Skip to main content

Orwellian Newspeak knows no party lines

Yesterday, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell opportunistically used the tragic death of Police Sergeant Stephen Liczbinski to call for a return to the so-called assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. (Never mind that the Chinese weapon that actually killed Stephen Liczbinski was imported before the ban and therefore would have been legal.)

There's no reason to be surprised at Fast Eddie being opportunistic, but it does give me the opportunity to point out that neither Republicans nor Democrats have any scruples whatsoever about coining misleading phrases to con voters into accepting (and even supporting) a point of view that has no basis in fact or reality.

This weapons ban, for example, as accurately reported by USA Today, was a ban on "the manufacture and sale of 19 semiautomatic assault weapons." These weapons are most commonly referred to as assault-style weapons.

But what the American public misses is that the key word is not assault, it's semi-automatic.

True assault weapons have a full-automatic capability: they act like machine guns and will keep firing automatically as long as you (a) depress the trigger and (b) still have rounds in the magazine.

Semi-automatic weapons--no matter how their exterior shapes are designed--require one trigger pull to fire each bullet.

No army in the world considers a weapon limited to semi-automatic fire to be an assault weapon.

Nor is there any functional distinction between such semi-automatic assault-style weapons and semi-automatic hunting rifles or older military rifles that are not bolt-operated.

The term assault-style weapons is a fragment of Orwellian Newspeak: a fallacious term created to scare people into action (or to convince people that some meaningful action has been taken).

It is the liberal, gun-control equivalent of the social conservative, pro-life partial-birth abortion.

So-called partial-birth abortions are exceptionally rare late-term abortions that in fact carry significant enough health risks to the mother as a procedure that they are only used in cases of significant risk of the life or health of the mother. Throughout all the years of debate, what has been conspicuous by its absence is any data proving that malicious pregnant women or scheming doctors are using this procedure as anything other than it was intended: a less-than-satisfactory option in a deteriorating situation.

But because the body of an (almost always) non-viable fetus is pulled through the birth canal first, this has allowed abortion rights opponents to create an horrific term (that goes along with lurid descriptions of killing babies) to cloud the real issue: a slippery-slope attack on abortion rights.

Assault-style weapons.

Partial-birth abortion.

Here's my proposition for all my friends of good will from all political persuasions: let's stop allowing our own sides to use this pernicious and misleading double-speak. Let's actually have the guts to stand up and talk accurately about what we mean, without resorting to these code words that are so destructive to a functioning democracy.

I said (somewhere, I can't find the post right now) about two months ago that I would stop calling myself Pro-Choice because it was a euphemism, and a cowardly one at that. I believe in abortion rights for women.

Likewise, I'd challenge my friends on the other side of gun control issues to have the courage to come out and say, "I support a ban on semi-automatic rifles."

If we have to resort to the tactics of 1984 to win support for our positions, doesn't that say something, both about us as individuals and the quality of the position we're advocating?

Comments

The Last Ephor said…
The easiest way to win an argument is to decide the meaning of the words to your advantage.
"...that I would stop calling myself Pro-Choice because it was a euphemism..."

Words are funny things, aren't they? "Pro-Choice" implies that you are not "Pro-Life" which in turn implies that you are "Anti-Life".

I believe I will take your same pledge to stop using this term.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?