“When a man can walk around with a weapon unchecked, scared, jumpy and paranoid of the perceived threat of criminals and terrorists, in one single moment he may become a tyrant through the threat and use of deadly force.” My initial reaction to this quote from a letter to the editor posted at Tennessee’s dnj.com: I don’t think the word “tyrant” means what you think it means. Or, more to the point, what you want it to mean. As America struggles to understand why our President can’t string together the phrase, “Islamic terrorism,” I think it’s important to highlight the fact that anti-gunners seek to further their civilian disarmament agenda by manipulating the language. Here are three prime examples . . .
“Gun Sense”
When PR flack Shannon Watts launched her anti-gun crusade she called it One Million Moms for Gun Control. (A fact missing from the above video.) Watts quickly realized that A) there weren’t anywhere near a million potential supporters and B) the NRA had at least four million members. And so she re-branded her Facebook-based astroturf organization Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.
So what, pray tell, is “gun sense”? I suppose you could say “Look at the way John’s handling that firearm. That man’s got gun sense!” In other words, John is “sensible” around guns. Safe. Or, I dunno, instinctively expert. In fact, “gun sense” is a made-up phrase that’s never once passed the lips of gun owners.
Because Watts created the term “gun sense” out of whole cloth, no doubt riffing on “common sense,” MDA is free to define the term as they please. For Watts’ mob, “gun sense” is what the general population should use to decide that any law infringing upon Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms – in the name of public safety – is a good thing. Because the facts and reason simply don’t support that position, gun sense is nonsense. Literally. Dangerous nonsense.
“Gun violence”
“Gun violence” is violence committed with a gun. It seems like a concise and fairly harmless term. A gang banger shot and killed by a rival died from gun violence. Fair enough. Of course, it’s then also true that a person stabbed to death by a mugger was the victim of “knife violence.” And a person killed in a car crash wherein they were blind-sided by another driver was the victim of “car violence.”
The Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex (including their media enablers) use the term – where advocates for other public safety issues do not deploy anything similar – because “gun violence” draws attention away from the perpetrator and towards the weapon used to commit the crime. The implication: pay no attention to the perpetrator behind the curtain. Control the gun (through gun control) and you control “gun violence.”
To increase the emotional impact of this misleading terminology, gun control advocates add firearms-related suicides into “gun violence” statistics. (Not to mention categorizing teenage gang members shot and killed during the course of their criminal activities as “children” to inflate the number of “children killed by gun violence.”) This amplifies the perceived scope of the problem even as it obscures its source. A tautological twofer.
In short, the term “gun violence” is an extremely effective example of semiolinguistic manipulation: changing human perception by changing the language. And not in a good way.
“Gun safety”
About a year ago, the Huffington Post and the anti-gun talking heads at msnbc started using the term “gun safety” to refer to legislative efforts to degrade or destroy Americans’ gun rights. They were following the lead of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s marketing mavens. By then, Hizzoner had more-or-less abandoned the civilian disarmament crusade known as Mayors Against Gun Violence [see: above] to launch a broader effort awkwardly titled Everytown for Gun Safety.
The new name is an attempt to rebrand “gun control” as something more benign and thus more palatable to voters who view government control of any aspect of their life with suspicion, if not outright antagonism, a trend that seems to be increasing in what the Mayor and his ilk consider flyover country. The phrase “gun safety” implies that civilian disarmament makes everyone (in Everytown) safer.
Of course, the exact opposite is true, which only highlights the none-too-subtle Orwellian nature of the re-branding effort. Equally, unlike the term “gun sense,” “gun safety” is in common use. Search “gun safety” on Google. The overwhelming majority of hits (102m) are about being safe with a gun – not trying to curtail firearms ownership or use. Search the same term in YouTube and you’ll see dozens of videos about being safe with a gun.
Even the Everytown for Gun Safety video on gun safety above is about . . . wait for it . . . gun safety. In that case, Bloomberg’s minions are trying to link gun safety to gun control, rather than substitute one term for the other. Why? Because the term “gun safety” as a euphemism for gun control doesn’t work. You can expect this phrase to die out, making way for something just as misguided, misleading and mistaken – as the war of words surrounding the battle to protect our gun rights continues.
Here’s one for Bloomie’s efforts:
Dad gun foolishness.
Excellent article. Now, how can we counter-act this? Getting into an argument with someone who isn’t interested in guns doesn’t help. How about we call attention to it in such a way as to reveal the nonsense?
