Green Tip and the Overton Window

[another pake]

If the Overton Window as a advancement technique is still utilized, then it can be opened or viewed through from both sides.

When the puppeteers of the ATF Director lobbed through the window the idea that "all rifle ammo is dangerous to cops" they invited a pushback response.

Perhaps it is time to lob a few back?

 

[AlexanderA]

The "Overton Window" is a way of describing the parameters of acceptable political debate on a given issue, in a given society at a given point in time. For example, before the Civil War, it was acceptable to debate the merits of slavery. Whether you were pro-slavery or anti-slavery, the discussion was still within the limits of acceptability. After the Civil War, it was no longer acceptable to be in favor of slavery. From that day to this, no politician would take the pro-slavery side. If you advocate for slavery, you might as well advocate for cannibalism. Both might get you locked up in a mental institution. That was a clear shift in the Overton Window.

Regarding gun rights, if there has been a recent shift in the Overton Window, it's been in favor of guns. Just about every politician, even a clearly anti-gun one, pays lip service to "supporting the 2nd Amendment." Anti-gun activist groups have changed their mission statements (and names) from "banning handguns" to things like "gun safety" and "reducing gun violence." (We know that their goals remain the same, but their rhetoric is markedly different.) Carrying concealed weapons has gone mainstream, a clear departure from the recent past.

The Overton Window concept is really an analytical tool. I doubt it can be manipulated, as a strategy. It's a way of seeing what has happened, after the fact.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The "Overton Window" is a way of describing the parameters of acceptable political debate on a given issue, in a given society at a given point in time. For example, before the Civil War, it was acceptable to debate the merits of slavery. Whether you were pro-slavery or anti-slavery, the discussion was still within the limits of acceptability. After the Civil War, it was no longer acceptable to be in favor of slavery. From that day to this, no politician would take the pro-slavery side. If you advocate for slavery, you might as well advocate for cannibalism. Both might get you locked up in a mental institution. That was a clear shift in the Overton Window.

Regarding gun rights, if there has been a recent shift in the Overton Window, it's been in favor of guns. Just about every politician, even a clearly anti-gun one, pays lip service to "supporting the 2nd Amendment." Anti-gun activist groups have changed their mission statements (and names) from "banning handguns" to things like "gun safety" and "reducing gun violence." (We know that their goals remain the same, but their rhetoric is markedly different.) Carrying concealed weapons has gone mainstream, a clear departure from the recent past.

The Overton Window concept is really an analytical tool. I doubt it can be manipulated, as a strategy. It's a way of seeing what has happened, after the fact.

It's more than an analytical tool. It is a political tool that Overton observed and since he 'discovered' it he exposed it and it has been given his name.

While the gun banners need falsehoods and emotionalism to forward their agenda, it has been an effective means toward their end. We didn't get this buried in infringements by honest means. Infringements are prohibited, remember? So, these falsehoods and the emotionalism, tossed out there in the political arena, influenced enough politicians to pass some of the aspects of 'gun control' but not the whole bailiwick they placed on the table. That's how the tactic works. You overrun some ground, hit strong resistance, fall back, but in the mean time, you are able to keep some of the ground due to - well, lets call it compromise.

Later on, you 'find' a new cause or two and make another push. Then another. Then another.

Notice how they never give up? Even when they lose some of the ground they captured over the years? They just take another avenue and forge ahead in a different arena. They are losing in the Keep and Bear arena, so now they are going after the fuel that is necessary to power those tools of freedom.

They cannot transform this country into the socialist utopia they envision while we are armed(and while capitalism is still our mode of trade). Whether they take away our guns or the ammo doesn't much matter to them. In either case, we would be defenseless and unable to put them down. So, they will keep tossing out whatever bit of tripe they think will advance their cause.

They got sloppy this time. Very sloppy. They are losing and are desperate. Don't expect them to stop, though. They will get more and more desperate, more and more sloppy, and regardless of how ridiculous they get, they will have followers and useful idiots in Congress, on the Court, likely in the White House, and without a doubt in most of the alphabet agencies the Congress unconstitutionally abrogated most of its powers to.

The battle is on, it'll not be won any time soon, but We the People have the Constitution on our side and that is all the justification we need. Our lives, our rights and freedoms, our prosperity, our property, and the future of our posterity hang in the balance.

We don't need to use tactics such as the Overton Window. We only need to follow the Constitution.

Woody

 

[Old Dog]

Infringements are prohibited, remember?

