Discussion in 'Activism' started by deergetter, Oct 16, 2020.
Agreed, but hopefully the warnings will spur personal investigation.
Same crap, different day.
Grabbers have been running campaigns like this for as long as I've been paying attention to the gun issue:
- Billionaire Andrew McKelvey ran such an organization called "Americans for Gun Safety" back in the late 1990s.
- Then a few years later there was "The American Hunters and Shooters Association" which was founded by some goofus retired NFL football player. They made a lot of noise about being for gun rights, but behind the scenes, AHSA's leadership was playing footsy under the table with the Brady Campaign.
- Scott Kelly has tried to do this multiple times as well, claiming he's pro gun while supporting every gun control law under the sun.
It's no surprise that they'd try to go back to the well of false-flag "gun rights" groups, as it gives them a couple of advantages:
1.) It allows them to garner some support from the clueless Fudd crowd who are ok with wood-stocked hunting rifles and bird guns, but who don't like pistols or modern sporting rifles.
2.) It allows the grabbers to get their talking points jammed into every tv story, interview, or written article by providing quotes to reporters who are more than happy to signal boost anti-rights talking points by creating an illusion of "balance" while allowing them to avoid quoting real gun owners or organizations like the NRA or GOA. This is the more important goal, as it allows the grabbers to attempt to create the illusion of a popular consensus in favor of gun control, even among gun owners.
Sounds like someone named "JB" we all know and don't love.
I got the same result with Google. All gun owners are in favor of safety. But not when it is tied to Giffords.
The AHSA nonsense of not long ago comes first to mind for me as well. It appeared to be an association of concerned shooters who wanted to reduce gun related crime, suicides and accidents. But....when you barely scratched the surface you found it was just a shell with no real "grass roots" evident whatsoever. No base like you'll get from NRA, GOA, JPFO & Pink Pistols, etc.
There's a common political tactic utilized by people who want to subvert various things they don't like, and it kind of goes like this:
Find some thing you want to agitate about.
Start an organization.
Make all of your public facing talking points something that no reasonable person would disagree with, e.g. "gun safety" or "puppy dogs matter" or "believe kitties" or "believe in science"
Repeat those talking points ad nauseum on your promotional materials.
Get a compliant and agreeable media to signal boost your talking points.
Never actually talk about what your real goals are, except on some obscure part of your website or when you propose legislation.
When called out on the fact that no reasonable person would support your real goals, as shown in the obscure part of your website, who funds you, or the legislation you propose, publicly mock those people as being nutty conspiracy theorists who are against "gun safety," "puppy dogs," "kitties" or "science."
Get a compliant media to signal boost your characterization of your opponents.
Memo to all members: memorize the above list.
This has been going on for decades. Pretty much nobody seems to be paying attention. Or at least attention diverted by the latest crisis. We need to be aware of how the terms of the debate are being subverted and redefined. We can't win if we're only going to fight a last-ditch fight on their grounds already prepped for their success and with hands tied by their rules.
Separate names with a comma.