Americans for Responsible Gun Ownership Playbook Reveals Fundamental Dishonesty of Gun Control Advocates

(courtesy ameircansforresponsiblesolutions.org)

Ask and ye shall receive. Yesterday, I requested a copy of the new gun control playbook created by Americans for Responsible Solutions, the anti-gun org run by lobbyists Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly. An eagle-eyed reader spotted the online text (posted by our ballistic BFFs at Bearing Arms) and sent us a link. Check out this chart:

(courtesy americansforresponsiblesolutions.org)

Right from the start, ARS warns gun control advocates not to use the words “gun control” — even though that’s exactly what they really, really want. A rose by any other name would still smell just as fetid. But what do you expect from a civilian disarmament organization euphemistically called “Americans for Responsible Solutions”?

And then ARS recommends obfuscating their opposition to the NRA by calling their opponents “the gun lobby.”

As you and I know, the “gun lobby” consists of Americans who seek to defend and extend their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. ARS wants citizens to think of those who support firearms freedom as a nameless, formless, evil conspiracy. Something dark and to be feared.

As I mentioned previously, gun control advocates are less likely to give up their reliance on waving the bloody shirt than alcoholics are to give up booze. That’s what the mainstream media wants, and the Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex depends on the “oxygen of [free] publicity” that Margaret Thatcher warned against in her campaign against the IRA. Which is why ARS wants its surrogates to do it better.

“Use statistics that define the problem and reveal effectiveness and need for commonsense gun laws.” In other words, use false and misleading statistics to make the case for “gun violence prevention” (they forgot their own advice). Because the factual facts simply don’t support the case for civilian disarmament.

“Talk about closing loopholes like criminal background checks, stronger, responsible or commonsense gun laws.” But don’t “talk about stricter or new gun control laws.” Because telling the truth gets you nowhere when you’re trying to enact new and stricter gun control laws.

ARS closes by counseling its supporters not to “Talk about creating a national gun registry, or banning or confiscating guns – none of which are policy priorities or have widespread support among gun violence prevention organizations.”

See what they did there? A gun registry and confiscation are not “policy priorities.” But they are in the cards, yes? In other words, ‘be vewy, vewy quiet. We’re hunting gun rights.’

The rest of the document fleshes out these talking points. As expected, it’s a sickening look at the lengths to which gun control advocates will go to disarm civilians. Excepting, of course, police. Because guns in the hands of the state are critical to their true mission in life: the elimination of individual liberty in the name of societal safety.

You have been warned. Now, who will create a pro-gun doc to help supporters of firearms freedom fend off the spin doctors of civilian disarmament?

 

comments

  1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    These morons are losing more and more and they know it.

    All we have to do is take back education and inoculate the youth to their lies and they are finished.

    Just think their heads will explode when new machines gun are legal.

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      It’s really hilarious to me that these people need to be coached on what to say and do. Seriously. They can’t do their own research or make their own logical arguments.

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        And they accuse anyone who challenges their feels with “you’re just repeating the gun-lobby talking points.”

        1. avatar Bill says:

          Isn’t that exactly what YOU just did? Of course people need to be coached on how to express desire for reasonable regulation in a less threatening way. Part of the problem is that in the past, people have relied on overly emotional arguments, usually in response to tragedy, and have sought “solutions” that go WAY too far. The other part of the problem is groups like the NRA who seize upon those fear based arguments and use them to create their own fear based arguments about how everyone to the left of center wants to steal all your guns and tyrannically rule over you. BOTH sides need to calm down, be reasonable and generate genuine dialogue to create real and sustainable solutions. Giffords suggestions are aimed in that direction, and I applaud her for it. Note how she did NOT jump to the extreme like Sarah Brady did after her husband was shot.

      2. avatar younggun21 says:

        They need to be coached because it is a culture war. When the have surrogates going around asking for gun confiscation or “ending gun violence” it gets called out. People rightly point out neither of these things are going to be possible or plausible and the public sees them for what they really are. Coaching up surrogates allows for the pot to be heated slowly and before you know it, its boiling over like in MA.

    2. avatar Stuart K says:

      You can’t really overstate the importance of taking back the education system. This is the whole reason we have to fight so hard to begin with.

  2. avatar strych9 says:

    Kudos to whoever found this yesterday. I was amused that when it was asked for it showed up in the comment section extremely rapidly. Good work on that!

    Also, due to confusion on another thread I am obligated to point out that “Strych9” is not me. I suspect it’s the guy who was very, very interested in the size of my penis on the thread for yesterday’s pocket dump but I can’t prove that. Either way, it’s a troll’s attempt at hijacking my name. So yeah, that capital S or general race baiting/religion bashing denotes that it isn’t me.