Yet they were still put into effect using the lawful process.

They are losing and are desperate.

We can argue the first and concede the second.

the future of our posterity hang in the balance.

Ah, not to quibble, but a little redundancy in that sentence maybe?

We only need to follow the Constitution

I rather hate to say it, but if we use the Constitution as the sole basis for our defense of our rights, we won't sway too many ... Inasmuch as history and civics aren't taught in our public schools anymore, if we have to educate the masses as well, it's gonna be an uphill climb. Seems to me that most folks nowadays respond better to appeals to logic as well as anecdotal evidence (which is why we need more mass media on our side and should stop alienating this culture by offering up only extremist positions and statements).

 

[Bill_Rights]

Constitution Cowboy, thanks for your post #28.

Before we leave the Overton Window and go on to your other excellent points, I want to make clear that, even though I said that the Overton Window is obsolete in my post #20, I do agree with you about the "dynamics" of the Overton Window. The concept of shifting the Window is given in the article I cited before from Joe Overton's home think tank, as follows:

Shift the window. Since commonly held ideas, attitudes and presumptions frame what is politically possible and create the "window," a change in the opinions held by politicians and the people in general will shift it. Move the window of what is politically possible and those policies previously impractical can become the next great popular and legislative rage.

And your other point about the Left's use of popular opinion (the Overton Window) is exactly correct and very important:

You leap several steps forward, then fall back but never all the way back. Then you leap several more steps forward and fall back some again, but now you've gained a little more.

AND:

That's how the tactic works. You overrun some ground, hit strong resistance, fall back, but in the mean time, you are able to keep some of the ground due to - well, lets call it compromise.

This other point of yours is not really part of the Overton paradigm, I think. This ratcheting incrementalism is more of a Leftist or governmentalist party innovation. In this sense I agree with AlexanderA. The Overton Window is just an analytical tool or description of history.

This brings me to your other points, all of which I agree with, in spite of Old Dog's good-natured objections. I am reminded of O'Sullivan's First Law:

All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing."
John O’Sullivan, "O’Sullivan’s First Law", National Review, October 27, 1989.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O'Sullivan_(columnist)

Andrew Klavan has explained this, saying that Leftism is a form of decay or degeneration. This Law and its underlying rationale seems sort of inevitable, like entropy being time's arrow. But it really just means that freedom and liberty demand work. Entropy is easily overcome by energy. Ordered liberty can be achieved, given purpose and work. I think all of us agree that more work will be required in the future.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The Overton Window concept works both ways. Sounds like somebody has been reading Glenn Beck.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Infringements are prohibited, remember?

Yet they were still put into effect using the lawful process.

Nothing that is contrary to the Constitution is lawful.

... the future of our posterity hang(s) in the balance.

Ah, not to quibble, but a little redundancy in that sentence maybe?

Our posterity is our descendants. The future is the time and what it holds after us and that which is now regardless of whether we create descendants or not.

We only need to follow the Constitution

I rather hate to say it, but if we use the Constitution as the sole basis for our defense of our rights, we won't sway too many ... Inasmuch as history and civics aren't taught in our public schools anymore, if we have to educate the masses as well, it's gonna be an uphill climb. Seems to me that most folks nowadays respond better to appeals to logic as well as anecdotal evidence (which is why we need more mass media on our side and should stop alienating this culture by offering up only extremist positions and statements).

There are things in the Constitution that reserve many powers to We the People and the several states to preserve our rights and freedoms. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents us to hold on to our rights, freedoms, and the power to self govern according to the Constitution. We do not need to go rogue - you know, like most of the current people in power who ignore the Constitution.

This other point of yours is not really part of the Overton paradigm, I think. This ratcheting incrementalism is more of a Leftist or governmentalist party innovation. In this sense I agree with AlexanderA. The Overton Window is just an analytical tool or description of history.

It's the Overton Window repeated over and over. Regardless of who uses the process, it is what it is. I agree it is the left who may have developed the process - they may even have their own name for it - but it is a tactic. It had to be a tactic before it could be analyzed! Overton simply exposed it.

Woody

 

[barnbwt]

So, basically the Overton Window states politics is a game of Ouija...what a 'brilliant' observation. It's a good thing such perceptive minds run our best think tanks. All our side has to do is stop assuming the shuttle isn't being manipulated by the others' hand and the "magic" trick won't work anymore.

TCB

 

[buck460XVR]

The Overton Window concept works both ways. Sounds like somebody has been reading Glenn Beck.

