Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Dealing with antis and the press

  1. #1
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565

    Dealing with antis and the press

    The English language is a wonderful language rich with words and phrases that can convey precise meanings. We pro-constitutionalists see that everyday when we hear from the likes of Washington Ceasefire, the media and even the executive. Words create images in our minds that are imbued with deep emotional meanings. Those who employ these methods against our pro-Constitutionalist writings and activities know this and use it repeatedly and intentionally against our positions. As such, we should always be charry (neat word, huh?) of falling into word traps that are specifically created to create those emotional images.

    We need to employ the same use of our words in order to effectively convey our meanings. Below are some suggestions that I make for you to consider.

    When they say, "Assault Weapon," we respond with, "Sporting firearm" or make a statement to the effect of "Fully-automatic firearms are already strictly regulated by the Federal Government. I haven't seen anywhere that the tragic mass shootings were done with fully-automatic firearms, so those laws must be working pretty good, huh?" It is up to us to accurately educate the body politic when we see that they are intentionally being led astray by those who are attacking fundamental rights. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault...isambiguation). Knowing this, you can challenge their use of "Assault Weapon" since nothing in the list is a weapon used by mass victim killers.

    Instead of our calling them "anti-gunners," we call them "anti-constitutionalists" or "Constitution bashers." I know it takes longer to type and say, but the message of someone being an "anti-constitutionalist" creates the image that they are un-American (which they are when they want/try to create laws that infringe on everyone's rights by tearing down the Constitutions).

    Instead of our referring to just "constitutional rights," we need to refer to those rights as "everyone's rights." In fact, whenever we want to refer to "our rights," we should refer to them as "everyone's rights" or "your and my rights."

    Repeat this mantra whenever possible, "I oppose anyone who who tries to destroy my Constitutions. Too many of our sons and daughters have given their blood and lives to protect them and I will do what I can to stop anyone who tries to destroy them."

    Instead of referring to "Constitutions" in an objective manner, I suggest a better approach is to refer to them as "Our Constitutions" or "my Constitutions" as the discussion may warrant. This brings the listener "into the fold" since (s)he knows that the Constitution(s) are already protecting their rights and this reminds them of that.

    Are they reading this? Sure they are! But what have we done other than use accurate words and phrases to describe our thoughts... and none of these words are designed to be deceptive. A claim I posit that they cannot truthfully make.

    I'm sure that many out there have other good ideas along this vein and I encourage you to post them here for all to benefit by.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Replace
    Anti-gun with Anti-freedom
    Right wing extremest with A person who can read and comprehend the constitution(s)


    Is that the sort of line you are starting us down?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    People's Soviet of Washington
    Posts
    15
    Or, when they say "Assault Weapon", say "Personal Defense Weapon" since that is what DHS is now calling them when they order them.
    Last edited by RunningBare; 01-29-2013 at 09:46 PM.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Replace
    Anti-gun with Anti-freedom
    Right wing extremest with A person who can read and comprehend the constitution(s)

    Is that the sort of line you are starting us down?
    That one works, as well. Although it might be a little inflammatory. I'm just looking for words and phrases that paint subtly different pictures than the ones they are painting.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  5. #5
    Regular Member liberty404's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    20

    terminology

    "Civil rights bashers", "anti civil rights", "anti human rights", "anti individual rights"
    (to make explicit the point that our civil and individual rights are being attacked, and that firearms are a physical manifestation of those rights)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Lynnwood
    Posts
    75
    I always felt we never had freedom.
    If martial law is ever declared they should not be able to touch our freedom but they can.
    So I think what we got is privileges not freedom.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by rapgood View Post
    That one works, as well. Although it might be a little inflammatory. I'm just looking for words and phrases that paint subtly different pictures than the ones they are painting.
    Got it, I'll see if I can find that chart spells it out like what you're saying.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  8. #8
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    A good example...those that approve of Abortion, wanted to focus on Woman's rights and freedom of Choice.

    Those that do not, focus on the sancitity of life.

    When that "discussion" (propaganda) first started, the pro abortion crowd never tried to paint their opponents as "anti-abortion" it was always anti-women's right or anti-choice.

    Slowly, the pro crowd settled of "pro-choice" and the anti crowd settled on "pro-life". This terminology took a while to set, and I think it did end up be the common teminology more because the other group did not want THEIR position to shown a negative.

    Negative terminology evokes negative responses, positive terminology evokes positive responses. Personally, I prefer to be called a constitutionalist or a libertarian..I am not sure what we terms we need to pin on the anti-gun group, because I am sure they will do everything in their power (and with their media support, they really have power dispraportionate to their numbers) to keep whatever term sticks from being a negative term.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,327
    Good suggestions.

    Personally, I like "human right" or "basic human right" when talking about self-defense.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Good post Rob.

    I do like that approach, and have worked already at not saying things like "constitutional rights" because our rights don't come from a document meant to restrict government.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    .......Negative terminology evokes negative responses, positive terminology evokes positive responses. .........
    This is Truth!

    Quote Originally Posted by kparker View Post
    ........Personally, I like "human right" or "basic human right" when talking about self-defense.
    When I was in the US Navy I attended Dive school for training. My crusty old Chief could make an armed man pee his pants by yelling at him. He was adament about profanity. We were told, by him, that "Profanity is a demonstration of a poor vocabulary". The English language is a beautiful thing. Pick your words carefully (and always use spellcheck).
    Rap this is a great post.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  12. #12
    Regular Member rapgood's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bothell, WA
    Posts
    565
    Read something like it elsewhere, a Workman column I think, so I don't take the credit:
    30 round magazine = "standard" capacity magazine
    10 round magazine = reduced capacity magazine
    less than 10 round magazine = small capacity magazine

    free-floating barrel = vented barrel (been used for shotguns for decades)
    hand grip = stock balancer
    forward grip = barrel heat guard
    Last edited by rapgood; 01-30-2013 at 07:07 PM.
    Rev. Robert Apgood, Esq.

    A right cannot be lost by exercising it. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3021, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (citing Near v. Minn., 283 U.S. 697 (1931)).

    Although IAAL, anything I say here is not legal advice. No conversations we may have privately or otherwise in this forum constitute the formation of an attorney-client relationship, and are not intended to do so.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Found one

    http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6382
    Saturday night specials = racist gun laws
    junk guns =the affordability issue
    high capacity magazines = full capacity magazines
    Second Amendment = Bill of Rights
    the powerful gun lobby = civil rights organizations
    common sense legislation = dangerous utopian ideas
    reasonable gun controls = victim disarmament
    gun control laws = infringement laws
    anti-gun= anti-gun bigot
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435
    A very good post Rap. I will start trying to internalize and remember the subtle changes in vocabulary.

    Thank you.
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    [COLOR=#333333]The English language is a wonderful language rich with words and phrases that can convey precise meanings.
    Which you do a pretty good job of mangling in your first paragraph.

    See: Writing is Essential

    and

    Grammar Nazis.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    Which you do a pretty good job of mangling in your first paragraph.

    See: Writing is Essential

    and

    Grammar Nazis.
    Good job at mangling the quote function.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  17. #17
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234
    Good writeup Rapgood. I think you have some valid points here, and this touches on a similar point that came up in a conversation with a friend.
    - I think too, that we need to consider a fundamental difference between the anti-x crowd and the pro crowd in an effort to better speak their language. Most anti-gun people come to their "gunz-r-bad" conclusion from an emotional standpoint, and attempting to use "logic" to correct their thinking often leads to simple frustration on our part when we receive that blinky headlight stare and more emotions as a rebuke. In order to impact their thinking, you have to interject some form of emotional plea that gives (in their mind) substance to the concept of self protection. It's one thing to say "I own guns because someone might try to attack me" compared to "I own guns because I want to protect my family in an emergency" or "How can my family trust me to keep them safe if I can not protect them". The first phrase implies that people attack each other, and in the eyes of an anti-x, these things simply don't happen, except in the news or on TV. The later phrase invokes a sense of strife and compassion, builds a vision of a parent with child clinging behind them, yet does not directly address humans attacking each other, and forces the anti-x to address the emotional plea of a parent/family responsibility. You might get asked "What are you protecting yourself from (smirk).." [remember many don't think it's real] and a great reply is.. "From the things we see and read about on the local news...", thus forcing them to acknowledge that their faux image is in fact real, identified, and acknowledged by the external community.

    - I will note that there are some ant-x that are simply following what they see hear in the news because no one ever really talked to them or posed and alternative veiw. These ones can be reasoned with and logic works great, and often quickly. Case in point, another friend whom my first friend and I realized was supportive of gun control, citing allot of media driven factoids and sound bites. When we opened discussion in regards to the Second Amendments true intent, where our country was headed economically and politically, rising crime, cutbacks in law enforcement etc, then asked him who is going to keep his family safe... well, his whole perception changed, and he is now very pro-gun, including "personal defense weapons" and sees the assault weapon bill as a challenge to our liberties.

    So lastly, of the two types of people, the latter is much easier to deal with and logic works great.. the former, first example, they are very difficult to communicate with, because logic and reason will not calculate in their minds, and they are driven only by the dynamic of what scares them, often to the point where they are simply to scared to imagine protecting themselves.

    Just something to consider
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good post Rob.

    I do like that approach, and have worked already at not saying things like "constitutional rights" because our rights don't come from a document meant to restrict government.
    SVG, that's Divine.


    I knew you would come around to the irrelevance of the Constitution.

    Referring to individuals who are either for some degree of firearm restrictions, or an all-out ban, as un-American isn't a good idea. If the goal is to persuade individuals who aren't informed about firearms, terminology like "un-American" won't bode well to your end.
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 01-31-2013 at 01:49 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,761
    Good job at mangling the quote function.


    I have no control over the crappy editor in the vBulletin software.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by deanf View Post
    I have no control over the crappy editor in the vBulletin software.[/COLOR]
    You took off my it was there to show I was teasing you.
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-31-2013 at 11:45 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    SVG, that's Divine.


    I knew you would come around to the irrelevance of the Constitution.

    Referring to individuals who are either for some degree of firearm restrictions, or an all-out ban, as un-American isn't a good idea. If the goal is to persuade individuals who aren't informed about firearms, terminology like "un-American" won't bode well to your end.
    I have always argued rights don't come from the government or the constitution.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  22. #22
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I have always argued rights don't come from the government or the constitution.
    I know, I know, you feel they come from God
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  23. #23
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I have always argued rights don't come from the government or the constitution.
    They come from our creator.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    I know, I know, you feel they come from God
    Now you are teasing me.....lol.....

    I don't necessarily believe in gods, . I am agnostic in the strictest sense. I simply don't know and there is much unexplained and leaps of faith by atheists and creationist.

    When I was six my mom went from hippy to religion, and told me what she was doing and about God, I asked "Where'd he come from?" "He was always there"

    When I talk to atheist and their big bang theory and where it came from they mention this mystical singularity I ask "Where'd it come from?" The answer is along the lines of "It was always there".

    Sometimes I think the best answer to our Universe and all in it including us is that it is simply easier for it to exist than for there to be nothing at all.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Good post Rob.

    I do like that approach, and have worked already at not saying things like "constitutional rights" because our rights don't come from a document meant to restrict government.
    +1
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •