January 19th Talking Points

I was thinking that since the media will make every attempt to cast us in a negative light, we should think of talking points to make it more difficult. I'm thinking of statements that are short, to the point, and difficult to take out of context. Something like:

"I don't support limiting of the Bill Of Rights by Executive Order or unconstitutional fiat"

It's a good idea to be careful who you choose to speak with. If it's the Westward or another totally biased source it might be best to smile and politely decline to be interviewed.

Thoughts?

Love the idea! Off the top of my head:

"The term "assault rifle" is an innacurate and pejorative term. I'll talk to you when you actually learn the subject matter of this debate."

"the second amendment is a guarantee against tyranny, remove the guarantee, invite tyranny."

"Anyone who says that an ar-15 have no value as a hunting rifle has never used one to hunt."

"Mass shootings don't happen with CCWs present because the criminal doesn't make it far once opposed."

"Cities with the most firearm restrictions tend to have the most firearm crime."

If asked "what do you say to the families who lost loved ones in Newtown/aurora/Virginia tech/ columbine?" "An armed law abiding citizen could have reduced or prevented your loss."

"There are already highly restrictive laws on ownership and use of firearms. Perhaps we should consider enforcing those before we try to enact more legislation that will have little or no effect."

"Since the federal firearm ban expired, gun violence actually declined dramatically in the United States."

"Limitation of magazine capacities will functionally have no effect on the ability of an shooter who is I un-opposed by an armed guardian."

"Mass murders more deadly than any shooting can be accomplished with diesel fuel and fertilizer. Disarming citizens will not stop these crimes, it will just change how they happen."

An 'extreme' but personal favorite of my own (this may cross the callous line): "Too many Good Americans willingly gave their lives securing our freedoms to diminish them because you fear for your own."

I am more than happy for you to edit/criticize these. We need to have the best material possible.

Here's a better idea... "No comment." ANYTHING you say will be twisted to make you look crazy. Unless you name is Dudley Brown or Wayne LaPierre you shouldn't speak with the media. There is a reason why the military doesn't allow it's personnel to speak to the media on issues, that's why they have Public Affairs Officers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Here's a better idea... "No comment." ANYTHING you say will be twisted to make you look crazy. Unless you name is Dudley Brown or Wayne LaPierre you shouldn't speak with the media. There is a reason why the military doesn't allow it's personnel to speak to the media on issues, that's why they have Public Affairs Officers.

---

That's what I'll be giving them if asked.

I have not gone back and added them up (couldnt even generate a list to add up without alot of research) but:
"19 men with boxcutters killed more people than every shooting spree in the last 40 years"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Here's a better idea... "No comment." ANYTHING you say will be twisted to make you look crazy. Unless you name is Dudley Brown or Wayne LaPierre you shouldn't speak with the media. There is a reason why the military doesn't allow it's personnel to speak to the media on issues, that's why they have Public Affairs Officers.

---

+1 Dont speak to the media. No matter how nice they are to you they're not your friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavieD55

+1 Dont speak to the media. No matter how nice they are to you they're not your friend.

---

To add the caveat- if Cory Rose and/or Amelia Earhart from 9news wanted to talk to me, oh yeah, I'd talk to them... [Coffee]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

To add the caveat- if Cory Rose and/or Amelia Earhart from 9news wanted to talk to me, oh yeah, I'd talk to them... [Coffee]

---

So you're only going to act as the PAO if they're cute? I can live with that. Who do we send the ugly ones to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

So you're only going to act as the PAO if they're cute? I can live with that. Who do we send the ugly ones to?

---

Well from that H&R Block chick thread, I'd say Jim... [Coffee]

It doesn't matter if you are interviewed and present yourself intelligently. They are going to air the most absurd person they can find that 'fits' how they want to run the story. So... If you see anyone else being interviewed.. just taser them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monky

It doesn't matter if you are interviewed and present yourself intelligently. They are going to air the most absurd person they can find that 'fits' how they want to run the story. So... If you see anyone else being interviewed.. just taser them.

---

Then yell "Down with guns! Go Feinstein!"

You will not ever convince the media using "bullet points." I think it is more important that we educate our friends and neighbors about the issues that really define this issue. Forget the constitutional arguments: people generally fall into two categories-those that get it and those that think the constitution is an old document written by a bunch of old white guys that should be amended to reflect "modern thinking" . You will never convince people to change their view on this issue. Instead, focus on things that matter, like the impossibility of defining what an assault rifle is, and educating people about the real definition of a semi-automatic. When you can show a person that he is being bullshitted by the media and govt, you are way better armed to create an ally. Focus on what happened today. Your president signed 23 executive orders, not one with the approval of congress. He is moving this country to the point where medical records will be among the factors considered in the new "universal" background checks. Can you imagine a iraqi war veteran being told he is not eligible to own a firearm due to a medical condition when this country saw fit to not only arm him, but put him on the battlefield for three or more tours of duty. This is in our immediate future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

To add the caveat- if Cory Rose and/or Amelia Earhart from 9news wanted to talk to me, oh yeah, I'd talk to them... [Coffee]

---

I am good friends with Cory's boyfriend and have met her a dozen times or so. If you think you have a story I can make it happen.

I cannot make a statement, as I'm not supposed to be attending.

If I didn't have to work, I'd be there. The only thing I would say is; "I am against criminals being better armed than level-headed law abiding citizens."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sbouslog

I am good friends with Cory's boyfriend and have met her a dozen times or so. If you think you have a story I can make it happen.

---

No I don't really have a story- just a crush... actually yes, there's a story "How I'd make a better S.O. than your current BF..." [Beer]

From Guns Across America - Colorado:

Quote:

---

Now, more on the media. I will be everywhere there. I want you to program my phone number into your phone 719 200 6797 (not for you infiltrators though). If you see the media trying to engage somebody, call me. Before you call determine where you. Example, I am in the southwest corner, back side. This way I know where to go. If you are approached by the media and decide you want to talk remember this. Remain calm no matter what they say to you. Pause and think a minute before you speak. "will this hurt our agenda" If yes, don't say it. DD

---

Respond with a smile and a "no comment" and keep waving your flag.

Know your enemy. However you want to interpret whatever Sun Tzu really said, just troll the ultra-liberal websites and educate yourself on how these people think.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncateg...eral-websites/ or you can just start with the Huffington Post or the Ed Show. Read the comments. This is where the current adminintration seems to be taking its cue and this is what responsible gun owners are up against.

How about this: The media holds the blame of perpetuating additional shootings by giving the shooters infamy. There could as easily be a bill in play to stop the media from reporting the shooter's name, picture, or anything about their family or location. Ironically, most of those standing here would also be here for an equally unconstitutional infringement. Not surprisingly, the media has shown little to no support for other rights. Wake up. How long do you thing the constitution and the bill of rights will last at the pace the government chips away at it? The 2nd and 4th amendments to the bill of rights are the canaries in the cage. When they are gutted, it's only a matter of time before you reporters are reading from government scripts to report the news.

"So you support the restriction and/or removal of my Second Amendment rights? Please select another of the Amendments from the Bill of Rights that is near and dear to you, that I may restrict and or remove."

"Why don't you go listen to MrColionNoir and his take on how to stopping mass shootings." "PS, you're part of the problem."

Does anyone know the number of M16/variants that have been produced for the US Military over the years? And how many AR15/variants have been produced for the public? I know it's all semantics but if there have been more AR15's produced then calling them "military style rifles" is all wrong...instead the military would be using "citizen style rifles". But hey, I don't know the actual numbers...

But more on topic, my simple question to the anti's is: "What is a military style weapon?" When they go on about AR15's, AK's, cosmetic features and 30-round "clips" I counter with the M1 Garand. They don't know it but I educate them that Patton called it the "Greatest battle implement ever devised" and that it was a contributor to us winning WWII and was used to fight all the way up to Vietnam. so it is without a doubt a military weapon. Then I go on to tell them it shares not a single "military style feature" that they want to ban. It doesn't have adjustable stocks, no flash suppressor, no forward "grips", no detachable mags, it even falls within the 10-round limit and most importantly, it isn't BLACK. But it damn well won a lot of battles. It was purposely built for war, yet I can buy one and have it shipped to my door.

Some anti's counter, "well, that is outdated technology like a musket. What we want to ban is the new battlefield technology." At which point I ask them if then in 20 years when the military no longer uses the M16 variant, if then it will be ok for the public to own M16's... since old technology is not deadly and all...