bfieldburt
Member
The End of Gun Control
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but here it goes anyway....
If every gun owner would just get off their ??? and DO SOMETHING, there wouldn't be anymore gun control in the United States. We are 70, or 80, maybe 90 million strong. Do you know what kills freedom? LAZINESS. What follows is an article I wrote for the JPFO's "Bill of Rights Sentinel" a year and a half ago. Please read it...and write...write....write your elected officials. E-mails are better than nothing, but they are too easy to ignore and delete. Mail, on the other hand, shows that you care enough to DO SOMETHING. Also, mentioning consequences is good (legal, of course): "I will work against your reelection"..."I will never forget your efforts or lack thereof..." etc. Our forefathers fought and died in the mud. The least you and I can do is let our voices be heard.
Why Are You Losing Your Freedoms?
The Semantics of Manipulation
Semantics: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
What is wrong with those on the political right and supporters of the Second Amendment? Why, in spite of their best efforts, do they continue to lose ground to those on the left? The reasons are many, the causes varied, but simply put, it is because those on the right do not understand how to communicate with the modern populace.
“When words lose their meaning, the people will lose their libertiesâ€--Confucius
THE LEFT vs. THE RIGHT
Emotionalizers vs. Intellectualizers
The political left tends to attract people who speak and reason through their feelings. “I feel your pain.†“What a hateful thing to say.†“How will that affect the underprivileged...the children?†They speak in a language of feelings and it is reflected in the words they use. Those on the political right, in contrast, tend to process information based on perceived structures of “reality†and what they perceive to be “common senseâ€. The gestalt of the left is a gestalt of inclusion (based on feelings of togetherness). The gestalt of the right is a gestalt of underlying reason and overall concepts. How do these groups interact within their own ranks?
Generally, when discussing things internally, those on the right hold up topics or ideas as “the point†of the discussion; tact and politeness, although they may be important, are secondary to the ideas and “truths†that each person is trying to defend or develop. Those on the right can, and often do, say things in their discussions and to each other that those on the left would consider insulting, but these things are not seen as offensive because individual words, even phrases, are secondary to the larger points and systems being pursued.
Those on the left, in contrast, when interacting with each other, although also concerned with some point, are much more worried about not pushing their opinions to the level of personal insult--and are very careful to avoid this--because the overall feeling of “community†and “group†must not be sacrificed because of abstract ideas. It is not uncommon for a member of the group to intervene in the discussion between two other members to smooth things over if cohesiveness might otherwise be lost.
Understanding the People
Consider our day and age. Do we live in a slower-paced or faster-paced world? Do more people read books or watch TV? Are you willing to read that thousand-page book or would you prefer to see the two-hour movie? Baseball was once the national pastime, but faster sports like football and basketball have overtaken baseball in popularity. What does this trend mean politically?
Put simply, most people no longer have the time or inclination to learn advanced systems of logic or be persuaded through long lectures or explanations; instead, they respond to sound bites and appeals to emotion. Does this make them easier to manipulate? Yes, but most people don’t care or even know they are being manipulated. It is hard enough just to hold a good job, run a household, and have time for the kids and recreation. When it comes down to the personal priorities or boring political discussions they’ll avoid the latter. So what does this mean? It means:
A fast-paced world full of people who reason emotionally equals victory for those on the political left.
Why? Because acting and reacting emotionally is already in line with their natural communication style; no adaptation is required. To win, they must simply continue to act and speak as they always do. The very structure of the modern world puts those on the political right at a disadvantage. So what must the right do differently to win?
Framing the Debate...the Power of Words
Moderator: “What is your position on gun control?â€
Leftist: “We must protect the children in our society from dangerous maniacs.â€
Person on the Right: “In 1776, our founding fathers got together and......[candidate then goes on for as long as he can until cut off by the moderator. After the first three lines, Joe voter gets up and goes to the refrigerator; he gets back just in time for the next question].
Moderator: “Tell us your positions on the purposed tax cuts.â€
Leftist: “The tax cuts would help only the wealthy while hurting the poor and disadvantaged.â€
Person on the Right: “I resent those accusations. While the rich would get more money back according to basic economics...[candidate then goes into a lecture on the nature of capitalism and money, and Joe voter decides he had enough of that in high-school and turns the channel to MTV].
