.png)
Recently, a fellow 2nd Amendment Activist, Rob Pincus, took the time to co-write an article with former President of The Brady Campaign, Dan Gross, in an attempt to help steer the narrative. In so many words, they worked together to show that Gun Grabbers and Gun Nuts can work together in harmony... or something like that... for the sake of Universal Background Checks (UBCs). We, personally, here at Mom-At-Arms, wanted the story to lose wind, but one of those authors just dropped a bomb... on their own campaign.
As many have said, the co-authored piece is a bit "wordy" (much like this article will be. #SorryNotSorry), others have called out the authors as traitors from within their own camps (which prompted a sweet hit piece that got more views than the actual article in question), and a good handful of us would rather it be used as an example of how the two sides are at least trying (especially considering the continuous division in society which has created barriers to talk about the importance of firearms in the first place). Coming from a counter propagandist's view, though, it was actually a brilliant attempt at promoting unity through logical reasoning on how UBCs may actually be a reality for us all, as well as how society (as a whole) can use it to not only expand the checks, themselves, but to expand in our chosen activisms... as for or against them. Point being... not many people think logically these days. It's a fact. We are living in a world of cancel culture and "feels" that no one knows how to actually process information given on a certain topic, and to analyze it reasonably per the times at hand. Hell! The mention of Rob Pincus's name sets waves of anxiety through many... and honestly, if you're an activist... especially a 2A one... it shouldn't. You should be more worried about how your own venture is being delivered to folks... NOT just folks like yourself. #EchoChamber Cause, truth be told, one day, you're going to run into a person with a similar mindset as "The Pinc," but with less status quo. You just gonna turn them away? (Yeah! Bravo! That's EXACTLY what we need more of in this activism! *eye roll insert*)
Where many have failed to focus, because it was stuck on "The Pinc," and their feels for him and how he hates Fenix Ammo (who we think is AWESOME. See how that works? There is an actual thing as seeing both sides and being appreciative of both... AT THE SAME TIME) is Dan Gross. HE is the "money shot" in all of this. And for the sake of "saving logic," I will only get into the POINT of this article of ours, while linking external info so that YOU, the reader, can exercise that brain and learn how to dig, process and analyze the info being given.
Dan Gross, for those who do not know, is the former President of The Brady Campaign. Dan became an activist after his brother was shot back in 1997 at the Empire State Building. He, like Shannon Watts, Donna Dees- Thomases, even Michael Bloomberg, etc... has a huge background in the ADVERTISING AND MARKETING WORLD. During his tenure with The Brady Campaign, Gross helped in the advocacy of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. So, with all of that being said, Dan is what we would call "MAJOR BRASS" in the Anti- 2A arena. To get him to even think and promote a miniscule amount of PRO GUN nomenclature & ideals is MAJOR. (For us counter propagandists of gun control orgs and their BS... this is YUGE!) Think about that for a second before moving forward. Think about how we in the PRO 2A World work so hard at getting just an ounce of attention in order to break the stigma put upon us, that there's a former, highly ranked, hardcore anti... who's still an anti... but he's swaying more to the middle of his own platform and even admits that the Gun Control world is getting way out of line. Where many of us in the 2A World try to balance living that non-complying, Pro 2A Life, all while not coming across as something sinister (like how modern Gun Control orgs have successfully painted us), Gross still stands on his anti-gun convictions, but he also sees where his own activism is being, for the lack of better words, "EXTREME."
Most recently, Dan Gross wrote an article for the New York Times, entitled I Helped Lead The Gun Control Movement. It's Asking The Wrong Questions.
Please note: You have to read the article before understanding anything that THIS article is trying to get across.
Let's get something out of the way, first.
Dan's article still focuses on Gun Grabbing. He is, and due to his life's experiences and work, will probably forever be, a "Gun Grabber." In full, Dan's article at face value, is not something we agree with. We want all the Gun Grabbers to get a new hobby and leave our CIVIL RIGHTS the hell alone. STOP TELLING US HOW WE NEED TO DEFEND OURSELVES!!! (DANG!)
But, once you read this article of Dan's, ask yourselves... "How many times in an argument with a Gun Grabber have I brought up the fact that "assault weapons" aka... AR-15s... are the least used in homicides throughout the nation?" I know we here at Mom-At-Arms have used that fantastic point MANY times. Well... even Dan uses it!
"There are far more effective means to prevent these sadly routine tragedies than by focusing on assault weapons. And that means that it is both wrong and counterproductive for advocacy organizations and elected leaders to use the moments when the public is focused on gun control to push an assault weapons ban." - per Dan's own words in the article.
Process that...
Granted, we know he wants to eliminate all the pews from existence. A perfect world where all the evil would disappear simply by getting rid of guns, right Dan? In hindsight, his point, though, is a fabulous one. And only folks with a background in some marketing can recognize this. That's how Mom-At-Arms found our footing... its called the Marketing PIVOT. Shannon Watts does it very often, where she promotes a certain viewpoint, like when she tweeted...
A Marketing Pivot is when you spin a piece of propaganda to fit a narrative for THAT TIME. For decades, you've had PR Masters in the Gun Control world pushing "Guns Bad" narratives, but when some event doesn't fit their agenda, they will pull bits from their opposing forces in order to turn the focus back around for THEIR ADVANTAGE. Shannon's Tweet: "Guns Bad! But Black People don't have the same acceptance as White People do in the Gun Rights World. We should just eliminate all the gun rights in order to give everyone "equality.'"
Dan Gross's article is much of the same, but instead of focusing on ending THE RIGHTS as Gun Control groups have in the past and recently, he's focusing on how people perceive THE OBJECT in question. Per his own article:
But calling for a ban of any sort just makes it easy for opposing politicians and organizations to cast anyone seeking policy change as a “gun grabber” seeking to take away the Second Amendment rights of responsible and law-abiding gun owners.
To create real and lasting change, we must end the culture war over guns. Instead, gun control groups are helping to perpetuate it.
No decent human being, whether gun owner or not, wants to live in a country with our level of shooting deaths. The most meaningful way to deal with the problem, though, is not to look at how to keep certain guns from all people, but how to keep all guns from certain people — the people almost all of us agree should not have guns.
Where I find a bit of discourse with most of his above statement, how the hell are we supposed to keep certain guns from those certain people? That's like a digging for a needle in a hay stack, and considering the most recent tragedy in Colorado, UBCs have been proven faulty. But, I like his thinking to the degree that, in order to keep certain firearms from certain people, there needs to be practical solutions... which he actually expands on in his article:
Invest in a large-scale education and awareness campaign on the dangers of owning and carrying guns, and what can be done to mitigate those dangers. It is crucial that these efforts be led in partnership with gun rights groups and public health experts and that they remain free from any judgment about gun ownership or connection with political advocacy. There are many initiatives already, such as public education about the warning signs of mental illness and suicide, which have proved effective and could be models.
Ya see, I'm from an era where GUN RIGHTS and SAFETY EDUCATION was taught in schools. I went to high school during a time where avid teen hunters (my siblings and I included) would carry their rifles... including AR-15s... in the back windows of their pickup trucks, and park those suckers freely for 8 hours, and then take off into the woods afterwards. Being that my father was a LEO, my home was full of firearms, but I knew not to touch them unless supervised and/ or necessary. #Education I've said this time and time again in Gun Control circles, "In regards to the "stats" that Gun Control proponents push, in contrast to how I was raised where guns were a way of life for many, I should be dead right now. But here I am." So, with that on the brain, I can't help but think that even though Dan Gross is still a Gun Grabber, homie might actually see that we Gun Rights folks aren't the actual "extremists," but instead... his ilk is. Here he is stating that we need broader firearms education and mental health awareness measures, exactly like how we did back when I was growing up, as well as what the Gun Rights community is working hard to promote... AND... He's calling his own out... in so many words of course.
The biggest take away from all of this is that Dan Gross, BRASS IN THE GUN CONTROL WORLD, gave us 2A Advocates an open door and we need to be jumping on it.
I highly advise you to read in full Dan's Article and make your own assessments. But do so with objectivity. And when you do, take into consideration his last statements... which are a major gut punch to Michael Bloomberg, Shannon Watts, and their organizations.
When I was considered a leader in the gun control movement, a lot of attention was paid by other groups on how to “rebrand” the pursuit of preventing gun deaths: “Gun control?” “Gun violence prevention?” “Gun safety?”
As a former advertising executive myself, I always found this conversation superficial and frustrating. It takes more than a name and talking points to shape perceptions of any brand, no less such an important social issue. It takes a fundamental truth, a deep empathy for the people you are trying to reach and a disciplined focus on reinforcing that truth with everything you do and say.
The truth is, an assault weapons ban is not the most effective thing we can do to prevent gun violence, and the resulting debate undermines the extent to which the American public agrees on solutions that could bring us closer to what we all want, which is to make our homes, schools and communities safer.
And considering the influx in firearm sales throughout the nation, most of those being standard handguns/ pistols. Even Moms Demand Action harpies love to use the, "I'm a gun owner and I want common sense gun laws," as part of their scripts. Funny thing is, the number of these Commie Mommies that we get to give us insight into what kind of firearms they own, the vast majority are... THE COMMON HANDGUN. #Glock *eye roll* So, think about it this way:
You have a top Brass Gun Grabber calling for Gun Control Groups and Politicians to stop focusing on an "Assault Weapons Ban," and even he admits there's no clear definition of what an "assault weapon" is.
Granted he wants those UBCs which are a waste of time, he wants more focus on FIREARMS EDUCATION and MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS.
He calls out modern Gun Control activists on their schemes behind their marketing and "rebranding," because its a lost cause.
Gun sales over the course of the last couple of years have increased drastically, and most of those sales were made on common handguns/ pistols.
With Gun Control Activists admitting they carry handguns/ pistols most (because as they say, "No one needs an AR-15. A little Glock is just fine!"), then reasonably, there would be a lot of reluctance from even them to go after banning the standard handgun/ pistol. #losingbattle Cause if they do, then they would have to ultimately admit they are after ALL THE GUNS... which they deny with their, "Asking for gun sense isn't unconstitutional." Banning ALL THE GUNS would be.
So, guys and gals... Dan Gross just handed us a gift. You don't have to agree with all of it. We don't, but we know how to analyze, process, and use the info within to OUR 2A ADVANTAGE.
You also don't have to agree with everything Rob Pincus says. He knows we here at Mom-At-Arms don't... and vice versa, but The Pinc made a great point to BearingArms (who Mom-At-Arms contributes to) back after his and Dan's most recent buddy article in AmmoLand,
“We have plenty of people that DO pound the table saying ‘all gun laws are infringements!’ With a CCW permit in their wallet.”
Read that again. Cause he's absolutely right. Conceal Carry Permits ARE INFRINGEMENTS! I know for the longest time, I carried without a CCW. Didn't think much of it at all, especially being the daughter of a LEO... because "Freedom" and whatnots. I only got one because it was considered "socially acceptable" for if I'm ever in a critical situation that would call for me to pull my firearm.
THAT'S WHAT THE GUN RIGHTS COMMUNITY DID FOR US!!! Playing nice became a habit and WE gave Gun Control orgs opportunities to step in further with things like 4473s and Concealed Weapons Permits, and because of that, we have lost ground and there is NO EASY FIX TO THE GUN DEBATE and we are in WAY too deep now. Dan Gross just flipped the script a bit in our favor, though, and since "The Pinc" is his bud... USE IT to bring GUN RIGHTS back to the forefront.
留言