What would you think of proposed legislation that sought to control vehicle speed by prohibiting the use of red paint on all cars and trucks, because "everyone knows that red means you're going faster" ? Chances are, you'd think whoever tried to justify such legislation was at best uninformed and at worst an idiot.
Or how about governmental regulations on net neutrality being determined by someone who thinks that the internet is a "series of tubes" ? Oh, wait, I remember how that was received here and elsewhere - Stevens was widely mocked for his failure to understand the internet in even the most basic ways and his toadying to the large telecom corporations.
RKBA is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who also have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion. RKBA stands for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
We could all cite many other instances where legislators have tried to create laws/regulations/directives which were not based in any kind of substantial understanding of the relevant technology or issues involved. Usually, and appropriately, we lobby our representatives and their staff to better understand these issues in order to make more informed decisions. And we usually deride those who make legislative decisions in ignorance, who use the wrong terminology either willfully or in error, who have an agenda that they're pushing rather than understanding.
Yet all too often when discussing the question of firearms, ignorance seems to be something of a point of pride, not just for our elected representatives, but for people active in the discussion on sites such as this one. The sponsor of the Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007 famously couldn't even identify one of the defining characteristics of an "assault weapon" which was included in the bill - a simple barrel shroud.
Terminology matters. Confusing a semi-automatic firearm (one which is self-loading after each pull of the trigger) with a full-automatic firearm (a machine gun, or a firearm which has select fire from single-shot to burst-fire to-full automatic) is akin to confusing a simple single-prop plane with a passenger jet, or a go-kart with an Indy racer. Yet many times when discussing just this difference, someone trying to point out that very difference will be met with the accusation that they are just trying to confuse the issue.
So, I'll let people weigh in on the specifics of terminology in the comments.