Media Matters Twists Reality to Monger Fear of .50 Caliber Rifles

1 Comment

This is from Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership.

The anti gun crowd will use any fear tactic to stir up the sheeple.


By Kurt Hofmann, July 23rd, 2014
JPFO writer contributor, © 2014.


“Fox News Accidentally Exposes Recklessness Behind NRA’s Defense Of A ‘Battlefield Weapon,'” screams the headline of a Media Matters for America article about U.S. Border Patrol agents allegedly coming under fire from across the Rio Grande, from the Mexican side, by gunmen armed with guns built to fire the powerful .50 BMG cartridge–a favorite target of gun ban extremists:

Ronnie Barrett

Following reports of a .50 caliber sniper rifle attack on U.S. Border Patrol agents, Fox News hosts immediately recognized the threat the high-powered “battlefield weapon” poses to law enforcement. Criticism of the gun on Fox, however, stands in sharp contrast to the National Rifle Association’s longstanding campaign to prevent the regulation of .50 caliber weapons, which are manufactured by one of its board members.

Timothy Johnson

Media Matters, some may be aware, is a reliable source of bought and paid for anti-gun “journalism,” receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from the “progressive” (and therefore rabidly anti-gun) Joyce Foundation, to generate hysterical anti-gun propaganda. The author of the article, Timothy Johnson, is, according to his bio, “a guns and public safety researcher atMedia Matters, having previously spent time at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Legal Action Project and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.” Well that sounds like an objective source.

Viewing both the NRA and Fox News as “enemies,” Media Matters is clearly pleased by what it presents as a new rift between Fox and gun rights advocates on the subject of .50 caliber rifles, with Fox obviously engaging in a bit of overblown hyperbole about the supposed dangers of such firearms. This sentence is particularly interesting:

Fox’s Jon Scott described the rifle as “a weapon of war,” notedthat, “The slugs a .50 caliber weapon fires are so big that body armor really won’t do you much good,” and called it a “battlefield weapon.”

What makes that interesting is that if one follows the two links above to the Fox segments being cited, one does indeed hear exaggerated fears of the .50 BMG cartridge, but one does not hear anything about rifles. From the first segment: “And here is how the Border Patrol is explaining it: that this .50 cal machine gun fire is coming across the border.” And from the second: “Fox News now confirming that our Border Patrol agents were sent scrambling, scrambling, for cover after they came under heavy fire by .50 caliber machine gun weapons along our southern border.”

So now it’s “.50 caliber machine guns“? What happened to the “sniper rifles,” which Johnson laments are “regulated no more strenuously than a typical hunting rifle, thanks to efforts by the gun lobby”? Now granted, Fox’s reference to “machine guns” may be a case of the well known phenomenon of “Authorized Journalists” being utterly clueless about guns, but the multiple references to “suppressive fire” lend at least some plausibility to the notion that the .50 caliber fire was fully automatic.

Besides, forget the “machine guns,” and let’s assume that the gunfire really did come from “sniper rifles”–if whether or not a gun is a “weapon of war” is to be decided based on its caliber, then all 9mm pistols are “weapons of war,” because the 9mm Parabellum has for decades been a favorite round for sidearms and submachine guns in military forces all over the world. Should rifles chambered in .30-06 be banned, since that cartridge served with distinction for decades for the U.S. military, including through both World Wars? 12 gauge shotguns, .58 caliber muzzle loaders, .38 and .45 caliber revolvers, and far too many others to even try to list–all “weapons of war”–should they all be banned?

Would there be any less a “war” being waged on the Border Patrol agents, if the rounds coming at them were “only” 7.62mm (.30 caliber) or 5.56mm (.223 caliber)? Should we tell the families of our fighting men and women who fell in Iraq and Afghanistan, killed with “only” a 7.62x39mm or 5.45x39mm cartridge, that their killers were using guns too small to be considered “weapons of war”?

Johnson accuses the NRA of “falsely arguing that .50 caliber weapons pose no threat to the general public,” despite there being not a single documented case of a person in the U.S. having been killed with a rifle chambered for the .50 BMG cartridge, and despite the rifles having been on the civilian market ever since Ronnie Barrett sold his first “Barrett Light Fifty” forty-two years ago.

