Advertisements
Home

Leftist Columnist Calls for the Repeal of the Second Amendment

Leave a comment

This is from The Independent Sentiel.

This is only going to get worse as time drags on.

Gun owners need to stay alert and bond together to help

preserve our freedoms.

All in favor of gun control raise your hand.

                  nazisinsouthamerica.blogspot.com

 

Donald Kaul, writer for the Des Moines Register, a leftist publication, is a man of the left. If you click the link and read his article, you will find he makes that clear in the first three paragraphs. A focus of his attention for 50-years, by his own account, is guns. He hates them, the NRA and the politicians who won’t eliminate them.

He is under the delusion that guns are responsible for deaths and not the people who use them and that somehow 300 million guns in the US will disappear if he waves his wand. He believes that the only concern people in authority have is not wanting to offend the NRA.

He has a plan to end gun violence in America:

Repeal the Second Amendment – owning a gun should not be right.

Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. He thinks they kill more people than the Communists.

He’d love to be able to drag McConnell, Boehner, and other Republicans behind a Chevy pickup truck until they saw the light on gun control.

I don’t think he means to drag senators and congressmen behind a pickup truck but I do think he’d like to. I take him at his word, which furthers my impression that leftists are violent people.

Make no mistake, leftists want to repeal the Second Amendment.

The NRA is an advocacy organization for a group of people. That is all they are. People are still allowed to have such groups in this country. Mr. Kaul and his leftists don’t get to decide what groups we can organize. I don’t hear him calling for the end of Communist Party USA and other groups that seek to topple our government by their own admission.

We have a president who is making the world and our country a more dangerous place but leftists want us to give up our guns and our right to self-defense.

Remember what Justice Breyer said, we don’t have the right to self-defense, we have the right to call 911.

gun rights_2

What will he do with all the knifing murders like the young teacher in Massachusetts or the gunman in Colorado yesterday who also brought along a Molotov Cocktail?

There is a nationwide effort by leftists to control us, beginning with our health and ending with our right to defend ourselves.

Who has our best interests at heart? I think it’s the men he wants to drag behind the Chevy pickup.

 

 

Advertisements

Actor Richard Dreyfuss shocks Piers Morgan: NRA are heroes, not villians

Leave a comment

This is from BizPac Review.

This just sent Piers Morgan into a fit apoplexy.

It is a sure bet Richard Dreyfuss will not be invited

back to Comrade Morgans show. 

Liberal Hollywood actor Richard Dreyfuss came to a fork in the political road last week and turned right instead of left when he referred to the National Rifle Association as “heroes.”

During his appearance on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight,” Dreyfuss said that instead of thinking of the NRA as an enemy, Americans should acknowledge that it’s the gun expert and tap that expertise for solutions to gun violence.

“I don’t think the NRA is a villain,” Dreyfuss said, according to Townhall. “I think we should turn this over to the people who are expert at this, and the original mandate of the NRA was to train responsible gun ownership, and the NRA should handle it. They should train excellence in gun ownership.”

Morgan, a longtime, vocal proponent of strict gun control, was flabbergasted. He initiated the discussion by lamenting about “the power of the NRA over the gun debate, and the apparent intransigence of Washington to do anything about that.”

If he thought he was going to find a kindred spirit in Dreyfuss, he was mistaken.

The actor said it all came down to training. Just as we wouldn’t think of allowing someone behind the wheel of a car without driving lessons, he said, the same is true when it comes to handling a firearm. And no one is more suited for the job of providing that training than the NRA.

“The NRA should be thought of as heroes,” he said.

“A large stretch for some of us to look at people like [NRA CEO] Wayne LaPierre as heroes,” Morgan said. It was able all he could get out.

Watch the exchange below, and if you haven’t already, check out Man with concealed weapon shoots ‘knockout game’ attacker – twice

 

 

 

LA Community College drops NRA class after six years due to new regs

1 Comment

This is from Campus Review.

The city of Los Angelese as well the state of Kalifornia is the

land of wussies.

We have forever lost the state of Kalifornia.

 

Faculty at Los Angeles Community College (LACC) have canceled a longstanding National Rifle Association (NRA) class thanks to new restrictions laid down by the school’s board of trustees.

The new regulations, which apply to all nine campuses of the LACC system, will begin this year, and ban all firearms, including those that are “non-operational and in the instructional setting” from school grounds.

The rules make an exception for “non-operational” weapons used in “theatrical performances,” but not for the non-credit firearms class which the school has offered in conjunction with the NRA for the last six years.

Board of Trustees Vice President Scott Svonkin, author the resolution that ushered in the new rules, told Campus Reform last Monday he believes school’s have no place teaching students how to use guns —but that its educators and faculty do have a responsibility to “promote gun control.”

“We should make sure that students don’t come to campus being afraid to run into somebody with a gun,” Svonkin said.

He argued it was necessary to ban  “non-operational” guns, because although they could not hurt anyone, they could scare students.

Gerry Koehler, the teacher of the now cancelled gun classes at Los Angeles Pierce College for the past six years, however, said the idea that a student might “run into somebody with a gun” due to NRA classes was ridiculous — considering they were taught in a locked classroom with the shades pulled down.

He added that the classes were incredibly popular, with each session filling up and resulting in another full overflow class.

Koehler said the college informed him last month that he would not be teaching his summer class — which was supposed to begin on

August 3 — after a member of the Woodland Hills Warner Center Neighborhood Council complained about it.

“They said, ‘Let’s cancel it for the summer, and hopefully it will die down and we can continue it for the fall,’” he said.

Koehler said neither he nor any other gun advocates were invited to the meeting in which the class was cancelled. He said  he did not find out  about the cancellation until Sunday — in an email from an NRA lawyer — that the classes were cancelled permanently.

Koehler said he called the president of Pierce, Dr. Kathleen Burke-Kelly, to ask if plastic model guns were included in the “non-operational” ban, or if he could use one to keep teaching the class.

“She said they are not allowed to even have the mention of the world ‘gun’ in their campus catalog, which I find utterly ridiculous and a total violation of the First Amendment … now this is a First Amendment issue,” he said.

Burke-Kelly did not respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform, but a search of thecourse catalog revealed the word “gun” does not appear.

Svonkin, who authored the resolution, told Campus Reform that he himself was not sure what “non-operational” meant.

“You know, I’m not an expert in guns,” he said.

Koehler said his dealings with the board on the issue made him believe that the real purpose of resolution was not safety, but political opposition to the NRA.

Svonkin openly expressed negative views of the organization during his interview with Campus Reform.

“I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths,” he said. “So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing.”

“I’m much happier with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department protecting our students and our staff and our faculty than having some random person who took a three-hour class and thinks that they’re Dirty Harry,” he added.

 

Former Australian Official Blames Murder on the NRA

2 Comments

This is from Godfather Politics.

Former Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer is using a the 

Liberal playbook blaming the NRA and guns.

Australia has enacted draconian gun control measures yet the 

murder rate has not dropped.

The amount of guns being smuggled into Australia is in the thousands. 

 

As expected, to deflect attention away from the real story behind the murder of Australian baseball player Chris Lane by three young thugs, some liberal pundits are blaming the NRA and a lack of “gun control” in the United States. Even the former Australian deputy prime minister Tim Fischer is following a script written by liberal pundits in the United States:

“This is the bitter harvest and legacy of the policies of the NRA that even blocked background checks for people buying guns at gunshows. People should take this into account before going to the United States. I am deeply angry about this because of the callous attitude of the three teenagers (but) it’s a sign of the proliferation of guns on the ground in the USA.

There is a gun for almost every American.” I realize that the murder of a young man who was minding his own business in a country that was not his own is a tragedy that can’t be salved over with rational argumentation. Emotional reactions are to be expected.

What Mr. Fischer does not know is “that the alleged shooters were in breach of state law by possessing guns in the first place and were not capable of passing national background checks already on the books.” Criminals don’t care about laws. That’s why they’re criminals.

Any person who will pull out a gun a shoot someone “for the fun of it” because he and his friends were “bored” is not going to care anything about background checks, gun registration, or possessing guns obtained illegally.

Awr Hawkins writing for Breitbart points out: “Oklahoma law states that an individual ‘must be 18 years of age to possess any weapon, except rifles or shotguns used in education, hunting, or sport.’

Yet the two teens charged with first degree murder in Lane’s death were only 15 and 16 years old.” ***** “In addition to violating Oklahoma’s law on possession of a firearm, individuals 15, 16, or 17 could never pass the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in place now. The NICS system has been in place since Bill Clinton’s presidency.”

Those responsible for the murder of Mr. Lane were the three young men who decided it would be fun to shoot somebody in the back. Somebody had to pick up the gun, put bullets in it, carry it to the scene, aim it, and pull the trigger. You can’t blame the NRA for that.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12231/former-australian-official-blames-murder-on-the-nra/#hyDjJVwI5FP21leY.99

 

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.

ALWAYS START WITH THE PAIN AND ANGUISH THAT GUN VIOLENCE BRINGS INTO PEOPLE’S LIVES.

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.

And…

ASK HARD QUESTIONS

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:

DON’T HESITATE TO SPEAK OUT.

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.

And…

DON’T ASSUME THE FACTS – AND DON’T WAIT FOR THEM

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:

CHALLENGE THE NRA’S SILENCE.

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:

RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR AUDIENCE HAS BROADENED.

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…

And…

DON’T LET POLICYSPEAK DRAIN THE EMOTION FROM THE MOMENT.

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:

SEEK A LONGER-TERM RELATIONSHIP IN A PERIOD OF HIGH ATTENTION.

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 RememberingChardon.com 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:

NEVER APOLOGIZE.

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.

And:

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).

And:

“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.

And:

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

And:

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.

 

Missouri gov. signs gun-safety course for first-graders

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.

This maybe the best move Governor Jay Nixon has ever made.

Gun safety can not start to. soon.

Bravo to the Missouri Legislature for passing this bill and

to Governor Nixon for signing it. 

 

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. –  Missouri schools will be encouraged to teach first-graders a gun safety course sponsored by the National Rifle Association as a result of legislation signed Friday by Gov. Jay Nixon.

The new law stops short of requiring schools to teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program. But by putting it in state law, Missouri is providing one of the stronger state-sanctioned endorsements of the NRA-sponsored firearms safety course, which the group says is taught to about 1 million children annually.

The legislation also requires school personnel to participate in an “active shooter and intruder” drill led by law enforcement officers.

Both the staff and student training initially were proposed as mandates when the legislation was filed on Dec. 13, which was the day before a gunman massacred 26 people in a Connecticut elementary school, including 20 first-graders. The provision about the first-grade gun-safety course was amended to make it optional during Senate debate.

The legislation also transfers the responsibility for issuing identification cards for concealed gun permits from driver’s license clerks to local sheriffs. That change was prompted by concerns that the state licensing agency’s procedures had infringed on people’s privacy rights.

Nixon noted the change in concealed carry permits — not the school gun-safety programs — while announcing he was signing the legislation. Asked if he supported the NRA’s gun safety course for first-graders, Nixon merely noted that it was optional.

“Allowing the local school districts to make those choices is appropriate,” he said.

The legislation was one of several pro-gun measures passed this year by Missouri’s Republican-led Legislature.

Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed a bill last week that would have allowed federal agents to be charged with state crimes for trying to enforce various federal gun control laws. The vetoed bill also could have landed Missouri journalists in jail for publishing the names of gun owners and would have let specially trained teachers and administrators carry concealed guns into schools.

But Nixon signed a less aggressive gun-rights bill last week, which allows state employees to keep firearms in their vehicles and fire chiefs to get local approval to carry concealed guns.

According to the NRA, more than 20 state legislatures have passed measures encouraging the use of its Eddie Eagle course in schools since the gun safety program began in 1988. Ohio became the first state to provide financing for it about a decade ago. But Missouri is among just a few states — including North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia — to endorse the program with state laws.

The program includes a video in which an eagle character teaches children four basic rules if they see a gun: “STOP! Don’t touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.”

“It’s teaching a great safety message to children that could possibly save their life,” said Eric Lipp, the NRA’s national manager of community outreach.

In many cases, Lipp said, the course is taught by police serving as school resources offices and the materials are provided for free by the NRA. He estimated that the program has been used in thousands of schools.

Some of Missouri’s school teacher and administrator groups took no position on the legislation, largely because it’s merely optional. It was unclear how many Missouri schools already are using the program, or whether the official allowance for it in state law will encourage more to do so.

“How many districts will do this is anyone’s guess,” said Brent Ghan, a spokesman for the Missouri School Boards’ Association.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/13/mo-gov-signs-gun-safety-course-for-first-graders/?test=latestnews#ixzz2ZLhnBeQt

 

Professor Calls for Military To Kill NRA Members/Conservatives

2 Comments

This is from Mr.Conservative.

Where is all of the Liberal tolerance?

They are only tolerant when you march in lock step and agree with them 100%.

I want to say to Comrade professor The Second Amendment

protects the other nine amendments.

Including the First Amendment that allows you to spew such venom.

 

 

 

Here is some liberal “tolerance.” The Charlestown Gazette recently published the editorial by a Marshall University professor who thinks we should use the U.S. military to kill all those eeeevil gun owners that he so hates. In his piece he said we should use an “M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles” to kill NRA members, Republicans, Conservatives, and anyone who supports the Second Amendment.

In the anti-gun piece that could best be described as a foaming-at-the-mouth tirade, Professor Christopher Swindell employs incredibly overheated rhetoric, punctuated by constant name calling, spiced with grammatical errors and out right lies to expound upon his hate for those with whom he disagrees.

It isn’t just this one, lone nut, either. Liberals often wish ill will on their enemies and want to sue the iron boot heel of government to destroy them. Take the un-American “students” that recently signed a faux thank you card to the IRS for attacking conservatives.

Early in his piece, Swindell describes the rhetoric of supporters of the Second Amendment as “knuckle-dragging Cretan talk.” Yes, he said “Cretan talk.” That’s a twofer of stupidity. It is both misspelled andneedlessly capitalized. The word is cretin, you mope. Nice going Prof.

Speaking of his lack of writing skills, did we mention that Christopher Swindell is a professor of journalism in Marshall University’s journalism and mass communications department? (You can contact him at his university email address: swindell@marshall.edu)

If this isn’t a perfect example of why “journalism” is as bad as it is these days, what is? This Swindell is swindling his students, wouldn’t you say?

This “professor” goes on to call several prominent Republican lawmakers a few choice names and then he simplistically claims that the desire to nullify Obama’s un-Constitutional gun grabs at the state level is exactly the same as what the south did during the Civil War.

Because, you know, the south stayed in the union and just passed a law that said they wouldn’t abide by any anti-slave laws… right? Remember that history? Neither does anyone else… except maybe Chrissy “Swindler” Swindell.

Sticking with his “civil war” theme, Swindell went on to lie about the NRA. “The NRA,” Swindell bloviates, “advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America.”

This is, of course, an absurd claim. The NRA is a staunch supporter of both the country and the Constitution and has never advocated any sort of “armed rebellion” against the government.

I guess it isn’t surprising that a university prof is teaching people to hate the Constitution. After all, they are teaching middle school kids that we don’t really have Second Amendment rights.

Naturally, Swindell also essentially says that anyone that disagrees with President Obama is a racist. Those that oppose Obama are “white, rich old men,” Swindell says, and they are “half-wits” who oppose this “African-American president we voted for.”

Name calling stands in for reasoned debate for this “journalist.”

So, what is the NRA doing? This is all “treason,” Swindell cries deliriously, “and it’s worthy of the firing squad,” he proclaims.

But after Swindell employs some of his low-born prose to name call those with whom he disagrees, he gets to what he claims is the solution to all this so-called “treason.” It turns out he wants to use the U.S. military to kill supporters of the Constitution of the United States of America.

To turn the song lyric they so love to quote back on them, “We’ll put a boot in your —, it’s the American way.”

Except it won’t be a boot. It’ll be an M1A Abrams tank, supported by an F22 Raptor squadron with Hellfire missiles. Try treason on for size. See how that suits. And their assault arsenal and RPGs won’t do them any good.

Interestingly, a year ago this highly combative professor of journalism announced on his own Facebook page that he was going to quit social media. Apparently his blood pressure was at issue. Yes it is clear that his mental state is very, very precarious, indeed.

Fortunately, not every teacher is such a creep. One teacher in New York warned his students not to answer intrusive questions on a school info survey that would violate their Constitutional rights. Another teacher in Kansas was enough of a true blue American to be proud enough to observe his Second Amendment rights in the classroom. For being such a stand up guy, his school talked about firing him.

 

Politics: Charlie Rangel: ‘Millions of kids dying’ because there’s no weapons ban

Leave a comment

This is from Cain TV.

Charlie Rangel is the face of most of New Yorker‘s.

As long as Rangel,Bloomberg and Cuomo are in power

the state and people of New York will never be free.

 

How about a hyperbole ban?

New York’s most famous censured Congressman, Charlie Rangel, is absolutely foaming at the mouth over the fate of the assault weapons ban.  How dare Democrats like Harry Reid kill it?  Doesn’t Reid know that “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons?”

Wait “millions?”

To put that in perspective: just 1 Million would be more than the total of all U.S. military combat deaths – from 1775 to the present – combined.  Still, according to Rangel, “Millions of kids” are being gunned down by assault weapons which are easier for them to get than a basic laptop.

I’m ashamed to admit it but its politics and its money, The NRA has taken this position, there is no reason, there is no foundation. There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the culture of going hunting.

But you know it’s really basically the absence of the voices of good people. I cannot believe that politicians are afraid of the NRA, if they thought for one minute that the churches and the synagogue and the priest and the ministers were saying “Hey! Do the right thing and we have your back.”

We’re talking about millions of kids dying  being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.

So Rangel thinks we’d be rid of semi-automatic weapons if only the churches and synagogues weren’t so pro-gun?  Seriously?

