Tweet
Sitting here watching the new Robocop movie and I noticed how Novak (Samuel L. Jackson's character) was taking the central issue of the movie and twisting it around, not falsely, but in such a way as to simplify the issue and appeal to the common person in a more emotional manner. I won't post exactly what was said because I hate doing spoilers, but it got me thinking regarding our 2a Rights and sparked a few interesting questions.
1. I know that that is more a liberal tactic than what we'd be used to, but the fact of the matter is that what they're doing is getting them wins. I cite the recent gay marriage fight as a good example of this: by appealing to emotion, they got more people to support their side of things and achieve the win they wanted through popular support. So the first question: do you think that this could be a viable means towards achieving our own goals/aims? Why or why not?
2. So you need to appeal to emotion, in a way that is going to deflect the dislike of firearms into dislike of another matter, or in trying to promote the anti-politicans as being pro-something bad. Using the movie as an example, instead of us trying to make people like firearms or to promote how they are good, why not deflect that issue onto something else and try to make it seem like the anti's are pro-crime, pro-rape, anti-women's rights, heck go so far as to say anti-family. All of these are valid points that we have raised over the years, just in a much more milder sense (pro-crime: more guns=less crime. Pro-rape: women can defend themselves from rape, also works on women's rights. Anti-family: you have a way to protect your family from threats of a robber/attacker). The difference now is that by painting the anti's as say...pro-crime or pro-rape we then deflect the issue from us trying to be pro-gun and force THEM on the defensive. Afterall, what politician is going to want to be known as pro-rape when it comes time to seek the "women vote"? And how do they get away from that stigma? By being pro-gun and thus allowing women the ability to defend themselves. (which is a point we have pushed all along).
Thoughts?
1. I know that that is more a liberal tactic than what we'd be used to, but the fact of the matter is that what they're doing is getting them wins. I cite the recent gay marriage fight as a good example of this: by appealing to emotion, they got more people to support their side of things and achieve the win they wanted through popular support. So the first question: do you think that this could be a viable means towards achieving our own goals/aims? Why or why not?
2. So you need to appeal to emotion, in a way that is going to deflect the dislike of firearms into dislike of another matter, or in trying to promote the anti-politicans as being pro-something bad. Using the movie as an example, instead of us trying to make people like firearms or to promote how they are good, why not deflect that issue onto something else and try to make it seem like the anti's are pro-crime, pro-rape, anti-women's rights, heck go so far as to say anti-family. All of these are valid points that we have raised over the years, just in a much more milder sense (pro-crime: more guns=less crime. Pro-rape: women can defend themselves from rape, also works on women's rights. Anti-family: you have a way to protect your family from threats of a robber/attacker). The difference now is that by painting the anti's as say...pro-crime or pro-rape we then deflect the issue from us trying to be pro-gun and force THEM on the defensive. Afterall, what politician is going to want to be known as pro-rape when it comes time to seek the "women vote"? And how do they get away from that stigma? By being pro-gun and thus allowing women the ability to defend themselves. (which is a point we have pushed all along).
Thoughts?
Comment