Result: Joe enjoys the night listening to rock and roll and goes and votes for the leftist in the election.
In the minds of those on the left, it is very simple. Guns are dangerous and tax cuts hurt the poor. Is this true? Generally, no. But it sounds good, and it’s easy for the average person to comprehend.
What impression does the person on the right give? That the world is a complex place and you, Joe voter, haven’t studied the issues enough to know what is true and what isn’t, and your laziness is having a detrimental effect on our society. Is that true? Yes. But because people in our society have been trained through the vehicles of pop culture to react and be influenced through emotions, the fact that the person on the right is correct will not help him in his discussion or on election day if his presentation is emotionally assaulting. Let’s consider some notorious examples.
“Homophobia†and the “Assault Weapons†Ban
Leftist: “I fully support the assault weapons bans. No one needs an assault weapon. Gay marriage? Anyone who is against it is hateful and homophobic.â€
Person on the Right: "Uh...there’s nothing wrong with my assault weapon"...and “I’m not homophobic".
In this example, who framed the debate? The leftist. Did the person on the right attempt to reframe the debate? No. In fact, in his response, he did the worst thing possible. He actually strengthened and validated the original misleading “frame words†by repeating these leftist labels.
Why does this happen? Because those on the left naturally understand the impact of words better than those on the right. Why? Because they are emotionalizers who feel the impact of words more deeply than those on the right who tend to intellectualize. So what do those on the right need to know about communicating with the populace in the modern age?
THE EIGHT RULES/HOW TO TURN THINGS AROUND
Do you care about this great country and our sacred freedoms? Then here is what you need to do.
1) Do not unwittingly repeat inappropriate labels that the other side has coined.
In the game of persuasion, you give weight to the other side’s argument when you use the labels they chose. Lots of intelligent people on the right have started to figure this out. They realize that the associations people have to certain leftist labels need to be changed to the right's advantage. However, they have no idea how to do this. They go into big long discussions about the nature of guns, and how semi-autos (say the word “auto†as many times as possible and really make the leftists giggle with glee) are very common, and how there is nothing wrong (another point for the left) with them...etc..etc..etc... Who wins the public relations war when the game is played this way? The left.
You can try to change the public's perceptions through argumentation, but that is usually a losing strategy. Or you can enact change through what psychologists call "anchoring".
How do you anchor the left's labels to a bad (or good depending on the word and your purposes) feeling or connotation? By immediately countering deceptive labels with labels of your own. Every time they say "homophobic", you say "deophobic": fear of the ideas of God. Every time they say "assault weapon", you say "defense device" or "freedom stick" or "child protection tool". Whatever you do, do not repeat the labels they use. They want you to empower their viewpoint by using their words. That’s their strategy. Don't fall for it. Until the right figures this out, the left will continue to frame the debate to their purposes and the right will continue to aid the enemy in their own destruction.
2) Understand the impact of the words you use on the public...not just the impact that those words have on you.
Take the label "semi-auto" as an example. Anyone who understands guns knows that there is nothing wrong or inherently dangerous about a “semi-auto†gun. A large percentage of the guns in America are semi-autos. Gun owners can talk about semi-autos until the cows come home and not become anti-gun or become scared of the guns they own. However, those who aren’t educated hear the word "auto" and imagine that a bunch of "gun nuts" are walking around with unregulated machine-guns and then it’s "oh-no, we have to do something about it." You can understand what to do by first knowing what not to do. Do not assume that using the phrase "semi-auto" (or any other potentially negative sounding word or phrase) with the uninitiated people will help educate them or will help your cause. The more you do, the more you are violating rule number one and framing the debate to the left’s advantage.
3) Use already established associations...only later attempt to change those associations. (If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em...until later).
Psychologists know that a would-be persuader has two choices: 1) attempt to change the associations a person has to certain words or ideas, or 2) use already established words and associations to your advantage. Get the order wrong, and you are in big trouble. Those on the right too often attempt to change a person’s associations before understanding what the person’s associations actually are. By doing this, they unwittingly insult the person emotionally and never get the chance to interact long enough to influence that person. To win, you must understand those “buttons†that already stimulate the populace to respond, and use those buttons to trigger people emotionally so they will be motivated to understand your ideas.
