FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
For the most part, they already have. The media is trying to keep it going but the sheep aren't all that interested anymore.
Obama - the real message.
- Thread starter Trent
- Start date
- Status
For the most part, they already have. The media is trying to keep it going but the sheep aren't all that interested anymore.
DammitBoy
Member
Don't get cocky. The obama administration is gearing up his campaign apparatus to start an email campaign amongst the faithful sheep to write their congressmen.
The email from the administration is already being sent.
I received one today, probably because I have created a couple "We the people" petitions and signed a few.
Some were for pretty liberal causes. Sometimes I'm pretty liberal.
But I'm not an idiot.
I received one today, probably because I have created a couple "We the people" petitions and signed a few.
Some were for pretty liberal causes. Sometimes I'm pretty liberal.
But I'm not an idiot.
The point I'm trying to make with all of this, is in order to introduce social change of any magnitude (particularly one with civil liberties impact that could result in violence), the change must be proceeded with an effective propaganda campaign.
The NRA has not been effective in their propaganda campaign.
They are currently viewed by the masses as an insensitive group which attempts to buy power through campaign contributions and other methods. As an example, they bring the daughter of the president in to play, in their latest media message. One thing I've learned as a father is you don't mess with a guy's daughter. It's one thing to go after the man making the decisions. But to toss his daughter in the limelight, that's not going to go over well, anywhere.
Just as their initial message of "Arm the Schools" (something which was hotly debated on this very board, and MANY of us disagreed with) was received with hostility by the mainstream, so will this. Arming the schools, while ONE step, can't be the only reasonable step. From the anti-gunner's perspective you're putting a man with a pistol up against potential bad guys armed with "assault rifles" with hundreds of rounds of "armor piercing" ammunition in "high capacity clips", wearing "body armor", who have the tactical element of both surprise and superior firepower. A single armed guard isn't going to do diddly squat against even ONE aggressor with a high powered rifle, regardless of type or configuration. The aggressor has the initiative. The defender loses.
People aren't dumb. But the NRA has acted so, and delivered a message that has not been received well by the general public; and even the most staunch pro-gun advocates (like me) are grimacing whenever Pierre opens his mouth to talk now. Every he does, the media has a feeding frenzy.
The propaganda machine on the other side has been effectively following a sound strategy:
#1 marginalize or humiliate the primary opponent (NRA) in every way possible
#2 demand answers for why we need "military style weapons", and dismantle that argument by calling us lunatics when we give the ONLY possible answer (defense of way of life against tyranny).
#3 pull the heartstrings so the unconcerned at least pay attention for a few seconds, to sway the moderates to their side.
#4 call out the most antagonistic gun proponents in to the public light to tear them, and their arguments, down on national news programs
#5 affiliate gun owners by equating them with seditionists, hillbillies, rednecks, or any other offensive stereotype they can. The idea is to tarnish the perspective of gun owners, causing "hunters" and "sportsman" to distance themselves and form a "new mainstream." (I've been called so many offensive names in the last month, debating gun issues, that I've lost track of all the variations.)
#6 expound upon our "gun craze" by covering the buying panic - a situation of our own causing. Prediction: Pretty soon you'll hear about bloodthirsty American gun owners hoarding so much ammunition the police can't even TRAIN their people for this new "school defense response training program" the President has ordered. (I checked SG last night, they're backordered on 223 PMC ammo until MAY. The massive volume of standing backorders has them *5 months back* already.
#7 We have no way to go on the offensive, from a propaganda perspective, without bouncing off the "shield of children" arrayed around the anti-gun community. Anything we say? Bloodthirsty. Anything we do? Bloodthirsty. Any justification we offer? Paranoid, bloodthirsty.
Adolph Hitler had a certain propaganda minister in the Third Reich, went by the name of Dr. Joseph Goebbels. I have Dr. Goebbels diaries in my library, at least, what survived the war. About a year ago I made a significant study of that text, along with Speer, and others. It was gut-wrenching work, delving in to the minds of madmen. Brilliant madmen. Genius in their methods.
In those diaries, combined with an historical understanding of the period, a startling realization hit me with absolute clarity. He who controls the press, controls the truth, because they control the message the people hear. While the government doesn't control the press directly, the "left's" influence on the media is undeniable, as is their slant on the media coverage. (Have you read or seen ONE article on gun control that doesn't mention Sandy Hook in the last month?)
“Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”
Orwell saw this, as well, in his version of a dark utopia. In Nineteen Eighty-Four the population was controlled via through two primary angles; constant fear, and control of information. While Orwell was misguided in his overall vision (to a significant degree, by his own later admission in hindsight), he was spot on with propaganda's role.
They spread the FEAR of guns. Vilify the gun owners as heartless, or lunatics fearing a tyrannical government takeover. Vilify the weapons themselves. Evoke an emotional response by flooding images of black rifles coupled with the words that strike fear in to people.
And they control the information flow in all primary news sources, by both being most vocal, and being emotional, and mitigating any opposition. They use comedy and belittlement and degradation and outright lies to slam our message while standing on the fortress of "FOR. THE. CHILDREN." They bring the easiest targets on TV to dismantle. And they're winning in the battle to get the message out.
That's a tough combo to fight.
The NRA has not been effective in their propaganda campaign.
They are currently viewed by the masses as an insensitive group which attempts to buy power through campaign contributions and other methods. As an example, they bring the daughter of the president in to play, in their latest media message. One thing I've learned as a father is you don't mess with a guy's daughter. It's one thing to go after the man making the decisions. But to toss his daughter in the limelight, that's not going to go over well, anywhere.
Just as their initial message of "Arm the Schools" (something which was hotly debated on this very board, and MANY of us disagreed with) was received with hostility by the mainstream, so will this. Arming the schools, while ONE step, can't be the only reasonable step. From the anti-gunner's perspective you're putting a man with a pistol up against potential bad guys armed with "assault rifles" with hundreds of rounds of "armor piercing" ammunition in "high capacity clips", wearing "body armor", who have the tactical element of both surprise and superior firepower. A single armed guard isn't going to do diddly squat against even ONE aggressor with a high powered rifle, regardless of type or configuration. The aggressor has the initiative. The defender loses.
People aren't dumb. But the NRA has acted so, and delivered a message that has not been received well by the general public; and even the most staunch pro-gun advocates (like me) are grimacing whenever Pierre opens his mouth to talk now. Every he does, the media has a feeding frenzy.
The propaganda machine on the other side has been effectively following a sound strategy:
#1 marginalize or humiliate the primary opponent (NRA) in every way possible
#2 demand answers for why we need "military style weapons", and dismantle that argument by calling us lunatics when we give the ONLY possible answer (defense of way of life against tyranny).
#3 pull the heartstrings so the unconcerned at least pay attention for a few seconds, to sway the moderates to their side.
#4 call out the most antagonistic gun proponents in to the public light to tear them, and their arguments, down on national news programs
#5 affiliate gun owners by equating them with seditionists, hillbillies, rednecks, or any other offensive stereotype they can. The idea is to tarnish the perspective of gun owners, causing "hunters" and "sportsman" to distance themselves and form a "new mainstream." (I've been called so many offensive names in the last month, debating gun issues, that I've lost track of all the variations.)
#6 expound upon our "gun craze" by covering the buying panic - a situation of our own causing. Prediction: Pretty soon you'll hear about bloodthirsty American gun owners hoarding so much ammunition the police can't even TRAIN their people for this new "school defense response training program" the President has ordered. (I checked SG last night, they're backordered on 223 PMC ammo until MAY. The massive volume of standing backorders has them *5 months back* already.
#7 We have no way to go on the offensive, from a propaganda perspective, without bouncing off the "shield of children" arrayed around the anti-gun community. Anything we say? Bloodthirsty. Anything we do? Bloodthirsty. Any justification we offer? Paranoid, bloodthirsty.
Adolph Hitler had a certain propaganda minister in the Third Reich, went by the name of Dr. Joseph Goebbels. I have Dr. Goebbels diaries in my library, at least, what survived the war. About a year ago I made a significant study of that text, along with Speer, and others. It was gut-wrenching work, delving in to the minds of madmen. Brilliant madmen. Genius in their methods.
In those diaries, combined with an historical understanding of the period, a startling realization hit me with absolute clarity. He who controls the press, controls the truth, because they control the message the people hear. While the government doesn't control the press directly, the "left's" influence on the media is undeniable, as is their slant on the media coverage. (Have you read or seen ONE article on gun control that doesn't mention Sandy Hook in the last month?)
“Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.”
Orwell saw this, as well, in his version of a dark utopia. In Nineteen Eighty-Four the population was controlled via through two primary angles; constant fear, and control of information. While Orwell was misguided in his overall vision (to a significant degree, by his own later admission in hindsight), he was spot on with propaganda's role.
They spread the FEAR of guns. Vilify the gun owners as heartless, or lunatics fearing a tyrannical government takeover. Vilify the weapons themselves. Evoke an emotional response by flooding images of black rifles coupled with the words that strike fear in to people.
And they control the information flow in all primary news sources, by both being most vocal, and being emotional, and mitigating any opposition. They use comedy and belittlement and degradation and outright lies to slam our message while standing on the fortress of "FOR. THE. CHILDREN." They bring the easiest targets on TV to dismantle. And they're winning in the battle to get the message out.
