August 22, 2013 ****
The Democrats' Anti-Gun Manual Exposed****

*By* *Janice Shaw Crouse*<http://www.americanthinker.com/janice_shaw_crouse/>
****

A shocking new 
report<http://washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-anti-gun-guide-urged-using-trayvon-martins-death-to-hit-nra-guns/article/2533972>reveals
a deliberate plan by Democrats to exploit incidents of gun violence
to their advantage. As Rahm Emanuel said, "You never let a serious crisis
go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you
think you could not do before." In other words, forget the facts of cases,
the circumstances surrounding them, or even the victims themselves; just
take advantage of circumstances and current events to push your agenda. Or,
as the manual puts it: "The most powerful time to communicate is when
concern and emotions are running at their peak."****

Regarding the issue of gun control, the Democrats are prepared; they
published an 80-page
manual<http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf>titled
"Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging" that instructs
users on how to exploit the emotions resulting from horrific incidents to
attack the National Rifle Association (NRA), supporters of the Second
Amendment, and gun owners -- ways to take advantage of events to get around
the constitutional right to bear arms.****

Who doesn't want to prevent "gun violence"? Who is promoting "gun
violence"? What about gun crime? The manual addresses those questions when
guiding readers in how to address certain audiences: "For example, when
talking to men, it is important to know that they are much more moti­vated
by protecting people from 'gun crime' than preventing 'gun violence.' Women
are motivated by both."****

This is because the phrase "gun crime" aptly describes an incident
committed by a criminal, not by a law-abiding citizen who may or may not be
a gun owner. Most registered gun owners do not commit crimes, whereas every
single person who commits a criminal act with an unregistered gun is a
criminal. When people think about criminals with guns, they are less likely
to support "gun control" legislation because they realize that legal guns
could protect them.****

The "gun violence" manual's writers also urge caution when going after the
NRA: "How to discuss the NRA is another example. It's critical to know that
our base supporters are very critical of the NRA's role in enabling gun
violence. But, most general audiences view the NRA as a mainstream
organization."****

The NRA enables gun violence? See the not-so-subtle bias here?****

The NRA website <http://home.nra.org/home/document/about> gives a
straightforward message. "In civilian training, the NRA continues to be the
leader in firearms education. Over 55,000 certified instructors now train
about 750,000 gun owners a year. Courses are available in basic rifle,
pistol, shotgun, muzzle loading firearms, personal protection, even
ammunition reloading."****

The "gun violence" manual turns the NRA's message on its head: "It is far
better to discuss the NRA in terms of the role its officials play in
*preventing
people and communities from protecting themselves *from the terrible
personal toll that gun violence takes on people's lives." (Emphasis theirs.)
****

If the manual writers had perused the NRA website, they would have seen the
"Refuse to Be a Victim <http://refuse.nra.org/>" training course, where
"you can learn the personal safety tips and techniques you need to avoid
dangerous situations and avoid becoming a victim." The fact is, the "gun
violence" manual writers do not wish to deal with or acknowledge anything
that would interfere with their messaging to promote gun control (just not
in those words).****

The "gun violence" manual tells readers, "Do talk about 'preventing gun
violence.'" "Don't talk about 'gun control.'" "Do advocate for 'stronger'
gun laws." Don't use the term 'stricter' gun laws." Yes, if they were
truthful about their desire to take the guns away from law-abiding owners,
people might just disagree with them.****

According to the manual, the best time to sway people to the gun control
side is after a high-profile shooting incident such as "Columbine, Virginia
Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek." When
people's emotions are running high, the gun control crowd is urged to
become more vocal.****

"A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into
the conversation about gun violence. It opens the eyes and ears of folks
who, in more 'normal' circumstances, don't pay much attention to the issue
of gun violence prevention." The writers think it is the perfect time to
emphasize "emotion over policy prescriptions." Or as James
Taranto<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323477604579000731721030424.html>of
the
*Wall Street Journal* framed it, it is a lesson in "how to incite a moral
panic."****

The manual writers fervently believe that gun control will lead to fewer
incidents of gun crimes. If that were true Washington, D.C. would not have
been the murder capital of the United States for so many years, when it had
the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Neighboring
Virginia<http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/04/virginia-gun-crime-drops-as-firearms-sales-soar/>is
seeing a decline in gun crimes as the number of gun owners increases.
****

The writers also included a section in the "gun violence" manual to address
contentious issues. For example, the Obama administration's Justice
Department got involved in a gun-running scheme known as Fast and
Furious<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57598487/more-fast-and-furious-guns-surface-at-crimes-in-mexico/>,
where guns were sold in the U.S. to questionable purchasers and ended up in
Mexico, where they killed many people, and in the U.S., where one was used
to murder U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The manual guides the
reader on how to handle this:****

ACKNOWLEDGE FAST AND FURIOUS AS A BOTCHED OPERATION AND THEN PIVOT TO WEAK
GUN LAWS. There is no need to get drawn into a detailed defense or
re-litigation of Fast and Furious. We are better off acknowledging that it
was a botched operation and then quickly moving on to a broader
conversation about weak gun laws and guns flowing into the hands of drug
cartels.****

It's odd: the first messaging principle the manual suggests is "Always
focus on emotional and value-driven arguments about gun violence, not the
political food fight in Washington or wonky statistics." The death of a
United States citizen and law enforcement officer by means of a
government-endorsed gun-running operation is pretty emotional and
value-driven, but not to those who want to push for "gun control" for
law-abiding citizens. In that case, it's just a box checked in the
messaging and a pivot to avoid the unpleasant facts.****

And that is how demagogues throughout history have won supporters,
influenced debates, and destroyed governments. There was a time when
American students were taught to spot such specious arguments in others,
never to use such rhetoric themselves, and to disdain mob tactics of all
varieties. Today, on the other hand, demagoguery is just another form of
political spin. Worse, such false rhetoric is enshrined in a political
party's instructional manuals.****

­*­­­­­­­­­**Janice Shaw Crouse, Ph.D. wrote her doctoral dissertation on
political rhetoric and is a former presidential speech writer.*****


*Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/08/anti-gun_demagoguery_enshrined_in_political_manuals.html
* at August 22, 2013 - 02:22:25 PM CDT****


__._,_.___






__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to