PreventingGunViolence

We’ve believed for years that there’s some official playbook that gun control advocates use when pushing their agenda, but now for the first time it looks like a copy of that playbook has leaked out. The CCRKBA found the document, entitled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” (download for yourself by clicking the title), and made it available late Thursday. I won’t bore you with the whole thing, but I did want to point out one specific section in the summary section that seems to be the blueprint for all civilian disarmament campaigns . . .

Key Messaging Principles:

  • ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVENARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICALFOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

  • TELL STORIES WITH IMAGES AND FEELINGS.

  • CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.

  • EMPHASIZE THAT EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS, MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS ARE NOW WITHIN EASY REACH ACROSS AMERICA.

  • EMPHASIZE THAT AMERICA HAS WEAK GUN LAWS AND DON’T ASSUME THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT.

  • CHALLENGE THE NRA ON YOUR TERMS, NOT THEIRS.

Yes, it was really written in all caps. And yes, that’s really how they think they can win: by avoiding a fact based conversation and instead injecting their own emotional argument and hoping that you don’t fight back. They want you to believe that America has weak gun laws. They want you to believe as they do in terms of certain features making an “assault weapon” especially scary. They know they don’t have any data to back up their claims, so they rely instead on emotion.

Gun control advocates are losing the war, and they know it. Which is why they’re turning to slick advertising campaigns to convert people to their beliefs instead of relying on facts. And now we know all their tricks.

76 Responses to Gun Control Advocate’s Playbook LEAKED

    • Well, in their defense, this isn’t exactly an “argument on the internet.” The snarky “Yes it was really written in all caps” note is a little bit misleading. (Wait, misleading inflammatory language on TTAG?! Say it ain’t so!) The all-caps notes copied above are section headings, and they make sense there. Here’s a screenshot, if you don’t want to download and read the actual document: http://i.imgur.com/4iM8VJF.png

      • Since I didn’t click on the link initially, I was just expecting those main “bullet points”. I wasn’t expecting there to be additional wording following each section, or all the colors. So as I take it, he wasn’t being misleading when he said it was all in caps. Cause all the main points are in caps. It’s just the subsection wording that isn’t or the chapter guide and user information at the beginning. Irregardless, this shit made me laugh. In my opinion plans/organization is a good thing, but this takes the whole thinking aspect out of their arguments. Just follow the playbook, and nothing will go wrong. And that playbook has some sections that put them on pretty shaky ground. This was my favorite. – 5: ALWAYS DRAW DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN NRA OFFICIALS
        AND THE ORGANIZATION’S RANK-AND-FILE MEMBERS.
        As numerous polls in recent years have shown, there is often a stunning gap between the extreme
        positions taken by NRA officials and the opinions of rank-and-file NRA members. That’s a divide that
        should be quite troubling to the NRA.
        What it means for us is that we should avoid lumping NRA lobbyists and the members of the NRA
        into the same category. And, where possible, we should point to the support that common sense
        measures like universal background checks have even within the ranks of the NRA.- Apparently they need to do a real poll of NRA members, cause I think they would be confused. Cause their playbook ain’t right. I’m pretty sure that Ted Nugent’s opinion and mine are the same.

        • Yeah, if they did a poll on NRA leadership’s opinions not matching the rank and file, I’m sure that a fair number of the people that responded to not agreeing with the leadership was disagreeing because the leadership was too willing to compromise, and not willing enough to fight. (Look, I know we need the NRA, as they have the lobbying infrastructure that they’ve built over the last forty years, but sometimes I just want to slap Wayne LaPierre in the face(mostly when he’s about to open his mouth at a press conference))

      • Matt, I hate to say this, but all capital letters, really? Next thing you know they will feel the need to use ebonics in order to appeal to a larger audience. Personally their inability to properly use the english language as intended is irritating.
        I love the use of wonky statistics!
        Wonky:
        Adjective
        1.Crooked; off-center; askew.
        2.(of a thing) Unsteady; shaky: “sitting on wonky stools”.