I agree. The theory of the "window" has been used by both parties for years. It is not a new concept, just a modern name for something governments have been doing for years. Similar to the tax on tea, and throwing something at the wall and see if it sticks.........

 

[Erik M]

I believe most of us can agree that the next tragedy that occurs involving the use of an AR-15 will be swept to the forefront of media coverage. As morbid as the thought is, they haven't had a major 'shooting' to cover in a while. . .

 

[rdhood]

This ruling brought us a new front: the fight against *any* amount of steel in bullets.

In case anyone just noticed, we now have a fight on two fronts: one against lead and one against steel.

 

[morcey2]

This ruling brought us a new front: the fight against *any* amount of steel in bullets.

In case anyone just noticed, we now have a fight on two fronts: one against lead and one against steel.

Gotta correct you slightly: one against lead and one against anything that is not lead.

 

[another pake]

While we debate, argue and try to legislate current forms of handheld armaments and projectiles someone else is working under a totally new paradigm.

Rail guns, lasers, and smart guns.

That would be a paradigm shift which renders the former meaningless.

 

[barnbwt]

The only thing scarier than an out of battery discharge is having a single battery with the power density to fire a whole mag electrically dumping current that close to my body. Basically we're setting ourselves up for (horrifyingly powerful) chain fires unless you generate the power as needed, like the Navy gun does.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

"In case anyone just noticed, we now have a fight on two fronts: one against lead and one against steel."
Two flanks, same front. It's not like Greens and Antis are new foes, or anything, kr that they haven't been attacking us simultaneously all this time. It's also not like they make any progress outside New Yorkifornia these days.

TCB

 

[ol' scratch]

Call it what you want but things are shifting. Yes we have seen some inroads in gun rights but we have also seen what I believe will ultimately turn us the other way.
Amnesty, definition of marriage, drug legalization and many other social reforms are changing the electorate and eventually it will overwhelm the traditional views of what we believe the Constitution and American way stand for.

Lets keep this on task. I know more than a few people who are gay and happen to like guns. Two I would classify as gun nuts. One of them I am related to. I am not gay, but the government has NO right to legislate morality. When the heck did sexual orientation dictate a love of firearms? We need to be talking about immigration. My own family has been hurt by a refusal to even talk about it. I reload, shoot and build rifles and pistols including "evil" black rifles. I support the legalization of drugs in this country. Stop painting everything with such a wide brush and please STOP stereotyping people and trying to cram them into your own limited political view of the world. Some "traditional" views run contrary to the US Constitution too. Government is ONLY interested in destroying our rights.

 

[mljdeckard]

I think you are giving them too much credit.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Call it what you want but things are shifting. Yes we have seen some inroads in gun rights but we have also seen what I believe will ultimately turn us the other way.
Amnesty, definition of marriage, drug legalization and many other social reforms are changing the electorate and eventually it will overwhelm the traditional views of what we believe the Constitution and American way stand for.

The social reforms you fear will overwhelm the "traditional" views of what "we" believe the Constitution and American way stand for are probably far more similar to what the Founding Fathers believed the Constitution was design to do: protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny a narrow minded Majority. The fact that more people who have been treated as second class citizens or at the very least persecuted are slowly becoming accepted as equals makes it easier for them to identify with the concept that personal ownership of weapons is a fundamental element of equality.

Regarding the "Overton Window"; leaders and politicians over millennia have been well aware of this aspect of human political behavior long before a mid-twentieth century social scientist's name was assigned to it. It would not surprise me if some Anti-gunners think the creation of AR pistols using the "SIG Arm Brace" is the Pro-gunners attempting to use the "Door in the Face" technique to expand what is legally acceptable.

 

[barnbwt]

"The fact that more people who have been treated as second class citizens or at the very least persecuted are slowly becoming accepted as equals makes it easier for them to identify with the concept that personal ownership of weapons is a fundamental element of equality."

I'm of two minds on immigration; on the one hand, immigration was at the center of everything our nation was built around since before the very beginning. Before independence, each colony was its own culture and identity, toiling away to prove each system's moral superiority; this had the effect of simultaneously creating highly productive diverse societies, and then pitting them together in collaborative competition. Actually a very beautiful time, historically --small wonder it bore out the lofty ideals of our inevitable revolution, once we outgrew our colonial purpose (by product of highly productive societies is that they can't be easily controlled or domesticated).

On the other hand, mass-migration is, historically, a destructive element. Only moderate migration can have the competitive and social benefits we associate with the presence of new blood. Massive moves of people bring only shortage and conflict, and the insulated tribal groups they spawn only impede the full induction of their members into the larger nation. They don't learn from us, we don't learn from them, and we become opponents in competition for resources rather than collaborators creating them.

Bringing this way, way, way back to the topic of gun issues, the fact is that the vast majority of today's migrants --and the vast majorities of those that many are proposing to introduce intentionally in massive numbers-- do not yet value the concepts of civilian gun ownership nor their duty to uphold the ideals that formed the nation they seek to live in. They are being used as a disruptive device against social systems seen as unfavorable to a political party that also does not value the concepts of righteous self defense or governmental restraint. Nothing more than a convenient weapon, made up of men, women, and children, being leveled against a broad section of the American public. The type of game-change they potentially represent is existential --this is why refugees are universally loathed in stable nations forced to take them in.

It's not necessarily the end of the world or the 'destruction of all we hold dear' or whatever worst-case scenario we can dream up, but the fact is that core issues like our devotion to the right to keep and bear arms will be diluted in their favor at least for a generation of so, with lingering effects thereafter. The belief and faith in personal responsibility is not innate to mankind; I don't know how anyone with a grasp of history or the present world could claim that. It must be taught, and that means a certain bandwidth that can be accommodated by the "teachers" before they are overwhelmed.

Regarding the "Overton Window"; leaders and politicians over millennia have been well aware of this aspect of human political behavior long before a mid-twentieth century social scientist's name was assigned to it. It would not surprise me if some Anti-gunners think the creation of AR pistols using the "SIG Arm Brace" is the Pro-gunners attempting to use the "Door in the Face" technique to expand what is legally acceptable.

Our technique is way funner than theirs, though . The more I think about it, I think the Overton Window is a very jaded perspective, that is increasingly outmoded the more founded your worldview becomes. If you have no principles, and don't think very hard about anything presented to you, this notion of squishy boundaries based on how visceral your reaction is probably somewhat accurate. I can see how an elected pol would come to find this view, after seeing just how moronic and apathetic the general public can be. However, you have the activist class out there, who are committed and knowledgeable in the topics & beliefs they hold dear, with windows both narrower and stubbornly nailed in place than others', who are also much louder compared to the placid masses. We (both we and our opposition) act as a stabilizing force on our respective boundaries, refuting the very concept of Overton's Window as being a perceptibly viscoelastic phenomenon. Glass flows over a very long time, but is at the same time one of the more rigid substances out there.

Tug of war is a way better analogy, since it brings in the concepts of resources, strength, and footing

TCB

 

[CoalTrain49]

I like to look at it this way.

How many people in this discussion have been in the military or worked in gov't? If you have and managed to be successful (promoted) you would understand what's happening. The military succeeds because there are people that follow orders. You don't go anywhere in the military, or gov't unless you follow orders and become one with the program. You never question the mission, you just try to complete it and hope you have accomplished the command's goal.

The gov't is a lot like the military. Actually it is the military and a lot more. The command we are dealing with is the WH and the administration. They have a mission. It's not congress's mission (they don't have one) and it isn't the judicial's mission as they have repeatedly snubbed the adm's efforts to dismantle the constitution. The biggest problem is the mission isn't hugely popular with a large segment of the population. The battle lines have been drawn.

The adm has an army. The adm's army resides within the DOJ. One component is the ATF. The ATF (Jones, a former Marine) has been tasked to get military style weapons (AR's) off the street. The first step is reduce the ammo supply. Call M855 armor piercing and ban it. Then call 5.56 and 7.62 NATO military cartridges, which they are, and ban those because civilians don't need military spec ammo. When ammo is a dollar a round, and it will be, there will less interest in rifle cartridges and more in the less lethal and less expensive pistol cartridges. AR sales will decline and the one's already owned will be too expensive to shoot.

The command has now won the first battle. They have removed most of the artillery, and biggest threat to the gov't, from the field. They claim it's a hazard to LE. In a way it is, just not the state and local LE we normally deal with. They mean federal LE. I think the wake up call for them was the armed resistance that the BLM encountered in NV. on Cliven Bundy's ranch. States are starting to withdraw their support of fed gov't by making laws to cut funding for certain federal LE operations. The fed is being backed into a corner because of the adm's mission and are starting to over react.

 

[Nom de Forum]

...... I am reminded of O'Sullivan's First Law: Andrew Klavan has explained this, saying that Leftism is a form of decay or degeneration....

More extreme Right-wing delusional rhetoric! THR sure has far too much of this in comparison to objective historical and political commentary. How can you not realize that the Founding Fathers of the United States were Left-wingers in comparison to the British Right-wing government they rebelled against? Do you realize that Right-wing extremists have moved the Right-wing political goal post so far to the right that today someone with beliefs similar to Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and even Barry Goldwater are denounced as too leftist? There are many people in our nation that strongly support the RKBA the Right-wing denounce as Left-wing extremists but are really Left or Right leaning Moderates.

 

[Baldman]

StrutStopper (post 24) makes a very good point and as you can see by the link

http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/Democrat-bill-would-ban-ar-15-ammo/#!

There is now a bill moving in Congress to ban all armor piercing rounds. This is worse then the ATF move, I have yet to see the full defintion but if it is all rounds then dooesn't that include nearly all rifle rounds?

A battle was won but the war is far from over.

 

[Dain Bramage]

And, on the way to shutdown with overtly political talk.

I will slip in a gentle rebuttal to NdF.

First, hanging around the right wing watercooler, no one ever criticizes the three individuals named as being "too leftist".

And second:

There are many people in our nation that strongly support the RKBA the Right-wing denounce as Left-wing extremists but are really Left or Right leaning Moderates

With this statement, the poster implicitly concedes that what he/she considers the left wing is not a supporter of RKBA. With that, we are in agreement.

 

[Nom de Forum]

And, on the way to shutdown with overtly political talk.

I will slip in a gentle rebuttal to NdF.

First, hanging around the right wing watercooler, no one ever criticizes the three individuals named as being "too leftist".

And second:

With this statement, the poster implicitly concedes that what he/she considers the left wing is not a supporter of RKBA. With that, we are in agreement.

As a not so gentle rebuttal to you: the reason why you never hear any one hanging around your particular water-cooler criticizing Eisenhower, Reagan, and Goldwater is that many of those water-coolers are filled with psychotropic Kool-Aid. The people drinking that mind-altering Kool-Aid have created a delusional mythology about Dwight, Ronald and Barry that brooks no intrusion of any political facts about those men that contradicts the mythology. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and pay attention to what I actually wrote not what you think I wrote: “.... today someone with beliefs similar to Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, and even Barry Goldwater are denounced as too leftist”. I am not surprise you missed the nuance of my statement. The Right-wing consistently demonstrates a failure to appreciate nuance and often when seeing metaphorical hoof prints imagines threatening stampeding zebras are near by instead of placidly ambling horses.

I do not concede what you proclaim. You presume to know where the Right-wing and Left-wing begin. You obviously are sure you are to the right and all who do not 100% agree with you are to the left. That is very naive. Both wings actually meet at an infinitesimally thin and ever shifting point. The result being that one person’s Leftist is another person’s Rightist and vice versa. I’ll bet you if I had enough time I could find someone on the Right who would denounce you as too Leftist much like Tail Gunner Joe did to many of the self-identified Conservatives of his day.

BTW, I live in one of the most Right-wing, affluent, cities in the country. My home is within walking distance of a statue honoring Barry Goldwater, and I frequently drive on Goldwater Blvd. I also have a home in Thousand Oaks, California that is a 10 minute drive from the Ronald Reagan Library in Semi Valley. So please understand I am very aware of what is being said around Right-wing watercoolers.

To everyone on THR that wants to win the fight preventing further erosion of the RKBA I say; don't alienate supporters of Gun Rights who are to the Left of you on other issues and sometimes disagree with some of your tactics used defending the 2A.

 

[txblackout]

Lets keep this on task. I know more than a few people who are gay and happen to like guns. Two I would classify as gun nuts. One of them I am related to. I am not gay, but the government has NO right to legislate morality. When the heck did sexual orientation dictate a love of firearms? We need to be talking about immigration. My own family has been hurt by a refusal to even talk about it. I reload, shoot and build rifles and pistols including "evil" black rifles. I support the legalization of drugs in this country. Stop painting everything with such a wide brush and please STOP stereotyping people and trying to cram them into your own limited political view of the world. Some "traditional" views run contrary to the US Constitution too. Government is ONLY interested in destroying our rights.

Keep in mind there is no such "being" as government. There are only people acting on behalf of us. Government doesn't want to ban guns but government employees who are generally liberals do.

Some liberals like guns but the vast majority do not.