Jump to content

The Anti's Playbook in PDF Form


davel501

Recommended Posts

I think the emphasis on "emotion over logic" is really just an emphasis on relatable stories over statistics. Anyone can make statistics say anything they want. Audiences (e.g., voters, politicians) respond to relatable stories, wherein the audience members can imagine themselves as the victim of violence or whatever. Statistics and philosophical (or dogmatic) arguments are too abstract for the average person.

 

To counter the anti-2As, the pro-2A side needs to come up with its own relatable stories. Heller, McDonald, and Ezell worked as cases, not just as legal arguments, because the plaintiffs had a story. The East St. Louis case in another thread could be another good story. Historically there are cases of how gun registration led to gun confiscation, which led to victimization, like in the 50s, 60s, and into the 70s when law-abiding black or American Indian gun owners were forced by law to register their guns, then would subsequently be raided by police, who would seize the guns, then would subsequently be raided by the KKK, who somehow (hmm...) knew exactly when the cops were going to seize the guns. The KKK raids became less successful when those communities stopped obeying the legal requirement to register their guns, hence the police didn't know about them.

 

Real stories of actual defensive gun use, not just when a gun would have been good if only it had existed, would also help, especially if the defender's gun was an AR-15. The defender at the Texas church shooting last year is probably only a semi-good example. Many anti-2As seem to consider him a vigilante rather than a hero.

 

While stories like ethnic cleansing in Bosnia may apply (i.e., if only the victims had been able to defend themselves), most Americans would probably just not believe something like that could happen in America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Euler -- agreed that 2A supporters need better narratives, not just statistics.

 

However, in your examples, you point to disregarding/disobeying legal requirements as a positive story for 2A. When we've spent so much time using the narrative that we are "law-abiding" gun owners who bear the burden of legal restrictions on our rights, advocating the opposite seems counter-productive. If, however, you want to argue that there is a line (i.e. registration and confiscation) --because of historical precedent-- which "law-abiding" gun owners are willing to cross to become "law-breakers," then that is a narrative worth defining and sharing.

 

We have our work cut out for us: we need stories that has characters which resonate with our audience. Considering the climate of identify politics we are surrounded by, we should use that to our benefit to find women, blacks, Latinos, Asians, gays, students, parents, etc. that are willing to be the positive face of gun ownership and how they would be impacted by proposed gun control legislation.

 

Finally, we need a resource where these stories can be collected and shared. Reddit has /r/DGU (defensive gun use) for capturing news stories of people defending themselves and the Active Self Protection Youtube channel provides some good perspectives on self-defense. But I'm not aware of any pro-2A centralized resource comparable to Everytown's School Shooting page where stories and statistics are captured in a easy to navigate and reference format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Euler -- agreed that 2A supporters need better narratives, not just statistics.

 

However, in your examples, you point to disregarding/disobeying legal requirements as a positive story for 2A. When we've spent so much time using the narrative that we are "law-abiding" gun owners who bear the burden of legal restrictions on our rights, advocating the opposite seems counter-productive.

Our narrative still stands that restrictive gun laws make criminals out of law abiding citizens, disproportionately among the poor and minorities. The Civil rights movement found a cause by advocating to defy stupid laws.

 

We are law abiding with respect to public safety. Beyond that they need to know we will not comply. The average anti thinks the average gun owning American would comply with Australian gun buyback/bans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

@Euler -- agreed that 2A supporters need better narratives, not just statistics.

 

However, in your examples, you point to disregarding/disobeying legal requirements as a positive story for 2A. When we've spent so much time using the narrative that we are "law-abiding" gun owners who bear the burden of legal restrictions on our rights, advocating the opposite seems counter-productive.

Our narrative still stands that restrictive gun laws make criminals out of law abiding citizens, disproportionately among the poor and minorities. The Civil rights movement found a cause by advocating to defy stupid laws.

We are law abiding with respect to public safety. Beyond that they need to know we will not comply. The average anti thinks the average gun owning American would comply with Australian gun buyback/bans.

You are on point again chicagoresident

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Our narrative still stands that restrictive gun laws make criminals out of law abiding citizens, disproportionately among the poor and minorities. The Civil rights movement found a cause by advocating to defy stupid laws.

 

We are law abiding with respect to public safety. Beyond that they need to know we will not comply. The average anti thinks the average gun owning American would comply with Australian gun buyback/bans.

 

While the civil rights movement exercised civil disobedience, the State government applied brutal tactics against protesters until the Federal government stepped in. Fortunately for the civil rights movement, there was Federal law to support their demand for equal rights.

 

In this highly divided environment, there would be little to no popular support for the President deploying the National Guard to stop the State from enforcing a firearm confiscation (for example, the State of Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina). Let's not even go that far: the Republican DOJ supported DC's ban on handguns in the DC v. Heller case. Without the support of the Federal government, gun owners are going to be on their own facing down the might of the State, both in the court of law, and the court of public opinion. Thus this topic is very timely: we need to develop our own playbook to influence public opinion and counter the pro-gun control narrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my question for anyone that has kids school age, how do they teach the 2nd ammendment now?

 

I was an 80s baby when leftism was just starting to take hold in public schools. But it was still taught that the second ammendment was part of the checks and balances of democracy. It was still taught that it was your right to bear arms to keep the government controlled by the people.

 

In debate agaisnt anti's of my generation its brought up that your puny AR15 is no match for the might of the US military, so why bother? The second ammendment is outdated because we've let the military get too powerful.

 

Do they at least pay lip service to the real meaning of the 2nd ammendment or have they changed it? Do kids still have to take the government mandated/structured constitution test in 8th grade?

Thus this topic is very timely: we need to develop our own playbook to influence public opinion and counter the pro-gun control narrative.

I guess that would be where to start any playbook. If not through schools at least through extra curricular civic organizations.

 

Let's be honest, part of our love for gun ownership is to pacify that same feeling of powerlessness against the government that drives the anti's to put on those pink hats and protest. We think the 2nd is more powerful then the first. They think the 1st is more powerful and the 2nd is outdated for an enlightened society (the pen is mightier then the sword idiom). We need to channel that energy back to our side from a young age.

 

IMO ceding anything around the original meaning of the 2nd paints us into a corner. It's why the anti's still are forced to say "I believe in the second but...". Without its original meaning preserved we got nothing, the debate ends when they don't even pay lip service.

 

Heller VS DC is dangerous in that it can be perceived to weakens the argument of the true meaning of the second ammendment. Scalia's dissent on the limiting powers of guns for self defense is tough, because he's right. How do you reasonably argue a Barret 50 cal can be used against a robber? That's the corner we're painted in with the self defense argument. The anti's know it, they can't come for our handguns so they're coming for our rifles.

 

That's why Highland Park VS Friedman is such an important case that needs to be heard. Because it has potential to build on DC vs Heller in saying that that guns are both for self defense AND defense against a government no longer of the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... How do you reasonably argue a Barret 50 cal can be used against a robber? That's the corner we're painted in with the self defense argument. ...

Self defense extends beyond home invasion and mugging. It includes defense of communities and potentially the nation. At least part of the intent of the 2nd Amendment was that people would gain proficiency in current firearms that they owned and show up for military service with whatever they owned when called.

 

Taking your own firearm into military service is outdated, especially if civilians are prohibited from owning anything comparable to military-issue firearms, but it doesn't rule out something like the British Home Guard during World War II, nor does it rule out chaos during natural disasters or general civil unrest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...