How to frame the gun lobby argument to cut off debate

[Skeptic Ginger]

I want to discuss is the GOP gun lobby talking points that are intended to cut off debate rather than have a discussion.

A while back after each new mass shooting the GOP talking point that was repeated was, "Too soon, we shouldn't have this debate when our emotions are so high."

That worked for a while, but it had a limited shelf life. You can only say, "too soon" so many times before people realize it is not too soon.

So now, they've switched to a new talking point. "We shouldn't talk about gun control, we should talk about fighting Islamic terrorism."

People are so easily manipulated by these talking points. There is no reason we can't have public discourse about two things. We need to talk about anti-abortion terrorists, radical Islamic terrorists, mentally ill people on shooting rampages, gang violence, domestic violence murders, kids access to guns killings, there are many issues surrounding gun violence that need dealing with.

And tighter gun regulations is a key matter that needs discussion. It doesn't need to be delayed or shelved. But you watch, the GOP talking heads and everyone on Fox News will all soon be echoing the same drivel, discussion of gun regulations should not be brought up, instead we need to address radical Islamic terrorism. The fact the vast majority of homicide by gunshot victims are not shot by radical Islamic terrorists be damned.

 

[WildCat]

I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.

 

[TJM]

I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.

:

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.

Yeah, more armed civilians are the answer!

 

[TJM]

Yeah, more armed civilians are the answer!

Disarming them ISN'T the answer.

 

[Trebuchet]

Yeah, more armed civilians are the answer!

Because they've been so effective at every mass shooting so far, haven't they?

I haven't heard anyone say to abolish the police, the ACTUAL best defense.

 

[logger]

I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.

Excellent point!

 

[logger]

Because they've been so effective at every mass shooting so far, haven't they?

Even now most people do not carry a weapon.

I haven't heard anyone say to abolish the police, the ACTUAL best defense.

The police were their in minutes, sadly it was too late. Face it, you're on your own.

 

[Cain]

I want to discuss is the GOP gun lobby talking points that are intended to cut off debate rather than have a discussion.

A while back after each new mass shooting the GOP talking point that was repeated was, "Too soon, we shouldn't have this debate when our emotions are so high."

That worked for a while, but it had a limited shelf life. You can only say, "too soon" so many times before people realize it is not too soon.

So now, they've switched to a new talking point. "We shouldn't talk about gun control, we should talk about fighting Islamic terrorism."

People are so easily manipulated by these talking points. There is no reason we can't have public discourse about two things. We need to talk about anti-abortion terrorists, radical Islamic terrorists, mentally ill people on shooting rampages, gang violence, domestic violence murders, kids access to guns killings, there are many issues surrounding gun violence that need dealing with.

And tighter gun regulations is a key matter that needs discussion. It doesn't need to be delayed or shelved. But you watch, the GOP talking heads and everyone on Fox News will all soon be echoing the same drivel, discussion of gun regulations should not be brought up, instead we need to address radical Islamic terrorism. The fact the vast majority of homicide by gunshot victims are not shot by radical Islamic terrorists be damned.

tl;dr

Why are you going on about talking points when what we should be discussing is Islamic terrorism?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.

You would fit in the category of one who bought the lie.

Disarming Americans is pure straw man

And you've not made an argument for why we can't talk about limiting the firepower available to these people along with other ways to deal with the threat.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Disarming them ISN'T the answer.

Such a measure is not being entertained by the Democratic Party leaders. There are people who believe we could disarm the country, but no one in Democratic Party leadership promotes such a position.

So how about addressing the OP and not your imaginary straw man?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

tl;dr

Why are you going on about talking points when what we should be discussing is Islamic terrorism?

Apparently it wasn't tl,dr because you got the gist of it.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Disarming them ISN'T the answer.

Why not?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You would fit in the category of one who bought the lie.

Disarming Americans is pure straw man

And you've not made an argument for why we can't talk about limiting the firepower available to these people along with other ways to deal with the threat.

Limiting firepower is disarmament.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Limiting firepower is disarmament.

Funny, I thought disarmament was disarmament. But that applies to nation-states.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Funny, I thought disarmament was disarmament. But that applies to nation-states.

And if you stripped the army of assault rifles and only left them shotguns, that would be disarmament.

 

[GodMark2]

I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.

Robert Lewis Dear was acting on behalf of a foreign power?
Christopher Harper-Mercer was acting on behalf of a foreign power?

News to me.

 

[TJM]

Such a measure is not being entertained by the Democratic Party leaders. There are people who believe we could disarm the country, but no one in Democratic Party leadership promotes such a position.

Sure they're not.

So how about addressing the OP and not your imaginary straw man?

I was addressing Godzilla Sama's strawman. Sorry if you got in the way.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I like to frame it thusly: Agents acting on behalf of a hostile foreign power slaughtered Americans on our own soil, and the Democratic response to this is to disarm Americans of the best available means of defense against such attacks.

A trouser-tent premise for a third Red Dawn movie.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Limiting firepower is disarmament.

A poe for sure, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or literal. Except I know your POV on sensible gun regulation.

It's a dumb argument. The line is drawn somewhere, the debate is just on where to draw it.

Nukes? How about we all work toward our own stockpile.
SAMs? So what if they can take down a commercial aircraft? Individuals should have the ability to use them.
RPGs? Grenades? Tanks? If you can afford them, why not?

It's stupid, we are past the era where individuals can be armed so that if they disagree with the government they should have the firepower to take the feds on. It's a Bundy ranch fantasy.

But back to the thread topic. The issue isn't the gun debate. There are a dozen threads on that subject. The issue in this thread is the talking point you are now hearing all over the right-wing blogosphere. It is a contrived piece of propaganda possibly even devised by the infamous Frank Luntz himself.

So easy it slips into the discourse, repeated next by the naive newscasters that don't even recognize they are being manipulated. Sucked up by the gun lobby faithful who are already so deeply indoctrinated they don't even notice they've adopted nonsensical beliefs like Obama is coming for their guns.