Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[GratefulCitizen]

It occurs to me that there is a persuasion problem in the gun rights debate.
This is primarily a political issue, not a logical problem to be solved, and therefore it should addressed using political persuasion methods.

Key points:
-who are we trying to persuade?
-what are the most effective methods of persuasion?

This is a republic, not a democracy.
We are trying primarily to persuade office holders and candidates, not voters.

Voters also matter, but they should be viewed as force multipliers in the persuasion mission.
Changing voters attitudes on guns isn’t as important as figuring out a way to use their influence to serve the primary objective of persuading office holders and candidates (hereafter referred to as politicians).

The most effective persuasion tool is fear.
What do politicians fear?

They fear being branded with something negative that “sticks” to them.
Once that happens, their political career has just become much more difficult.

So, how do we do this?
Don’t make the issue about guns, make the issue about the particular politician in question.

This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process.
Put them in a position of being guilty until proven innocent.

Now into specifics.
This is the messaging:

***
Why is it important that a politician be pro-gun?
Because it is the only way we can truly tell if they view themself as the people’s servant, or the people’s master.

If a politician doesn’t have a problem with the people being well-armed, then that politician doesn’t have a problem with the people saying “no”.
A politician who seeks to neuter the people doesn’t want the people to be able to say “no”.

They view themself as the people’s servant or the people’s master.
Choose.
***

Notice how this avoids getting into the weeds about magazine capacities, operative clauses of the Second Amendment, etc.
It bifurcates and brands with simple messaging.

It leaves absolutely no room for “reasonable” gun control.
(“Reasonable” gun control is just the persuasion technique known as “thinking past the sale”…gun control is assumed).

Also, there’s no limit to how “pro-gun” is enough.
A politician would have to be more pro-gun than the next politician to prove relative “people’s servant” credentials…it has a ratcheting effect.

It also feeds into the natural disdain most voters already feel for politicians.
Winning the title of “people’s servant” is difficult, whereas branding a politician as “people’s master” is easy.

The voters don’t even have to have a dog in the fight of the gun debate.
They’re pressed into service because everyone cares whether a politician seeks to be a servant or master.

Well, that’s my pitch.
Don’t talk about guns, brand the office holders and candidates as wanting to be the “people’s servant ” or the “people’s master”.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Well, that’s my pitch.

Very well done.

Politicians having concern over an armed citizenry is the proper state of a republic. The concern over the people saying 'no' is a good context in which to frame that. The only reason for disarmament is because they're willing to do something to you that you'd shoot them for.

[bubba]

That, good sir, is THE absolute BEST argument I have ever seen with regard to “gun control” and how to effect the battlefield of ideas.

BRAVO!

[Box]

The one thing to navigate is the issue that 80 million votes were counted on behalf of a nation that is CLAMORING for a peoples master.

Nobody got upset when dear leader declared that the constitution was not absolute.
Nobody got upset when he said get a shot or wear a mask until you do.
Nobody got upset when he said MAYBE you'd be "allowed" to celebrate Independence day with your friends and family.
Nobody has shown any real concern that St Fauci betrayed the health and welfare of the entire world to the PRC for personal riches and power.
Nobody batted an eye when candidate biden angrily told a laborer "I don't work for you"

A servant to the people by definition means that the people are the ones doing the real work of building our nation while the government "serves". Sadly, every day there seems to be more proof that at least 51% of Americans are LOOKING for a benevolent dictator to lead our nation.


But don't mind me - I'm just a hopeless romantic and a shameless incurable cynic.

[Trapper John]

Originally posted by Grateful Citizen

Well, that’s my pitch.
Don’t talk about guns, brand the office holders and candidates as wanting to be the “people’s servant ” or the “people’s master”.

Finest Kind

[sfshooter]

An excellent post and analogy for a defense of the Second Amendment sir.
There is one hick -up in your post that creates a problem:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

This is a republic, not a democracy.
.

It is my belief that the average American citizen who are enamored with themselves and get all of their news from MSN, can't keep their nose out of fakebook, or the ever perusing of twatter, believe that this country is a democracy. They just don't understand that Republic part of things.

Just my opinion of course.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Good news story for the day.

Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

https://apple.news/Ays6D6gs8QI2U-VH3zvydyw

"Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned," the judge wrote.

[GratefulCitizen]

Still reading the decision, but something starting on page 25 is critical:
Burden of proof.

“The constitutional imperative is on the government to not infringe. The correct starting orientation is that no arm may be prohibited.”
(page 26)

<edit>

The whole section on “Militia Use” starting on page 80 is also critical.

This opinion cuts to the core issues.
It is excellently written and may serve as a foundation for future 2nd amendment cases.

“In the end, the Bill of Rights is not a list of suggestions or guidelines for social balancing. The Bill of Rights prevents the tyranny of the majority from taking away the rights of a minority. When a state nibbles on Constitutional rights, who protects the minorities? The federal courts. The Second Amendment protects any law-abiding citizen’s right to choose to be armed to defend himself, his family, and his home. At the same time, the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms to use should the militia be needed to fight against invaders, terrorists, and tyrants. The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland. California’s assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom.”
(pages 91-92)

In the conclusion:
“There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are better.”
(page 92)

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1622850515

[bubba]

Still reading the decision, but something starting on page 25 is critical:
Burden of proof.

“The constitutional imperative is on the government to not infringe. The correct starting orientation is that no arm may be prohibited.”
(page 26)

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...pdf?1622850515

This could (strong emphasis on COULD) be the one damn sentence that unlocks the whole Gordian Knot! This will almost undoubtedly get to the “9 clown side show in black robes” and then the entire thing is at best a 50/50.

From Page 32 & 33

While the Plaintiffs may have difficulty obtaining copies of actual police reports, surely the Attorney General has easy access. But the Attorney General has not offered a single California police report. There were 161 mass shootings in the last 40 years but there is no testimony from any percipient witness. There were instances of defensive gun use but no testimony from any defensive gun user. The Attorney General argues that a citizen defending himself really needs, on average, only 2.2 shots. But there is no testimony from any home defender. No victim was called to testify about how many shots he or she would have wanted to have ready to fire during their actual home invasion.

[(1VB)compforce]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

Good news story for the day.

Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional

https://apple.news/Ays6D6gs8QI2U-VH3zvydyw

"Government is not free to impose its own new policy choices on American citizens where Constitutional rights are concerned," the judge wrote.

Gov. Gavin Newsom was indignant in a statement late Friday.

"The fact that this judge compared the AR-15 — a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield — to a Swiss Army Knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon," he said.

Is anyone aware of a military that issues AR-15's? I'm not. In which war or on which battlefield was the AR-15 used? I'm a little fuzzy on where the Governor gets his history. Perhaps someone should ask him for a citation for his statement.

[Old Dog New Trick]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

Is anyone aware of a military that issues AR-15's? I'm not. In which war or on which battlefield was the AR-15 used? I'm a little fuzzy on where the Governor gets his history. Perhaps someone should ask him for a citation for his statement.

He used the Gun Control INC., and Mom’s Demand Action playbook. They all have a list of false information and deliberately misleading words to confuse people about the facts.



On a second note: the current Ninth Circuit is predominantly leaning conservative so it is a good time for this judge to open this can of worms (or is that whup-ass!)

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by Old Dog New Trick

He used the Gun Control INC., and Mom’s Demand Action playbook. They all have a list of false information and deliberately misleading words to confuse people about the facts.



On a second note: the current Ninth Circuit is predominantly leaning conservative so it is a good time for this judge to open this can of worms (or is that whup-ass!)

Yes, will be interesting. This particular judge is regularly quick to issue stays on his own orders, so DPRCA will certainly appeal. But, other than SCOTUS, the 9th Circuit appointments were #1 on Pres. Trump's playlist and their usual RBG-like verdicts have gone almost 180°.

[GratefulCitizen]

Watched a video which brought up an interesting observation.
The left seems very disturbed about the comparison of the AR-15 to a Swiss Army knife.

The left understands messaging.
This comparison scares them because it takes away the mystique of “assault weapons”.

Their biggest worry is guns becoming no big deal.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by bubba

This could (strong emphasis on COULD) be the one damn sentence that unlocks the whole Gordian Knot! This will almost undoubtedly get to the “9 clown side show in black robes” and then the entire thing is at best a 50/50.

From Page 32 & 33

Agree there is a lot of meat on the bone here. Some of the language is stuff you could hear issuing from Thomas' mouth (or Scalia's were he here). It is a tough sell sometimes in discussion with folks - and not just younger ones - to get them on any BoR topic to the starting point mentioned in the decision.

It often came up in discussions years ago regarding our state's availability of open-carry:
"Well, what's the law?"
"There is no law."
"Well, then you can't do that."
"Sit down, have some more coffee & let me explain about 'that which isn't prohibited is permitted'."

I don't think SCOTUS should take this; I hope they just b-slap CA and send it back affirming the decision.

[Old Dog New Trick]

In my lifetime (which predates the 1968 GCA) have I seen conservatives from state and federal levels repudiate the overreach of the Democratic Party so blatantly as since the illegitimate election that was carried out in 2020. Lawmakers from local Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police, and up to state legislators (of both parties) and governors are pushing back on nearly every firearm control act or federal law that prohibits or infringes on the 2A and the rights guaranteed in the BoR.

If a “law” can’t be or won’t be enforced then it should be stricken from the books or re-written with the consent of the governed by a 2/3 majority. If it violates the constitution or BoR then it should go before the amendment process to be permanently changed and ratified by the states. No other process is acceptable and there is only one “right” that unequivocally stated “shall not be infringed”.