        Synonyms
        shaky – rickety – wobbly

        Excuse my ignorance, but if we were to look at all the statistics, even from the CDC, FBI, and others which were, or can be peer reviewed, I hardly find those wonky. So this is an initial falicy which is being presented to the gun control advocates right from the start.

        • Wonky statistics are statistics that do not back up what the gun controllers want, regardless of who generated them.

  1. This makes sense, it is also why it is important for people on our side to remain factual, rational, and pleasant. A white hot emotional reaction can only last but so long, but without a factual and rational basis it eventually starts to look unhinged. Pointing out why proposals won’t work and the costs associated with those proposals (politely but firmly) and being met with ITS FOR THE CHILDREN! over and over blunts the other side’s emotional appeal.

    That said, we can’t discount the power of emotions and need to find where our emotional strengths lie. Based on the Pew numbers Leghorn linked to yesterday fear of the government isn’t really salient with people (though that may change somewhat post NSA scandal), whereas a desire to protect oneself/family is, so that is where emotional efforts should be focused.

    • (Annoying with this new Theme, if I click reply I cannot see who I am replying to like the old theme)

      I agree, we need to focus on the emotions or our side, but dead children seem to trump saving lives from all the testimony I have seen. The other side is able to get dead relatives to come testify and cry on cue at the testimonies, our side seems to have a VERY hard time getting survivors to come to the table and look the legislatures in the eyes and ask the question “How much is my life worth, would it be simpler for you if I was dead and could not be here to speak. You are trying to take away the very tool that saved my life and allows me to speak here today. How dare you to leave me and other defenseless. How much is my life worth” or some such meme.

      I believe the over throw the government meme does not play well however historically accurate.

      I believe facts are important and we should be focusing on verifiable facts from the FBI and other sources and we should also be debunking and tearing apart whatever facts they bring forth.

      It truly is sad at the end of the day that we allow emotions to trump our rights.

      Even more sad, these are the same tactics that Trayvon Martins Parents and the puppet masters behind their backs are using.

      • I agree. We do better the more the logical the debate, and time is what helps that. What we need to do is highlight DGUs and the futility/bad results of gun control in non-crises times to allow that to sink in and become part if people’s thought processes, allowing them to draw on that internalized belief during times of crisis and view the raw emotionalism of the other side more skeptically.

  2. This is exactly what I seem to argue with gun control people. It’s only emotional with them. As with many “feel good” measures, they are not backed up with facts and the constitutional rights of millions mean nothing to them. It’s always about blaming a configuration of steel, wood or plastic and not about the evil intentions of murders who use a gun. I’m sick of all the cliches too. Do we ban cars after drunk driving accidents? Did we ban box cutters after 9-11? The gun control people need to act quickly when the next massacre happens, because all they know are emotional hearts strings, not the fact that overall gun violence is actually down. The Chicago example aside. I have friends I love dearly who think I’m a “cowboy” because I call them out on their stupid posts and comments. These are intelligent and educated people in other areas of their life, but they refuse to listen to the “facts” about the real agenda of the gun control lobby. They’ve been duped into a believing it’s the right side of the argument when they know little about real self-protection and the reason our forefathers made the 2nd amendment. It’s not a good idea to be ignorant of the entire constitution. (Yes, I am a Libertarian too.)
    I love convincing these people, usually Liberals, by taking them to the range and watching the look on their face when they have fun. I can usually start to turn them after they realize guns are a sporting activity and they are now “shooters.” We can use emotional influence too,,,fun. In MHO, I think education is the key for the uniformed and misinformed, which many on the gun control side really are. We need to keep telling the truth and exposing the hypocrisy.

  3. This is totally unrelated. The site’s new theme and layout is TERRIBLE. I find it makes it hard to read, and it also gives the site a more juvenile, less professional appearance. It’s like a bad version of The Firearm Blog’s layout.

  4. Visions of Alex Jones and vast conspiracies to program and train the public dance through my mind.

    The research drew a vivid portrait of the attitudes and opinions of a number of key audiences and offered clear messaging guidance for those advocating more vigorous efforts to build public support for critical gun violence prevention measures.

    How many other causes and PAC’s and politicians have made use of such firms and reports and how many of the regs and left/right causes are a direct product of such programming?

    Meh, I’ll just have another cup of coffee and forget about it.

    • I see the copyright is 2012.

      Was it published before or after Sandy Hook? Calling Alex Jones…..Paging Dr. Jones….

  5. I haven’t spent much time with the material yet, but my favorite so far is,

    “What the other side says…and how to counter.
    Strongest Opposing Arguments: There’s no proof that ending the assault weapons ban made America any more dangerous.
    Best Ways to Counter: Tell that to the police officers on the front lines staring down ever more dangerous military-style weapons in the hands of hardened criminals.”

    First of all, the correct argument is “there is no proof the assault weapons ban made America any more SAFE. They’re already twisting words to even come up with a counterargument. Secondly, “assault weapons” are used in such a small percentage of crimes it is unlikely a LEO would ever encounter one, except of course his personal assault weapon (full auto) at the station, range, and in his trunk.

    And then there is this gem:
    “The Overall Landscape
    1. Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on emotional terms”.

    Since when? Sounds like they’re trying to convince themselves and push an emotionally-focused campaign because it has nothing to do with logic.

    So far from this playbook we have little to worry about, if this really is their actual playbook. Nearly every caption and segment is chock-full of misrepresentations or flat-out lies, but what else could we have expected? That’s their entire “movement”.

    • 1. Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on emotional terms

      If that’s true, why on earth would they say this?

      ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE

      If you lose on emotional terms, why would you want to always focus on emotional arguments?

    • Did you read through their citation list? It’s a string of BCPGV, VPC, CNN and CDC and other usual suspects. Hell, they can’t get past page five without lumping suicides in with “gun violence” to get to that 30K figure.

      They’re lying to themselves as well as the public. It figures.

    • I might have missed it but I couldn’t find a section about hypocritical politicians who would ban guns for everyone else, while still allowing themselves or their goon squads to carry. I guess that’s not an important argument.

  6. I have to call you, Nick, on your all caps comment. Those are just headers for the rest of the page, which is written normally. That said, I have no idea who they wrote this 80 page missive for. One quote:

    “The gun violence prevention movement is dormant in the public imagination. That’s not to say there isn’t an interested audience out there. It’s just that there is a major lack of awareness of where to go to become engaged on gun violence prevention.”

    Seems like an admission that they’re fading from the public eye. As shooters let’s keep the public focused on the positive aspects of gun ownership.

    And hats off to TTAG.

    • Wonky is any statistic that doesn’t fit their view. Are these guys ad execs or something close to that???

      • Oh I thought it stood for “white honky,” kinda like “wigger.” Wait, nvm that doesn’t work. ^What he said.

    • I used to get that from elected officials and their bootlickers in the press in the 90’s too.

      So allow me to translate for you:

      “We really hate numerical arguments, because cold, hard numbers lack the emotional appeal that loaded words do. We will brand your statistics and numerical arguments as ‘wonky’ to make them appear esoteric and hard for anyone without a PhD to understand.”

      How to respond:

      “So what you’re saying is that because you’re innumerate and failed mathematics, you assume everyone else in your audience is unable to follow a position based on hard statistical evidence too?”

      Whenever they tried to pull this BS in the 90’s, I found it very effective to respond in such a way as to make two points:

      1. The proponents of gun control obviously didn’t care about the statistics, because they were too stupid to read the numbers/stats, or too lazy to look them up.

      2. That these proponents of gun control thought that the audience was too stupid to understand the numbers.

      Now, there’s nothing you’ll be able to do to change the gun controllers’ minds. They have a cause, and they don’t care about facts. Ah, but the undecided audience – they’re interested in facts. They’ll listen to a concise, clearly articulated argument based on unbiased stats and facts, and when you call out the gun controllers as trying to deliberately keep the facts from the audience, then the audience shifts against them even before you’ve started the body of your argument.

