Policy Approaches for Moderates
This is a discussion on Policy Approaches for Moderates within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Economist: Lexington: Heads and hearts | The Economist
This article is super instructive in approaches taken in presenting persuasive arguments in emotionally charged policy ...
February 11th, 2014 01:06 AM
Policy Approaches for Moderates
The Economist: Lexington: Heads and hearts | The Economist
This article is super instructive in approaches taken in presenting persuasive arguments in emotionally charged policy and political arenas, for instance the 2A.
In an era of scepticism and division, standing on rigid principle can be a blunder, it turns out: a tool for firing up partisans, useless for swaying voters in the middle. Though injustice still exists, today’s voters want to be wooed, not hectored.
While this article touches on FORBIDDEN TOPICS, it is instructive for how we can support the 2A and capture the middle moderates. Through emotions, through their hearts.
Instead of stressing the fine print of policy, campaigners are being urged to emphasise the pain caused when harsh immigration rules divide loving families. The immigration movement has enjoyed early success by stressing the stories of “Dreamers”—young migrants brought illegally to America as children, through no fault of their own, who now want a shot at the American dream.
This is NOT an invitation to break rules, folks. If you do, large penalties and non-expiring infractions WILL BE levied. You are warned.
Let's discuss this from the perspective of what we can learn to help our cause. How we can apply this lesson!
"He went on two legs, wore clothes and was a human being, but nevertheless he was in reality a wolf of the Steppes. He had learned a good deal . . . and was a fairly clever fellow. What he had not learned, however, was this: to find contentment in himself and his own life. The cause of this apparently was that at the bottom of his heart he knew all the time (or thought he knew) that he was in reality not a man, but a wolf of the Steppes."
February 11th, 2014 01:28 AM
I don't think you leave a lot of room to proceed. "Here is this article, but discuss anything in this article and you will be BANNED!!!!"
February 11th, 2014 01:35 AM
This is a tough one - personally I am much more of a logic person than one ruled by emotion, so I have a hard time relating to the apparently greater population that makes decisions based upon emotions. The article basically states that the way to change opinions is to win the hearts of voters rather than their minds. Public opinion on the forbidden topics noted where only changed after the public was overwhelmed with heartfelt stories.
From a pro 2A perspective, we can certainly point to stories where guns saved lives and families, but I see several challenges that the forbidden topics did not experience:
1) The media, those responsible for publishing stories to the masses, have a significant bias against the 2A making it far more difficult to get the word out
2) The other side is using the same logic already - we are saturated with stories about gun violence and most are told by the same biased media noted above
3) While there are as many good stories about guns as bad, the bad one's are far more significant and memorable for the average american due to mass loss of life and the collateral damage it can cause
I like the way you are thinking, but we still have our work cut out for us. There is no easy answer because our story is by default more logically based.
February 11th, 2014 01:42 AM
Progressivly Regressive Leftists like to fight with words, but more importantly, emotions.
10's of thousands die each year of car crashes.
Compare that to not GANG related Firearms deaths.
Emotions is where they want the Media to rule the anger against you, the lawful and non-harming firearm owner.
We should start focusing our attention on the Anti-Firearm Media's specific people on the trangressions they have commited against standing laws = would be interesting!
I miss Brietbart. If you had know or met him, you would understand. Too youg and too early! Just saying.
February 11th, 2014 05:21 AM
Originally Posted by Cold Shot
Clearly the parameters allow coverage of debating tactics, techniques. Obviously, the warning is about keeping clear of politics, issues and the other stuff touched on by that article, given that the article is about debate methods and not politics at all.
Seems simple to me.
And it could be a very good conversation, here, to focus on debating methods in light of what that article points out.
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
self defense (A.O.J.).
How does disarming
the number of victims?
Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos)
NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.
February 11th, 2014 08:25 AM
I do it all the time, it's not hard at all. If my answer to an honest inquiry about why I carry is a terse "it's my god-given/constitutional/legal right", then the conversation will likely stop there with a turned off moderate.
Compare it with this answer: "I know, it's kinda silly that I feel the need to carry, but it's the society we live in. My wife was carjacked at gunpoint, and another time my car was broken into. I heard reports in my neighborhood of people kicking doors down to rob/steal. I have a daughter, and I will die before I let anything happen to her."
That, folks, is an emotional, personal, and non-political appeal.
February 11th, 2014 08:47 AM
Well seeing as how I get in Dutch here often enough without wading into a minefield that is clearly marked I am IBTL.
I'm just a spoke in the wheel but not a big deal.
America...a Constitutional Republic. NOT a democracy as the liberals would have us believe.
Give me Liberty or give me BACON!!!
You know that look women give you when they want some sugar? Me neither
February 11th, 2014 08:47 AM
You've missed his point. It's about taking a lesson in intelligent marketing of a cause, ours being the RKBA.
Originally Posted by Cold Shot
February 11th, 2014 08:49 AM
I've never discussed anything with a Liberal that they didn't come from the position of emotionalism. It's all about what's on the surface, not about what's the deeper root cause.
So, I agree that if the middle is going to be reached, we have to appeal to the way they think. We have to speak "their language" to get our message across. We have to come up with an excruciatingly emotional 2A appeal that they can feel good about supporting or we're just talking to the wall.
It's hard not to talk about politicians and politics when they are directly responsible for what our laws and what we're all fighting for/against. However, I feel that a few Brownie points are in order since for once I didn't mention the unmentionable.
February 11th, 2014 09:09 AM
Id say it was a fair bet that most here, (at least those who commented), feel that we in The USA have a Heroin "Epidemic". That its a bad 'epidemic", and is even "worse" now, than in the past. And can give particulars that they have "learned" recently from various articles/news sources.
I bring this up, as an example of how the majority of people can be brought on board to fight for, or against, something that was not even on their mind days before. Like Heroin, "common sense gun control", war with (fill in the blank), opinions on legal cases, "The Duke Date Rape Case", etc.
My point being, that regardless of the topic, mass numbers of people are brought on board to support things in the virtual blink of an eye. Often that initial support fades, but if legislation is rammed through quickly, before the support fades, we end up with rotten laws.
We have to find a way to counter the initial surge of press saturation, and the predictable response from people.
February 11th, 2014 09:17 AM
That's very true Storm. Probably the most damage our country has seen has been by laws that have been voted on before they have been examined. When you enact a law that dramatically effects every single person in the country it should only be done in a transparent, deliberate way. The thing that scares me the most is what you have pointed out. "We have to pass the bill before we find out what's in it". That will be the end.
February 11th, 2014 09:28 AM
Liberals use twisted "statistics" and emotion to argue against the 2A. Logic and facts are clearly on our side, but we need to do a better job of giving a hard-hitting emotional argument for our cause.
February 11th, 2014 09:37 AM
The gist I get from this thread is that since antis all rely upon the Appeal to Emotion debate fallacy of argument to further their agenda, so should we.
"If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
William T. Sherman
February 11th, 2014 09:44 AM
If it was a debate fallacy then I would say, "no". The arguement is a fallacy, but the appeal is very real.
Originally Posted by Mike1956
February 11th, 2014 09:50 AM
Emotion typically claims the front seat over logic ! This is an age-old strategy that shrewd politicians have known and used for years.
I agree we should add more emphasis of emotion, and less on logic to our RKBA agenda.
Turn the election's in 2014 to a "2A Revolution". It will serve as a 1994 refresher not to "infringe" on our Second Amendment. We know who they are now.........SEND 'EM HOME. Our success in this will be proportional to how hard we work to make it happen.