When the topic turns to ISIS, Charlie Hebdo, Mall-of-America or the like we remark: “We have got to do something about this problem of gun violence”. When a gang killing in Chicago occurs we remark: “Why doesn’t anyone want to deal with this gun safety problem?”
There are commercials for charities who work with wounded vets. We remark: “How can we control IED violence?” Or, “Why doesn’t the Pentagon do more about IED safety?”
Somebody is killed by a knife: “Can’t the legislature do something to keep knives out of the hands of criminals?”
You get the idea; there are probably better remarks and better occasions to use them.
The objective is to inspire the listener to see that our remarks don’t ring true; and, moreover, that the are so fallacious that we (the speakers) can’t possibly believe what we are saying. We must be speaking sarcastically. Next time they hear the phrase “gun violence” or “gun safety” it will resonate. Is Shannon Watts being sarcastic? Or, does she really believe what she is saying?
When a rape or other crime of violence is in the news: “If only we could teach these children to respect other people and their property! We wouldn’t have to walk on the streets in fear for our safety.” “If only everyone had 911 on speed-dial, we could always call the cops as soon as some kid attacked a victim.” “If only the town would put a cop on every street corner then we would be safe!”
Would this work? If so, then all we would have to do is compile a list of Anti- NewSpeak arguments and a few remarks to counter them. By sprinkling them into our conversation they would spread.
Two can play this game, and RF has been out front of one such effort.
Our “hot button” terms need to be “self defense” and “civilian disarmament.” Push those into the anti’s faces at every opportunity; e.g., “do you believe people [especially women] ought be be able to defend themselves from crime?”; “what you really want is to disarm civilians, right?”
The answers are, of course, obvious: the Shannon’s of the world *don’t* like self defense (“leave such matters to the police”), and they’d love to disarm everyone (except the police and their bodyguards, naturally). Push them hard enough and they will admit it (e.g., the state reps in NJ and NY who admitted that their real goal was confiscation).
And of course when they do so, they go down in flames — because the vast majority of people in this country recoil from such positions.
And so I thought before I read this article. But, that’s what the Anti’s are expecting. They have their answers. Frankly, I’m not much interested in talking to the Antis. It’s the uncommitted that I think we need to focus on. The problem with the uncommitted is that they aren’t ready to think about “self defense” or “civilian disarmament”. These ideas mean nothing to them.
Ask a coed who has to walk through a dark parking lot after class late at night. Asker what tshe thinks about self-defense. If you could get inside her head what is going on in there is likely “I don’t want to think about self-defense.” “I want the campus police to rescue me.”
RF got me to start to think about turning the Antis’ NewSpeak on themselves. “Vehicle violence”, “knife violence”, “blunt object violence”. If these terms don’t ring-true as a valid description of the problem then the next time our uncommitted person hears “gun violence” the light might go on.
RF is calling to our attention the power of words in NewSpeak as illustrated in Orwell’s 1984 classic. Why do they use this technique? Because it works? What do we do to counter-act this technique? Speaking in rational terms hasn’t seemed to work well enough to penetrate the masses.
Read the books:
“Army of Davids”, and “Trust Me I’m Lying”, so you understand how social media and planted articles are “traded up the chain” to generate clicks, revenue, and provide “approved” content for credible outlets like CBS, CNN, MSNBC, WAPO and NYT, and the echo chambers that support them- Vox, Politico, HuffPo, Slate, MM, etc etc.
As an individual you can contribute to the push-back, starting right here at TTAG, simply by reading and connecting yourself, commenting in such a way “a clean well-lit room” that makes TTAG valuable, for comments as well as great content (thank you writers and staff you are incredible at cranking out good stuff every day – and “content is king”, still)
via what ever means you the reader might like, to your own Fakebook, Twitter, Disqus, WordPress, G+, Reddit, etc and via other aggregators to generate same visiility for the source article and TTAG. If you find something good on another gun-site, share it back and give credit. Same for middle of the road and conservative news outlets or blogs, anywhere freedom lovers and those becoming one, need to hear about TTAG. Synergy, multiplication, and unique content equals revenue and influence.
You can also hijack the flow a bit at other lefty antigun sites, by dropping links into their forum posts-
and be unique – dont be a dick, provide something useful- facts, reason, a “hook” thats a win to the independent reader that might be lurking there-
And note thats EXACTLY why many left wing sites moderate or simple ban links within posts or drop out posters who say anything counter to the narrative, like the obvious censorship at MDA on Fakebook,
and NYT, and those who abuse the pressure of the crowd, and paid trollers who generate for likes, up votes, and “report” or down vote opposing views. Read about the gaming at Reddit to understand the mechanism.
This is a ‘system’ of propagandizing that is quite deliberately manipulated or controlled by site hosts, like NYT, HuffPo and others, including expanding commenting systems. Go to the partner page of Disqus currently are something like 9 to 1 left vs moderate- just like Kim Kardashian and the WH websites have ridiculous numbers of likes and Twitter followers- this is part from the audience, and partly from purchased fake accounts, via Chinese brokers and other SEO outlets.
So dont waste too much time on the places where the thought control is obvious- go instead to the middle of the road, where some credibility and editorial control is hopefully in effect- and drop information, links, and target the indendent reader, with links or references to get them to come back back to TTAG or the source article. THAT is how you make an impact. An Army of Davids. We will never reach the LIVs or hard core believers on the left- what you are looking for is the middle, the swing vote, the Silent Majority, they used to call it. THEY ARE LOOKING FOR FACTS, smart debate with counterpoints, and rational discourse. Not name calling or outrage. Thats the modus operandi of the Left, remember- Alinsky’s rules?
Most people get a clue as they get older- find a job, save for a mortgage, have kids and are connected with the facts of life- including and especially the Millenials, who are already are very hip to being marketed to on the internet, and the polls and surveys show THEY GET the massive lie that is the Hope and Change progressive propaganda for the last 6 years.
Thats not me alleging it- its the undeniable facts of surveys, polls, vote results and the outcomes in dropping Nielsen Ratings, site page views, hard copy and digital subscriptions losses, which turn into ad revenue and other revenue dropping off the cliff, and reflected in the plummeting stock price of places like NYT, CNN, MSNBC HuffPo and others. Why do you suppose the Left is sounding so desperate, doubling down, pushing Executive Action, and lying even more- thats ALL THEY GOT, and the more they do- the more obvious it becomes…so dont PUSH BACK on their name calling and nastiness. Just stick with calm facts, confidence and adult behavior- same way you deal with teenagers if you have been through that. Same exact mental and emotional stage of development- narcissistic self-centered, boundary crossing and manipulative until you teach limits and consequences, and how to live in the big world.
You cant stop the signal, and if you want to help, just spread the word.
If you want to give it some flavor and oomph, then I recommend you “Push back twice as hard” as one famous pundit has said, and “Mock Them” with humor- that goes a LONG way on places like Twitter, and gives people a way to blow off steam. Read Instapundit, PJ Media writers, Powerline, SultanKnish, Mark Steyn, and any number of others who apply the same formula of wit, with an intelligence that stands out all by itself, and becomes the obvious contrast that makes Leftys and Progtards heads explode.
Here- dont dignify trolls with a response, and outside of here, just dont waste time in places where the thought control is so thick you wont find anyone with any common-sense. Those are all true believers who need others to tell them they are part of the kool kid klub. You cant teach a pig to dance, and why give them a click anyway? Its like trying to reform a wet alcoholic- you cant do it- they have to hit bottom on their own.
Finally- dont waste time and energy in useless and negative circular firing squads among the POTG, other than polite debate on the facts, and dont forget to give credit and links and eyeballs to other gun-sites and interested sites where newbs can find out about TTAG and come here. Its not a zero sum game- the more the merrier. Remember, the linkage and page views equals ads works the same on the right and middle as it does on the left.
The right and center major outlets are all looking for content just like the left- why do you suppose Drudge has such huge impact? Brietbart? The Blaze? Townhall? and so on- they provide news, analysis and a world view that is lacking on the mass media, and growing just like talk radio did, to fulfill a pent up need.
There is a great sea-change underway. Just go with the flow and do your part. it will get worse before it gets better, but when the cracks in the wall show up, its right around the corner- Remember the fall of the Berlin Wall, the fall of the Soviet Union? Its just math, in the end, and what moves everyone- especially in the middle is the pocketbook. Get ready because its going to be painful, too. But thats another topic, and OT, here.
Let’s just look at the first clause of their “hook phrase,” the one used to hook people in.
““When a man can walk around with a weapon unchecked, scared, jumpy and paranoid of the perceived threat of criminals and terrorists…”
A lawful gun owner and carrier is NOT “unchecked”. He or she IS checked — by the law, and by their own sense of duty and honor. The problem is that CRIMINAL gun users are NOT checked by the law — by ANY law — and they have no sense of duty or honor. What this attempts to do is to project the unlawful, dishonorable nature of the criminal upon those who are NOT.
“scared, jumpy and paranoid” are not terms I would use to describe myself when I am carrying my firearm. I actually feel confident, calm, and rational, BECAUSE I am carrying my firearm! It’s the old joke — “You carry a gun…what are you so afraid of?” “Nothing, because I carry a gun.”
You’re not paranoid if there really is someone out to get you. “Paranoia” is an irrational fear where there is nothing to be afraid of. If you are perceiving threats, it’s not irrational, it’s reasoned. If you can perceive the threat, it’s not paranoia — and there HAVE been terrorist acts on our soil, and crime DOES happen. They’re not common, everyday occurrences, but neither do you have car crashes every day — but you still fasten your seat belt, and you have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers, even though YOUR house may never have burned down before. You carry a gun for the uncommon event of potential tragedy. The news is full of such events, so why are we “paranoid” if we’re concerned about them?
Basically, that first sentence, designed to hook us in emotionally to make us read the whole thing, is hogwash.
When a man can walk around with a weapon unchecked, scared, jumpy and paranoid of the perceived threat of criminals and terrorists…
Typical progressive projection – that’s all that is. Of course, combined with efforts to reshape the narrative, it can be quite emotionally persuasive.
When it suits them they are scared, jumpy, and paranoid of criminals and terrorists. Then they use that to say guns shouldn’t exist.
They happen to be more paranoid, if we are paranoid at all, since we are considering legitimate dangers, criminals and terrorists with immediate intent to harm or kill us, and they are afraid of everyday people, literally everyone they could come in contact with. That is compartmentalized of course, otherwise they wouldn’t leave the house. I suspect when they do leave the house they forget guns even exist, which is also part of why their “movement” never actually moves on anything.
Remaining in denial of reality in order to function is hardly healthy, but does explain quite a bit.
I’m scared of terrorists, mass murderers and school shootings, so I’m just using “gun sense” to restrict access to pistols and outlaw assault weapons.
But if you want to carry a gun to defend against these threats, you’re just a paranoid gun nut that has John Wayne fantasies that’s compensating for a small penis.
What I want to know is how can a brain contain such diametrically opposed concepts without exploding.
It appears to me that many of them have brains which HAVE exploded!
Great article, Robert F.
@ Gwen; thanks for an excellent dissection of the rhetorical, misleading misrepresentation of an everyday CCW citizen by the dnj.com letter to the editor submitter. Reading that letter led me to believe it was written by an anti-constitutionalist anti-gun subversive operator (and convenient proponent of a so-called “living Constitution”) from among the Bloomberg crew.
No doubt, “Chris Curtis ” wants the Second Amendment to die.
“Assault rifle”
“High capacity magazine”
“Military grade”
“Military style assault shotgun?”
All designed to induce shock and horror. No lowly taxpayer needs such a thing. Until perhaps the next earthquake, riot, hurricane, etc.
At that point it would be damn handy to be standing out in front of your home or place of business with the most effective tool you can get your hands on. The riots in Ferguson and the Rodney King riots being two large-scale examples. Although the Laker Championship riots in LA got pretty nuts as well.
My personal favorites come from De Leon:
“sniper automatic weapons”
“gun engines”
“barrel protector”
“ghost gun”
“This right here has ability with a 30-caliber clip to disperse with 30 bullets within half a second. 30-magazine clip in half a second….”
The Chief in the background of the linked picture below looks like he isn’t sure exactly what he is hearing…
http://cdn.bearingarms.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/sheriff.png
For me to “disperse with 30 bullets within half a second” is to eject the fully loaded magazine onto the ground 😛
😮
Thanks for the LOL.
Gun Safety is simple. Loaded and chambered all the time. If children are in the home, the gun is locked in a safe whenever it isn’t on the body.
We have no children at home so we don’t lock them up.
When my elderly mother comes to live with us, we will teach her gun safety as well. Even take her to the range so she knows how to safely shoot a dirtbag if the need arises.
My college kids already know how to shoot and safely handle all the weapons in our house.
That is all the gun safety people need. It is when gun owners don’t observe proper gun safety the ND’s happen with sometimes fatal results. But more motor vehicle fatalities occur every year from negligent operation than from NDs. Yet nobody is calling for a ban on cars or background checks for car or taking DL from people who shrinks decide are a danger to themselves or others.
Extraordinarily well put.