      • Unfortunately for mankind the grabbers are onto something; There are a great many people who zone out as soon as you quote them a number. For that matter there are many people who zone out if you turn the conversation to anything other than their favorite television programs. People who appreciate facts have for the most part already googled the relevant questions. When encountering an anti it’s entirely possible, perhaps even probable that they know nothing about the facts or issues and are acting purely on emotion. Such people will also manufacture and spout ‘statistics’ at an alarming rate, all of which will turn out to be false. . . but by then the argument will already be over.

  7. I like the bit about claiming the mantle of freedom. Because undermining our right and means of self defense and self preservation is the epitome of freedom. And criminalizing millions of honest citizens for the crimes of madmen? Definitely freedom.

    Their agenda is the antithesis of freedom.

  8. “that’s really how they think they can win: by avoiding a fact based conversation and instead injecting their own emotional argument”

    That’s just the best way to win on any issue. Americans are no longer interested in facts or reason, or just don’t know how to process them correctly. Emotion wins.

    Oh, and a wonk is a policy nerd. Statistics are “wonky,” because they are something policy nerds are into.

    • After watching certain reactions to the Trayvon Martin case, where emotions continue to drive out actual facts, I have come to understand what makes a low information voter (LIV). The LIV is someone who outsources his thinking to the larger group. It is much easier for many people to have someone else tell them what to think. To some extent we all have issues where we have a preferred source of truth but for the thinking person those are areas of low importance. The LIV can’t bother to think about issues that are paramount to their lives. The LIV culture is the underpinning of a totalitarian society. Pravada or Der Sturmer tells you what to think so you don’t have to. In a way it is a self defense mechanism because an error in understanding the Party Line can have serious personal repercussions. While we haven’t reached the point where a deviation from the party line gets you sent to prison, it will certainly lead to your exile from the hipster community. Many people, especially the millennials, have accepted a soft totalitarianism. The real cultural divide is between the New Man and the Free Man.

      • It’s worse than you think tdiinva. Concerning all things, political and otherwise, even subjects that are individually important (such as money and safety) or of the highest importance to human kind, a large minority (or is it a small majority now) react to thinking as if it were actually painful for them, something to be avoided if at all possible.
        Then there is a subset in which when the dreaded act of thinking is actually performed the results are perhaps even more disastrous than not thinking at all.

        We can label it and couch it in terms, but lets face it, there are just a lot of really, really stupid people in the world, perhaps more than at any other time in history. There are a good many people walking the streets of the US right now who are simply to lazy and stupid to have survived had they been born in any other time or place.

        All too often these are what we’re dealing with, ignorant, apathetic lazy sheep who are none the less adamant, prideful and entitled. Perhaps there is power in speaking to these people in terms they will relate with. While we need our John Lott’s we also need an answer to the likes of Al Sharpton, someone who exists specifically to shape the opinion of the very dull.

  9. Wow … They wrapped an MP-R8 with all those slogans and keywords and it still wouldn’t go off or even cock itself?

    Who’da thunk?

  10. As a DGU subject myself,let me tell you that discussing an incident when you narrowly avoided fatal injury or death is not a fun time.Its really unpleasent to expose such a searing incident to public light,especially when you know the other side will just reject your real-life experience out of hand.Or worse,try to make you out to be some kind of murderer.It doesn’t help that the media hates gun owners with a passion.

    That’s one side of the problem.The other is this:the antis are playing the long odds via modifying the very culture of America.As a veteran going to school I see it all around like Neo in the Matrix-liberal,leftist indoctrination almost oozing out of the walls. Between our anti-gun high schools and anti-gun universities and anti-gun urban cultures and anti gun immigrants,we are in real danger of losing the fight in two decades or less .While we beat our chests today celebrating our current defense opposing AWBs and magazine bans,the opposition is quietly indoctrinating our kids and families.
    If we don’t come up with our own offensive playbook quickly,were going to end up like gun owners in Austrailia and the UK.In other words,were going to grow old with our guns in a country populated by people who suddenly and inexplicably want us and our civil rights to FOAD.

