2nd Amendment and Media/Public opinion

[user3214]

Almost all newspaper articles talk about sensible gun laws. If these laws are labeled as sensible, people that have no clue about the specifics would support them, right?

No one in the media is addressing them as laws ‘stripping your rights’. So how do we get that phrase in the media?

How can we change the mind of strong anti-gun supporters? On the Brady site http://www.bradycampaign.org/action/getconnected/ you can get connected through Myspace & Facebook with Brady and view their friends. I think it’s possible to send a message to those people with some facts.
They have under 1000 friends total - this is not that much though

 

[Sinixstar]

While you, I, and many of the people on this site may agree with the "but they're stripping our rights" argument - many will not.

The problem is there is a set standard for supposedly balancing the exercise of rights, with the "common good". If we base our argument solely on constitutional rights - it will be a very very long war, of which we will lose many battles. I do believe we would ultimately win the war, but at what cost? I can assure you that by the time people realize rights are truly being stripped away, the marketplace will look vastly more barren.

The debate needs to be framed in such a way that we're not only saying "this is an infringement on our rights", but discredit the argument that somehow those infringements are in fact for the "common good".

Such claims for the common safety and well being of society are debatable at best. We need to show that certain regulations are improper because they impose limitations on our rights, with no clearly demonstrated cause-and-effect relationship to the "greater good".

We need to show that while additional restrictions have been placed on individual's ability to exercise their rights, that policy from the LE side regarding handling/treatment of gun issue has largely been unchanged for many years. Without an overhaul and a shift in focus from early 20th century enforcement policy to more modern approaches that meet the needs of the 21st century landscape. If we can show how the enforcement approach is what creates the loopholes, and that without an update to the framework which LE operates those loopholes will continue to exist - it puts the responsibility of eliminating gun crime back on Law Enforcement - where it belongs.

In terms of changing the minds of the Brady Bunch - it's not going to happen. You might make a few converts here and there, but there's too much money behind the movement. Just as the Brady Crowd may get lucky and snipe an NRA member here or there will not stop the pro-2nd movement in it's tracks.
It's worth the effort to change minds when and where you can - but to borrow a familiar line, "we need change" - on a much larger scale.

 

[bdickens]

Most people respond to emotion and not logic.

Most people will gladly trade your rights (as well as their own) for a percieved increase in safety and liberty be damned.

Do not allow the enemy to frame the debate.

Do not fall into the trap of using their pejorative terms. indtead of "assault weapon," say "home defense rifle," "sporting rifle" or even my favorite "sport-utiliy rifle." Instead of "automatic handgun," say "defensive sidearm."

When you write, make things short, to the point and be sure to push emotional hot-buttons. If your local paper seems to have an unwritten editorial policy against publishing anything that is pro-gun, remember that most papers are online now amd they include a "comments" section below each story. If you get in early so yourd appears near the top of the page, a well-written comment has the poential to make an impact.

 

[FunkyD]

Also, do not use the language of the opposition. "Sensible" to them is what "excessive" means to us. Frame not only the debate, but frame the language itself.