Example: “Gun control is classist, racist, and sexist. I don’t support those things.â€
This response turns the tables on the left by using their own trigger words against them. The left uses this trick because anyone who objects comes across as a supporter of racism, classism, and sexism. It doesn’t matter if the connection is unfair; the mere implication of racism is usually enough to convince the average citizen not to listen to the counter-arguments of a “racist†because no reasonable person would.
Can you, as someone on the right, feel good about adopting such a trick? Yes, because unlike the misleading assertions of those on the left, the above response is true. You are simply using a person’s already established buttons to convince him of something truthful instead of using those buttons to manipulate him. If the right is ever to gain political ground, they need to understand these word capture techniques.
Word capture: To capture and hold labels and phrases that the populace already has good emotional ties to, and by so doing, control and frame the political debate.
Word capture is an old propaganda tactic used by the communists. East Germany, for example, was called the GDR, the German Democratic Republic. Was it actually democratic? No. But by redefining the very meaning of the word “democracyâ€, those in power kept their people from developing a real understanding of the principles of liberty that would have empowered them to resistance communist rule.
Consider the word “liberal.†By using this term for themselves--many on the left also call themselves “progressivesâ€--leftists immediately associate themselves with progressive causes and values of liberty when their actual actions and attitudes support the exact opposite. How can conservatives fight this? By enacting truth in labeling rules in their own communications.
Your must work to capture words like liberal and progressive. Why? Because they actually belong to you. You’re the one who supports the ideas that will lead to a better future, and you are the defender of liberty, not the leftists.
So how do you do it? By using responses like:
“The liberal thing to do would be to support liberty by opposing gun-laws and other government control schemes. We need to progress toward a future of freedom, not a system that reenacts past tyrannies.â€
In addition, sound-bites and phrases must be developed to aid the right in the recapturing of stolen words. Liberals For Gun-Freedoms and Progress Toward Liberty. These are the type of slogans that must be repeated often and placed on signs and bumper-stickers.
The bottom line: label the opposition appropriately...“leftistâ€..“socialistâ€..“neo-communist.†Use words like “progressive†and “liberalâ€, but take ownership of them by associating them with your causes--causes and actions that really do support “liberty†and “progress†toward an improved society.
4) Length matters.
A) Short, to-the-point assertions should always be countered with short, to-the-point responses.
How many times have we lamented: “But if they just understood...if we could just educate them.†Yes, that would be great. But after the first three sentences most people just tune out the same way they did when they were thirteen and were being lectured by an angry parent.
Consider this usual sort of exchange:
Leftist: “Guns are dangerous.â€
Person on the Right: “Guns aren’t dangerous...there was a study recently...blah…blah...blah...â€
It is better to respond with a counter-phrase that is as short and to the point as the propaganda that requires your response. “Guns are tools.†“Guns protect children.†If a person is pushing anti-gun nonsense, he or she probably won’t be convinced no matter what you say, but the undecided listeners will remember your short, to-the-point response, not just the leftist deceptions.
B) A simplification (even a dumb one) that requires a long response will win in the game of influence.
Here’s a classic: “We license and register cars...why shouldn’t we license and register guns?â€
This idea is stupid. I could go on for fifty pages on why this is a manipulative comparison, but that’s the beauty of the question. It is easily rebutted, but not quickly. The average listener thinks, “Yeah, why don’t we register guns if we register cars?â€
The typical response from the right? A lecture...blah..blah...blah. Who wins? The leftist. Those on the right need to play the same game. Here’s a response that works in a lot of situations: “Why are leftists so anti-freedom?†That’s not easily answered in a sentence of two. Who wins? The supporter of liberty.
5) A few shared labels that are mediocre are better than hundreds of words and labels that are great but aren’t shared.
In the mind of most freedom-lovers, a hundred good reasons is better than just one or two reasons. Logically, this might make sense. On the playing field of persuasion, however, a hundred different people pushing a hundred different phrases just insures that no one’s message gets through to the populace.