That’s something one certainly would not have guessed based on this passage from Johnson’s “research”:

Gunfire at the U.S. border is the latest incident disproving the false claims the NRA makes to keep .50 caliber rifles legal. Gun violence prevention group Violence Policy Center has documented myriad serious crimes involving the .50 caliber rifle including assassinations of law enforcement agents and use by anti-government militias and other extremists.

Perhaps Johnson didn’t read the VPC “studies” he cites and links to, but I have, and the only “assassinations” documented there never got past the planning stage.

Johnson should probably be more careful about whom he chooses to accuse of lying, but I have no real objection to him describing .50 caliber rifles as “weapons of war.” My preferred term, though, would be “every other terrible implement of the soldier,” which is no argument against the fundamental truth that they should “ever remain, in the hands of the people.”


Wayne LaPierre: Junk science drives administration’s gun policies

Leave a comment

This is from The Daily Caller.

Here are more attempts to gut The Second Amendment.

There are many gun rights organisations Please  if you

are not a member become a member today.

I am providing links to some of them.  



With the stroke of his royal pen, President Barack Obama declared that federal law in the form of a 17-year congressional funding ban on gun-control “research” at the Center for Disease Control (CDC) was trumped by his personal decree through an executive order restoring the CDC’s junk-science agenda.

Were I to choose a single word to define this action, it would be “outlaw.” The law forbidding expenditures by CDC to promote gun control still stands. It cannot be erased by an executive order. But this is President Obama, his rule and his rules.

As with so many other Obama executive actions disregarding federal law or ignoring Congress or the courts, this one has born poisonous fruit in the form of a voluminous manifesto. In this case, it’s entitled, Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearms-Related Violence.


Produced by the National Academy of Sciences (for the CDC), the research agenda was “supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the CDC Foundation, the California Endowment, the Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, one anonymous donor …”

Anonymous donor? New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or George Soros perhaps? After all, the deep-pocket largesse of the Joyce Foundation is the only reason the Violence Policy Center can keep its doors open.

To give you an idea of what is coming as a result of massive financial commingling of federal tax dollars, hidden billionaire donors and gun-ban foundations, let me give you a taste of the “Alice in Wonderland” world to come.

Under the heading, “Firearms-Related Violence as a Public Health Issue,” the report demands that “a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. Violence, including firearm related violence, has been shown to be contagious. Recognizing this, the academic community has suggested that research examine violence much like is done for contagious diseases.”

How twisted is that? Gun ownership treated as a contagious disease.

The central purpose of the proposed “research” should be intensely alarming for all Americans who believe in the Second Amendment.

The single most dangerous “research” among the CDC findings is a demand for collection of personal, private information on all law-abiding firearm owners and our guns. In the vision of the gun control researchers, such data would form the basis of the projected “science.” Throughout the document—no, it’s a manifesto—are references to the creation of this centralized database on the “scope and motivations for gun acquisition ownership and use and how they are distributed across subpopulations.” Subpopulations? Criminals, youth and “the general population.”

Of course, the only information that can be collected and centralized will be data on the law abiding. Criminals are, after all, in the shadows.

This notion of an all-invasive, all-seeing federal database is the core of every subset of research proposed. The agenda is spiked with similar references seeking “the exact number and distribution of guns currently in homes … Basic information about gun possession, acquisition, and storage is lacking. No single database captures the total number, locations, and types of firearms and firearms owners in the United States.”

“The exact number and distribution of guns and gun types in the United States are unknown, but for each of these populations, it would be valuable to have counts of total guns owned, their attributes [i.e., general type, caliber, firing mechanism], how the guns were acquired [i.e., purchased, received as a gift, traded for, stolen, etc.] and information on the sources of the guns [i.e., licensed gun dealers, friends or relatives, gun traffickers, owners of stolen guns, and so on].”

This is the worldview of gun ownership as a “public health” disease.

Want more proof of the direction of this illegal Obama effort?

If you want a simple summation of what that the new CDC “public health” newspeak means, look to the past, because when it comes to the CDC, the past is the future.

In the Jan. 4, 1994, American Medical News, Dr. Katherine Christhoff, who headed a lobbying group established by the Joyce Foundation to support and disseminate the 1990s CDC agenda, wrote:

“Guns are a virus that must be eradicated.”

And at the beginning of the assault on the Second Amendment, Dr. Mark Rosenberg, the agency’s firearm guru, summed up the mindset of most CDC “firearms violence” scientists in an interview with theWashington Post saying:

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes … dirty, deadly, and banned.”