  11. “1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.”

    In other words, avoid statistics from sources like FBI UCR.

    Like we haven’t figured these out a LONG time ago.

    “LANGUAGE DOS AND DON’TS OVERALL MESSAGING GUIDANCE

    DO talk about “preventing gun violence.”
    DO advocate for “stronger” gun laws.
    DON’T talk about “gun control.”
    DON’T use the term “stricter” gun law”

  12. I think we are slowly and maliciously distracted into appeasement with ‘Bread and Circuses’ (See Ancient Roman history). We are so caught up in ‘Who Wants to Marry an Millionaire Bachelor(ette) for 78 Days’ and the latest techno-gadget to come on the market that the important stuff slips on by unnoticed. Both D and R political parties are to blame because they each play their own little games with us. While democracy is great ‘mob rule’ can be pretty moronic. On that note, we do not get many movie reviews here on TTAG but I highly recommend the 2011 film adaptation ‘Coriolanus’ by William Shakespeare/ directed by Ralph Fiennes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolanus_(film) This movie/tragedy play does an awesome job showing how the populace can turn on a dime just by the actions of a few charismatic people.

  13. Gah, that was painful to read. But it is very instructive. I recommend everyone with gun control friends read it, ‘cuz it’s coming at you whenever the topic comes up.

    I do like how it assumes not a give-and-take discussion, but a statement-rebuttal format. “Here is the gun proponent’s argument. Here is the counter.” Okay, but it stops there. What’s the next step in that series? I do think that we need to be prepared to take that counterargument of theirs and be ready with the follow-up.

    For example, they keep saying the NRA has been harassing the ATF for years, trying to keep them from doing their jobs. So what’s the response to that? “Name one roadblock”? “Since when is it the ATF’s job to facilitate smuggling guns into Mexico?” “Explain to me how the NRA is preventing the ATF from smuggling guns into Mexico?”

    One of the key points I got from this strategy guide is that the gun banners are going to exploit shootings that hit the national stage early and they will show zero shame in hitting the NRA for their restraint. Multiple times in the document, they advocate attacking the NRA for being silent immediately after a tragedy.

    I suspect we need to have a strategy of our own in place. Preferably something along the lines of “This is terrible. We will be releasing a statement about this tragedy in one week’s time so that the families of the victims may have time to grieve away from the spotlight.” I’m sure some PR professional can come up with a better statement, but that kind of statement needs to get out there fast, before the VPC and MAIG start their narrative.

    “Know the attack, have the counter in place.”

    • “What’s the next step in that series?”

      There isn’t one, because there doesn’t need to be. This playbook is not about having a conversation, or a debate, or a reasoned discussion. It’s about propaganda, and that means soundbites. Thus, “They say this, we counter with this.” That’s it, because the counter provides the sound bite, and that’s what will play on the news. They don’t need to give a five minute explanation, because the news won’t play it anyway. They’ll just play the 5-10 second counter, and move on.

    • They attack the NRA no matter what is said or not said. What they want is to force the NRA to make a statement early and rip it apart as the true details come to light. They want that because that’s what happens to them every time. They know the logical debate is a lost cause so they want to force errors to chip away at the NRA’s credibility. Too bad they, and the media, are the true masters of that.

  14. “Gun control advocates are losing the war, and they know it.”

    No, they are not. The battle is still in full pitch, and either side is constantly in danger of an external event shifting the field. We can not stop being vigilant.

  15. The biggest threat to our 2a rights are not the Kapo bloombergs and slow joes. We, the People of the Gun, are the biggest threat to our 2a rights. Time and time again we see reliable evidence that the majority of Americans do not favor gun control but here we are, worried about losing our gun rights. Why?

    Could it be that our ranks are filled with moral cowards who’s only advice to people who’s civil, constitutional and god given rights are being viloated in places like Ca. and NYS is to run, move, become a refugee in our own country?