Have you ever noticed that those on the left repeat the same things over and over? “Benefiting the rich and hurting the poor.†“That’s racism.†“I don’t support hate and intolerance.†It seems that no matter what the situation or issue, whether simple or complex, leftists manage to funnel everything into the frames of class-warfare rhetoric and hackneyed socialistic clichés. And it works. Why? Because the message gets through. By their very nature, in their discussions with each other, leftists are searching for common ground and shared ideas. When they find something upon which they all agree and feel good, then that is what they present to the public.
What do those on the right do? Build up the house of their logic with a million different bricks. Sure, the house is a mansion and not a hovel; too bad no one is going to follow them down the road to that mansion because blah...blah...blah isn’t very motivating.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." Joseph Goebbels. Nazi Propaganda Minister
Until a number of gun-rights groups get together and decide on shared sound-bites and labels, the left will continue to have the advantage. To influence the public, phrases of influence must be shared (and pushed by a number of different conservative groups--which generally hasn’t happened); they must be emotional; and they must hit upon buttons that have already been built into the public through the popular media.
6) Do not counter a leftist idea in such a way that you support a different leftist idea.
During the Clinton Administration, the NRA (love ‘em or curse ‘em...I can never decide which) fell for this one. When the leftists in Congress attempted to push through a whole batch of new gun laws, the NRA responded with, “We need to support the gun laws that are on the books...this administration won’t even prosecute those criminals who are already breaking the laws we have.†Now the second part of this statement is true enough, and was useful in that it pointed out the Clinton Administration’s hypocrisy and true purposes, but look at the first part of the statement: “We need to support the gun laws that are already on the books.†Do we? Sure that response countered a lot of the leftists’ fire, in the short-term, but it also had the NRA agreeing, in kind of a backhanded way, that guns laws are good.
A better response would have been, “Gun laws are classist, racist, and sexist. Why are leftists such hateful control-freaks?â This approach also would have blunted the attacks in the short-term, and wouldn’t have created long-term problems and default agreement with the very people organizations like the NRA should be fighting.
[For an entire list of inappropriate responses to avoid, see the article “Give It to Them Straight†by John Ross, Author of Unintended Consequences. (http://www.shotgunnews.com/members/fred/pages/Freds8.html)]
(Cont. End of Gun Control Part 2)
I know I'm preaching to the choir, but here it goes anyway....
If every gun owner would just get off their ??? and DO SOMETHING, there wouldn't be anymore gun control in the United States. We are 70, or 80, maybe 90 million strong. Do you know what kills freedom? LAZINESS. What follows is an article I wrote for the JPFO's "Bill of Rights Sentinel" a year and a half ago. Please read it...and write...write....write your elected officials. E-mails are better than nothing, but they are too easy to ignore and delete. Mail, on the other hand, shows that you care enough to DO SOMETHING. Also, mentioning consequences is good (legal, of course): "I will work against your reelection"..."I will never forget your efforts or lack thereof..." etc. Our forefathers fought and died in the mud. The least you and I can do is let our voices be heard.
Why Are You Losing Your Freedoms?
The Semantics of Manipulation
Semantics: the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development
What is wrong with those on the political right and supporters of the Second Amendment? Why, in spite of their best efforts, do they continue to lose ground to those on the left? The reasons are many, the causes varied, but simply put, it is because those on the right do not understand how to communicate with the modern populace.
“When words lose their meaning, the people will lose their libertiesâ€--Confucius
THE LEFT vs. THE RIGHT
Emotionalizers vs. Intellectualizers
The political left tends to attract people who speak and reason through their feelings. “I feel your pain.†“What a hateful thing to say.†“How will that affect the underprivileged...the children?†They speak in a language of feelings and it is reflected in the words they use. Those on the political right, in contrast, tend to process information based on perceived structures of “reality†and what they perceive to be “common senseâ€. The gestalt of the left is a gestalt of inclusion (based on feelings of togetherness). The gestalt of the right is a gestalt of underlying reason and overall concepts. How do these groups interact within their own ranks?
Generally, when discussing things internally, those on the right hold up topics or ideas as “the point†of the discussion; tact and politeness, although they may be important, are secondary to the ideas and “truths†that each person is trying to defend or develop. Those on the right can, and often do, say things in their discussions and to each other that those on the left would consider insulting, but these things are not seen as offensive because individual words, even phrases, are secondary to the larger points and systems being pursued.
Those on the left, in contrast, when interacting with each other, although also concerned with some point, are much more worried about not pushing their opinions to the level of personal insult--and are very careful to avoid this--because the overall feeling of “community†and “group†must not be sacrificed because of abstract ideas. It is not uncommon for a member of the group to intervene in the discussion between two other members to smooth things over if cohesiveness might otherwise be lost.
Understanding the People
Consider our day and age. Do we live in a slower-paced or faster-paced world? Do more people read books or watch TV? Are you willing to read that thousand-page book or would you prefer to see the two-hour movie? Baseball was once the national pastime, but faster sports like football and basketball have overtaken baseball in popularity. What does this trend mean politically?
Put simply, most people no longer have the time or inclination to learn advanced systems of logic or be persuaded through long lectures or explanations; instead, they respond to sound bites and appeals to emotion. Does this make them easier to manipulate? Yes, but most people don’t care or even know they are being manipulated. It is hard enough just to hold a good job, run a household, and have time for the kids and recreation. When it comes down to the personal priorities or boring political discussions they’ll avoid the latter. So what does this mean? It means:
A fast-paced world full of people who reason emotionally equals victory for those on the political left.
Why? Because acting and reacting emotionally is already in line with their natural communication style; no adaptation is required. To win, they must simply continue to act and speak as they always do. The very structure of the modern world puts those on the political right at a disadvantage. So what must the right do differently to win?
Framing the Debate...the Power of Words
Moderator: “What is your position on gun control?â€
Leftist: “We must protect the children in our society from dangerous maniacs.â€
Person on the Right: “In 1776, our founding fathers got together and......[candidate then goes on for as long as he can until cut off by the moderator. After the first three lines, Joe voter gets up and goes to the refrigerator; he gets back just in time for the next question].
Moderator: “Tell us your positions on the purposed tax cuts.â€
Leftist: “The tax cuts would help only the wealthy while hurting the poor and disadvantaged.â€
Person on the Right: “I resent those accusations. While the rich would get more money back according to basic economics...[candidate then goes into a lecture on the nature of capitalism and money, and Joe voter decides he had enough of that in high-school and turns the channel to MTV].
Result: Joe enjoys the night listening to rock and roll and goes and votes for the leftist in the election.
In the minds of those on the left, it is very simple. Guns are dangerous and tax cuts hurt the poor. Is this true? Generally, no. But it sounds good, and it’s easy for the average person to comprehend.
What impression does the person on the right give? That the world is a complex place and you, Joe voter, haven’t studied the issues enough to know what is true and what isn’t, and your laziness is having a detrimental effect on our society. Is that true? Yes. But because people in our society have been trained through the vehicles of pop culture to react and be influenced through emotions, the fact that the person on the right is correct will not help him in his discussion or on election day if his presentation is emotionally assaulting. Let’s consider some notorious examples.
“Homophobia†and the “Assault Weapons†Ban
Leftist: “I fully support the assault weapons bans. No one needs an assault weapon. Gay marriage? Anyone who is against it is hateful and homophobic.â€
Person on the Right: "Uh...there’s nothing wrong with my assault weapon"...and “I’m not homophobic".
In this example, who framed the debate? The leftist. Did the person on the right attempt to reframe the debate? No. In fact, in his response, he did the worst thing possible. He actually strengthened and validated the original misleading “frame words†by repeating these leftist labels.
Why does this happen? Because those on the left naturally understand the impact of words better than those on the right. Why? Because they are emotionalizers who feel the impact of words more deeply than those on the right who tend to intellectualize. So what do those on the right need to know about communicating with the populace in the modern age?
THE EIGHT RULES/HOW TO TURN THINGS AROUND
Do you care about this great country and our sacred freedoms? Then here is what you need to do.
1) Do not unwittingly repeat inappropriate labels that the other side has coined.
In the game of persuasion, you give weight to the other side’s argument when you use the labels they chose. Lots of intelligent people on the right have started to figure this out. They realize that the associations people have to certain leftist labels need to be changed to the right's advantage. However, they have no idea how to do this. They go into big long discussions about the nature of guns, and how semi-autos (say the word “auto†as many times as possible and really make the leftists giggle with glee) are very common, and how there is nothing wrong (another point for the left) with them...etc..etc..etc... Who wins the public relations war when the game is played this way? The left.
You can try to change the public's perceptions through argumentation, but that is usually a losing strategy. Or you can enact change through what psychologists call "anchoring".
How do you anchor the left's labels to a bad (or good depending on the word and your purposes) feeling or connotation? By immediately countering deceptive labels with labels of your own. Every time they say "homophobic", you say "deophobic": fear of the ideas of God. Every time they say "assault weapon", you say "defense device" or "freedom stick" or "child protection tool". Whatever you do, do not repeat the labels they use. They want you to empower their viewpoint by using their words. That’s their strategy. Don't fall for it. Until the right figures this out, the left will continue to frame the debate to their purposes and the right will continue to aid the enemy in their own destruction.
2) Understand the impact of the words you use on the public...not just the impact that those words have on you.
Take the label "semi-auto" as an example. Anyone who understands guns knows that there is nothing wrong or inherently dangerous about a “semi-auto†gun. A large percentage of the guns in America are semi-autos. Gun owners can talk about semi-autos until the cows come home and not become anti-gun or become scared of the guns they own. However, those who aren’t educated hear the word "auto" and imagine that a bunch of "gun nuts" are walking around with unregulated machine-guns and then it’s "oh-no, we have to do something about it." You can understand what to do by first knowing what not to do. Do not assume that using the phrase "semi-auto" (or any other potentially negative sounding word or phrase) with the uninitiated people will help educate them or will help your cause. The more you do, the more you are violating rule number one and framing the debate to the left’s advantage.
3) Use already established associations...only later attempt to change those associations. (If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em...until later).
Psychologists know that a would-be persuader has two choices: 1) attempt to change the associations a person has to certain words or ideas, or 2) use already established words and associations to your advantage. Get the order wrong, and you are in big trouble. Those on the right too often attempt to change a person’s associations before understanding what the person’s associations actually are. By doing this, they unwittingly insult the person emotionally and never get the chance to interact long enough to influence that person. To win, you must understand those “buttons†that already stimulate the populace to respond, and use those buttons to trigger people emotionally so they will be motivated to understand your ideas.
Example: “Gun control is classist, racist, and sexist. I don’t support those things.â€
This response turns the tables on the left by using their own trigger words against them. The left uses this trick because anyone who objects comes across as a supporter of racism, classism, and sexism. It doesn’t matter if the connection is unfair; the mere implication of racism is usually enough to convince the average citizen not to listen to the counter-arguments of a “racist†because no reasonable person would.
Can you, as someone on the right, feel good about adopting such a trick? Yes, because unlike the misleading assertions of those on the left, the above response is true. You are simply using a person’s already established buttons to convince him of something truthful instead of using those buttons to manipulate him. If the right is ever to gain political ground, they need to understand these word capture techniques.
Word capture: To capture and hold labels and phrases that the populace already has good emotional ties to, and by so doing, control and frame the political debate.
Word capture is an old propaganda tactic used by the communists. East Germany, for example, was called the GDR, the German Democratic Republic. Was it actually democratic? No. But by redefining the very meaning of the word “democracyâ€, those in power kept their people from developing a real understanding of the principles of liberty that would have empowered them to resistance communist rule.
Consider the word “liberal.†By using this term for themselves--many on the left also call themselves “progressivesâ€--leftists immediately associate themselves with progressive causes and values of liberty when their actual actions and attitudes support the exact opposite. How can conservatives fight this? By enacting truth in labeling rules in their own communications.
Your must work to capture words like liberal and progressive. Why? Because they actually belong to you. You’re the one who supports the ideas that will lead to a better future, and you are the defender of liberty, not the leftists.
So how do you do it? By using responses like:
“The liberal thing to do would be to support liberty by opposing gun-laws and other government control schemes. We need to progress toward a future of freedom, not a system that reenacts past tyrannies.â€
In addition, sound-bites and phrases must be developed to aid the right in the recapturing of stolen words. Liberals For Gun-Freedoms and Progress Toward Liberty. These are the type of slogans that must be repeated often and placed on signs and bumper-stickers.
The bottom line: label the opposition appropriately...“leftistâ€..“socialistâ€..“neo-communist.†Use words like “progressive†and “liberalâ€, but take ownership of them by associating them with your causes--causes and actions that really do support “liberty†and “progress†toward an improved society.
4) Length matters.
A) Short, to-the-point assertions should always be countered with short, to-the-point responses.
How many times have we lamented: “But if they just understood...if we could just educate them.†Yes, that would be great. But after the first three sentences most people just tune out the same way they did when they were thirteen and were being lectured by an angry parent.
Consider this usual sort of exchange:
Leftist: “Guns are dangerous.â€
Person on the Right: “Guns aren’t dangerous...there was a study recently...blah…blah...blah...â€
It is better to respond with a counter-phrase that is as short and to the point as the propaganda that requires your response. “Guns are tools.†“Guns protect children.†If a person is pushing anti-gun nonsense, he or she probably won’t be convinced no matter what you say, but the undecided listeners will remember your short, to-the-point response, not just the leftist deceptions.
B) A simplification (even a dumb one) that requires a long response will win in the game of influence.
Here’s a classic: “We license and register cars...why shouldn’t we license and register guns?â€
This idea is stupid. I could go on for fifty pages on why this is a manipulative comparison, but that’s the beauty of the question. It is easily rebutted, but not quickly. The average listener thinks, “Yeah, why don’t we register guns if we register cars?â€
The typical response from the right? A lecture...blah..blah...blah. Who wins? The leftist. Those on the right need to play the same game. Here’s a response that works in a lot of situations: “Why are leftists so anti-freedom?†That’s not easily answered in a sentence of two. Who wins? The supporter of liberty.
5) A few shared labels that are mediocre are better than hundreds of words and labels that are great but aren’t shared.
In the mind of most freedom-lovers, a hundred good reasons is better than just one or two reasons. Logically, this might make sense. On the playing field of persuasion, however, a hundred different people pushing a hundred different phrases just insures that no one’s message gets through to the populace.
Have you ever noticed that those on the left repeat the same things over and over? “Benefiting the rich and hurting the poor.†“That’s racism.†“I don’t support hate and intolerance.†It seems that no matter what the situation or issue, whether simple or complex, leftists manage to funnel everything into the frames of class-warfare rhetoric and hackneyed socialistic clichés. And it works. Why? Because the message gets through. By their very nature, in their discussions with each other, leftists are searching for common ground and shared ideas. When they find something upon which they all agree and feel good, then that is what they present to the public.
What do those on the right do? Build up the house of their logic with a million different bricks. Sure, the house is a mansion and not a hovel; too bad no one is going to follow them down the road to that mansion because blah...blah...blah isn’t very motivating.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly...it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over." Joseph Goebbels. Nazi Propaganda Minister
Until a number of gun-rights groups get together and decide on shared sound-bites and labels, the left will continue to have the advantage. To influence the public, phrases of influence must be shared (and pushed by a number of different conservative groups--which generally hasn’t happened); they must be emotional; and they must hit upon buttons that have already been built into the public through the popular media.
6) Do not counter a leftist idea in such a way that you support a different leftist idea.
During the Clinton Administration, the NRA (love ‘em or curse ‘em...I can never decide which) fell for this one. When the leftists in Congress attempted to push through a whole batch of new gun laws, the NRA responded with, “We need to support the gun laws that are on the books...this administration won’t even prosecute those criminals who are already breaking the laws we have.†Now the second part of this statement is true enough, and was useful in that it pointed out the Clinton Administration’s hypocrisy and true purposes, but look at the first part of the statement: “We need to support the gun laws that are already on the books.†Do we? Sure that response countered a lot of the leftists’ fire, in the short-term, but it also had the NRA agreeing, in kind of a backhanded way, that guns laws are good.
A better response would have been, “Gun laws are classist, racist, and sexist. Why are leftists such hateful control-freaks?â This approach also would have blunted the attacks in the short-term, and wouldn’t have created long-term problems and default agreement with the very people organizations like the NRA should be fighting.
[For an entire list of inappropriate responses to avoid, see the article “Give It to Them Straight†by John Ross, Author of Unintended Consequences. (http://www.shotgunnews.com/members/fred/pages/Freds8.html)]
(Cont. End of Gun Control Part 2)
Last edited:
