PDA

View Full Version : Pro gun propaganda campaign


Scarecrow Repair
10-15-2007, 11:03 PM
I have been thinking about how to turn the tables on the anti gun propaganda. Here's an idea; I certainly can't afford it myself, nor do much at all with writing it, but I am curious what y'all think, and if anyone actually knows the cost ...

Suppose we plan a monthly paid full page advert in, say, the SF Chronicle and the LA Times. Each installment would have a big headline "GUN CONTROL IS RACIST", followed by a specific example, beginning with the earliest gun control laws in the south about disarming blacks, whether slave or free, explicitly because it might have ended slavery. Throw in mention of the laws about making it a felony to even teach freed blacks how to read. Make the association between race and gun control as explicit as possible. Include enough detail and especially a bibliography and links to web pages so that it will not be easy to denounce as just propaganda, and make sure to include nice big copies of political cartoons and photographs and advertisements from the era showing how bad it really was for blacks back then.

Leave Dred Scott to the second or third installment. Emphasize its incredibly racist argument that Dred Scott, a black slave, could not be considered a free man because free men had the right to keep and bear arms, and no one in his right mind would even consider allowing a Negro to keep and bear arms.

Make each issue stick to the topic of how dreadfully racist the gun control laws are. Pound that in. Make it obvious that gun control laws today are just as racist.

Continue with reconstruction, into the 1960s and the Deacons for Defense who taught the KKK a lesson or two.

Close out the last two issues with banning of Saturday Night Specials being merely a way to keep poor (mostly black) people from having weapons for self defense, and how, when the Black Panthers exercised their right to keep and bear arms, the result was quick legislative action to shut down the uppity Negroes.

Pound this racism theme for all its worth, month after month. Don't beat on the second amendment itself so much as the natural right to self defense of the downtrodden. Point out that it is the poor blacks who suffer. Point out that gun grabbers are well off and white.

One goal is getting a mainstay of the Democratic party thinking in ways the Democrat leaders don't like. I doubt it would push many blacks into the Republican party, in fact I hope it doesn't, because it would be better to make the gun-grabbing wing of the Democratic Party nervous enough that they would stop pushing their gun grabbing agenda, and it might push gun loving Democrats into telling the gun grabbers to back off. I'd rather have two parties against gun control than just one, especially when that one is so self destructive and so easily forgets its own roots.

It would put the gun grabbers on the defensive. Make them come out with their own counter ads trying to explain away this difficult and embarrassing truth. Wrong foot them.

Most important in this is the tone of the articles. It has to be unrelenting on the tie between racism and gun control, and gun control and the rich disarming the poor. The second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, these are not the message nearly as much as the natural right of every human being to defend themselves, especially against lynching and slavery and crime at home. The second amendment is just a means of expressing that end. The important message is that gun control is a way to disarm the very people who make the power brokers the most nervous.

Comments, please! Again, I am just day dreaming here, I haven't the money to fund it or skill to write it. But it's a nice dream ...

DedEye
10-15-2007, 11:26 PM
I love it :D.

Charliegone
10-15-2007, 11:51 PM
Hmm sounds like a good idea to me, we could set up so kind of fund like

Californian's against Gun Control or something like that...:D

odysseus
10-16-2007, 12:15 AM
I say use the other side's language like: Californians for Education on Personal Defense. Something that doesn't tip off right away it is promoting the RKBA, and may make soccer moms not immediately just turn it off before looking into it more.

hoffmang
10-16-2007, 12:16 AM
Heh.

-Gene

CCWFacts
10-16-2007, 12:21 AM
I say use the other side's language like: Californians for Education on Personal Defense. Something that doesn't tip off right away it is promoting the RKBA, and may make soccer moms not immediately just turn it off before looking into it more.

I would submit that your average LA and SF liberals care about racism when it is overt (using the N-word or a discriminatory policy) and when it abstract (not in their neighborhood) but when it is real-world in-their-neighborhood issues, racism is not a problem. I live in one of the most uber-liberal neighborhoods on the planet and no one here wants blacks to be on their block, or to be armed, or any of that. People might get upset about someone using the N-word but they don't want blacks, much less armed blacks, anywhere near. In fact this is one of the secrets of why these uber-liberal neighborhoods are so pro-gun-control. They know that they have very well equipped very responsive police departments who will show up in two minutes of a call, so guns aren't needed here. Arming blacks would not make anyone here feel any better.

