Early on this board we had a wonderful discussion on the misuse of the word "weapon." Lots of folks chimed in defending the word and claiming it was their right to call their firearms weapons.
<br>
<br>The OED does not agree with that view and frankly it is a term I don't care for. It is needlessly aggressive, on top of being fundamentaly and literally wrong.
<br>
<br>On several posts on the initial LR thread, the term "neutralize" in reference to a deer or elk was used. Sorry, but that term really sucks to my sensitive ear. Here's why. Hunters are under a bunch of pressure on a lot of fronts to prove that we are not barbarous camoflaged louts with hunch backs, sloping foreheads and a double-wide parked in a maze of parted-out pintos.
<br>
<br>Everything we do that looks bad will be noticed. Turning hunting into a military excercise, complete with targets to be neutralized, will not sway anyone to our point of view.
<br>
<br>Not that they don't already have their minds made up, mind you, but coming at them like something out of Soldier of Fortune will scare the hell out of them.
<br>
<br>The sad part, to my way of thinking, is that the phrase appears to be used to soften the term kill... why? If you want to be direct about every other full-frontal attack on your 2nd Amendment rights, yet shrink back from the appropriate use of the word kill.
<br>
<br>I don't get it. Any body else offended by the term, or am I just a bleeding-heart?
<br>art