    [You can still count on me for general jackassery though. 😉 ]

    1. avatar FormerWaterWalker says:

      Relax strych9. You’re not the only one targeted by trolls. Although(if it’s not the same goofball) you have an especially idiotic one attacking you. As far as this post-“for the children”…”gun violence” and “climate change” come to mind in the Newspeak world we live in. “The most qualified person to EVER run for president!” LOL

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        I’m perfectly calm and quite relaxed.

        As I said, there was some confusion on another thread as to if I had suddenly lost my mind or if my name was being hijacked. I’m just clearing up that confusion.

    2. avatar Mr. Woodcock says:

      Thanks for clarifying. I have seen your comments before on TTAG and the imposter did not seem to convey your style or sentiments toward the 2A.

  3. avatar Specialist38 says:

    George Orwell is laughing his ass off somewhere.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      If he were alive, he would probably be laughing with them. He was, I believe, a communist also.

      1. avatar JAlan says:

        That he was, but he was also pro-gun. That was the default position back then. MLK was a socialist, but that didn’t stop him from wanting to be armed. Self-defense is natural for everyone that does not rely on others to protect them. It is only the modern liberal that is not connected to the rest of the world that has the luxury of delegating his defense to someone else.

        1. avatar waffensammler98 says:

          Hate to nitpick, but…

          Orwell was your typical, early 20th century British socialist. He was more vocal than others in calling out fellow Brits for giving Stalin a pass, especially the journalists who visited the mock towns, cities, and prison camps of the 30’s. During his volunteer service in the Spanish Civil War, he saw how the Stalinist militia tried to purge the Republican side of all deviants with fanatical violence. This led to the destruction of the outfit Orwell served in, and left him with a bitter hatred of anything Soviet-backed for the rest of his life. The purges were also militarily counterproductive, as the war was still very much on. Homage to Catalonia was one of the few truly good books I had to read in college. It also has one of, if not the best at-length description of what it feels like to get shot.

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        Orwell was a socialist, but he was rabidly against totalitarianism. He would probably have been classified more of an anarchist than anything else, as he was a staunch proponent of personal liberty and voluntarism, and deeply distrustful of government in all forms.

        Orwell on guns: “That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

        He also believed that the Home Guard, the militia organized to defend the British isles against a Nazi invasion, should remain armed after the war ended. On the subject of guns, Orwell seems to have been with us more than against us.

      3. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        The earlier replies are correct: idealistic socialist, rabid anti-totalitarian.

        He was a bit of a utopian socialist, kind of as a background impulse, with the skepticism from living in the world right up front: strong strains of anti-oligarchy, anti-cronyism, anti-imperialism. He reads to me like a clear-eyed idealist; too clear-eyed to avoid the contradictions between the “socialist” ideal and the power-seeking reality.

        Along with his more famous works, “Politics and the English Language” is pretty much required reading. Any of the collections of his essays makes a good read. Most interesting are the radio scripts – he worked doing British broadcast radio, in India, during WWII. Interesting mix of preferences to find himself in.

        While “1984” is about the dehumanization of a totalitarian govt, “Animal Farm” is a direct take on how the collectivist ideal gets hijacked by the worst people. AFAIK they didn’t read each other, but Hayek’s chapter on the rise of the worst in “The Road to Serfdom” could be the plot arc for “Animal Farm.” Given that the novel was written as a take on the collapse and corruption of the grand Soviet experiment, complete with the main characters almost too easily identifiable – Lenin, Trotsky – maybe the Nobel Prize winning economist was on to something.

  4. avatar gs650g says:

    I like the picture of gabby shooting guns and having a grand old time. Remind her supporters of that.

    1. avatar Stusherman says:

      Wow! Where can I find that??

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        Here’s one:

        http://www.insideedition.com/images/stories/1307/6598.jpg

        This one from the same sequence.

        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/02/article-2353443-1A9E522D000005DC-72_634x375.jpg

        Note the sling contraption on her arm… if it is not immediately obvious these photos are after she was shot.

        1. avatar Sunshine_Shooter says:

          Haha, now those are something to save for later! Thanks for the links!

  5. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

    Of course the facts are not on their side, but to most leftists, the facts aren’t important. The basic strategy of the left on guns, indivudual liberty or anything else they are against is pretty basic:

    1. Spread misinformation and lies leading to IGNORANCE.

    2. Compound the ignorance with emotional appeal leading people to FEAR what they do not understand.

    3. Then blame a group of people (Christians, NRA supporters, Jews… It doesn’t much matter) for the fear, encouraging people to HATE what they fear and anyone associated with it.

    No, I didn’t lift that DIRECTLY from the Democratic Party platform, but if you read carefully between the lines, it’s in there.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      Isnt all of this in Saul Alinski’s RULES FOR RADICALS?