    How about our brother gun owners that never miss a chance to post negative comments about Jews, or Blacks or Women, knowing full well that we need the votes and support from those groups as well to win our fight.

    I swear it would be easier to herd cats than to get 10 gun owners to agree on anything.

    • “I swear it would be easier to herd cats than to get 10 gun owners to agree on anything.”

      Key point here, and that’s somewhat true of individualists (as opposed to collectivists) in general.

      To comment on the article and reactions to it, I still see many people express confusion as to why the left seems so illogical and inconsistent in their values. However, it makes perfect sense when you understand that the purpose of leftism isn’t to build anything at this point, but to destroy America (or, more broadly, Western values) so they can start over fresh.

      The ravening horde will attack whatever wall of the castle seems weakest at the moment, so even strong cooperation defending one wall of the castle (i.e., one issue like fighting new pushes for gun control when they arise) is necessary but not sufficient in the long run.

      That Alinsky-style poison Nick reprints for us above should be no surprise to anyone. It’s Progressive SOP. I know this web site is about gun issues, but until Americans wake the hell up and recognize this beast for what it is, get organized, and push back on a broad front, we will be constantly under attack.

    • Yeah, gun owners are, by nature, highly individualistic. We see the same problem in conservative and libertarian circles – we agree most of the time, so we spend all our time fighting about the stuff we don’t agree on.

      I agree on the bigoted comments, too. We really should not tolerate stuff like that. If we want to defend our rights, we need to see all people as individuals, not members of this group or that group. Identity politics is toxic.

  16. This is just an updated version of leaked memos out of HCI in the 90’s. For those of us who have been around a while, these tactics aren’t news at all. They’re the same stuff, rebranded as “gun safety” when the dim bulbs in HCI realized that Americans don’t like the word “control” as an agenda.

    • +1

      I found nothing new or unexpected here. It just reminded me of the same arguments we have been through thousands of times. My biggest takeaways (or better described as reminders) were:

      1 – Yes emotion is a big part of the message.
      2 – The “FACTS” they present are either wrong, twisted or outright lies.
      3 – A large percentage of the references are to documents put out by extreme gun control groups
      4 – They have no references to or discussion of what is an effective gun law. They just assume you believe what they are proposing will work or use the “common-sense” phrase.

  17. Do you know how it got leaked? The CCRKBA filed some PDRs asking for documents the city of Seattle had on gun control, and this PDF was not even part of the documents specified but someone granted their request with an email to an official seattle city employee email account with this link in it…

  18. On fast and furious:
    “MAKE CLEAR THAT THE ROOT PROBLEM IS WEAK GUN LAWS THAT
    MAKE IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO STOP THE FLOW OF DANGEROUS
    WEAPONS INTO MEXICO.”

    No. Every dealer involved refused to make the sales until the ATF came in and said to them, “Boy, i sure would hate for something to happen to this nice little shop you have here.”

  19. Is it just me or those rules in that playbook look like psy-ops for gun control or like mind games for gun control?

  20. I don’t have to read through 80 pages to realize that the concept involved is to pull ‘facts,statistics and emotion’ out of your butt and stir things up. Truth and responsibility are not part of this approach—FUD (Fear, Uncertanty and Doubt) is the name of the game. Same old stuff but the sad part is people buy this crap.

  21. One more thing about the “military style” weapons being easily available:

    Almost all guns were, at one time or another, the choice of the US (or other) military.

    Bolt action rifles were the choice of every modern military force 100 years ago. The very same Mauser 98 actions that I now turn into custom rifles were once made for some military or “war machine” or other. Same thing with Springfield 1903’s and A3’s. In WWI, every military force was using a bolt action rifle of some sort.

