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_weapon_(disambiguation). 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.

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?

Or, when they say "Assault Weapon", say "Personal Defense Weapon" since that is what DHS is now calling them when they order them.

Freedom1Man said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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)

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.

rapgood said:

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.

Click to expand...

Got it, I'll see if I can find that chart spells it out like what you're saying.

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.

Good suggestions.

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

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.

hermannr said:

.......Negative terminology evokes negative responses, positive terminology evokes positive responses. .........

Click to expand...

This is Truth!

kparker said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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

A very good post Rap. I will start trying to internalize and remember the subtle changes in vocabulary.

Thank you.

deanf said:

Which you do a pretty good job of mangling in your first paragraph.

See: Writing is Essential

and

Grammar Nazis.

Click to expand...

Good job at mangling the quote function.

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 :dude:

sudden valley gunner said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

deanf said:

I have no control over the crappy editor in the vBulletin software.[/COLOR]

Click to expand...

You took off my it was there to show I was teasing you.