It’s just a condition–NOT

Uncle reports they can’t help it. It’s just a condition. Jed read the report and took away that people “become deaf to arguments of reason”.

I think it’s a fascinating insight into the human mind. And my take is different from both Uncle and Jed. My take is that we need to carefully word things to avoid reinforcing the very lies the anti-gun bigots are trying to convince people of. This is very closely related to something Alan Korwin shared via email over seven years ago. Here is just a sample of Alan’s brilliant, ahead of his time, insight:

Certain words hurt you when you’re talking about your rights.  People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you’re probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.

To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices.

They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN
It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROL

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENT

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRY

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPON

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALS

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNS

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENT

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE


They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUN

It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS

4 thoughts on “It’s just a condition–NOT

  1. I tend to use a lot of these terms anyway. Of course, some of them are interchangeable, depending on your audience… but when I’m talking to antis or fence-sitters, I err on the side of more “friendly” terms. Still, most of the readers on my blog agree with me, so a little fist-shaking and “harumph harumph” won’t hurt our cause. When the occasional anti does post a comment on my blog, my response is friendly, diplomatic, and using correct “Susie-Soccer-Mom-friendly” terminology.

  2. They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
    ANTI GUN

    It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
    ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE

    I might say gun bigotry or gun prejudice instead of anti-gun bigot/prejudice to try and stay away from their buzzword altogether.

  3. I’m in full agreement with the “standard capacity” tweak to Korwin’s suggestion. My main point was that Korwin came up with a brilliant idea a long time ago and we should understand the fundementals of his insight and run with it.

Comments are closed.