The Best Camouflage for Anti-Gun Politicians is Blaze Orange?

[Kennedy 0]

If anti-gun politicians are so sure of the rightness and moral superiority of their stance, why are so many of them hiding behind lies support for the Second Amendment? If they believe in democracy, wouldn't it be right to make your position known, and if the other side has more votes, admit defeat and try again?

See what the DLC has to say

It looks to me like they want to hide their agenda in friendly terms and then go full bore once the opposition fails to act.

from the other side:

Quote

Here`s what AGS wrote in its blueprint for "Taking Back the Second Amendment," prepared last year for the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Kerry is following all the dots.

It is a battle plan for deceit that counsels anti-gun rights candidates: "The problem that Democrats have on the gun issue has far less to do with the typical policies they espouse than the rhetoric they employ." (Emphasis added.) In other words, it`s not how you vote, but what you say.

So, now confiscatory firearms prohibition is called "sensible gun safety," although the abhorrent concept of the knock-in-the-middle-of-the night is just the same as it always has been.

That theme of dissembling is amplified by an accompanying DLC cover memo announcing, "The DLC and Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) believe that progressives need not change their positions in order to dramatically reduce, and in some cases reverse, conservative advantages with these groups." (Emphasis added.) Groups? Try NRA.

They are talking about lying, about sleight of hand, trickery--basically outright fraud.

"Taking Back the Second Amendment" means recreating the Second Amendment; twisting its clear meaning to the same dark purpose expressed by then-President Clinton`s Solicitor General Seth Waxman who wrote in an August 2000 letter to an NRA member: "In light of the constitutional history, it must be considered as settled that there is no personal constitutional right, under the Second Amendment, to own or to use a gun."

Kerry is right in step with the AGS-DLC war-plan: "progressives need not change their positions." Simply change the "rhetoric they employ."In working to sabotage the NRA-backed legislation to stop the endless series of lawsuits aimed at strangling the law-abiding firearms industry, Kerry read the AGS wolf-in-sheep`s-clothing script to a tee when the issue was debated on March 4.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

From that article:

Quote

Democratic pollster Mark Penn, who was a key architect of Bill Clinton's winning message in two presidential elections, presented new research that showed that if Democrats don't talk about "gun safety and respect for the Second Amendment," voters presume they are antigun.
"It is very clear that silence is not golden for Democrats on the gun issue," Mr. Penn said, adding that Democratic Party pays a steep price for its antigun image while the Republicans' pro-gun image doesn't cost them any votes.
"The formula for Democrats is to say that they support the Second Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes" in current gun laws, Mr. Penn said, adding that polls show the term "gun safety" is received better than the more commonly used term "gun control."

So I'm trying to figure this out. Are they saying that Democrats need to actually BELIEVE in the right to keep and bear arms -- i.e. make a fundamental ideological change -- or just TALK like they believe in it? This article seems to say that they need to simply change the way they phrase their anti-gun message so that it sounds benign instead of sounding like the threat to gun ownership that it truly is.

If Democrats pay a steep price for their gun stance (anti-gun) and Republicans do not pay one for theirs (pro-gun), isn't that like saying that the American people overall are PRO-GUN, and that the Dems are out-of-step with the mainstream?

The article says that polls show that the public responds better to "gun safety" than "gun control." Oh, I see, so regardless of MEANING the same thing, (gun bans, of course, and ever-tightening restrictions, not to mention opposition to legal concealed carry), as long as they camouflage their anti-gun stance in more palatable, easy-to-swallow terms, they'll do better at the polls... Typical of the propagandistic crap that comes from Democrats regarding gun rights. They've finally caught on that the TRUTH of what they want re: guns is something that the public does NOT want. The "control" of guns, the legislating-out-of-existence of gun ownership is something abhorrent to the public, so in order to get it through, they plan to just CALL it something different.

Why else would "Handgun Control Inc." change its name to "The Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence"? What a crock of shit. Same old gun-ban organization, new name.

And "Americans for Gun Safety"?! WHAT GUN SAFETY?! How many "gun safety" programs do they operate? How many classes do they have to teach adults and children alike to use guns safely? How many "Refuse to be a victim" programs do they have? How many POLICE OFFICERS do their certified firearms instructors train to use guns safely each year?

Zero, zero, zero, and zero. This gives lie to the bullshit name they've given themselves. It's like if the Nazi party in Germany had thought better of it and called itself "Germans for National Unity and Pride" in an effort to not come across as malevolent.

Would it have changed anything? No. But it sure would be indicative of how cynically they manipulate the public through superficialities that deceive, just like the Democrats.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"