Thursday, July 21, 2016

Anti-Second Amendment Groups Seek Camouflage to Sell Infringments

Those who seek to disarm the public have always had a hidden agenda.  In the middle and early 60's the assault was more open.  With each new assault the public grew more educated and the fallacies of the anti-Second Amendment arguments were exposed. As public support waned, those who hate an empowered public, have grown more desparate and more disingenuous.

In 1976, Pete Shields was open about his desire for a general confiscation:
  "The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal."
In the 1970's, the idea that England and Wales had low crime rates because of gun restrictions seemed plausible.  Then we learned that crime rates had risen as more and more controls were applied.  Each new push for more infringements has been met with data and facts showing the lack of rationality behind the hatred of an armed population.

The latest push is for "Universal Background Checks" (UBCs). UBCs are a precursor to the registration that Pete Shields desired. Any legislation that allows for background checks without recording gun serial numbers and personal data is shot down by those who push UBCs.

Politico reveals the preparation for another round of "rebranding"; changing labels without changing the product. From
With that in mind, representatives from a broad mix of progressive groups sat around a table last week at the Washington offices of Global Strategy Group, where they received a tutorial on how — and how not — to talk about guns. Leading the lesson were top officials from Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, the campaign wing of the group Giffords and Kelly founded after the Sandy Hook massacre.

For example, groups seeking tighter gun laws have been trying to get away from the “gun control” label since well before ARS started testing for a new messaging strategy last year. Better options, they say, are “gun violence prevention” and “preventing gun tragedies.”

"We've stepped away from a debate about guns that was sort of postured pro-gun or against-gun,” said Peter Ambler, the PAC’s executive director, “into one that’s centered around data-tested ideas like the background checks that we know increased public safety and save lives, but don't sort of disapprove of the individual gun owner and don't disapprove of the responsible use of firearms in society.”

And while Hillary Clinton promised to “keep taking on the NRA” in October, she should maybe stop, according to ARS’ findings, and instead take on the “gun lobby.”
When Peter Ambler is talking about "data-tested" ideas, he is not talking about restrictive gun legislation that has been tested and found to reduce crime. That hasn't happened. I supect he is talking about polling data and focus groups that are aimed at finding what combinations of words work best to trick people into voting for something they otherwise would not.

These strategies can work in the short term. But people in today's data savy environment can determine who is lying to them pretty quickly. It doesn't take long to develop a sense of credibility or a reputation for dishonesty.

The NRA has developed a general reputation for credibility. Wayne LaPierre added much to that credibility when he said that it takes a "good guy with a gun" to stop "a bad guy with a gun".

The obvious truth of that statement is illustrated with each additional terrorist attack, be it a jihadist with a truck in Nice or one with a rifle in Orlando.

The Anti-Second Amendment plotters are a tiny percentage of the population. They are funded by those with deep pockets. That money can buy a lot of air time, and may sway critical voters in some elections.

Long term education is the key. An educated electorate does not fall for these word games.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

They are only trying to use the lies of political correctness to accomplish their goal, what can I say , would you believe they lie a lot.