Debate of calling firearms etc. weapons vs tools

After following the debate of weapons vs. tools and even participating in the discussion, I have become convinced that the words of the cartoon character Pogo Possum are appropriate:

'We have met the enemy and they are us'

Using words which are accurate and which may provide a political advantage to our cause is neither lying nor nor being politically correct. It's just common sense.

My only issue is whether or not it is a 'political advantage' to continually migrate toward terms that are 'acceptable' to the anti-gun/anti-hunting movement. As more and more terms and activities become 'offensive' to some, we seem to continually give some ground, only to wonder how we lost it later on. From automatic weapons, to the assault weapon ban to a prominent manufacture saying that he couldn't see any need for a round that holds more than 10 rounds, we appear to do everything we can to avoid conflict. If there were a history of success in that strategy, I might be willing to reconsider; however, I don't see where that type of compromise has helped. It is that incremental yielding that has placed us where we are right now, fighting for the very right to even own firearms in many places.

Our key is to educate people in the truth and inundate them with the concept to the point where the word gun/weapon/firearm, etc. is not offensive. That's how it used to be; I think we can turn the tide back.

POOF and PIFFLE :::::: Would it be better to be on just one knee or both when we beseech our masters to forgive us our rough language and to teach us courtly speech ? If we humbly beg forgiveness for the grating on their tender ears will we once again be allowed to be among polite society ?

Bill Van Houten (USA Ret) 'No matter how hard you try, you can't throw a potato chip very far.'