Dr. Rosenberg recently lauded the president’s executive order and said that because of NRA’s long-standing support for congressional restrictions, “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.”

The CDC’s “revolutionary” mindset marked much of the so-called “research” produced by the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. It was purely bogus science providing political and media fodder for promoting a whole host of gun control schemes, all under the rubric of “public health.”

Dr. Miguel Faria, a distinguished professor and neurosurgeon who served on CDC’s Injury Research Grant Review Committee from 2002 through 2005, described that “revolutionary” climate inside the CDC in a January 20, 2013, interview in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

“Suffice to say, that the work of gun control researchers in public health had a proclivity toward reaching preordained conclusions, results-oriented research that was tainted, and based on what can only be characterized as junk science. What was always the preordained conclusion? That guns were bad and had no benefits, that guns and bullets were pathogens that needed to be eradicated, or at least severely restricted from the civilian population.”

Virtually all of the “gun violence” product of the Center was so dishonest, so politically skewed, that Congress in 1997 enshrined into law a prohibition on CDC funding: “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

Until January 2013—and the Obama diktat—the CDC mostly obeyed that law and the restriction held.

But on the 16th of January, President Barack Obama, with his executive order, put the CDC, with its history of rabid anti-gun “research,” back in the “junk science” business. Congress be damned.

The press announcement covering the Obama decree called gun violence “a serious public health issue” saying that “a broader public health perspective is imperative,” and demanded, “continued development of gun violence prevention strategies.”

Everything in this unlawful action—in clear contravention of the congressional ban—will require older gun owners to dust off their newspeak dictionaries, and younger gun owners to learn the real and hidden meanings of this “public health” gun-ban vocabulary.

We will be hearing a lot about “intervention” and “intervention strategies.”

Think of it as Obama’s scheme to intervene in the Second Amendment. Intervene in your private possession of firearms. Intervene in your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Again, to understand where this is headed, you have to go back to the origins of the funding cutoff. Here are more bits of “scientific” medical wisdom on gun ownership by prominent public health thinkers:

Patrick O’Carroll, a CDC official involved in the “research,” wrote in the February 3, 1989, Journal of the American Medical Association: “We’re going to systematically build the case that owning firearms causes deaths.”

The CDC’s Rosenberg—again, the physician spearheading the guns as a public health menace effort—co-authored the agency’s Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence which recommended two public health strategies: “…allowing only police, guards, and the military to have guns, or the outright prohibition of gun ownership.”

Furthermore, he was quoted in a December 9, 1993, Rolling Stone interview explaining the goals of the CDC effort which he said, “… envisions a long term campaign … to convince Americans that guns are, first and foremost, a public health menace.”

From this past, expect the future to be worse. The ultimate goal of the gun ban “scientific community” is to make the “gun ownership is a disease” mantra into politically settled science.


Read more:



Unveiled: Gun ban extremists’ secret playbook: Part 2

Leave a comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association. 

The gun grabbers are definitely changing their vocabulary.

They are wanting to do what Eric Holder suggested to brainwash

people against guns.

Gun owners can’t allow the gun grabbers to change the language

to influence the low information voters and population.

Use this link to view part one.


A friend sent a very interesting document to me recently – one that is making its rounds through the gun rights community after having been leaked online.

Entitled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” it is an 80-page playbook designed to help anti-gun rights extremists learn why they continue to get beat, and how to change their message so as to fool the general public into thinking their mainstream views are actually supported by these anti-gun rights extremist groups.

“Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is based on a 2011 study conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and was prepared by three Washington D.C.-based political consultants – Frank O’Brien of OMP, a direct marketing firm whose client list includes leftist organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council, John Neffinger and Matthew Hut of KNP Communications, and Al Quinlan of the aforementioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, whose client list is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, and Gabrielle Giffords, as well as anti-gun rights and leftist groups including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Public Radio and the Sierra Club.

According to the introduction, the playbook was prepared in order to “help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence.”

In Part 1 of this series, I documented the weakness of what they believe is their three best arguments, their attempts to fool people by using code words to refer to their gun control agenda, their admission that the NRA is a mainstream group with broad public support, and their focus on using emotional scare-tactics, rather than facts, as a means of changing public opinion.

There is more – far more.

Exploiting active killer attacks

The playbook devotes an entire chapter to exploiting active killer incidents, coldly advocating using “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” to advance their gun control agenda.


The death, injury and heartache caused by gun violence are devastating – and that’s what makes people care about it and want to do something to end it.



One way to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is to ask questions – ones that point to approaches and policies that we favor, but that resonate with special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting.

I pray that the chilling way in which these gun control extremists discuss using “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” and that “special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting” disturbs everyone reading this as much as it does me.

We have long-observed on this website that, every time a mentally-ill person attacks unarmed victims in another gun free zone, these extremists run to the microphone to dance in the blood, suggesting “solutions” before even knowing the circumstances of the incident.

Now we know they’re just following the playbook:


There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary.



We shouldn’t assume the facts.

But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.

The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”)

Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.

Even when the established facts don’t support their case, of course they just continue to advance the notion that their gun control initiatives should be passed anyways.

It bears noting that the playbook also makes special note of the NRA’s common practice of remaining silent in the days after these types of attacks. The NRA’s stated reason for this silence is to give respect to the grieving families and to have all the facts before commenting. But the authors of the playbook see this as the NRA giving them a wide open door:


The NRA’s communications stance during high-profile gun violence incidents is easy to describe: They go silent.

That’s because they know they have nothing to gain from being dragged into a conversation where both the facts and the emotional energy work against them.

We should freely and openly challenge their silent treatment approach.

“It’s no accident that, at times like this, the NRA disappears into the woodwork. That’s because they know that their reckless agenda is indefensible especially in the face of this kind of tragedy. That’s why they’ve gone into hiding.”

A number of years ago, Buckeye Firearms Association leaders recognized that “going silent” was synonymous with giving these extremists the floor after every one of these terrible attacks, and we decided “no more.” We adopted a policy of responding when the situation warranted. We will not sit by and let these extremists follow the playbook for days or weeks on end with no response, and I believe it is time the NRA adopt the same policy.

Stressing emotional arguments over fact-based ones is repeatedly stressed throughout the chapter advising the exploitation of active killer attacks:


A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence. It opens the eyes and ears of folks who, in more “normal” circumstances, don’t pay much attention to the issue of gun violence prevention.

…[W]when talking to broader audiences, we want to make sure we meet them where they are. That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions…



There is often a compelling case to be made for immediate action, pivoting from the emotion of a high-profile incident to calls for legislative action or specific policy changes. Those who seek to make that pivot have to be careful not to drain the emotional power out of the moment.

An emotionally-driven conversation about what can be done to prevent incidents such as the one at hand is engaging. A dry conversation about legislative process and policy is far less engaging.

The playbook also offers advice that anti-gun rights extremist groups followed in the wake of the school shooting in Chardon, Ohio:


In terms of building support, our goal at moments such as this should be to make a connection with someone that will be sustainable after the individual incident fades from memory. Among other things, that means framing our calls to action more broadly than a response to the individual situation at hand.

If we convince someone to act quickly in response to what has happened, we need to move just as quickly to broaden the conversation and pivot to a longer-term commitment to ending gun violence.

Regular readers of this website will recall how Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence (OCAGV), Center for American Progress (CAP), Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), and ProgressOhio created to gather contacts for future campaigns – but advertised the site merely as a way to share kind thoughts for victims of the shooting.

Speaking of victims, the playbook recommends “speak[ing] in a victim’s voice,” noting:

Many of the most active advocates and voices in the gun violence prevention movement are people who have personally lived through a life-changing gun violence experience. That painful reality gives such spokespeople special moral authority.

This page from the playbook was carried out this week exactly why we saw the sister of a victim from the Sandy Hook Elementary attack in Ohio this week as part of Mayor Bloomberg’s “No More Names” bus tour. How cold and calloused does one have to be to openly advise that anti-gun rights extremists use victims in this way, just to gain what they perceive as “special moral authority?”

Finally, the chapter offers advice on how to respond if they are called on the fact that they are politicizing a tragedy:


The worst thing to do in a situation like this is to apologize or disclaim an unworthy motivation. (“The last thing I want to do is politicize this situation” . . . “I’m not trying to take anyone’s gun away” . . . “I know this is a time for mourning and reflection, but”)

Your audience can’t be comfortable with what you’re saying if you signal your own discomfort.