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        It could be… If it is he likely stole it from the Nazis or perhaps from Attila the Hun. /;-)

    2. avatar strych9 says:

      Step 0.5: Take over the educational system to prevent people from learning how to think critically or do a modicum of research on claims presented to them.

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        Good point.

        These days, if your child is in a public school, you’re probably guilty of child abuse.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          LOL I can’t disagree with that.

          I’m constantly amazed by the idiocy I see on the internet. I’m just like “Jesus people, you have the worlds most advanced system for finding information and fact checking literally at your fingertips yet you either don’t know how to use it or simply refuse to.”

          The truth is it’s mostly the former. They’ve been taught how to be a drone rather than a thinking human being. Sure, there’s some people out there who actively work at being retarded, but mostly people have been trained to just accept what they’re told as fact.

  6. avatar Daily Beatings says:

    The “gun lobby” is the NSSF, just like the AHA is the “hospital lobby”, the NAR is the “real estate lobby”, and DISCUS is the “booze lobby”.

  7. avatar James says:

    “Because guns in the hands of the state are critical to their true mission in life: the elimination of individual liberty in the name of societal safety.”

    Because guns in the hands of the state are critical to their true mission in life: the elimination of individual liberty in the name of totalitarian government control of the citizenry.

    Fixed that for ya.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      …and enrich certain politicians at the same time.

      /refixed.

  8. avatar DickDanger says:

    I couldn’t finish the article because the group’s initials are ARS, which looks like “arse” and I got a good laugh out of it.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      I kept thinking of AR-15’s, plural. But ARSe fits them better.

  9. avatar MiniMe says:

    “Fundamental Dishonesty of Gun Control Advocates”

    So, gun control liars are still lying? Well, DUH!

  10. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “ARS warns gun control advocates not to use the words “gun control” — even though that’s exactly what they really, really want.”

    To be fair, they’re not really after “gun control” per se. They’re after people control. The guns are just something that gets in the way of that.

  11. avatar CCDWGuy says:

    “Now, who will create a pro-gun doc to help supporters of firearms freedom fend off the spin doctors of civilian disarmament?”

    That document would be the Constitution and the specifics would be the Second Amendment

  12. avatar Shire-man says:

    They’ve been trying to get newsies to adopt this for at least two years now. This is the second or third time Gabby and Bloomberg have rolled out this manual. Every once in a while I’ll hear one catch himself like “Congress is set to discuss gun con….. safety legislation this week”

    Very few seem to be able to hide their true disdain for the 2nd and as such can’t maintain their composure long enough to stick to the script.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      To pull a quote from Range 15 (saw that last night)

      [In reference to entering a house where everyone has committed suicide in horrific ways to avoid being a zombie and there are anti-gun posters on the wall]

      Nick Palmisciano (the guy from Ranger Up) says “People hate guns until they’re throat fucking themselves with a hot curling iron”.

  13. avatar pod says:

    They’re still beating up that 40 percent BS from the 1990s? That stat is pre-NICS.

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      I had a thought about that the other day: If the stat is true (it’s not, but let’s pretend for a minute), that means millions of guns every year are bought without a background check. There were something like 20 millions NICS checks for firearm purchases last year. If 40 percent of guns are bought without a background check, that would mean 13 million additional guns were bought without a NICS check last year. Okay, so there were about 8000 homicides committed with firearms in the same time period. If background checks are so necessary to prevent gun violence, shouldn’t there be a LOT more dead bodies somewhere? THIRTEEN MILLION guns, if their stat is to be believed, made their way into unapproved hands last year, but only managed to kill 8000 people (disregarding for the moment that that 8000 includes people shot by NICS-approved firearms as well as “illegal” guns).

      Either that 40 percent number is pure hogwash, or background checks aren’t all that necessary after all. Or both.

      1. avatar Bob R says:

        I think we should stop using the phrase “gun violence.” Guns are not violent. And that is exactly what the phrase means: ‘violent guns’. Words have meaning and the phrase “gun violence” should be reserved for the morons who made it up.

      2. avatar Ken says:

        Stop making scene! Only politician types are allowed to make scene. Let’s see, take personal protection away from intelligent law abiding citizens and in turn read articles on how military advancement is acceleration in new more lethal weapons and ammunition… well go figure. Sounds like the “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones” are fulfilling prophesy. Just saying.

  14. avatar Kroglikepie says:

    The way to combat all of this nonsense is quite simple really. You don’t have to disprove anything at all in fact. You just use their arguments against them.

    They base their laws off the idea that “you’re only giving up this little freedom for this great gain of safety”. Well, time and time again these stupid laws are proven not to make us any safer. So why do we have to give up freedom? I don’t have to prove that having a gun makes me more safe. I just have to show it doesn’t make me less safe.

  15. avatar OakRiver says:

    The oxygen of publicity failed. When Gerry Adams voice was banned by the BBC voice actors reading his statements on that channel started to impersonate him.

    What is most noticeable about this is the break from Rules for Radicals; no longer are they personalizing the issue to freeze it or ridicule it. That has failed so they must ignore a key tenant.

  16. avatar michi says:

    Exception: All of the ‘donts’ become ‘dos’ with the little *asterisk: “except when referring to ‘assault weapons'”

    It’s interesting to me how they speak this way. Nobody wants to take your guns. We just want common sense safety reforms, background checks. Except for “assault weapons”, nobody should have those and hells yeah we want to ban those but — you’re a rational gun owner, right? (nervous laugh) Nobody ~actually~ owns an AR or AK except crazy people, right?

    I find this to be the case all the time. Sure, yes, they want to take all guns. But even when saying “we don’t want to take anyone’s guns”, they *mean* and it’s *implied* even to them, “Hah no we don’t want to take your guns, so long as they have wood on them.”

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “But even when saying “we don’t want to take anyone’s guns”, they *mean* and it’s *implied* even to them, “Hah no we don’t want to take your guns, so long as they have wood on them.”

      H’mm. Yes. Well now. There’s always this, then:

      http://www.blackgunswood.com/products.html

      Playing with their heads is *always* fun… 🙂

  17. avatar Bernard Samartsev says:

    “Common sense gun laws” at work:
    US has gun-free zones and mass shootings. Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles and New York have strict gun laws and gangs.
    France, Germany, Sweden and UK have strict gun laws and “rapefugees”.
    Russia (I live here) has strict gun laws and all sorts of criminals.
    South Africa has strict gun laws and farm attacks.

    However, law-abiding citizens should give up their rights because criminals need “safe spaces” (gun-free zones). No one should hurt criminals’ feelings by fighting back.

    “Common sense gun laws will stop gun violence” is just another leftist myth like “race and gender are social constructs”, “homosexuals are born that way”, “only whites can be racist”, “only men can be sexist” and “white cishet male privilege”.

    There are a lot of pro-gun articles, videos and documents. Leftists just don’t bother to see them because truth, facts and reason are “scary patriarchal instruments of white supremacists” and “gun nuts are racist rednecks anyway”. Leftists prefer to live in their fantasy world, making fairy tales and thinking you can solve the problem by ignoring it or blaming someone else for it.

  18. avatar Kyle (in Upstate New York) says:

    They also cite the bogus 40% statistic regarding background checks, and then claim the NRA is a gun industry lobby all about profits.

  19. avatar Henry says:

    “Now, who will create a pro-gun doc to help supporters of firearms freedom fend off the spin doctors of civilian disarmament?”

    Like Alan Korwin did?

    http://www.gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm

  20. avatar Desert Ranger says:

    1. Name the political arm of the first Gun Control Group in the USA?
    A – the KKK, on behalf of slave owners.

    2. Name the reason why the American Revolution occurred.
    A- Gun control- the British Military was trying to confiscate the firearms of their American colonies’ citizens.

    3. Name all mass shooters who voted Democrat. Now do the same for those who voted Republican. What pattern emerges?

    4. Were the Nazi’s conservatives or socialists? How did they use gun control to disarm the minorities they later massacred?

  21. avatar Brian says:

    If/when someone asks you “What would you think/do if you saw a muslim walking around with a rifle on his back?”

    Do NOT answer the question, instead, ask the person “How do I know said person is a Muslim? Is he carrying a copy of the Qoran in his hand asking me to accept Allah into my life through the prophet Muhammad? Is he wearing a shirt that says ‘I am muslim, hear me roar’?” Be sure to ask again: “So how do I know he is a muslim?”

    Their question is meant to be a race baiting question as they are assuming you’re thinking all muslims are middle eastern. By asking them how you are supposed to know if they are muslim or not redirects their race baiting back towards them. If they tell you because the person is of middle eastern heritage, remind them that not all middle east countries practice the muslim faith- Isreal, for instance- and not all muslims are from the middle east- India, Bangladesh and Indonesia, for example, have a high population that practices islam. Also tell them there are a few celebrities that practice islam- Muhammad Ali, Shaq, Janet Jackson, Dave Chappelle, and Mike Tyson, to name a few.

    If you want to stoop to their level, call them a racist after you explain everything to them.

  22. avatar Ken says:

    Let’s see, take personal protection away from intelligent law abiding citizens and in turn read articles on how military advancement in acceleration with new more lethal weapons and ammunition… well go figure. Sounds like the “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones” are fulfilling prophesy. Just saying.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email