Previous Post
Next Post

I met Kris Keonig at a cafeteria in Vegas, after making small talk with his comely assistant (in a totally non-creepy way). Kris was at SHOT shooting footage for ASSAULTED. At the same time, he was trying to scare-up money to complete his pro-2A documentary. I asked him what the movie was about (in a totally late onset Attention Deficiency Disorder kinda way). “It’s the pro-2A film you’d show to your anti-gun neighbors.” I shared my uneasiness about the title. I reckon ASSAULTED is divisive and combative; it paints The People of the Gun as victims. What about “A Liberal’s guide to Guns”? Surprisingly, the film maker said he’d consider changing the film’s title, or adding a strap line. Kris agreed to put it to you our Armed Intelligentsia. So, what do you think? Keep it all caps aggressive or tone it down to lure in the fence straddlers? Or both? [Click here to help Mr. K finish his film via Kickstarter.]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. I think, Robert, that your hypersensitivity to all things related to what guns actually do is showing through again.

    Keep the name as is.

  2. I agree Robert, those I know, sitting on the fence, would switch channels. How about “Making America Victims”, or “America…..Defenseless”, Or “Helpless…in the face of the Criminal”.

    Pick something that grabs somebody by what they care about. Most care about keeping themselves or their family safe. But in many cases, trust to big brother to do it.

  3. the natural human right of personal protection and protection of private property is being ‘assaulted’ through government regulation. I believe the title is fitting, but I do see how people would have hangups about the title.

  4. “Infringed” or something similar. I agree regarding the use of the word “assaulted”.

    I know… Guns, etc. blah blah. But the point is to sway the fence sitter that might very well be put off by the title. If you are already staunchly pro 2A, this likely isn’t meant for you.

  5. If the target audience is the anti’s the title should be focused to them. How about asking some anti’s?

  6. how about KNOCK IN THE DARK







    ok not all are serious

  7. The title, as is, sounds confrontational. If you’re trying to get someone on your side, the last thing you want to do is to be aggressive and confrontational. That just puts people off. You can’t push someone toward yourself after all.

    If the film is to frame firearms as “feel-good”, phrasing the feature with a more positive title would go a lot farther to winning people to your side.

    • Or if you’re trying to get people to pay attention, then confrontation is a good thing.

      The trailer didn’t make me want to watch. It was too vague.

    • And remember government meddling with all rights is a slippery slope. This has a lot of meaning and is worthy of serious consideration.

  8. Assaulted and Infringed carry too much baggage

    How about “The Reality of Massively Declining Gun Violence in America”

    Let’s get right to the point. You have roughly the same probability of being killed by *any* rifle in America as you do of being struck by lightning.

    Now that I think of it, maybe “Struck by Lightning”

  9. How about: 1. “HELPLESS”-The Plight of a Disarmed America”
    2.”USELESS”-The Folly of Reliance on Police Protection”
    3.”Can’t We All Just Get Along?(and other fantasies)”
    4.”Night of the Living Gun-Grabbers”
    5.”House of Frankenfeinstein” (co-starring Nancy Lugosi)
    Alright, now I’m just being silly.

  10. The Fool’s Guide to the 2nd Amendment & Liberty (LOL)
    or more serious choices:
    – What the Pro-Gun Control Side Needs to Consider about the 2nd Amendment & Liberty
    – Why the 2nd Amendment is Still Relevant after 200 Plus Years
    – What if the US had no 2nd Amendment?
    – Can a Gutted 2nd Amendment Bring Non-Violent Utopia to the US?
    Actually, without viewing the documentary, it is difficult to provide the best title.

  11. Both titles seem to be a little combative if the goal is to sway fence sitters.
    How about “The Truth About Guns”. Sounds non-combative and informative. Just like the site.

    • I really like that,and I’m sure some mutually beneficial licensing terms could be worked out. After all, the additional attention it would bring the sight is certainly worth something.

    • I agree, the title definitely needs to be changed. Anti’s most likely will not want to watch it because they will assume it is biased and a propaganda tool. They will probably claim it was secretly funded by the NRA. The title needs to be something that appeals to them on an emotional level.

    • If we make this about guns, we might alienate/scare off sheeple. Bring up civil rights. Make this argument a constitutional one. “The Truth About The 2nd Amendment” or something similar

  12. How about: “You’ll Thank Us Later”


    “One Hellaceous Event Away From …….” (scream in background)

  13. ASSAULTED is divisive but “A Liberal’s Guide To Guns” isn’t?

    Were I a fence sitting liberal instead of a gun-owning liberal, I would roll my eyes at that title and dismiss the movie as more divisive Fox News fear-mongering bullshit designed to gin up business amongst right winger choir members.

  14. As for the movie, everyone, left or right, likes to think they are fiercely independent (even though damn near no one on either end of the spectrum actually is, just in different ways), so appeal to that: Self Sufficiency Begins With Self Defense.

    That should appeal to all the hipster urban chicken owners.

  15. I know this is not related directly to this article but I needed write something that could be taken up by the official blogger of this site.
    Much like when pot and heroin are both illegal they run in the same circle. Legalize pot and the illegal heroin get separated as far as channels of aquisition are concerned. Thus when ARs and “semi” AK’s are illegal they will start to run with the full auto’s. Why should a gangster if holding an illegal gun, screw around with a semi? This would seem to introduce a criminal market for full autos in the US.
    Since AK’s are manufactured all over the world and our border can’t stop drugs, you know damn well that cops (that have nothing to fear from us AR people) will be facing full auto AKs. Put this in the unintentional consequence category. Maybe RF and company could explore and flesh this issue out. We need issues that anti’s might stop and say “yeah, wait a minute here, let’s stop and think about this”

  16. “A Line in the Sand”
    “A Convenient Lie”
    “Drawing Fire: The 2nd Amendment”
    “Targeted: The 2nd Amendment”
    Maybe he could produce two different stamp lines to target different audiences?

  17. I’m with Keith F and think Infringed sounds good. Something like the following:

    “INFRINGED” Civil Rights Under Fire
    “INFRINGED” Civil Rights Under Assault
    “INFRINGED” The Assault of Civil Rights

    I do believe that putting the word “liberals” anywhere in the title is going to automatically alienate a large group of individuals you want to watch the film. They probably will just roll their eyes as Swarf stated and skip right by the movie. Is this film being made to preach to the choir or for those who haven’t been saved yet? Probably for those who haven’t been saved yet so lets not turn them away by the title alone. Let’s assume that all liberals are anti-gun or can’t be swayed. There is a very good article out there on the Daily Kos called “Why liberals should love the second amendment” which is written by a liberal, I believe.

    • That is an excellent article and encompasses my feelings and beliefs as a gun toting (small L) liberal very succinctly.

      Freedom means freedom, and many Liberals check their supposedly rock hard belief in freedom as soon as guns come up much in the same way that many Conservatives do when it comes to women’s reproductive choices or gay rights.

    • That was supposed to say “Let’s not assume that all liberals are anti-gun or can’t be swayed”

    • I like:

      “INFRINGED” Civil Rights Under Fire


      “INFRINGED” The Second Amendment Under Fire

  18. you title that shit like they title these laws “Patriot act”, nothing patriotic about it. SAFE act of 2013… nothing safe about it.

    Call it “2nd Amendment crazies”.. or “Ban them all!” invert the title to the content and every liberal twat out there will eat it up until they realize they were just infected with truth.

    • +1. Antis always treat gun owners and law-abiding citizens like low-life, subhuman dirt. Why else would they want to disarm us?

  19. “Citizens with Cannons: The reality of the 2nd amendment in American life.”

    I like this because it plays into the whole misunderstanding on the other side that 1) The founders never planned for powerful firearms and 2) No one needs an ‘assault’ weapon. (Of course, this depends on the movie mentioning that the founders were fine with private citizens owning cannons, so ARs aren’t beyond their imagination.

  20. I like the witty replies but, in considering what is happening around us, I also don’t like the witty replies.

    I have no idea what to name the film, I couldn’t even come up with an origonal name for any of my children.

    But i do know the film is important and i do know that everything we can do to fight the onslaught is incredibly important.

    I am to the point in my life when I realize that my own death is fast approaching. I pray God that my country and the liberty and freedom that we enjoy continues on long after I am gone.
    But, in truth, I think freedom in America and my own oncoming demise are in a neck and neck race to the finish line.

    Don’t make light of any of this. Come together and unite to fight this because all of us are the only reason that freedom will prevail.

    • No one is making “light” of it.. we just think, or at least I think, that preaching to the choir is doing nothing for us. This video is intended to enlighten those who are not in our choir so that can start singing the same tune. However, most of them judge a book by its’ cover. The video needs to be title such that the none-choir will not be put off by it and never even watch it. You can’t infect people with the truth if they won’t put themselves in front of it.

  21. “When Seconds Count…”

    This seems like a cliche to many reading this- ok, it is- but I find that this simple statement still jolts many uncommitted or even full antigun folks. The discussion has been framed in the oppositions context for so long and so completely that it’s a surprise to be confronted with the real purpose of guns.

    Hero cops on the screen always get there just in the nick, popping the baddie with one deadly shot. Who needs guns when the coos are all that?

    I say go simple; it’s still a good catch phrase.

  22. I don’t know enough about his doc, but *somebody* ought to make a doc this works for:

    The History & Purpose of the 2nd Amendment

    The strapline could be adjusted to fit depending on the particulars. The title puts a fresh spin on a familiar phrase – a spin that arguably expands the idea to hit exactly what the framers intended.

  23. Gun control isn’t about safety, it is about disarmament and control. And control doesn’t end with taking away guns. Governments have always gone after guns first so it is easier to gain even more control. Thus efforts to disarm the populace are simply the leading indicator of what is to come. So how about something along the lines of:
    Canary In A Coal Mine
    Civil Rights Are Next

  24. Honestly, since the main reason to make a video like this is to educate those for curtailing the second amendment, I think you want something that will get their attention, thinking it’s an anti documentary. I would look for a title that appears to attack the second amendment. This video shouldn’t be for us but to enlighten all potential grabbers.

  25. I do think ASSAULTED is a little strong and will scare off some of the opposition. That being said, I like the idea of “Infringed.”

    Also, what about toning down the title some? “Under Assault” conveys the same message without being so menacing.

  26. I really like the suggestion above of “The Truth About Guns.”

    I think it is important to have a title that doesn’t make it evidently clear which side of the argument the film is on. By having a name like Assaulted or Infringed anyone on the anti 2A side and even some fence sitters automatically won’t even give it a moment’s time.

    The title needs to come off as unbiased and that is what will have the greatest likelihood of viewership from those not already convinced.

  27. ASSAULTED: Bear Arms
    with a picture of California’s flag that shows the bear with an AR and a red circle slash over it.

  28. the title has to be appealing to the target audience:

    “Gun Nuts: ‘beliefs of right wing lunatics'”

    “Assaulted: ‘how guns destroy society'”

    “inFringed: ‘how paranoia frames policy'”

    Then once you get their interest piqued, it’s the burden of the movie to lay out the case fairly and truthfully.

  29. As a videographer, I want to grab the attention of EVERYONE I possibly can, without them passing judgement immediately. Rather than using labels (Liberal, Conservative, Assault, etc.) perhaps a title that will peak the curiosity of all potential viewers…

    Take Bowling for Columbine, for example. Although I am definitely pro 2A, the title and sleeve (Moore holding the world raised like a bowling ball) drew me in.

    I recommend changing the title and altering the graphic. Feel free to contact me for more assistance.

  30. a) Assault On The Original First Amendment
    b) At What Price? (Strap line: If the Governemt Can So Easily Errode The Right To Keep and Bear Arms, At What Price Will They Sell Out The First?)
    c) That All Men Be Armed
    d) 2A – protecting freedom
    e) These Are The Times That Try Men’s Souls
    f) Sunshine Patriots: Systematic Erosion Of Liberty
    g) Safety Without Freedom
    h) A Basic Human Right
    i) We The People: Protecting Liberty
    j) 2A-Freedoms’ Final Defense

  31. IDEA: “Controlled.”

    Think about it. How are background checks, licensing, etc. really about guns?

    Answer: They aren’t.

    Gun Control isn’t about guns. It’s about control.

  32. I like ASSAULTED. It makes the casual looker think its about victims of violent crime (via scary gun), but it is actually the opposite. “Civil rights under fire”, then directs the browsing peasant’s mind to other civil rights victories like MLK or Ghandi, while still allowing the subliminal to think of guns. It’s a sheepdog in sheep’s clothing and I like it.

    Now if it was called “ASSAULTER/OPERATOR” (my personal pet peeve and windmill) it would be another thing entirely, but I really like the title as is.

    And while we’re on the subject, On my way home from the range today I drove onto a soft snow shoulder that I couldn’t see since it had been plowed over and my car gently slid into the ditch. Too bad the city hadn’t ASSALTED the road (badum-ksh).

  33. My first thought was “Assaulted” was too closely linked with the gun grabber’s phrase assault weapons. I first came up with “Oppressed” but “Infringed” really has a better ring to it. And it needs to also mention civil rights, so my final suggestion is:

    “Infringed, the oppression of constitutional rights”

  34. I think the name is appropriate considering how misused the term is and how it’s been thrown around, it’s actually relevant in this case, simple and direct. I don’t see the problem with it and a “liberals guide” is stupid, I’m a so called “Liberal” and I don’t need a guide nor introduction to firearms in the slightest nor is this a “Party” thing, we need less divisiveness, putting a political label on this documentary would be a very bad idea.

  35. I like the title and subtitle as is. But if something must be changed, I like the suggestion to change ASSAULTED to INFRINGED. And keep the subtitle.

Comments are closed.