    Same thing with Sharps single-shot, falling-block rifles. Used by the 10’s of thousands by military snipers in their day. The cavalry and “walks heaps” (as the Sioux used to call the infantry) used Springfield Trapdoors. Today, these military weapons can be bought and sold without any interest by the BATF – because they were made before 1898. The ATF will tell you (just as they told me, a FFL) that guns made before 1898? They’re of no interest to the ATF. They don’t need to go into my bound book. Yet you put a low-pressure .45-70 or .50-70 cartridge into a Trapdoor and it works just fine to blow a hole through someone. Someone defending their home or business with a Trapdoor won’t need to shoot twice if they hit their target, I can guar-an-damn-tee you of that. You’ll have to patch more than a few walls, however – 400+ grain bullets tend to keep going for awhile.

    Let’s go all the way back to the Brown Bess: A slick-bored musket with a foot-long shank of steel sticking off the front used to be a “military style” weapon. It was the assault rifle of it’s day because you could reload it about 3X as fast as you could load a rifle.

    Same thing with handguns. At one time, the Colt SAA was the military sidearm of the day. At one time, the Winchester 1897 pump shotgun was the military shotgun of the day. And so on and so forth. Today, Winchester 1897’s in original military-issued condition fetch a very steep price for their collectible value.

    The whole “military style” weapon boogieman is a canard. It should be ridiculed and debunked as one.

    • That is simple. Force them to debate those Wonky statistics. Make them get hysterical in a debate and appear irrational which isn’t a stretch. Their playbook outlines the things they don’t want to do. Also, we need to dismantle the various gun ban lobbies like we have done with the Brady Bunch and HCI over the years.

  22. I do have to give them credit for better messaging this time around. Notice how they trot out “machine gun” Mark Kelly and stuff Carolyn McCarthy and DiFi back in the commie closet. Trotting out the Newtown kids and Gabby Giffords helps them too. Of course we have the word games of “common sense” gun laws and now its about stopping “gun violence” instead of “gun control”

    • From our own legislators they refused to understand the difference between a semi auto and a full auto. Even the DOJ was trying to correct them, and they continued say guns which spray bullets..
      I seriously wanted to slap him up side the head.

  23. No surprise really. Facts can be countered. Emotions, not so much.
    The recent George Zimmerman trial is the perfect example of this.
    Facts are irrelevant, truth is irrelevant, justice, if you can believe it,
    is irrelevant when emotional overload can be exploited for a cause.
    If you want further insight to the M.O. of the Left, read The Crowd
    by Gustave Le Bon. It’s all there. I’m betting that Obama has read it.

  24. We shouldn’t be descending to their level even giving them the satisfaction of arguing on their terms.

    All of their arguments are irrelevant and immaterial, since until the Constitution is amended, the government is expressly forbidden to infringe on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.That means NO LAW. Any gun control law is an infringement, ergo unconstitutional, and so it is null and void.

  25. Come on, TTAG, there is so much here you can unpack and summarize for YOUR readers in the gun community. Like, who are the authors? Where did they go to school? Who funded this study? Who is their “Base”?

  26. Hey, How about reporting how this may the playbook for the Zimmerman Trial? To Wit:

    A majority of non-white audiences report being or personally knowing someone who was a victim of gun violence. (39% for white and 51% for non-white respondents.) p37

  27. The twisted, evil, liberal (democrat) mindset. Communistic, Socialistic, Godless libtards.
    If you vote democrat, you are the problem.

    • Problem is, the Repugnacons are just as bad – they’re loaded with bloodthirsty warmongers and misogynistic theocrats.

  28. Between 2006 and now, more than 50,000 people were killed in drug cartel violence south of theborder.41 Whenthe recovered guns that are used in these crimes are traced, it turns out that 69% of these guns originated from gun dealers in the United States.
    Americans thats your future wothout guns

  29. Beautiful! The enemies of freedom never sleep, and they are intelligent and devious, with lots of money to fund their propaganda and rent-a-crowd demonstrations from assholes who dig their agenda like George Soros and other traitors to freedom.
    Here’s MY DREAM ACT: Canada hereby petitions the government of the United States of America to join the Union.
    Then we Canadians would have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we would have the Second Amendment of one of the most amazing and wonderful documents in recorded history: The Constitution.
    Alas! I can only dream…
    Sign me…
    a reluctant servant of Her Majesty the Queen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *