass laws
to deprive law-abiding citizens, who have committed no crime, from
owning them. “Military style” is just that: style.

The various cosmetic accoutrements that are listed as being “banned” by
the “assault weapon ban” have absolutely no effect on how a
semi-automatic rifle operates. They all still fire one bullet with one
pull of the trigger.

These terms are all used to emotionalize the debate on “gun control,”
since the gun haters know that they must resort to hysteria and
fearmongering, as their arguments cannot stand up against rational
thought and logic.

Bruce N. Mills,

Dundas

The Second Amendment IS Homeland Security !