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but for the past 15 years I have lived in truly the most liberal zipcodes this state has to offer, and this is my impression.

odysseus
10-16-2007, 12:36 AM
I would submit that your average LA and SF liberals care about racism when it is overt (using the N-word or a discriminatory policy) and when it abstract (not in their neighborhood) but when it is real-world in-their-neighborhood issues, racism is not a problem. I live in one of the most uber-liberal neighborhoods on the planet and no one here wants blacks to be on their block, or to be armed, or any of that. People might get upset about someone using the N-word but they don't want blacks, much less armed blacks, anywhere near. In fact this is one of the secrets of why these uber-liberal neighborhoods are so pro-gun-control. They know that they have very well equipped very responsive police departments who will show up in two minutes of a call, so guns aren't needed here. Arming blacks would not make anyone here feel any better.

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but for the past 15 years I have lived in truly the most liberal zipcodes this state has to offer, and this is my impression.

Sadly, not only is this the case for some communities - there is breadth of historical presidence of it in our country where some gun control laws were created.

Even now you will here from some that loosening gun controls in this state will some how give islamic fundamentalist terrorists easier access to guns. While simply unfounded and without truth, people's fears are easily abused.

RRangel
10-16-2007, 5:43 AM
This pro gun advertising idea is a good one provided that we have money to pull it off. Nothing wrong with portraying a positive image.

rod
10-16-2007, 7:32 AM
Along the same lines as advertising, why don't we rent a booth at the CA gun shows and educate the folks already on our side but don't know what to do. I know a lot of pro gun people but they are all surprised to hear of micro stamping and are clueless when it comes to knowing whats legal and what's not. As long as they see guns for sale at the gun store, they think everything is OK. We need to get these people on board with what's going on. They are already on our side but don't realize their rights are being raped. Once they realize what's going on in our State capitol, we'll have more numbers to help us fight the good fight.

CalGuns is a great source of information and my rallying point when it comes to calling, writing, faxing, and so on to fight gun control laws. I believe if more people were introduced to CalGuns, we would have a louder voice when it comes to fighting the anti's.

JALLEN
10-16-2007, 8:08 AM
This pro gun advertising idea is a good one provided that we have money to pull it off. Nothing wrong with portraying a positive image.

Maybe we can get the same favorable ad rates that Moveon.org got to run the General Betrayus ad. That'll make our dough go a long way!

drclark
10-16-2007, 8:21 AM
I like the idea. Its definitely time to change our tactics. As long as the legislature remains the same composition, we will continue to see anti-gun bill churned out every year. We cannot be dependent on the governor to veto the bad bills that make it out. It will take money. This is the kind of thing I would expect the NRA/CPRA/GOA/etc to be doing.

I also would like to see a "gun owners are people too" campaign. Something along the lines of a picture plus "my name is Doug. I'm an engineer, and I own a firearm. Its too easy to dismiss us as a bunch of right wing extremists, rednecks, etc. Heck, maybe its time to start having some peaceful protests as well.

Another thing would be to start publishing the unjust prosecutions that have been occuring (such as BWO when all is said and done). In general, most citizens, regardless of their views on gun control, do not like to hear stories of innocents that have been wrongfully accused or prosecuted due to .gov incompetence.


drc

Smokeybehr
10-16-2007, 8:22 AM
I say use the other side's language like: Californians for Education on Personal Defense. Something that doesn't tip off right away it is promoting the RKBA, and may make soccer moms not immediately just turn it off before looking into it more.

I'll pay for the domain name... The closest thing available is CALPERSDEF.com/net/org or CEPDONLINE.com/net/org if that's the name you want to go with.

torsf
10-16-2007, 8:34 AM
I'm in for a donation!

torsf
10-16-2007, 8:39 AM
Perhaps in later installments we could include pictures of prominent anti-gun politicians, and a quote or two from them about 'keeping guns out of poor/crime-ridden/etc communities'?

The kicker would be featuring anti-gunners who have CCW permits or armed guards....

Do as I say, not as I do.

aklon
10-16-2007, 8:59 AM
I've always wanted to buy a billboard for a couple of weeks right there at the San Francisco end of the Bay Bridge that says: "YOU don't deserve freedom. Turn in your guns."

.223
10-16-2007, 9:06 AM
I would submit that your average LA and SF liberals care about racism when it is overt (using the N-word or a discriminatory policy) and when it abstract (not in their neighborhood) but when it is real-world in-their-neighborhood issues, racism is not a problem. I live in one of the most uber-liberal neighborhoods on the planet and no one here wants blacks to be on their block, or to be armed, or any of that. People might get upset about someone using the N-word but they don't want blacks, much less armed blacks, anywhere near. In fact this is one of the secrets of why these uber-liberal neighborhoods are so pro-gun-control. They know that they have very well equipped very responsive police departments who will show up in two minutes of a call, so guns aren't needed here. Arming blacks would not make anyone here feel any better.

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but for the past 15 years I have lived in truly the most liberal zipcodes this state has to offer, and this is my impression.

I seem to recall an article on this (NSFW). (http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Liberalism)

Piper
10-16-2007, 9:53 AM
I would submit that your average LA and SF liberals care about racism when it is overt (using the N-word or a discriminatory policy) and when it abstract (not in their neighborhood) but when it is real-world in-their-neighborhood issues, racism is not a problem. I live in one of the most uber-liberal neighborhoods on the planet and no one here wants blacks to be on their block, or to be armed, or any of that. People might get upset about someone using the N-word but they don't want blacks, much less armed blacks, anywhere near. In fact this is one of the secrets of why these uber-liberal neighborhoods are so pro-gun-control. They know that they have very well equipped very responsive police departments who will show up in two minutes of a call, so guns aren't needed here. Arming blacks would not make anyone here feel any better.

I'm sorry to be blunt about this, but for the past 15 years I have lived in truly the most liberal zipcodes this state has to offer, and this is my impression.

Actually, I like.....no I love the idea. As for these "uber-liberals" simply use their hidden racism against them. Show them in their true light.

dfletcher
10-16-2007, 9:56 AM
I have been thinking about how to turn the tables on the anti gun propaganda. Here's an idea; I certainly can't afford it myself, nor do much at all with writing it, but I am curious what y'all think, and if anyone actually knows the cost ...

Suppose we plan a monthly paid full page advert in, say, the SF Chronicle and the LA Times. Each installment would have a big headline "GUN CONTROL IS RACIST", followed by a specific example, beginning with the earliest gun control laws in the south about disarming blacks, whether slave or free, explicitly because it might have ended slavery. Throw in mention of the laws about making it a felony to even teach freed blacks how to read. Make the association between race and gun control as explicit as possible. Include enough detail and especially a bibliography and links to web pages so that it will not be easy to denounce as just propaganda, and make sure to include nice big copies of political cartoons and photographs and advertisements from the era showing how bad it really was for blacks back then.

Leave Dred Scott to the second or third installment. Emphasize its incredibly racist argument that Dred Scott, a black slave, could not be considered a free man because free men had the right to keep and bear arms, and no one in his right mind would even consider allowing a Negro to keep and bear arms.

Make each issue stick to the topic of how dreadfully racist the gun control laws are. Pound that in. Make it obvious that gun control laws today are just as racist.

Continue with reconstruction, into the 1960s and the Deacons for Defense who taught the KKK a lesson or two.

Close out the last two issues with banning of Saturday Night Specials being merely a way to keep poor (mostly black) people from having weapons for self defense, and how, when the Black Panthers exercised their right to keep and bear arms, the result was quick legislative action to shut down the uppity Negroes.

Pound this racism theme for all its worth, month after month. Don't beat on the second amendment itself so much as the natural right to self defense of the downtrodden. Point out that it is the poor blacks who suffer. Point out that gun grabbers are well off and white.

One goal is getting a mainstay of the Democratic party thinking in ways the Democrat leaders don't like. I doubt it would push many blacks into the Republican party, in fact I hope it doesn't, because it would be better to make the gun-grabbing wing of the Democratic Party nervous enough that they would stop pushing their gun grabbing agenda, and it might push gun loving Democrats into telling the gun grabbers to back off. I'd rather have two parties against gun control than just one, especially when that one is so self destructive and so easily forgets its own roots.

It would put the gun grabbers on the defensive. Make them come out with their own counter ads trying to explain away this difficult and embarrassing truth. Wrong foot them.

Most important in this is the tone of the articles. It has to be unrelenting on the tie between racism and gun control, and gun control and the rich disarming the poor. The second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, these are not the message nearly as much as the natural right of every human being to defend themselves, especially against lynching and slavery and crime at home. The second amendment is just a means of expressing that end. The important message is that gun control is a way to disarm the very people who make the power brokers the most nervous.

Comments, please! Again, I am just day dreaming here, I haven't the money to fund it or skill to write it. But it's a nice dream ...

I don't think the Democrat Party should be at all put off by being called racist. From Preston Brooks & John Calhoun, Woodrow Wilson to Senators Bilbo and Byrd and Russell, Governers Wallace and Patterson, Barnett and so on and so on they have a rich history of overt racism.

The methods have changed - much like with Indians when it was no longer acceptable to openly kill them we instead put them on reservations - but the result is not much different.

There's a book out called "Undeserved Loyalty" - I think, may have the title wrong - that's a pretty good read on the subject.

Librarian
10-16-2007, 12:09 PM
I like the idea. I've even seen the billboard (http://www.gunlaws.com/billboards.htm) "Society Is Safer When Criminals Don't Know Who's Armed" in Emeryville a few years ago.

But how do you get the Comical or the LAT to actually accept the ad?

BillCA
10-16-2007, 2:19 PM
It's not a bad idea, however I think it deserves a multi-pronged approach. Beating on racism gives the opposition the chance to focus on rebuttal to a single issue. What we want is to hit them from multiple directions at the same time.

Besides racism, articles could be written describing;

The failure of gun control to live up to the promises made for it.
How gun control perverts justice by prosecuting people who defend themselves.
That anti-gun laws, like the CA-AWB are so vague or complicated even LEOs can't determine if something is illegal.
That the police are not legally obligated to protect you or even respond to your calls for help.
How the "collective rights" theory shows up in the 20th century against 130 years of legal decisions.
How gun control advocates are inconsistent about what is permitted (e.g. 2nd protects only "militia" guns but imported guns need a "sporting use").
The frightening effects of disarmed citizens, from the viewpoint of the elderly, disabled and women.
Guns are not used only to kill - describe family oriented competitions and events (CASS, trap, skeet and IDPA/IPSC).
How shooting sports are comparable to Golf and Tennis.


You get the idea.

The concept is to have several articles ready that can be published in different venues within days or weeks of each other. Ideally, you'd want at least 6 articles ready to print when you start (6 weeks) to allow time to write, edit, revise and finalize follow-on articles. This way, the racism article could show up in the LA Times while the failure of Gun Control could show up in The Chronicle up north. Swap 'em in the following week.

This has another effect. People in the southland might start buzzing about that article on racism. But when they talk to friends or family in NorCal they hear about another article up there.

We certainly need some talent here. Writers along with people who can edit for style, grammar and impact. We'd also need folks who know how to work with the media, not only to get good rates but to deal with media queries about the articles.

BillCA
10-16-2007, 2:30 PM
Gun Control Is A Failure

I'm no longer arguing that we have rights guaranteed under the Constitution or that some new law is not needed.

I'm now arguing that gun control, as we know it, is a complete failure.

Why am I doing this? Because it's true.

All one has to do is compare the number and types of crimes since 1968, when the Gun Control Act originated, to those prior to 1968. Not only that, with each new law, politicians have promised us that the new law would "reduce crimes with guns" and would make life safer for all of us. But, like campaign promises, it hasn't happened. I think forty years is enough time for us to say unequivocally gun control doesn't work.

Since passing the sweeping 1968 Gun Control act, under public pressure after the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Congress has layered ever-increasing restrictions on the manufacture, distribution, sale, ownership and use of firearms.

Among the laws peddled by the anti-rights Gun-Control Lobby have been age limitations, ammo restrictions, waiting periods, zoning restrictions, special security requirements, the banning of the mythical "assault weapon", limits on magazine capacities, limits on exercising your rights to once-a-month, gun-free zones, gun licensing, owner licensing, gun registration, outright bans and others.

None of these restrictive laws, individually or collectively, have shown any significant impact on crimes committed against people or even crimes committed with guns.

A government report showed that the so-called "Brady Bill", touted as a "significant step" in reducing gun crimes, had no measurable effect on crime. We have also seen how so called gun-free zones have turned school campuses into defenseless-victim killing zones.

"Yes, but..." begin the anti-rights crowd when they go on the defensive. They will tell you that existing laws didn't go far enough or that the laws were compromised in legislative sessions. They'll tell you that if only they could enact comprehensive control (read as either piles of red tape or an outright ban) the numbers would show they are right. Really?

Great Britain has, since 1997, had a defacto ban on almost all firearms, especially handguns. Yet, as the 20th Century closed, the UK quietly began arming it's famous "Bobbies" with guns for the first time in over 100 years. One story in the British media described the "gun problem" by saying that in the last ten years there have been more reported gun crimes than in the thirty years before the ban. So much for a utopian gun control example.

Only one set of laws shows any appreciable statistical impact on personal crimes. Not too surprisingly, these laws are not restrictive, but liberally permissive in the classical sense. These laws allow citizens with clean records to legally carry concealed firearms after taking the state mandated training. While restrictive laws do little or nothing to impact crimes against people, these "shall-issue" concealed carry laws can be shown reduce crimes against people.

Why? Because criminals are no longer sure their victims are defenseless. A victim who fights back is fighting for their life, which the criminal threatens in robbery, rape and other crimes. And they fight to win. Because of this, it is the criminal who is at a disadvantage, not the citizenry.

So, what should we be asking our legislators to do? We should be tell them to focus on controlling criminal behavior instead of trying to control access to inanimate objects.

We should also make it clear that criminals can not profit from their illegal actions should they be injured during a crime. If they step "outside the law" by instigating the crime, they waive their rights to civil suits against their victims. This would include slipping on a roller skate as well as being injured by their intended victim.

To further discourage repeat offenders we should implement three-strikes laws for felony convictions to keep the serious criminals off the street. Three-strikes laws have been remarkably effective in reducing crime because repeat offenders are most likely to commit multiple crimes before being recaptured and prosecuted.

The Gun-Control Lobby continues to push against a door marked pull, never quite realizing that even after 40 years, pushing just isn't going to open the door. At least, not until they realize they have been pushing in the wrong direction.

SKG19
10-16-2007, 3:18 PM
Well said BillCA!!

One thing I never got...is you have all of these Liberal folks for gun control, yet in the same breath talk about how Bush and Cheney are a fascist regime. You would think they would want weapons if Bush's fascist regime took it to far.

cnyankee
10-16-2007, 3:41 PM
if this becomes a reality im in for $$$. i would help write but writing is my absolute weakness.. numbers and science are my strengths

Scarecrow Repair
10-16-2007, 4:57 PM
Actually, I like.....no I love the idea. As for these "uber-liberals" simply use their hidden racism against them. Show them in their true light.

What?!? You and I agree on something?!? What the heck did I do wrong?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Scarecrow Repair
10-16-2007, 5:11 PM
It's not a bad idea, however I think it deserves a multi-pronged approach. Beating on racism gives the opposition the chance to focus on rebuttal to a single issue.

I thought about that, but I think beating the one single issue with a new article every month is more effective. The first one would surprise people, the second one would start the talk again, people would begin expecting the third and fourth ones, and the rest would be awaited with anticipation or dread, but not ignored.

I also like focusing on racism alone since it is impossible to rebut. Gun control began as a way to control blacks, no doubt about it. It can't be rebutted. All they can say is "Ignore the man behind the curtain" and then a month later, say it again, and a month later, and eventually it would be such a tired lame response that they would have to switch, but there is nothing to switch to. They would be left stuttering to an empty auditorium.

The advantage of the racism issue is that there are no facts open to intepretation and no differences of opinion on how bad racism is. No statistics to fudge and cherry pick, no surveys to ignore or twist, no arguing over the inherent evils of guns or gangs or innocent bystanders or whether magazine size limits matter or the ease of altering microstamping -- nothing but the cold hard fact that racism was the root of gun control and continues to this day with the ban on Saturday Night Specials and the Black Panthers in Sacramento. It can't be refuted, it is not a matter of taste or choice, it can only be sneered at or dismissed, and that won't work after three or four months of ads introducing yet more examples.

I really relish the idea of each article reigniting the talk shows and leaving the gun grabbers gasping for air. A year of that would alter perceptions of gun control in radical long term ways.