PDA

View Full Version : New Concept: "COMMON SENSE GUN RIGHTS"


oaklander
03-27-2011, 11:05 AM
The anti-gunners scored a public relations (PR) victory when they coined the phrase "common sense gun laws."

I think I even know which PR firm they may have used for this (since I used to work in PR, and know some of the firms).

Folks - this was ALL PUBLIC RELATIONS. Because "gun control, inc." is a top-down group funded by large groups, they are experts at using PR. We are not experts (yet), since we are grass roots.

BUT - I know PR. . .

:43:

-------

Since that's the case, I would like people to start using the phrase "common sense gun rights."

For example:

1) It's simply common sense that it should be just as easy for a law-abiding citizen to acquire a gun as it is for a criminal to acquire a gun. Why punish someone for following the law? That does not make sense.

2) It's simply common sense that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to carry a defensive pistol for self defense, since the criminals already do. And again, why punish someone for being law-abiding?

3) It's simply common sense to allow law-abiding gun owners to buy ammunition for their guns, without needless red-tape. The criminals already have a black market for ammunition, so why make law-abiding citizens jump through hoops?

The point of all of this is that for firearms to be true defensive weapons, they need to be available to law-abiding citizens, free of needless red tape. As a matter of social policy, you NEVER want to make things so that citizens can't get guns, since criminals can ALWAYS get guns.

Again - common sense!

Just look at D.C. to see what happens when "common sense gun control" gets put into place. . .

So remember - the phrase now is "common sense gun rights."

Try it, you will like it!!!!

:D

ZombieTactics
03-27-2011, 11:07 AM
I like it, I like it a lot.

DiscoBayJoe
03-27-2011, 11:07 AM
I like it!

glockman19
03-27-2011, 11:17 AM
"Common Sense"...like maybe following the law rather than interpreting it?

The 2A is crystal clear...It's the interpretation that is messed up.

No word in the 2A is longer than 9 letters those being, "regulated" and "necessary". It is only 27 words. what is the difficulty in understanding this simple concisely written statement?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Southwest Chuck
03-27-2011, 11:33 AM
I had always thought we needed to turn that phrase (Common Sense) to our advantage. I think you have a winner here. The distinction has to be made and emphasized as to the "Gun Rights" portion of the phrase. I think it would not only catch the eye/ears of the "ignorant" anti's, but also of fence sitters, at least enough to read our RTKBA perspective of the issues. It's a good, persuasive term that can open doors

Good job Oak!

Southwest Chuck
03-27-2011, 11:37 AM
So, is the domain "Common Sense Gun Rights.org" taken ? :D

KOTU
03-27-2011, 11:51 AM
i guess its common sense that criminals dont follow laws, so gun laws don't do anything except disarm law-abiding citizens... why cant the anti's see this?!

barthel
03-27-2011, 12:10 PM
Common Sense is a great idea. Unfortunately there seems to be little of it around. =(

rimfire78
03-27-2011, 12:19 PM
Waking up......smelling coffee........

thefinger
03-27-2011, 12:31 PM
nice!

Maestro Pistolero
03-27-2011, 1:05 PM
I like it very much, and can see mostly good coming from diluting and confusing their message. As a remedial counter-move, it is brilliant. It does, however, have the same ring to it, and could serve to inadvertently multiply the sticking effect of the original phrase. That, of course would NOT be good.

It is even more effective to proactively create PR terms that can embed themselves in the language (i.e. the anti's assault-weapon, gun-show loophole, etc).

One fantastic recent example of our side coining a phrase which has some sticking power is the term constitutional-carry. It's powerful, descriptive, and unassailable (unless one admits to being anti-constitution). I think we could use that term, building on its already considerable foundation, stretch it's present meaning to encompass all forms of carry reform, even shall-issue/self-defense-as-good-cause efforts.

After all, isn't it our position that shall-issue essentially IS constitutional carry, if LOC is prohibited?

And now that it is written into the law in AZ and two or three other states, constitutional-carry as a national term gains a foothold, increases in credibility, and become part of the popular vernacular. It doesn't get any better than that from a PR standpoint.

putput
03-27-2011, 1:14 PM
I like it and I'm in.



They use REASONABLE a lot as well...

Uriah02
03-27-2011, 1:37 PM
But Common Sense (http://infohost.nmt.edu/~armiller/commonsen.htm) is dead...

bob1911
03-27-2011, 1:47 PM
I like it very much!:D

Common sense (constitutional) carry:43:

(I wish that common sense was as common as the name implies.):(

Bob

P.S. I wish this applied in Crook co. Illanoy.:mad:

Librarian
03-27-2011, 1:49 PM
But Common Sense (http://infohost.nmt.edu/~armiller/commonsen.htm) is dead...

On the contrary, Common Sense (http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/commonsense/text.html) lives! PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason.

As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either.

RP1911
03-27-2011, 2:15 PM
You can have these if you want:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2046604&postcount=6

Maestro Pistolero
03-27-2011, 2:24 PM
You can have these if you want:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=2046604&postcount=6

Nice. I like it. Shall issue, for example, is a sensible gun law. Am I on the right track?

Pixs
03-27-2011, 2:29 PM
Google says that you are the only one. Unfortunately there is a litany of the usual common sense "." Rights followed by control.

RP1911
03-27-2011, 2:32 PM
Nice. I like it. Shall issue, for example, is a sensible gun law. Am I on the right track?

Yup.

I also have www.defeatincumbents.org :)

Window_Seat
03-27-2011, 2:34 PM
I like the idea of using common sense in furtherance of any kind of right that we have, but I thought we were trying to get away from the term "gun rights", since the mainstream news media has tried (and partially succeeded) to cause the term "gun rights" to be fabricated into the agenda of the toothless hick-town uneducated redneck.

News media always uses the term "gun rights" when there's a newsworthy item related to the policy of gun control, so if we use that term, we are acknowledging the mainstream's (MS) idea of who they are trying to portray and depict as "gun rights proponents"; the toothless hick-town uneducated redneck.

Further, we would also be copying the politicians terminology ("common sense" & "sensible"), and the best thing we could do to counter any argument with any serious basis is to use our own creative words and strategy we might come up with, and never cut & paste a strategic phrase from those who we oppose (although I might be guilty of some of that in ways).

How 'bout "The Genuine Second Amendment Civil Right", and if there must be something that says "gun rights", then add as a subtitle to that; "A Right to Arms of Responsibility". With that, we are not only expressing our rights as responsible citizens and legal residents, but also in singular terminology for individuals (right, as opposed to rights).

I'd like the next AB-357 type bill to be called "The Genuine Second Amendment Civil Right Act of 20**".

The 2nd Amendment is a civil right, no?

Erik.

IrishPirate
03-27-2011, 2:38 PM
sounds a bit redundant to me :D. Hopefully it won't limit our gun rights. Seems like saying that we're for "Common Sense" gun rights we're admitting that some gun rights aren't common sense...which leaves the door open for anti's to give input on what they think are common sense gun rights. Not trying to be a downer, just don't want to fuel the anti's fire considering we're doing so good at extinguishing it lately!!

Maestro Pistolero
03-27-2011, 2:38 PM
Short, punchy hyphenations seems to have a way of sticking in the popular vernacular.

Constitutional-carry
Assault-Weapon
Gun-show loophole
Saturday-night-special
Cop-killer Bullets.

Something to think about.

resident-shooter
03-27-2011, 3:03 PM
It is common sense that antis lost all hopes in reasonably pwning decisions of heller and mcdonald.

wash
03-27-2011, 3:11 PM
I like it, I just with the antis hadn't used "common sense" first because their version is a misnomer.

N6ATF
03-27-2011, 4:04 PM
You just have to look about who they really care about protecting. Themselves (criminals). Common sense dictates that the more law-abiders the criminals disarm, the safer they'll be.

Flopper
03-27-2011, 6:01 PM
Brilliant!

pointedstick
03-27-2011, 6:17 PM
I just used this today in an email I wrote to the Chicago DA who's fighting against CCW in Illinois (http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/robert-farago/anita-alvarez-looking-to-derail-illinois-concealed-carry/):

Ms. Alvarez,
In your opposition to the legalization of concealed carry in Illinois, I urge you to reconsider your position regarding the common-sense gun rights that the Supreme Court has ruled are possessed by every American. District of Columbia v. Heller is quite clear about this: “Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” (p. 19)

Even Justice Ginsburg has acknowledged the right to carry firearms in her dissent to Muscarello v. United States: “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” (p. 143)

And finally, Justice Stevens too understands this reality in his dissent to Heller: “Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.” (p. 46-47)

The right to carry firearms is a fundamental right in the United States of America, and Illinois is bound to respect that fact no matter how fervently some may disagree. Opposing a fundamental right is not a realistic option, no more than it was for those who wished for African-Americans to be second-class citizens forever. Freedom of choice and action always win in the end, and I urge you to align yourself with the forces fighting for, rather than against that principle.

Respectfully,
[Me]

IrishPirate
03-27-2011, 6:21 PM
I just used this today in an email I wrote to the Chicago DA who's fighting against CCW in Illinois (http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/robert-farago/anita-alvarez-looking-to-derail-illinois-concealed-carry/):

very well written. brief, to the point, on topic, convincing.....well played sir!! I love when we can quote the anti gun members of SCOTUS as agreeing with our arguments. :D

oaklander
03-27-2011, 8:11 PM
I like the way you think!

:D

I like it very much, and can see mostly good coming from diluting and confusing their message. As a remedial counter-move, it is brilliant. It does, however, have the same ring to it, and could serve to inadvertently multiply the sticking effect of the original phrase. That, of course would NOT be good.

It is even more effective to proactively create PR terms that can embed themselves in the language (i.e. the anti's assault-weapon, gun-show loophole, etc).

One fantastic recent example of our side coining a phrase which has some sticking power is the term constitutional-carry. It's powerful, descriptive, and unassailable (unless one admits to being anti-constitution). I think we could use that term, building on its already considerable foundation, stretch it's present meaning to encompass all forms of carry reform, even shall-issue/self-defense-as-good-cause efforts.

After all, isn't it our position that shall-issue essentially IS constitutional carry, if LOC is prohibited?

And now that it is written into the law in AZ and two or three other states, constitutional-carry as a national term gains a foothold, increases in credibility, and become part of the popular vernacular. It doesn't get any better than that from a PR standpoint.

oaklander
03-27-2011, 8:16 PM
That's the other thing, We need to not be embarrassed about the use of the word "gun."

"Common Sense Civil Rights" just seems neutered.

The tide is swinging BACK AWAY from "politically-correct" language.

I used to tell people that I was a civil rights activist - that is correct, but not accurate.

I am a GUN RIGHTS activist, and I am not ashamed of the word "gun."

That being said, discretion is always advised. On most of my professional bios, I use "Second Amendment Activist."

The key is to associate the word "gun" with "self-protection" and "protecting one's family." We need to disassociate it from "criminal," "crime," "inner-city," etc. .

I like the idea of using common sense in furtherance of any kind of right that we have, but I thought we were trying to get away from the term "gun rights", since the mainstream news media has tried (and partially succeeded) to cause the term "gun rights" to be fabricated into the agenda of the toothless hick-town uneducated redneck.

News media always uses the term "gun rights" when there's a newsworthy item related to the policy of gun control, so if we use that term, we are acknowledging the mainstream's (MS) idea of who they are trying to portray and depict as "gun rights proponents"; the toothless hick-town uneducated redneck.

Further, we would also be copying the politicians terminology ("common sense" & "sensible"), and the best thing we could do to counter any argument with any serious basis is to use our own creative words and strategy we might come up with, and never cut & paste a strategic phrase from those who we oppose (although I might be guilty of some of that in ways).

How 'bout "The Genuine Second Amendment Civil Right", and if there must be something that says "gun rights", then add as a subtitle to that; "A Right to Arms of Responsibility". With that, we are not only expressing our rights as responsible citizens and legal residents, but also in singular terminology for individuals (right, as opposed to rights).

I'd like the next AB-357 type bill to be called "The Genuine Second Amendment Civil Right Act of 20**".

The 2nd Amendment is a civil right, no?

Erik.

BigDogatPlay
03-27-2011, 8:19 PM
I just used this today in an email I wrote to the Chicago DA who's fighting against CCW in Illinois (http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/robert-farago/anita-alvarez-looking-to-derail-illinois-concealed-carry/):

That is a brilliantly crafted message, particularly using writings of anti icons Mr. Justice Stevens and Madame Justice Ginsburg.

Very well played!!!!

Common sense gun rights it is. :)

nicki
03-27-2011, 9:20 PM
Oaklander is right on.

While we need to have our PR slogans, we need to be able to go deeper than our slogans.

Think of an "Onion", as you peel it, it has deeper levels. As such, so should our slogans, our "Mantras" so to speak.

We are dealing with "Human Beings", not "Vulcans". Humans operate on "emotions", Vulcans operate on "logic".

When we make "Logical and Factual" arguments and our opponents make "Emotional" arguments, WE LOSE!

On average humans are more receptive to Emotional arguments 24X more than logical arguments. Now of course that is the average, many humans are 50 X more receptive to emotional arguments than logical arguments.

Women in particular are more receptive to emotional arguments which is why they honestly don't get our positions.

So, my take is whatever we are for has to be reasonable and whatever we are against has to be reasonable.

Effective gun policies yes, Victim Disarmanent No, VD kills.

Effective gun policies are what we are for, disarming potential victims and making things safer for bad guys is what we are against, victim disarmanant kills innocent victims.

If you know your facts, you can attack all the so called "gun safety" polices, in fact you can quickly say the following:

The only people your "gun safety" policies will make safe are "criminal predators".

We have to go for "Low Hanging Fruit", that means we can't come in like a bull in a china shop screaming about our rights.

Now in California we can't argue for "Constitutional Carry", but we can argue for "Non discriminatory" issuance of "CCW permits".

If we come off as respectfully arguing for our rights while recognizing responsiblities that go with those rights, we get alot better PR.

For Libertarian types, you can take an anti prohibition stance.

Prohibition, making criminals and corrupt officials rich at your expense.

For those of you who still support the Drug War, bear in mind if you support the violation of other people's rights, you just lost credibility when you complain about YOUR rights being trampled on.

Sorry, bill of rights is a package deal, kinda like the 10 commandments.

Nicki

NytWolf
03-27-2011, 9:57 PM
One problem:

"Common sense" just doesn't seem so common nowadays.

Swiss
03-27-2011, 11:21 PM
Horse has already left the barn. How about attacking the mote recent slogan "gun *safety* advocates"?

oaklander
03-27-2011, 11:42 PM
Nothing is being "attacked." You are missing the "Zen" here.

Let me explain:

Anti-gunners use emotional arguments ("it's for the children") combined with "junk science" to sway politicians and public opinion.

We simply do the same thing, but our "emotional argument" is (1) that self-defense is a human right, and (2) our science is actually the "real" science which shows conclusively that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are a net social benefit - and not a net social cost.

Self-defense is something that cannot be argued against - there's no argument that any rational person can make that you do not have the right of self-defense. It's a pre-existing human right (which by definition, does not depend on legal theories).

It's also bi-partisan.

Some friends and I discussed this earlier today. When you talk about simple rights, like the right of self-defense - you are actually talking about things that are "ethical" in nature, and not "legal" in nature.

This distinction goes back to the days when there were "two" courts (law and equity). Ethical arguments generally look at what is "right" and not just what is "legal."

When you introduce "basic rights" into the argument, you essentially make your position unassailable, since no sane person would argue that you do not have a "basic right."

I should probably have not even posted this - but I imagine that the anti's have already thought of this, and since there is no way to defeat this type of argument - they simply ignored this theory, or hoped that it would not be used. . .

Here is what it looks like:

http://thepioneeronline.com/editorials/2011/02/guns-gun-control-and-google/

There is NO argument against anything I wrote, since I used a subjective perspective - and any "objective" things I put in there are verifiable truth. . .

Hope this post makes sense, I just ate a LOT of homemade gluten-free pizza, and now I'm sleepy!!!!

:D

ETA: let me break it down further. Winning an argument depends on several things. One of them is "framing" the argument. Think about it. What we are really arguing, in many cases - is nothing less than the preservation of our own right of self-defense. When we let the other side frame the argument - we get sucked down the rabbit hole when we get pigeon holed, by jack holes, who think the whole argument is about "guns."

Horse has already left the barn. How about attacking the mote recent slogan "gun *safety* advocates"?

oaklander
03-27-2011, 11:43 PM
As always - you are on point with this kind of stuff!!!

When we make "Logical and Factual" arguments and our opponents make "Emotional" arguments, WE LOSE!

Nicki

stix213
03-28-2011, 9:51 AM
Since that's the case, I would like people to start using the phrase "common sense gun rights."


Will do!

nick
03-28-2011, 10:06 AM
I like it very much, and can see mostly good coming from diluting and confusing their message. As a remedial counter-move, it is brilliant. It does, however, have the same ring to it, and could serve to inadvertently multiply the sticking effect of the original phrase. That, of course would NOT be good.

It is even more effective to proactively create PR terms that can embed themselves in the language (i.e. the anti's assault-weapon, gun-show loophole, etc).

One fantastic recent example of our side coining a phrase which has some sticking power is the term constitutional-carry. It's powerful, descriptive, and unassailable (unless one admits to being anti-constitution). I think we could use that term, building on its already considerable foundation, stretch it's present meaning to encompass all forms of carry reform, even shall-issue/self-defense-as-good-cause efforts.

After all, isn't it our position that shall-issue essentially IS constitutional carry, if LOC is prohibited?

And now that it is written into the law in AZ and two or three other states, constitutional-carry as a national term gains a foothold, increases in credibility, and become part of the popular vernacular. It doesn't get any better than that from a PR standpoint.

Not really. Unrestricted carry is the constitutional carry, and either LOC, or CC has to be unrestricted. The other one can be licensed, preferably shall-issue. At least, that's where the courts seem to be leaning.

Maestro Pistolero
03-28-2011, 10:11 AM
Not really. Unrestricted carry is the constitutional carry, and either LOC, or CC has to be unrestricted. The other one can be licensed, preferably shall-issue. At least, that's where the courts seem to be leaning.I understand that's what it means now.

Here again is what I am suggesting as a possibility:

I think we could use that term, building on its already considerable foundation, stretch it's present meaning to encompass all forms of carry reform, even shall-issue/self-defense-as-good-cause efforts.


The goal being to capitalize on a term thats already taken hold in the law and in the popular vernacular, and broaden it's use to highlight that bearing arms is constitutionally protected. In other words, get "constitutional carry" to be a household word.

Fufodog
03-28-2011, 10:13 AM
There is no prevalence of common sense in a state that re-elected Barbara Boxer.

oaklander
03-28-2011, 10:19 AM
Thank you for the quick aphorism, but it's not really on point.

That like saying "there's no evidence of rights in a state that elects Kamala Harris."

It actually has ZERO to do with what we are talking about.

How about, "there's no evidence of erudition in a post that is off topic?"

:D

There is no prevalence of common sense in a state that re-elected Barbara Boxer.

Fufodog
03-28-2011, 10:41 AM
Thank you for the quick aphorism, but it's not really on point.

That like saying "there's no evidence of rights in a state that elects Kamala Harris."

It actually has ZERO to do with what we are talking about.

How about, "there's no evidence of erudition in a post that is off topic?"

:D

I guess my point that "common" sense is a matter of cultural divide in California was lost on you as was the difference between my use of "prevalence" with your use of "evidence." Anyway, enough snarking: we're on the same side and I support any and all efforts to advance the cause.

HondaMasterTech
03-28-2011, 12:12 PM
i guess its common sense that criminals dont follow laws, so gun laws don't do anything except disarm law-abiding citizens... why cant the anti's see this?!

Look at it like this. There are some people who want to ban guns because they believe guns are evil. Then there are other people who want to ban guns because it would further their political carreer since guns are "evil".

These posers use their votes for "guns are evil" as a way to appeal to voters and get relected so they can keep getting paid.

It's sickening. And, I don't know which is worse, the "guns are evil" person, or the "I voted to ban guns because I want to get relected", person.

madmike
03-28-2011, 4:15 PM
This is an excellent idea! Quick, somebody tell The big national orgs to start using it ASAP!

NotEnufGarage
03-28-2011, 4:33 PM
We need bumper stickers!!

The California Guns Foundation
Fighting for Common Sense Gun Rights.

gunsmith
03-28-2011, 4:40 PM
I like the idea of common sense, after all its just common sense that if you have a drivers license from one state you can drive in another, consequently if you have a ccw from one state you should be able to carry in another, don't the anti's always cry about treating guns like cars?

nso1
03-28-2011, 4:50 PM
In the same spirit I think we should refer to Assault rifles as "Sport Utility Rifles"

Write Winger
03-28-2011, 5:26 PM
I was thinking "Civilian Defense Rifles" :D

Self Defense is a Civil Right!

Legasat
03-28-2011, 5:39 PM
I am really enjoying this thread! I knew there was a reason I hang out here...

Great ideas, useful discussion. I really like idea of redefining Common Sense Gun Laws.

twotap
03-28-2011, 8:20 PM
Thanks Oaklander for the common sense..common sense gun rights are what we trully need..

oaklander
03-28-2011, 8:46 PM
LOL - you catch on quick!

Snarkiness is how we tell each other that we like each other here. . .

:D

I guess my point that "common" sense is a matter of cultural divide in California was lost on you as was the difference between my use of "prevalence" with your use of "evidence." Anyway, enough snarking: we're on the same side and I support any and all efforts to advance the cause.

CalBear
03-28-2011, 8:53 PM
Thanks for your contribution, Oaklander. It's nice how many people we have around here who really get "it." Gun rights PR has been non existent or disastrous for years. It's only more recently that things have started to turn around. Once gun owners realize we need to equate gun rights with common sense, civil rights, and positive benefits, instead of propagating typical stereotypes and making ineffective arguments like "what part of shall not be infringed do you not understand," we'll be a lot better off.

oaklander
03-29-2011, 12:32 AM
Welcome!

Thanks for your contribution, Oaklander.

navyinrwanda
03-29-2011, 2:22 PM
The “right to armed self-defense” avoids the word gun – and is what the Supreme Court has held is protected by the Second Amendment.

For more pro-self-defense terminology, see gunlaws.com (http://gunlaws.com/politicallycorrect.htm)

Stonewalker
03-29-2011, 2:47 PM
I dig it. This is a great way to frame our arguments.