Of course, we’ve already dealt with the completely bogus notion that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting, and we’re all well aware that the NRA has done more to promote gun safety than Rangel could ever dream of accomplishing.

Claiming the problem is “politics” is a deflective way of saying “the people don’t support the ban.” Democrats knew that pressing the issue would spell electoral doom for 2014, so they decided to deep-six the legislation. It was an act of self-preservation, as they’re well aware they’re on the wrong side of the 2nd Amendment fight.

Clearly, Rangel understands all of this, so it seems his loony, incorrect, and anti-constitutional rant was just a way to remind everyone that, despite his conviction on corruption charges, he’s still in office.

Congratulations on maintaining your status quo Charlie.  Mission accomplished!

 

NRA opposes U.N. arms treaty

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Post.

Lurch Kerry says “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”

His boss Comrade Obama is willing to support the treaty.

Will Lurch Kerry or Comrade Obama win the debate?

I am leaning toward Comrade Obama considering his past.

 

The National Rifle Association, which is battling a raft of gun control measures on Capitol Hill, also has an international fight on its hand as it gears up to oppose a U.N. treaty designed to restrict the flow of arms to conflict zones.

Negotiations open Monday in New York on the Arms Trade Treaty, which would require countries to determine whether weapons they sell would be used to commit serious human rights violations, terrorism or transnational organized crime.

The gun lobby fears that the treaty would be used to regulate civilian weapons. Human rights activists counter that it would reduce the trafficking of weapons, including small arms such as the ubiquitous AK-47 assault rifle, to outlaw regimes and rebel groups engaged in atrocities against civilian populations.

“This treaty is a common-sense alignment of the interests of governments, law-abiding citizens and individuals all over the world, who deserve the right to live free from harm,” said Michelle A. Ringuette, chief of campaigns and programs at Amnesty International USA. “Any step toward restraining the illicit sale and transfer of weapons used to commit horrific crimes is a good move forward, and the world could use a lot more steps in the direction of ending human rights abuses.”

The Obama administration, which has wavered on the treaty, signaled Friday that it was willing to support the accord. “The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability,” Secretary of State John F. Kerry said in a statement. “We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.”

The NRA is among the treaty’s most vocal opponents and a founder of the World Forum on Shooting Activities, an international coalition of gun rights activists and gun manufacturers who plan to speak against the treaty.

“What we really object to is the inclusion of civilian firearms within the scope of the ATT,” said Tom Mason, the group’s executive secretary and a lawyer who has represented the NRA at U.N. meetings for nearly two decades. “This is a treaty that really needs to address the transfer of large numbers of military weapons that leads to human rights abuses. We have submitted language that you can define what a civilian firearm is.”

The NRA also argues that the treaty could infringe on gun rights as understood in the United States and could force Americans onto an international registry.

Activists say the NRA wants to gut the treaty. “The NRA claim that there is such a thing as ‘civilian weapons’ and that these can and need to be treated differently from military weapons under the Arms Trade Treaty is — to put it politely — the gun lobby’s creativity on full display,” Ringuette said in a statement. “There is no such distinction. To try to create one would create a loophole that would render the treaty inoperative, as anyone could claim that he or she was in the business of trading ‘civilian weapons.’ ”

The American Bar Association’s Center for Human Rights said in a white paper last month that “it is unlikely the proposed treaty would compromise Second Amendment rights,” and if it did, “the treaty itself would be void.”

The treaty, which has been years in the making, would cover battle tanks, artillery, combat aircraft, warships and missiles as well as small arms and light weapons. Global sales of conventional arms reach tens of billions of dollars annually, and the biggest players are the United States, China and Russia.

The treaty lacks real enforcement mechanisms, but activists said it could be used to name and shame arms exporters who violate its terms.

The United Nations seemed on the verge of adopting a draft treaty last July when the United States suspended negotiations on the last day, and China and Russia, which had their own reservations, also pulled out.

The Obama administration said it had a number of technical issues, but activists said there was also a failure of political nerve several months before the presidential election. During the negotiations, the NRA organized a letter signed by a group of 51 Democratic and Republican senators opposing the treaty. The senators warned President Obama that they would “oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

After the election, the administration agreed to return to the negotiating table along with China and Russia. Officials at Amnesty and other organizations said they were confident that China and Russia would support the final draft, which is expected to be negotiated next week.

The NRA seems reconciled to the likelihood that a treaty will pass. “I tend to think they will do something,” Mason said. “They are just desperate for a product. They want to bring something home.”

If the NRA loses this month in New York, the organization would probably shift its focus to the Senate to prevent ratification of the pact.

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: