• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

New name for "Gun Control Advocates" or "Anti-Gun". Pass along!

S

sig2009

Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
1,353
Likes
67
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
In keeping with Frank Jack Fiamingo's "rebranding" crusade fron the New Jersey Second Ammendment Society: I will henceforth no longer refer to anyone against our 2A rights as "anti gun" or "gun control advocates".
They will now be known and labeled by me as: "Gun Bigots"

Please spread this label around.

The mere inclusion of the word "bigot" should be enough to drive them into a frenzy, since we all know they are the picture of tolerance.
 
sig2009 said:
The mere inclusion of the word "bigot" should be enough to drive them into a frenzy, since we all know they are the picture of tolerance.
Click to expand...

MisterHappy said:
I'd say "Firearms Bigots", as Firearm sounds more erudite.

Clever, though.
Click to expand...

Heh.

I'll take your idea a step.

I'll be saying "gun racist" just to get the conversation started on the right foot.

(Timeline.)
 
Last edited:
" oh, you're a gun racist ... "
" what ? "
" gun racist. Gun control laws began to keep the black man in his place , they called them Jim Crow laws. Look it up for yourself "
 
"Re-Framing" an issue is extremely important to winning a public debate especially when there is a lot of animosity involved.

There is a reason Pro-Abortionists started calling themselves "Pro-Choice". It was a concerted effort to win "hearts and minds".

I like "Gun Bigot" but I do not think it helps us sway the general public. Just the word "Gun" is too "charged" a term.

We need something like "Anti Personal Protection" and we are "Pro Personal Protection" although I admit they are not that catchy. However, they have neutral terminology and just as an average person could think "Who could be against Choice" I think most would agree "Who could be against Personal Protection".

Although, I do like all the "slurs" mention here for the Gun Bigots for use amongst ourselves. :)
 
GBH2 said:
"Re-Framing" an issue is extremely important to winning a public debate especially when there is a lot of animosity involved.

There is a reason Pro-Abortionists started calling themselves "Pro-Choice". It was a concerted effort to win "hearts and minds".

I like "Gun Bigot" but I do not think it helps us sway the general public. Just the word "Gun" is too "charged" a term.

We need something like "Anti Personal Protection" and we are "Pro Personal Protection" although I admit they are not that catchy. However, they have neutral terminology and just as an average person could think "Who could be against Choice" I think most would agree "Who could be against Personal Protection".

Although, I do like all the "slurs" mention here for the Gun Bigots for use amongst ourselves. :)
Click to expand...
The truth is that they are bigots PERIOD and I have been saying this for a while. No guns required.

If you look at how they describe gun owners, you will see everything from claims of compensating for penis size to mentally unhinged/paranoid to "red neck".

This should not be a surprise given gun-control's roots in more overt racism. They figured out they have to be more subtle about, but the elitism, prejudice and eugenic tendencies remain as does their ultimate purpose - ban all civilian firearms.
 
I've been using 'anti-self defense' or 'anti-civil rights' advocate instead of 'anti gun' or 'gun control' advocate as I wander around the comment sections on the web for a while now. I've noticed the NMA (national moonbat association) members argue back a lot less when using terms like that.
 
cekim said:
The truth is that they are bigots PERIOD and I have been saying this for a while. No guns required.

If you look at how they describe gun owners, you will see everything from claims of compensating for penis size to mentally unhinged/paranoid to "red neck".

This should not be a surprise given gun-control's roots in more overt racism. They figured out they have to be more subtle about, but the elitism, prejudice and eugenic tendencies remain as does their ultimate purpose - ban all civilian firearms.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. In fact, I will go further - I think they are Murderers, Murderous Scum. They pass stupid laws while standing on the graves of dead children that don't make anyone safer, lull stupid people into a false sense of security all while making it more likely that people who may otherwise try to defend themselves will get raped or killed.

But saying those things won't help us win any of the clueless people over to our side.

Sniper (+) said:
I've been using 'anti-self defense' or 'anti-civil rights' advocate instead of 'anti gun' or 'gun control' advocate as I wander around the comment sections on the web for a while now. I've noticed the NMA (national moonbat association) members argue back a lot less when using terms like that.
Click to expand...

Excellent. I almost also mentioned Anti-Self-Defense. The words we use and the thoughts and imagery they evoke can make an enormous difference in the perception of others - at least those that may be "on the fence"
 
Last edited:
This is a great thread, so many excellent points made here:

1. Gun bigot is a fantastic term

cekim said:
The truth is that they are bigots PERIOD and I have been saying this for a while. No guns required.
If you look at how they describe gun owners, you will see everything from claims of compensating for penis size to mentally unhinged/paranoid to "red neck".

This should not be a surprise given gun-control's roots in more overt racism. They figured out they have to be more subtle about, but the elitism, prejudice and eugenic tendencies remain as does their ultimate purpose - ban all civilian firearms.
Click to expand...

Something I've noticed, it's an undercurrent that I never until now could quite put my finger on. I think you hit the nail squarely on here. There seems to be a large dichotomy between their intentions and their actions doesn't there? On the one hand they feel like they are so right and righteous, "it's all for the kids." Yet on the other hand they are by far the worst prejudiced bigots! They blindly follow their mantras and are easily emotionally manipulated to "hate" the opposition to their viewpoints. These people are so convinced that they are on the right side of this issue that they couldn't possibly even conceive of the notion that the other side might have a point. In fact, they demonize and scapegoat the opposition.

Indeed, their passion to do what they "feel" is right will doom us all. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.


GBH2 said:
I agree with you completely. In fact, I will go further - I think they are Murderers, Murderous Scum. They pass stupid laws while standing on the graves of dead children that don't make anyone safer, lull stupid people into a false sense of security all while making it more likely that people who may otherwise try to defend themselves will get raped or killed.
Click to expand...

Excellent Point! Additionally, they propagate "learned helplessness," and "victimhood!" It's not the "evil gun owners" versus society. How do they equate law abiding citizens with the criminals whom we see committing atrocities on TV?
How was the argument re-framed as such?


fubar said:
"oh, you're a gun racist ... "
" what ? "
" gun racist. Gun control laws began to keep the black man in his place , they called them Jim Crow laws. Look it up for yourself "
Click to expand...

I have to admit I myself did not know that. After a quick google search, I found this Gem:


It also got me thinking, why would Jews be FOR gun control?
Why Do So Many Jews Support Gun Control by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership..flv - YouTube

A Long article on "Why Jews Hate Guns."
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd02/why-jews-hate-guns.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Bigot" works, though I think of them as zealots. A zealot is a person with an uncritical, unthinking enthusiasm for something. They often use the objectionable tactics of certain religions that work to demean and dehumanize the non-believers. One alleged gun control expert even said they need to work towards enforcing a perception that anyone who would protect him or herself with a gun is a wuss.

Gun Violence: Live Harvard School of Public Health Webcast Tomorrow - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Here's a great article on the typical frothing of anti-gunners.

Snell: Waking the dragon ? How Feinstein fiddled while America burned - Iowa State Daily: Opinion

I’ve come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can’t have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we’re the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can’t get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Lcstyle said:
This is a great thread, so many excellent points made here:

1. Gun bigot is a fantastic term



Something I've noticed, it's an undercurrent that I never until now could quite put my finger on. I think you hit the nail squarely on here. There seems to be a large dichotomy between their intentions and their actions doesn't there? On the one hand they feel like they are so right and righteous, "it's all for the kids." Yet on the other hand they are by far the worst prejudiced bigots! They blindly follow their mantras and are easily emotionally manipulated to "hate" the opposition to their viewpoints. These people are so convinced that they are on the right side of this issue that they couldn't possibly even conceive of the notion that the other side might have a point. In fact, they demonize and scapegoat the opposition.

Indeed, their passion to do what they "feel" is right will doom us all. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Click to expand...

You're right. They come to conclusions emotionally instead of by facts and they believe they are on the side of right so any evil they perpetrate against us is justified. They have no principals.

Excellent Point! Additionally, they propagate "learned helplessness," and "victimhood!"
Click to expand...

Victimhood is what all Totalitarians are selling. In Nazi Germany it was "If it weren't for those evil Jews making your life miserable everything would be great! Here, now, it is "If it weren't for those "rich people" or "crazy gun owners" or [?] ..."

It's not the "evil gun owners" versus society. How do they equate law abiding citizens with the criminals whom we see committing atrocities on TV?
Click to expand...

Many, many people cannot handle the cold hard truth. Take away large magazines - they can still be shot; take away assault rifles they can be shot with a handgun; take away ALL guns they can get their throat slit or blown up with a bomb or get their head smashed in with a hammer or baseball bat. Hand-to hand most women cannot physically defend themselves against most men.

These people desperately want to believe that are safe. They want to believe that the Government or the Police or just one more law can keep them safe. They do not want to believe that THEY are responsible for their own safety and that of their families.

It is too much for them to handle so they grasp at the idea that an inanimate object like a gun is the source of all the danger and if that can be controlled then everything will be alright with their world and they can go back to being oblivious.

Truly believing it is the Guns fault allows them to Hate the gun and they can easily transfer that hatred to anyone they associate with that object. So, criminal with a gun, neighbor with a gun is the same to them - if someone needs an evil gun they are either a criminal or nutty and dangerous.

How was the argument re-framed as such?
Click to expand...

The people in power are brilliant and have brilliant people working on their behalf to test and "focus group" different words and arguments. An internet sales tax bill just passed the Senate, it wasn't called the "Tax the stupid people to death Bill" or "The Crush Small Business like our Campaign contributors want Bill" - it was called ... wait for it ... "The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013". lol

When they want to ban guns they will call the Bill "The Stop kids from getting Shot Bill" and when we speak out against it they will say See they want kids to get shot!




I have to admit I myself did not know that. After a quick google search, I found this Gem:

It also got me thinking, why would Jews be FOR gun control?
Why Do So Many Jews Support Gun Control by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership..flv - YouTube

A Long article on "Why Jews Hate Guns."
WHY JEWS HATE GUNS
Click to expand...

I enjoyed that video. It reminded me of this short but very powerful anti gun control video of an Austrian woman who survived the Nazi occupation.

Hitler Survivor Condemns Gun Control 'KEEP YOUR GUNS, BUY MORE GUNS' - Katie Worthman - YouTube
 
Last edited:
Last edited by a moderator:
GBH2 said:
"Re-Framing" an issue is extremely important to winning a public debate especially when there is a lot of animosity involved.

There is a reason Pro-Abortionists started calling themselves "Pro-Choice". It was a concerted effort to win "hearts and minds".

I like "Gun Bigot" but I do not think it helps us sway the general public. Just the word "Gun" is too "charged" a term.

We need something like "Anti Personal Protection" and we are "Pro Personal Protection" although I admit they are not that catchy. However, they have neutral terminology and just as an average person could think "Who could be against Choice" I think most would agree "Who could be against Personal Protection".

Although, I do like all the "slurs" mention here for the Gun Bigots for use amongst ourselves. :)
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I think the word "gun" has acquired a sort of connotation by itself.... Also, if someone is a "gun-bigot" or "firearms-bigot" does that mean they are a bigot for or against guns/firearms?

I think a re-framing campaign should focus on framing the issue around civil rights, right to choose (method of personal defense), etc.. In other words, it should be a moral frame. Guns or firearms as objects have no particular morality associated with them, concepts like civil rights, choice, and self determination do.
 
Hoplophobes.


Gay rights advocates used the term "Homophobes" successfully in their civil rights campaign. Now you hear "Xenophobia" used a lot by the libtards. I think Hoplophobia is the way to go because it infers "irrational fear."

People have been saying that you define the terms, you define the war. We need to choose our language and it is time to go on offense. By the way, the Fraud in Chief, VP Two Shotgun Blasts, Hillary, and Patrick Kennedy are about to take it in the butt for their part in Benghazi. CBS and Fox are all over it - 5 whistleblowers are spilling all to Congress. While this is not 2A, it is a great time to impeach the administration's credibility and impact the 2014 and 2016 elections.
 

Similar threads

Gun Control Debate Live Stream
Replies
18
Views
541
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
New England gun tourism
Replies
26
Views
636
MisterHappy
MisterHappy
Gun Control Advocates Urge Utah Gov. to Deny Funds to Train Teachers for Armed Classroom Defense
Replies
1
Views
98
StevieP
StevieP
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
SHOCKER: Democrat Who Advocates Gun Control Has Spent Thousands on Private Security
Replies
3
Views
250
VetteGirlMA
VetteGirlMA
Back
Top Bottom