It occurred to me to wonder why my dad ordered a .22 for me and let me walk out of the store with it alone, with ammo, at age 13. As a young teenager I was NEVER supervised with a gun. However, my parents didn’t let me drive a car alone until I was licensed; that was the law. (Dad drove at the age of 8; no law then.) Why such disparate treatment? Why was the gun treated leniently while the car strictly?
Only recently did it dawn on me. So, the calibre of my .22 was less than 1/4″. The calibre of my Oldsmobile was 72.0, 6′. Under the NFA, the latter would be called a destructive device. Makes sense; Dad had his relative-risk assessment in the right order.
Our society tolerates 16-year-olds driving cars with relatively little training. It allows them to keep their licenses as long as they pay their fines, don’t get caught DWI too many times and refrain from driving during suspensions. Driving-while-Texting or Driving-while-CellPhoneing just gets you a fine. Rolling through a stopping or a yellow light, speeding, neglecting to signal a turn are all treated pretty casually. This is all socially acceptable. No matter how irresponsible an individual might be he can keep his driver’s license as long as he doesn’t run out of “points” or fine money.
A senior citizen carrying a gun in public? The hoplophobes break into a cold sweat, begin to shake uncontrollably. Dial 911 and cry ‘He’s got a gun!”
We need to emphasize how backwards this is to the uncommitted.
But driving is such an integral part of our culture! The 40,000+ deaths, and millions of life-changing injuries, and billions in medical costs and damages a year are just the price we pay and accept for our freedoms to go where we like, when we like, how we like.
ಠ_ಠ
“Gun Safety is simple. Loaded and chambered all the time. If children are in the home, the gun is locked in a safe whenever it isn’t on the body.”
I like where you are going with the first part, not so much the second, then you got back on track with the rest of your comments…
Teaching children is what safety is about, not hiding things from them, much like your mother.
I keep my 30-06 out during hunting season and my kids don’t even bat an eye at the loaded rifle leaned against the fireplace…
The same way they pay no mind to the butcher knives on the kitchen counter, the bleach under the sink, the two EDC pocket knives I leave on my dresser every evening, the electrical sockets that have continuous power running throughout our home, the scalding hot water on tap at very sink, etc.
Danger is everywhere. Safety is about knowledge of dangerous things, not hiding dangerous things.
I think you agree with that, but lost some continuity in the middle there.
You know the guy is an idiot and tool for wannabe tyrrants when he starts out with the constitution being “fluid.” It twists these idiots up that the Bill of Rights is written so clever as to avoid being limited by technology such as computers and word processors on freedom of speech or Cameras on Freedom of press or radio/TV on Freedom of Religion. The 4th and 5th are also immune. The 2A is immune as well be cause the used the terms “bear arms.”
It was “Gun-Control Advocate Looking for a Million Good Moms” in Jan 1013 but they changed it Feb. The washington post article from Feb 2013 is a biased article but it is the only article I could find that mentions the name change. The root basis for the name change is to separate themselves from “gun control” to be more effective at gun control”
“The group’s decision to drop “gun control” from its name is consistent with the messaging strategies adopted by the White House, congressional Democrats and other groups pushing for stricter gun laws that prefer to use terms like “gun violence” or “common-sense reforms” instead of “gun control.””
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/02/20/group-is-fighting-for-gun-control-but-dropping-use-of-the-term/
Gun control advocates who lie so easily make me wish to repurpose the term “pink slime”!
You dare question Newspeak?
Double-plus ungood.
Has Mom’s taken a penny of foreign money to support the overthrow of our Constitution?
“How long will America last?” If the answer is “longer than the lifetime of the author”, I contend that America has already fallen, for there is absolutely no certainty except for the permanent fragility of Society
(further still any of its trappings or encapsulation), the ignorance of which only beckons
Armageddon. AND it (America) requires the very diligence of my mutual support.
Therefore your question should only be “how long will we carry this forward?” for which we
will supply the answer moment to moment. From this standpoint it should be clear that the
rights of citizens are completely separate and distinct from the longevity of America [which]
cannot curtail them (either). We have not the need of America except under which we
collectively say that our ground under GOD is hallowed, and blessed with zero tolerance of
extra-Societal incursion. Continued: NO Government can guarantee its own perpetuity,
Aske then, the question again, “How long will America last?” and let the answer fall as mute
silence. Therefore America should not disarm its citizenry [you and I as a pair and as
individuals] up until the point at which it (America) cannot [can no longer] defend itself, and
it collapses, leaving its citizenry [you and I] stranded.
I, for one, will not allow my government to disarm me for the rest of the world “MOLON
LABE.” The U.S. government, for example, has not protected me against people with
automatic weapons, by banning such weapons, any more than their (such persons) lack of
immediate desire (their piqued desire) to do me harm; so that the government is still only be
protecting me after-the-fact. “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates” – Tacitus.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous
servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington. http://quotes4all.net/ [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012, pg. 51]
“Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into
slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
Why do it for another?” ( Paine Common Sense pg. 47)
When ancient philosophers were developing (or at least codifying) the basic principles of formal logic, on the other side of town there was a faction who said, “Screw logic. We want to win elections.” The latter faction developed rhetoric, and it’s been a plague on every attempt at democracy from then until now.
I see the current gun control industrial complex having a branding problem. They want to get away from the “gun control” moniker, but can’t settle on a single “newspeak” term. As you said RF, we have a few to choose from including gun safety, gun violence prevention, gun sense, etc.
They really tried pushing “gun safety” as their main ‘go to’ term for quite a while after Sandy Hook, but while the American public might be as stupid as Johnathan Gruber proclaimed, re-branding gun control as gun safety still confuses their target audience.
I have seen more articles that are referencing MDA and Everytown as “gun violence prevention” groups. A lot of articles don’t even use Everytown’s full name (dropping the ‘gun safety’ part). Our wordsmithing social justice warrior opponents are continually making up words and phrases from “cultural appropriation” to “the progressive stack”, but they only seem to have any traction inside their own groups (gee, I wonder why?). This seems to lead to a kind of Ouroborotic behavior where SJW’s attack their own more than their opposition (see: the athiest+ movement, cancel colbert, will wheaton, and a number of other bs faux outrage slacktivisim campaigns on Twitter and Tumblr).
Hopefully they either consume themselves or remain a fractured mess for decades to come (but keep your powder dry).
A big object passing through your vaginal hole does not give you any wisdom other than maybe knowing what pain is. Just as me shooting my sperm into a vaginal opening doesn’t give me any wisdom other than knowing what pleasure is.
Being a “mom” or “dad” is not a mark that you can speak on topics with authority just because you have a kid (something 12 year old people can have). Not even on parenting or children.
“Constitutionally protected”
“Assault Weapon”
“Illegal Gun”
“Gun Rights”
“When a [police]man can walk around with a weapon unchecked, scared, jumpy and paranoid of the perceived threat of criminals and terrorists, in one single moment he may become a tyrant through the threat and use of deadly force.”
FIFY.
Yep…exactly my thoughts.
If words matter, and I believe they do, what words could be used to describe the idea that taking firearms away from me over here makes someone else over there safe?
I hate it when the anti-gun mental midgets uses words such as assault gun, gun sense, and all of the other anti-gun code words, but, as soon as we start explaining the actual definition of the words “militia”, “well regulated”, and “arms”, they start yelling at us for using semantics to change the definition of the 2nd amendment. They also love to ignore the last four words of the 2nd amendment too. Hypocrisy is their biggest tool and they’re not afraid to use it.
Excellent article – highlights the importance of public relations and public perception. And this, in my humble opinion, is why open carry demos do more harm than good. No one on the fence between gun control and gun rights is going to look at an open carry demo and say, “You know what? They’re right! They have guns and they aren’t dangerous! After witnessing this, I shall be pro-2A hereafter!” No, people see it and are turned away, and subsequently perceive all pro-2A people as gun nuts.
It is all about public perception. If the public perceives guns (and by association the pro-2A crowd) as dangerous crazies, we will lose our rights.
The word “violence” itself is used to conflate actions taken to save/defend life, limb, and property of people with those taken to murder, injure, and steal from people. It squeezes out the matter of intent, which is crucial, but it is inconvenient for them when talking about actions.
It is long past time to enact strict , common sense , First Amendment Control against those who do not conform to our opinion. In the name of diversity , those who oppose self defense should be punished for thinking otherwise. For the sake of inclusion , their ideas will not be aired .For the sake of tolerance our viewpoint only matters.
I have a much simpler solution. Stop letting the gun grabbers frame the narrative. More specifically, stop letting the gun grabbers rope us into defending our right to keep and bear arms.
Put gun grabbers on the defensive: tell them that anyone dictating what personal property we can own and possess is patently offensive, obscene, and an affront to our humanity. Period.
Along the same lines, tell the gun grabbers that we are tired of both society and government viewing us like something between criminals and second class citizens.
Ask a gun grabber how degrading it would be if they had to pass a background check every time before being able to exercise free speech or every time before attending church. Ask them how degrading it would be if they had to pass a background check before purchasing a shovel, a pressure cooker, or a car. Ask them how degrading it would be if the background check often took three days.
Gun grabbers go to church?
Then we have statements like this one from the video Moms promotional video, “Background checks take 90 seconds.”
Except for the tens of thousands of times every year when they take hours or days … like on weekends and especially the Friday after Thanksgiving.
I was in a local gun store this Saturday and a person was in the process of purchasing a handgun. The store submitted the buyer’s information for a background check. The store informed the buyer that NCIS could not confirm and the buyer would have to return in three days to pick up his handgun. But they comforted him with the fact that his handgun would be in the store safe waiting for him.
In my world three days does NOT equal 90 seconds. A three day delay is an insult. Imagine going to the store to purchase groceries and the store tells you have to pass a background check … and then tells you you will have to come back in three days to pick up your groceries. How about purchasing a computer at your local store and having to return in three days — after 15 minutes of filing out papers of course?
Congress will NEVER be able to take away gun rights. There are simply too many hunters.
No legislation can address every scenario. I, nor anyone else who hunts, needs anything but a hunting license. Intent of gun possession is the question. I open or concealed carry everyday, everywhere. If I am asked about my possession of my weapon, and there are SCOTUS case laws that prohibit law enforcement from asking without probable cause, I am always hunting. Even while grocery shopping, I am hunting.
With automatic doors, it is possible that a varmint could enter into any establishment. Where I live, the public authority has time and time again upheld hunting rights. If my local officials did not uphold hunting rights, they would be voted out of office. Even though the State Attorney’s office says it is illegal to discharge a weapon within 100 yards of any home, I have local law enforcement recorded on a phone conversation in regard to the comments made by the State’s Attorney saying; “That is only an opinion and we (Local Law Enforcement) will not prevent anyone from hunting inside the City.
Can you say Loophole? There never should be any loophole needed if our officials keep the oath of office they took. I nor anyone should be taxed to use a right first given us by God, then specifically outlined in the Bill of Rights.
“When a man can walk around with a weapon unchecked, scared, jumpy and paranoid of the perceived threat of criminals and terrorists, in one single moment he may become a tyrant through the threat and use of deadly force.”
Let’s go down this list of assumptions and debunk each one, shall we.
Unchecked
In order to legally carry a firearm on your person when not in your home, you have to submit fingerprints, get a photo ID taken, take a CHL class ranging anywhere from 4-12 hours, and then fill out a bunch of forms to get a registered license. Next.
Scared, Jumpy, and Paranoid
These are lovely projections and assumptions made on the speaker’s part. No debunking necessary as it’s pure conjecture. Sticks and stones. Next.
Perceived threat of criminals and terrorists
So, let me understand. The only other stance you could possibly take on this with even the slightest grasp of current world events is either A) you believe criminals and terrorist are a potential threat either directly or indirectly, or B) you don’t believe terrorists or criminals are a threat (to you). The thing is, this entire perception is myopic. If I lived in a bunker my whole life, sure my chances of ever running into a criminal are probably 0%, but that doesn’t mean criminals and terrorists are suddenly not dangerous to other people, my friends, or my loved ones that don’t live in my bunker. It’s one thing to recognize when you are safe, it’s another to just assume nothing bad will ever happen to you.
The world we live in is full of people. Good and bad.
in one single moment he may become a tyrant through the threat and use of deadly force.”
I don’t even know where to start with this… This thought process is so flawed and incorrect that I would need at least 3 questions answered before I even tackle this statement.
1. Do you know what tyrant means and the context of it’s use?
2. Do you understand what deadly force is and when you are allowed to legally employ it’s use?
3. Do you understand what self-defense is?
I bet this person doesn’t have an understanding of any of the above questions. Talk about willful ignorance and making conclusions based on pure drivel.
In the nonsensical minds of the hoplophobes, self-defense should be outlawed – just like it is in the UK, where anyone defending themselves is called a vigilante and punished harsher than the criminals themselves.
“gun-sense” is just another word for “non-sense” in the context of gun-control.
At 6:45 in the video, an MDA supporter proudly points out that “…in Washington, 594 is just the first step.”
Uh huh.