Exploiting racial tension

According to the authors, “the clearest divide in the research is between white and nonwhite respondents.” Non-white respondents were much more likely to be susceptible to their anti-gun rights message than whites.

• A majority of non-white audiences report being or personally knowing someone who was a victim of gun violence. (39% for white and 51% for non-white respondents.)
• Non-white audiences are more than twice as likely to say they are likely to take action on reducing gun violence. (20% for white and 48% for non-white respondents.)
• Support for making gun laws stronger is substantially higher among non-white audiences. (44% for white and 71% for non-white respondents.)
• Non-whites are more likely to consider the NRA extreme. (32% for white and 45% for nonwhite respondents.)

The playbook even encourages readers to profile a person before engaging them on the subject. When talking to a minority…

Be alert that it is more likely than not you are talking to someone who has personal experience with gun violence.

Know that you go into the conversation with a strong presumption that the person not only favors stronger gun laws, but may be interested in acting against gun violence.

With those stereotypes in mind, then, what better way to push for their gun control agenda than to combine it with a fight over race?

Indeed, after reading the playbook, the media and gun ban extremists’ behavior over the past two years involving Florida resident George Zimmerman’s self-defense case are much more understandable.

The playbook contains an entire chapter devoted to Stand Your Ground laws. (While expressing a desire to rebrand SYG as “Shoot First” or “Kill at Will” laws, the authors acknowledge that SYG has gained broad usage and thus advise “we may need to use it as a reference point. But, we should quickly shift to language that positions our argument more persuasively.”)

The trouble for these gun ban extremists is that these laws actually make sense to the mainstream when they are accurately explained as establishing the self-defense standard that no person should have to overcome some legal “duty to retreat” when they are attacked. Indeed, as the playbook notes:

Another phrase that we should avoid whenever possible is “duty to retreat.” It may be an established legal principle, but in the public square, it sounds weak and hard to defend.

So since they’ve lost the battle to rebrand Stand Your Ground, and can’t be honest about what the laws do by mentioning the legal “duty to retreat,” these groups appear to have shifted their tactic to claiming the laws have something to do with race in order to attract people whom their research shows are likely to be a more sympathetic audience, and one more likely to become involved in the fight.

Hiding the anti-gun rights agenda for mainstream audiences

The chapter entitled “COMMUNICATING TO AUDIENCES THAT DISAGREE” might as well have been titled “making President Obama’s talking points work for you.” The authors admit that the desire to protect the Second Amendment rights is a mainstream position:

There are a lot of hostile audiences out there. Some regard any discussion of gun violence prevention as merely a pretext to infringe on their Second Amendment freedoms and/or way of life. Even mainstream audiences may have deep sympathies for these arguments.

As such, they have developed talking points to attempt to fool the mainstream into complacency:

There are a number of things you can do when confronted by an audience that may be unfriendly or even hostile to your arguments.

1. Remember, your goal is not to convince hostile audiences that you are right; your goal is to establish that you are a reasonable person who understands their point of view. Time spent demonstrating that you understand and sympathize with their concerns is time well spent.
2. When fielding a hostile question, always begin your answer by identifying a point (or points) of agreement with your audience. Examples of connecting language might include:
• We all deserve the right to be safe and free.
• For lots of Americans, when they were growing up, their dad had a hunting rifle. There’s a tradition of gun ownership in this country that we can all respect.
• Our Constitution and our laws are what keep us safe and free.
• We can all agree that military-style weapons should not be in the hands of criminals, terrorists, or people who are dangerously mentally ill.
3. Keep in mind the previous guidance about separating NRA members from their officials and lobbyists.
4. Remember that protecting people from gun crime is more appealing to male audiences than preventing gun violence.

Anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention to the debate over gun rights in this country since the attack at Sandy Hook (and beyond) will have heard these passive-sounding talking points repeated ad nauseum by everyone from the local gun ban extremist to the President of the United States. Recognize them for what they are – lies designed to fool you into putting your guard down.

The goal line

As I pointed out in Part 1 of this series, the playbook answers the question many have asked as to why the anti-gun rights extremists began floating proposals that would have done nothing to prevent the attack they claimed they were trying to prevent from happened again. In the sick attempt to take advantage of the deaths of little children, the extremists were simply floating up every gun control proposal they knew had tested well in polls – regardless of whether or not it could do a thing to stop someone from carrying out another such attack.

According to the playbook, the main gun control initiatives for which polling indicated people could be fooled into supporting are:

  • “Shoot First” Laws
  • Background Checks
  • “Assault Weapons”

The playbook also offered talking points on how to defend against efforts to pass nationwide concealed-carry reciprocity, and, interestingly, on the Fast & Furious gun-running scandal (apparently since they offer a section on how to fool people into supporting gun control as a means of addressing gun trafficking, they needed to provide a few defenses for the government’s own gun trafficking program).

Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is a must-read, not only for the grassroots gun rights advocate, but for any consumer of news media. This 80-page playbook should open the eyes of the country to the wool that is being pulled over them.


Unveiled: Gun ban extremists’ secret playbook: Part 1

Leave a comment

This is from The Buckeye Firearms Association.

The gun grabbers are definitely changing their vocabulary.

They are wanting to do what Eric Holder suggested to brainwash

people against guns.

Gun owners can’t allow the gun grabbers to change the language

to influence the low information population.

A friend sent a very interesting document to me recently – one that is making its rounds through the gun rights community after having been leaked online.

Entitled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,” it is an 80-page playbook designed to help anti-gun rights extremists learn why they continue to get beat, and how to change their message so as to fool the general public into thinking their mainstream views are actually supported by these anti-gun rights extremist groups.

“Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging” is based on a 2011 study conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, and was prepared by three Washington D.C.-based political consultants – Frank O’Brien of OMP, a direct marketing firm whose client list includes leftist organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the National Resources Defense Council, John Neffinger and Matthew Hut of KNP Communications, and Al Quinlan of the aforementioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, whose client list is a virtual who’s who of anti-gun politicians including Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Rahm Emanuel, and Gabrielle Giffords, as well as anti-gun rights and leftist groups including Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Joyce Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Public Radio and the Sierra Club.

According to the introduction, the guide was prepared in order to “help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence.”

Their very best arguments

According to the guide, “three key themes drive the most powerful arguments for gun violence prevention:”

ONE: The serious personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

Elsewhere in the guide, the point is made that “40% of respondents report that they or someone they know personally has been a victim of gun violence.” The trouble for the authors and their audience is that many of the people who become a victim of violence, or know someone who has been, rightfully conclude that only they, and no one else, are responsible for their own security. Indeed, it is precisely the exposure to violence that leads many people to become first-time gun owners.

TW0: People’s right to be free from violence in their communities.

We’ve looked, and still haven’t found that particular “right” in the constitution yet. It certainly isn’t listed next to “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”

THREE: The changing nature of weapons towards more powerful, military-style ones that make us less safe.

This point is stressed again, and described as a “key message”:

The notion that today’s weapons are different in kind from what was available in the past is an especially powerful idea and helps make the case for new levels of concern and scrutiny around access to weapons.

This “key message” – the notion that today’s weapons are different is, as you likely know, afalse notion.

The truth, of course, is that military-style weapons have always dominated the civilian firearms marketplace – from the muskets that fought off Red Coats and brought home supper, to the pistols and rifles that started on the Civil War battlefield and eventually helped conquer the West, to the rifles that came home with Dough Boys and GIs in the World Wars. “More powerful?” Another false notion. World War I and World War II-era rifles were every bit as powerful as today’s military look-alike civilian models.

Elsewhere in the guide they address this issue again, stating that “we have to make clear to people that this isn’t a conversation about your grandfather’s hunting rifle.” The writers know that people will identify less with the anti-gun rights crowd if they sound like they’re trying to take away grandpa’s hunting rifle. The lesson for the good guys is this – grandpa’s hunting rifle was very likely a military rifle bought as surplus from World War I or World War II, so if those rifles are ok to have around, today’s modern sporting rifles should be any different.

The guide also notes that claims of law enforcement support for their policies is “crucial,” and asserts the “fact that policies advocated by the NRA put law enforcement officials at risk seriously weakens the NRA’s arguments.”

They couldn’t have been too pleased, then, when a 2013 survey of nearly 15,000 active and retired law enforcement officers showed that an overwhelming majority of America‘s policemen and women do NOT support Obama’s gun control agenda.

The authors of the guide also admit that the question of whether or not they will succeed in fooling people depends on the audience:

On the gun violence issue – as on most public issues – it pays to know as much as possible about who you are talking to.