That's a tough combo to fight.
r1derbike
Member
I'll agree the NRA needs some different mouthpieces shouting their accolades from the mountaintop. I'm disappointed the tack they've been navigating lately. Embarrassed by it, to a degree. I'm wondering what-the-heck they've been up to, as the NRA-ILA updates in my email have been vague, short, and lacking any substance or detailed plan of action. It's as if they are stuck in defensive/personal attack mode, and the geriatrics of that organization haven't helped our causes publicly, but in very few situations.
We all see through the "for the children" smokescreen, but too many ignorant antis do not, and this targets the sheeple. They see utopia and flowers and "I'd like to buy the world a coke" visual images, and we see dictatorial opportunists hell-bent on destroying our 2nd amendment and Constitution, using the corpses of the children at Newtown, and the cute smiling faces of kids to distract from the effluent being spewed by our administration and public media.
It is a tough facade to fight, but I've done my best so far, and will continue to do my best in the coming weeks, to help defeat this tyrannical dictator, and his self-serving government minions. For our children, so they may inherit something but crushing debt, police state, and martial law.
We all see through the "for the children" smokescreen, but too many ignorant antis do not, and this targets the sheeple. They see utopia and flowers and "I'd like to buy the world a coke" visual images, and we see dictatorial opportunists hell-bent on destroying our 2nd amendment and Constitution, using the corpses of the children at Newtown, and the cute smiling faces of kids to distract from the effluent being spewed by our administration and public media.
It is a tough facade to fight, but I've done my best so far, and will continue to do my best in the coming weeks, to help defeat this tyrannical dictator, and his self-serving government minions. For our children, so they may inherit something but crushing debt, police state, and martial law.
chevyman097
Member
The average government teet sucker is too lazy to do the work on their own. They expect him to do it for them.
JohnBiltz
Member
Here is the thing, most antis are not one issue voters. At least when it comes to guns. Pro guns people are, particularly when threatened with having to give something up. Gun control has been a third rail for Dems. Touch it and die. My bet right now is that nothing comes out of the senate. If they can't pass one through the House the Senators will not want to be on the record against guns. The longer this goes on the less chance there is anything will happen.
I've heard a lot of disdain for the NRA and its guards in schools, I also heard the President signed a EO about that. So perhaps it was not so crazy. Sure everyone jumped on it at the start. The thing is the more you learned about it the more it turns out it made sense and was being done already on a limited basis.
I've heard a lot of disdain for the NRA and its guards in schools, I also heard the President signed a EO about that. So perhaps it was not so crazy. Sure everyone jumped on it at the start. The thing is the more you learned about it the more it turns out it made sense and was being done already on a limited basis.
KevininPa
Member
Honestly......
............I don't think Obama wants gun control regulation (for now!). The Sandy Hook shootings are pushing his agenda by a couple of years. I really believe that he didn't want this until after the mid-term elections. My belief is that he wanted this after mid-terms, in the hopes of buying more votes with free gov't crap/bribes and loading the deck with a more liberal house/senate. Gun control issues are now threatening that deck stacking.
If he really wanted to push the gun control issue, he'd be in the lead and putting his face out there if he thought it was going to be a drop in the bucket.
"Look at Me!I'm a winner again! Flock to me!"
It got passed off to Biden so he can take the fall if this gets ugly. Which it will with our current House. If it gets crappy, Biden and once again the Republican House gets the blame. This is why he passed some EA's. For the most part, all he did was strengthen existing laws. Just enough to appear like he did something, not enough to piss people off. How many posters on this forum said the EA's weren't bad? Picture the results when the nanny's don't get what they want.
" I'm sorry folks, but once again, Congress has blocked our attempts at controlling assault weapons. Joe (Biden) did his best but hit a brick wall. I did what I could at the time, but I was entirely involved in the fiscal crisis. But we can do better after the midterms with a more people friendly Congress."
That's my take on this anyway. Anyone else see this scenario?
............I don't think Obama wants gun control regulation (for now!). The Sandy Hook shootings are pushing his agenda by a couple of years. I really believe that he didn't want this until after the mid-term elections. My belief is that he wanted this after mid-terms, in the hopes of buying more votes with free gov't crap/bribes and loading the deck with a more liberal house/senate. Gun control issues are now threatening that deck stacking.
If he really wanted to push the gun control issue, he'd be in the lead and putting his face out there if he thought it was going to be a drop in the bucket.
"Look at Me!I'm a winner again! Flock to me!"
It got passed off to Biden so he can take the fall if this gets ugly. Which it will with our current House. If it gets crappy, Biden and once again the Republican House gets the blame. This is why he passed some EA's. For the most part, all he did was strengthen existing laws. Just enough to appear like he did something, not enough to piss people off. How many posters on this forum said the EA's weren't bad? Picture the results when the nanny's don't get what they want.
" I'm sorry folks, but once again, Congress has blocked our attempts at controlling assault weapons. Joe (Biden) did his best but hit a brick wall. I did what I could at the time, but I was entirely involved in the fiscal crisis. But we can do better after the midterms with a more people friendly Congress."
That's my take on this anyway. Anyone else see this scenario?
DammitBoy
Member
"We're are going to have to wait til after the mid-terms, when I have more flexibility" ~ President Obama
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm...not seeing more than a handful of the most hysterical types bothering to call or write in about an issue they really don't care that passionately about.
We, on the other hand, are in a froth over this because it directly affects every single one of us. There's no WAY the President has mobilized anything like a fraction of the number of folks on "his" side that he has mobilized on OURS!
Trent...
#1, I agree. We've seen some videos recently of people debating with anti-gun hosts and doing a good job. We need one of these calm, rational debaters to be our front-man. We need to groom someone to be our front-man, not because "he's NRA", but because we need someone to lead the propoganda assault.
#2, there are other reasons. The simple fact (as I've said in other threads) is that features that make a weapon good for self defense also make them attractive for mass murderers. However, restricting those features (if possible to make the criminal follow those restrictions) will do more to hinder a "prepared enough" citizen than it will to a determined attacker.
#3, we should be doing the same, and I think we are. The problem is both sides are polar opposites and it's like arguing "yes he did" "no he didn't". Our position: guns in the hands of parents and teachers protects kids. Their position: guns kill kids. Both are true. I'd rather parents be able to protect their kids, personally.
#4 is a reality we can't escape. To the fence-sitter, the craziest anti will not be seen as someone likely to snap and kill everyone with their guns.
#5, I haven't really been called any of those, but I avoid the topic at work (mainly because the person who sits next to me is a raging anti who has said flat out she hates guns and doesn't care if her facts are wrong). I do see this on the forums a lot, though, and it's something we need to work to correct.
#6, we should be doing the same, showing how sales in December 2012 doubling those of total 2011 shows that most American gun owners fear a ban, meaning we do not want a ban.
#7, sure we do. Show kids safely shooting guns. Show statistics which show how often kids have been saved by a gun owner. Show statistics on would-be-mass-shootings stopped by gun owners. Show stories where kids age 10-15 have used guns in home defense while their parent was away (quite often a brother or sister defending sisters). Show how the idea that guns and children only mix in accidents and sprees is fallacious.
You are right. We need to do better. But with the exception of one (making the crazies look bad) we totally have arguments for what they're trying to say. We just need someone calm and collected leading the charge.
#1, I agree. We've seen some videos recently of people debating with anti-gun hosts and doing a good job. We need one of these calm, rational debaters to be our front-man. We need to groom someone to be our front-man, not because "he's NRA", but because we need someone to lead the propoganda assault.
#2, there are other reasons. The simple fact (as I've said in other threads) is that features that make a weapon good for self defense also make them attractive for mass murderers. However, restricting those features (if possible to make the criminal follow those restrictions) will do more to hinder a "prepared enough" citizen than it will to a determined attacker.
#3, we should be doing the same, and I think we are. The problem is both sides are polar opposites and it's like arguing "yes he did" "no he didn't". Our position: guns in the hands of parents and teachers protects kids. Their position: guns kill kids. Both are true. I'd rather parents be able to protect their kids, personally.
#4 is a reality we can't escape. To the fence-sitter, the craziest anti will not be seen as someone likely to snap and kill everyone with their guns.
#5, I haven't really been called any of those, but I avoid the topic at work (mainly because the person who sits next to me is a raging anti who has said flat out she hates guns and doesn't care if her facts are wrong). I do see this on the forums a lot, though, and it's something we need to work to correct.
#6, we should be doing the same, showing how sales in December 2012 doubling those of total 2011 shows that most American gun owners fear a ban, meaning we do not want a ban.
#7, sure we do. Show kids safely shooting guns. Show statistics which show how often kids have been saved by a gun owner. Show statistics on would-be-mass-shootings stopped by gun owners. Show stories where kids age 10-15 have used guns in home defense while their parent was away (quite often a brother or sister defending sisters). Show how the idea that guns and children only mix in accidents and sprees is fallacious.
You are right. We need to do better. But with the exception of one (making the crazies look bad) we totally have arguments for what they're trying to say. We just need someone calm and collected leading the charge.
Something to add to the thread:
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...ions-of-supporters-to-new-advocacy-group?lite
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...ions-of-supporters-to-new-advocacy-group?lite
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