And there will be a Seattle based TV (ch 7) anti-firearm show tonight. They complain 594 in all its infringement does not go near far enough. They will exploit the Background Checks are being circumvented.
The reason why the anti-gun agenda is so infuriating and offensive to firearms owners (or anyone that takes responsibility for their own actions) is simply because it all boils down to the fact that they are coming to the table from a place of willful ignorance and are essentially telling us:
“Be a victim”
And they have the nerve to call us “domestic terrorists”? Quite the opposite. They are the ones pushing for the agenda with the goal of disarming law abiding Americans…
I’m also surprised that every single instance where a crime is committed in a GFZ isn’t the direct responsibility of every anti-gun group. They should be the ones supporting the victims — they should put their money where their mouth is.
The track record of armed citizens is already public — there are thousands of DGUs every year. Where are the statistics of willful victims that had “good” outcomes?
Biggest threat now is not rabid antis. It’s your friendly neocon. He doesn’t like open carry, military pattern firearms but he does like the gun control act and the status quo. He makes total victory in pro gun states impossible because he keeps winning elections.
This article was double plus good.
Newspeak from the Ministry of Truth is double plus good.
I noticed the Moms Demand channel has 800+ subscribers, versus 81,000+ for the NRA. I think that about sums it up.
I don’t know much about this organization so maybe you can enlighten me.Do you have to be a mother to join this organization? Can you be a tranny or a bottom bitch that calls itself a mother? If you’re a guy are you not allowed to join? If this is the case can you sue them in court for discrimination? Can you be an ex con or a convicted felon? Do they allow child molesters to join? If you are any other political persuasion besides democrat can they deny you membership? Can you lobby to have the name changed so it isn’t sexist? Why isn’t it called “people demand action?” I see a lot of ways to go after this organization if some lawyer would take the time.I think it is a criminal organization and it uses concern for children as a front.
On the bright side “The War on ___________ (insert random nonsense) ” never works.
What you need to include in this summary is that they have to use words for the kind of emotional response they seek. Why? The facts do not support their position. More important, the facts do support our position. Whether they realize it or not, to succeed they have to convince people to ignore obvious fact and personal experience.
The problem is that facts are rather dull. If we want to win this battle, we cannot neglect the emotional factor. If we don’t, we will lose. For some reason, too many conservatives seem to think that the emotional appeal is disingenuous. That is simply not true.
We are emotional as well as rational creatures. It can can be abused. There is a difference though between using the emotional appeal in the context of factual evidence to persuade and a purely manipulative taking advantage of a person. To win the argument decisively you need to win over both sides of our nature: reason and emotion.
“…in one single moment he may become a tyrant through the threat and use of deadly force.”
And this happens so often that we need to be concerned about it, right? Can you even supply a credible instance where this has occured in public? I mean, please try, because millions of safe, lawbiding gun CCW holders are waiting for a statistically relevant example.
The story of moms in Oceania. I love Big Brother!
When I saw the lead quote “When a man can walk around with a weapon unchecked, scared, jumpy and paranoid of the perceived threat of criminals and terrorists, in one single moment he may become a tyrant through the threat and use of deadly force.” my first thought was that sounds a lot like a police officer. It really sounds a lot like NYPD officer Peter Liang, a jumpy rookie with his finger on the trigger who killed a man so blatantly that he actually got indicted for it and is facing a criminal trial.
“So what, pray tell, is ‘gun sense’? I suppose you could say ‘Look at the way John’s handling that firearm. That man’s got gun sense!’ In other words, John is ‘sensible’ around guns. Safe. Or, I dunno, instinctively expert. In fact, ‘gun sense’ is a made-up phrase that’s never once passed the lips of gun owners.”
I contend that we change that. We should “hijack”** the term “gun sense” by only using it in reference to being sensible when using a firearm or when a firearm is present. Never let them get away with that kind of bullshit.
“To increase the emotional impact of this misleading terminology, gun control advocates add firearms-related suicides into ‘gun violence’ statistics.”
Something that I frequently say about that is: The people who support gun control are usually (not always) the same people that support the legality of abortion, arguing “my body, my choice.” Suicide involves ending your own life, not someone else’s. So I fail to see why “my body, my choice” applies to abortion and not to suicide. If anyone were to ask me (which I note, they’re not), it applies to suicide much more consistently since no one on either side denies the fact that it’s your body and your life in that scenario. In fact, here are a couple of recent Reason articles on the subject of the right to suicide:
http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/11/begging-to-die
http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/10/check-out-on-your-own-terms