Cohesiveness and unified message needed by NRA and TRKBA supporters

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bikepharmer

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
23
It occurs to me that one thing that is lacking is a cohesive message from key lobby groups like the NRA, GOA, etc. to keep in front of the media. The GOP, whom I've long admired on their ability to unite and present a solid and consistent force seem (sadly) to be fragmented right now. Boehner is having a terrible time keeping his members in line, and it couldn't come at a worse time.

I am interested in what the forum members think would make good talking points that can be repeated, reiterated, and used to frame a sound argument. Hopefully those in a position to meet with legislators can start to gel around a few key points. Like it or not, the masses don't like to think for themselves, so they eat up the "sound bites" so they sound intelligent.

Here are some I'd offer:

  • Taking away of constitutional rights (usually the masses like to "get", not give up).
  • The 2A is not only for hunters and sportsman, but preservation of life and liberty.
  • Pressure on the administration to explain why they want to arm drug cartels with programs like Fast and Furious, and are now trying to disarm law abiding citizens (The media loves a conspiracy theory)
  • The sooner an assailant experiences resistance, the sooner the shooting ends. This has been the case in nearly all the high profile shootings. This advocates for armed police in schools, and CCW holders. (as a side note, when I pick up my kids from school it is obvious to me that police at a school would be by far the most effective deterrent. A physical presence is a far better option than another law that criminals, by definition, will not recognize.)
  • Educating the masses on cosmetics vs functionality (e.g. semi auto vs full).
  • Condemn turning victims into martyrs for the anti-gun cause. (this would be delicate, but I think a skilled orator could make the argument)
  • Support of back ground checks and focusing on the legal ownership of firearms


These are just some ideas, but I'd love to here what others think would play well in the court of public opinion. Now, more than ever, is the time to present a cohesive, unified, and well thought out position. While I like Alex Jones's points, he comes across as rash and plays into the "gun nut" stereotype the media craves.

This is a fight that is going to be the hardest one ever, IMO.
 
First of all, the link is totally unrelated to the topic at hand. It's Michael Moore talking about kids on prescription drugs.

Now on to the O.P. You have salient points. I'd personally back off the background checks because of the supposed "gun show loophole". Putting background checks on the table voluntarilly gives their argument creedance it does not deserve.

The other six I could support wholly. The problem you'll find as others join the discussion is a lack of cohesiveness and unity. Even here on THR we've got opinions ranging from "ban everything but my thutty-thutty" to folks who can't function if it's been more than a week since they've seen "Red Dawn".

Granted, the vast majority are somewhere in the middle (I don't own a .30-30 nor have I ever seen "Red Dawn") but even then many are willing to give ground simply to be seen as "part of the solution".

In short, I'd be thrilled to see a unified cohesive message. I just don't think it'll ever happen we're far too diverse a group. In the long run, though, that's probably in our best interest.
 
I think this is the key. I hope the main lobby groups can put together a campaign around some "common sense" (as the anit-2A group loves to say) points that put the anti-2A group on some sort of defensive. Right now it feels like pro2A folks are doing all the explaining, which puts us at a disadvantage.
 
Right Idea. Shorter Message

Yes we need to synchronize our efforts, shorter messages are better:

1. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
2. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
3. No study has ever shown gun laws lower the homicide rate.

The first has been used to devastating effectiveness for years. It still works. It also still applies to the most recent event that they're using as an excuse: "Did the guns grow the power to shoot themselves? If the shooter was still on the loose, but he'd dropped his weapons at the scene of the crime, would we all breath a sigh of relief and forget about catching him? No, of course not cause guns don't kill people..."

The second has been used to devastating effectiveness for years. It still works. It also still applies: "Q: How will taking away the guns of law-abiding people protect us from murderers? A: It won't, if guns are outlawed..."

The third has not been used much but in the years I've been playing this game it has proven lethal and importantly, unstoppable in a debate with a determined opponent (consider it armor-piercing). It works because it reframes the issue and reframing is how you win. I don't fight about "do guns save more lives, or take more lives?" or "are guns good or bad?" cause it isn't about guns, its about laws restricting their use. More importantly its easy to prove cause there have been many studies dating back to the 1970s that were sponsored by people hostile to gun rights and none of them has found any gun-laws to have a positive effect, not one, not ever. And once we'd established that now we can talk about how to really solve the problem.

I also continue to recommend: http://thefiringline.com/Misc/library/RKBA_handbook.html

-Morgan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top