The weight and power of the three key themes we have mentioned varies substantially by audience.

…[W]hen talking to men, it is important to know that they are much more motivated by protecting people from “gun crime” than preventing “gun violence.” Women are motivated by both.

Clearly, in spreading falsehoods like those above as “key messages,” they must think their audience is a fairly ignorant bunch.

If these are their most powerful arguments, it’s no wonder that they continue to lose.

How to deal with the NRA

The authors have a LOT to say about the NRA (an entire chapter, in fact) – including things they would never get caught admitting publicly:

When we are communicating with the general public, we need to be aware of the fact that, beyond our base, people have a positive impression of the organization and its role.


Whether to spend much time talking about the NRA depends upon whether we are talking to our base (where an NRA focus is often worthwhile) or broader audiences (where an NRA focus is far less likely to be helpful).


“The NRA is seen as a mainstream organization by most Americans although elements of our base see its leadership and organizational stance as extreme. Engaging the NRA as if it is one side of a political fight is counterproductive because it feeds into a view of the debate over gun violence as an unengaging interest group conflict.

It is far better to discuss the NRA in terms of the role its officials play in preventing people and communities from protecting themselves from the terrible personal toll that gun violence takes on people’s lives.

“The issue is how to talk about the NRA with different audiences, not how frequently to discuss the NRA.

Because of the organization’s name and identity, it is more powerful – especially when talking to the base – to discuss the specific NRA rather than the generic “gun lobby.”

I haven’t figured out how they expect people to argue that the NRA is “preventing people and communities from protecting themselves” with a straight face, but it is clear from the past nine months that their target audience hasn’t got this part dialed in all that well just yet.

Gotta make it scary sounding and scary looking

Perhaps the most comical line in the guide is this:

Advocates for gun violence prevention win the logical debate, but lose on more emotional terms.

Two pages later, they prove their own claim of having logic on their side wrong by encouraging the use of “powerful images” rather than “facts and statistics.”

Yes, you read that right. They are encouraging their audience to argue on their (supposed) weakest ground – emotion – rather than their (supposed) strongest footing – logic. Kind of puts the whole claim about winning the logical debate to bed, doesn’t it?

The point, it is clear, is to scare the weak-minded who have no use for facts and statistics. Consider a few more quotes:

Alarming facts open the door to action. And powerful stories put feeling and emotional energy behind those facts.


It’s not helpful to try to drown your audience in a flurry of facts and statistics.


It’s not just about words. Powerful and emotionally-engaging images are vitally important reinforcers of strong messages. For example, intimidating images of military-style weapons help bring to life the point that we are dealing with a different situation than in earlier times.

This idea is not a new one. In fact, Josh Sugarmann, who currently heads the anti-gun rights organization Violence Policy Center, wrote about how these groups planned to take advantage over public confusion over these guns way back in the 1980’s:

“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.” -Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988

“Language Do’s and Don’ts” designed to fool the uninformed

Interspersed throughout the document are talking points designed to educate anti-gun rights extremists on how they can tailor their message to fool their audience into thinking they want something other than to ban guns, abolish self-defense rights, etc. We don’t have room to list them all, but following are just two examples:

DO talk about “preventing gun violence. DON’T talk about “gun control.”

(They’re synonyms, see, but some people don’t get that.)

DO advocate for “stronger” gun laws. DON’T use the term “stricter” gun laws.

(We want gun control laws as strict as can be, but again, it’s about fooling the uninformed.)

The goal line

In the wake of the attack at Sandy Hook Elementary, many wondered why the anti-gun rights extremists began floating proposals that would have done nothing to prevent the attack they claimed they were trying to prevent from happened again.

The guide provides the answer.

Here are some of the facts that met that test in the research:

• There are no background checks or ID requirements in most states for private sales, including private sales at gun shows.
• There are virtually no restrictions on the type of weapons available for purchase in America, including assault weapons and ammunition magazines that store up to 100 bullets and can shoot 20 rounds in 10 seconds.
• Police and law enforcement officers are more at risk, due to the availability and power of new weapons.
Reinforcing example: Police forces in places like Chicago and Miami are outfitting officers with assault weapons so that they aren’t outgunned by criminals.

Leaving aside the point that their “facts” aren’t facts at all (except for the one about police forces in Chicago – a place with the type of gun control laws they want to impose on the rest of the nation – just to keep up with the criminals illegally carrying illegal firearms), the evidence is clear:

In the sick attempt to take advantage of the deaths of little children, the extremists were simply floating up every gun control proposal they knew had tested well in polls – regardless of whether or not it could do a thing to stop someone from carrying out another such attack.

In the next chapter, we’ll discuss how the guide coldly advocates using the “pain and anguish,” “death, injury and heartache” of crime victims to advance their political agenda (including an entire chapter on how to capitalize on active killer incidents), expose why anti-gun rights extremists are trying to hard to make the gun control discussion about race, and reveal how talking points given in the guide are being used by President Obama and his allies in the anti-gun rights lobby each and every day.


Within Hours Of Re-Election Obama Backs UN Gun Grab Treaty

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

The next four years are going to be rough for gun owners.

Obama and company will try their best to disarm Americans.

Lock and Load and be ready.


Anyone remember that United Nations Small Arms Treaty from earlier this year that passed while the media slept doing its “business” with the elections? Well, within literally hours of Obama’s re-election the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee started the process of reopening treaty talks to regulate the sale of firearms globally again.

According to Reuters:

“Hours after U.S. President Barack Obama was re-elected, the United States backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional arms trade.

U.N. delegates and gun control activists have complained that talks collapsed in July largely because Obama feared attacks from Republican rival Mitt Romney if his administration was seen as supporting the pact, a charge Washington denies.

The month-long talks at U.N. headquarters broke off after the United States – along with Russia and other major arms producers – said it had problems with the draft treaty and asked for more time.

But the U.N. General Assembly’s disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama’s win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.”

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

Remember that among the nations involved in overseeing this treaty are:

Asian Group

  • Iran
  • Japan
  • South Korea


  • Kenya
  • Egypt
  • Nigeria


Eastern Europe

  • Azergaijan
  • Belarus
  • Ukraine

Western Europe & Other Groups

  • Australia
  • Netherlands
  • Switzerland

Latin America

  • Mexico
  • Two Other Nations

Again, the United States is not a part of oversight regarding this treaty at all. It still remains a huge threat to the U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. If we are still living under the impression that this will have to go through the Senate in order to be implemented, I just ask you to take a look at what Bill Clinton did with regard to executive order and the implementation of the United Nations’ Agenda 21.

Forbes reported earlier this year on this:

So this time the U.N.-sponsored ATT initiative, whether enacted by Congress or through a soft law Executive Order, can be expected to receive an appealing identity as well. Most likely it will purport to protect us from “terrorism”, “insurgency” and/or “international crime syndicates”. Perhaps, without saying so, it will be pitched to protect us even from ourselves.

Don’t forget that an Illinois senator named Barack Obama was an aggressive advocate for expanding gun control laws, and even voted against legislation giving gun owners an affirmative defense when they use firearms to defend themselves and their families against home invaders and burglars. That was after he served on a 10-member board of directors of the radically activist anti-gun Joyce Foundation in Chicago which contributed large grants to anti-Second Amendment organizations.

But then, as a former lecturer in constitutional law, wouldn’t he certainly realize that the U.N.’s gun- grab agenda violates our sovereign rights? Perhaps the answer to that question warrants some serious reflection!

Of course the cries globally against gun control are now aimed at stopping terrorists and such, which is complete non-sense.

JG Vibes at The Intel Hub writes:

There is a lot of propaganda surrounding the arms treaty and if you read through that full Reuters article you will find a whole bunch of excuses selling the idea that this measure is necessary and harmless.

One of the main selling points of the treaty is that it will apparently keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, but as we saw with the fast and furious scandal, as well as with the long list of government gunrunning scandals before that, western governments are the biggest supplier of arms to criminals and terrorists.

With that being said, any measure that these governments take to control the sale or possession of firearms is a Trojan horse, designed to disarm the population.

Official sources say that the timing has absolutely nothing to do with the election, but that is highly questionable.

However, what is quite interesting is as this was taking place, what was Obama doing? He was ordering more drone strikes in Yemen, hopefully not against teenage American citizens like this guy, or like these teens. But we can’t be sure and it appears that most Americans could care less for now. After all the drones haven’t targeted them….yet.

Read more:


%d bloggers like this: