"NRA talking points"? How about anti-gun talking points?

[friendly_iconoclast]

(With apologies to DUer beevul for shamelessly pinching the title and theme of his thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172129602

This was prepared by political consulting firm OMP Direct:

http://www.ompdirect.com/

and is hosted here:

http://www.tbe.org/uploadedFiles/site/Rabbis_Corner/Rabbi_Study_Materials/Gun%20ViolenceMessaging%20Guide%20PDF-1.pdf

PREVENTING GUN VIOLENCE THROUGH EFFECTIVE MESSAGING

...This guide is intended to help organizations and individuals choose effective arguments and language when
communicating with the public on behalf of stronger public policies to prevent gun violence. It is not intended to offer media training advice on topics such as how to prepare for a media appearance or advice about
specific media such as how to write a press release or prepare a compelling email message.
Its purpose is to offer clear advice about effective frames and messages across a broad variety of communication opportunities.
We recognize that actors within the gun violence prevention movement don’t move in lockstep when it comes
to which policy approaches they advocate for and what specific stance they take on any given issue. This guide
seeks to provide effective guidance to get groups’ message across within the range of policy choices.

OMP offers two points in their "messaging guide" that seem very familiar:

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.


#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.

Anybody have primary links to similar messaging guides from the NRA? It would be
fascinating to compare and contrast...

[pipoman]

1. LOL.."WONKY STATISTICS"

FFS, steer clear of those...

[Duckhunter935]

2. I have read a lot of those

talking points right here. Very interesting.

Our first task is to draw a vivid portrait and make an emotional connection. We should rely on
emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence.
Compelling facts should be used to back up that emotional narrative, not as a substitute for it.

#1:
ALWAYS START WITH THE PAIN AND ANGUISH
THAT GUN VIOLENCE BRINGS INTO PEOPLE’S LIVES.

#2:
MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WEAK AND RECKLESS POLICIES
PUT WEAPONS IN THE HANDS OF DANGEROUS PEOPLE.

#3:
USE IMAGES THAT BRING YOUR MESSAGE HOME.

#3:
WITH BASE AUDIENCES, EMPHASIZE THE
UNIQUELY DESTRUCTIVE ROLE THAT THE NRA PLAYS

#4:
EMPHASIZE THAT EXTRAORDINARILY DANGEROUS, MILITARY-STYLE
WEAPONS ARE NOW WITHIN EASY REACH ACROSS AMERICA.

[madinmaryland]

3. There is a reason why there is a "gungeon" group on DU. It is where DU

keeps all the freepers who like to infiltrate this site.

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. It would appear you've missed the pinned post at the top of the GD page:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022542300

Current GD "big news" exceptions: Guns (3/22/13)

Status of "big news" exceptions:

Guns: The ongoing national debate over gun laws that has occurred since Sandy Hook is big news; discussion of gun control and related issues is currently permitted in GD. Gun porn, local gun-crime stories, and other narrowly-focused gun topics are not permitted.

Now, is there something about the OP that you'd care to discuss?

[derby378]

10. Not to mention...

...that gun-control advocates have been trying to take over the "gungeon" despite the fact that they now have a discussion forum of their very own on DU?

I may be a bit cantankerous about my Second Amendment rights, but someone trying to Brainy Smurf me into silence won't succeed. There are those who know me and accept me for what I am, even if they disagree with me, and that is sufficient. And my beloved wife was one of the biggest gun-control supporters of all. If she could put up with me, there has to be some hope for me yet.

[billh58]

40. Yep, but they

tend to spill over into other forums and groups from time-to-time...

[samsingh]

78. like the idiots who shoot guns and have their bullets spill over and kill innocent people

[beevul]

5. I cant believe it.

No nra talking points manual yet?

But...we've heard so much about them, and for so long...

[friendly_iconoclast]

6. No one here has shown evidence of one, to my knowledge.

Of course, someone might have done that very thing and I simply missed it.
I'm willing to concede that one *might* exist- stranger things have happened.

I'l believe it when I see it, in which case I will freely admit my error.

[beevul]

7. Nearly 12 hours later, and still no...

Nearly 12 hours later, and still no manual of nra talking points.


Are we to believe that "nra talking points" was just a label used to avoid discussion by dismissing viewpoints which differ from anti-gun viewpoints, while at the same time attempting to marginalize and/or demean and/or stigmatize the people that hold them?


Naa, couldn't be. Our esteemed colleagues on the other side of the gun issue have a copy the "pro-gun super duper talking point guide", they're just...um...busy doing other stuff otherwise they'd post it...yeah that's it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. We'll just have to ask the next person that mentions "NRA talking points"...

..for some evidence that what they call "NRA talking points" came from the NRA.

I suspect we'll then see pretzel logic worthy of an Auntie Ann's franchise...

[billh58]

41. Try this

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 08:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Bubba...

http://www.nraila.org/get-involved-locally/grassroots.aspx

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/nra-guns-mentally-ill.php

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/03/inside-nra-university-the-gun-group-takes-supporters-to-school/

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/03/20/1748011/senators-crib-nra-talking-points-to-oppose-background-checks/

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/nra-unleashes-hounds.php

http://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/04/new-nra-talking-point-banning-assault-weapons-i/192021

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. Well done. Glad to see at least one of you shows some initiative.

Now try and keep the stereotyping down to a minimum, mmkay?

[billh58]

45. Good advice, and you

Gungeoneers should try it sometime...

[beevul]

46. Um...

I see little evidence there, that what they call "NRA talking points" actually came from the NRA.

I see lots of people calling them "nra talking points", claiming they are nra talking points, but nothing really in the arena of any actual substantiation. Kinda like what they've been saying here on DU for so long.

And certainly nothing that comes close to being a "talking point manual" like we've seen recently, with their talking points in it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. I'd say the first link qualifies, the rest are a tossup

[beevul]

49. Help me out here...

I'm not seeing it.

I'm not seeing any of these actual "talking points" there at the first link. When I click on the link below "writing influencers", I get tips on writing effective letters, emails or faxes.

Nothing about "what points to actually make".

I see nothing at that link that says what "talking points" to actually use.

Am I missing it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. I think the NRA is a bit more confident about messaging.

Mind you, this isn't an endorsement of their message, just an acknowledgement of their
effectiveness...

[pablo_marmol]

75. *Nothing about "what points to actually make."*

Bingo. Bill's list is bogus.

[billh58]

50. You don't think

that the NRA University has manuals, PowerPoint presentations, and other handouts? The other articles are mainly comprised of direct quotes from your NRA hero, Uncle Wayne and his roadies.

The people calling them "NRA talking points," provide direct quotes from actual NRA public statements and lectures. The gun control "talking point manual" that you are referring to did not come from any of the organized gun control groups, but from a fucking for-profit marketing agency, with apparently no major clients.

It's pretty weak when you have to dig up some outfit that no one's ever heard of who published a "manual" no one's ever seen, to talk smack about 30,000 deaths per year from guns in this nation.

This is where you counter that outrageous claim with some standard NRA talking points about suicides, hammers, axes, and God-given civil rights...

[beevul]

52. Produce them.

"You don't think that the NRA University has manuals, PowerPoint presentations, and other handouts?"

Produce them. Otherwise its just an unsupported claim by a clearly biased individual, namely you.

"The other articles are mainly comprised of direct quotes from your NRA hero, Uncle Wayne and his roadies."

My hero? Hardly. These quotes...were these things that he made up himself, that actually came from the nra, or are these things that pro-gunners have been saying for years that hes parroting?

I know you could care less, but the truth of the matter is important.

"The gun control "talking point manual" that you are referring to did not come from any of the organized gun control groups, but from a fucking for-profit marketing agency, with apparently no major clients."

LAWL. Mkay - a for profit that was paid by an...organized gun control org in WA....to produce this manual.

http://www.pdc.wa.gov/rptimg/default.aspx?batchnumber=100529077




"It's pretty weak when you have to dig up some outfit that no one's ever heard of who published a "manual" no one's ever seen, to talk smack about 30,000 deaths per year from guns in this nation."

Evidence, in the form of the tactics employed and the messages conveyed, by posters such as yourself, suggests that a great many of you who fall somewhere between "more gun control", and "ban them all" have read it. More evidence by far than exists about talking points with an nra origin, used by any of us. Yes, its so weak you couldn't help but reply.

On one hand, we have documented gun control talking points, in a documented gun control talking point manual, and people using them, and on the other, we have the undocumented assertions made by you and so many others.

Oh, and, in case you weren't aware, this discussion wasn't about 30000 gun deaths a year, it was about the tactics employed by...posters such as yourself, and how almost exactly they match the "manual" you seem to be so unhappy about the discovery of.

[billh58]

54. You know jackshit

about me, yet you insist on speaking for me. Keep on going Bubba, as you just keep making my point for me. You are, in fact, an NRA spokesperson just like Ted Nugent, and Wayne LaPierre.

Take care Bubba -- heah?

[Duckhunter935]

55. now now

lets all stay classy now, or both of you will be sent to your room without dinner.

[billh58]

61. Aww, man.

Okay, but he started it...

[beevul]

56. I know how you talk to others.

"You know jackshit about me, yet you insist on speaking for me."

Says the poster that said my hero was wayne lapier.

Beyond that, I know how you talk to others, and behave towards others on DU.

Why, after knowing that, would I want or need to know more?

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. They *apparently* prepared it for the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility

http://www.examiner.com/article/there-is-a-gun-control-playbook-versus-washington-gun-owners

The firearms community has long quipped about gun control strategies from a “playbook,” but yesterday a major gun rights group discovered that advice from a genuine guide to waging a politically-savvy gun control campaign – produced in part by Washington, D.C. consultants who did research for a Washington State gun control group – is part of that group’s political effort.


The 70-plus page guide, produced last year and posted on-line as a pdf by Temple Beth El though a link no longer appears on the TBE website, is titled “Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging.” It offers tips on everything from using effective rhetoric to dividing National Rifle Association members from NRA leadership. One of the people who prepared the guide was Al Quinlan, a principle of the Washington, D.C.-based firm of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner (GQR), which also has offices in London and Buenos Aires.

A PDC report filed by the Seattle-based Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility (WAGR) shows a May expense of $43,700 paid to GQR for opinion research.

[billh58]

59. Apparently some idiots

actually did hire them to prepare a weak-assed "guide," and I apologize for not researching it more. I have never heard of either one of the organizations mentioned, but then I don't get out much.

I have no big quarrel with you, and I agree with some of your calmer posts: we need sensible gun regulation. I am not a big fan of "banning" anything, and that goes for guns, booze, and sex. I am, however, a big fan of responsibility and accountability for one's actions (or inactions) when it leads to preventable violence or death.

I dislike the NRA for many different reasons, but mainly for the corruption that they have introduced into the local and national political arenas in the name of profits while hiding behind the guise of being advocates for "civil rights." At one time the NRA may have been an honorable organization, but they have become nothing more than right-wing extremist shills for the neoconservative faction in this country.

Lastly, the term "talking points" is nothing more than propaganda, and both sides of any controversy employ the device. The use of half-truths, and skewed statistics is a common practice when employing propaganda. Most Americans have enough common sense to see through the bullshit in order to arrive at a place very near to the truth. The truth about the gun culture in this country is that we can do better, and I firmly believe that with leadership like that displayed by Gabby Giffords we will do better moving forward.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. For what it's worth, I share your low opinion of the NRA.

I called them the "armed wing of the Republican party", and meant it. Still do:

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/10022164207

For that matter, Americans for Resonsible Solutions has left the Bradys in the dust, as I predicted in that OP:

http://betterment.democraticunderground.com/12623921

Gabrielle Giffords Gun Control Super PAC Raises $6.5 Million

[Electric Monk]

15. Or possibly because the majority of DUers have decided to stop feeding the gun trolls polluting GD?

edited to add:

Here, I found this for you with a quick google search: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/20/1180504/-Gun-Enthusiast-In-Your-Life-Here-Let-Me-Make-It-Easier

[derby378]

18. The OP even said it wasn't meant to be taken seriously

It was obviously not meant to be taken seriously. Rather, it's an expression of the frustration and anger with such craziness.

In fact, I tend to lean toward the "this person is mentally ill and needs help" school of thought. I cannot believe that most Sandy Hook Truthers are actually mentally well people who really believe this stuff. It sort of dovetails into the gun control debate, as mental health is a criminally neglected aspect of America society.

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1180504/49131305#c5

[friendly_iconoclast]

22. Now, be kind- that lot tend to get a little frustrated and cranky when someone is progun...

Last edited Sun Aug 4, 2013, 03:31 PM - Edit history (1)

...yet refuses to spout off right-wing political views. People tend to get
discombobulated when their stereotypes are messed with.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. Would that statement also embrace the anti-gun trolls polluting GD?

[Electric Monk]

25. If we were on ar-15.com then gun control advocates would be the trolls. We aren't. We're on DU. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. And many Democrats and some DUers feel differently than you do

If you'd like gun discussions gone from GD, the Ask the Administrators group awaits your attentions.

Of course, that will also mean that anti-gun posts will be banned...
In the meantime, as long as posts follow the rules and Terms Of Service, they're allowed here.

I'm also going to say this as gently as possible-

Has it not occurred to you that part of your (the collective "your", not you personally) problem
is that, for a movement that claims the mantle of popularity you actually do very little that
moves the uncommitted to act in the ways you'd like them to?

Convincing those that already agree with you is one thing- but to get people that are on the fence
to move your way is difficult, and I don't see you as moving in that direction.

Wanting to listen only to those that agree with you is a recipe for political disaster-
do we not laugh at the Fox News/Limbaugh audience for doing just that?

[Electric Monk]

28. Even your choice of words shows you're not really interested in debate.

It's like someone saying "pro-abortion" instead of "pro-choice", or saying "pro-Saddam" instead of "not having wars based on lies".

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. I'm all in favor of sensible gun laws. That's only reasonable, after all.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that every gun law I support is sensible. It's only
common sense, after all.

What was that quote from the OP again? Oh, yeah:

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.

#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.

Let's see- you got abortion rights and the Iraq war into your reply. Well done!

[Electric Monk]

30. This isn't debate, it's playing Gotcha, and you think you did but I think you failed. I'm done here.

nt

[X_Digger]

32. *snort* Spot on. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. It's now unavailable at the given link. How *very* unsurprising...

However, since I (and everybody+ their brother) downloaded it, I will send a copy to those who wish-
PM me.

[derby378]

11. Already got my copy, but thanks for the offer

[beevul]

12. Its almost as if they're ashamed to be caught hosting it...

in spite of "overwhelming" public support.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. It might simply be that they don't own the copyright.

[derby378]

19. Update: the manual is still there

Just tried the link again.

[friendly_iconoclast]

20. It was 404 about an hour or so ago

[friendly_iconoclast]

14. I'm not *quite* ready to call the idea of "NRA talking points" a pious fraud...

...but unless someone comes up with some primary evidence that the NRA is behind them in the
next few days, I'll go ahead and do so.

[beevul]

16. "Pious fraud"...

I'd bet that "Pious fraud" proves accurate.

And it has a nice ring to it, too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. We'll see.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Someone stepped up to the plate in post #41

[pintobean]

23. I feel like I've been

Robbed.

[friendly_iconoclast]

24. You are a bad person for posting that...

and I'm just as bad for laughing at it.

Oh, well- I suppose it's just part of our dharma to like things of this nature...

[pintobean]

39. Mine went 0-6 leave it

I've got a 24 hour window.

[NYC_SKP]

74. Quick.

Take a shower, stat!

[MrScorpio]

26. I love the smell of cordite in the morning...

It smells like gun lobbying.

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. The obvious reply would be: What does antigun lobbying smell like?

[coldmountain]

33. Smells like the EU, Oceania and Japan where guns aren't so welcome and life isn't so cheap

[Duckhunter935]

34. forgot china

East Timor, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia just to name a few more

[coldmountain]

36. Why not get our thinking up and compare ourselves to Japan with almost no gun crime

Amazing how the gun pushers always want to compare America to third world countries or failed states.

[MrScorpio]

38. You know, it's funny...

As innocuous as my reply was, you're as touchy about it as you are to every other challenge to your rampant gunhumping here in GD.

Now, I make it a general rule to stay out of the Gungeon, where I'm sure that firearms worship is quite the standard faire. It's bad enough that I live in Michigan, where so many people are wont to shoot as many holes into furry wild animals as they are into each other....

But it's far too obvious that we have far too many guns in the hands of far too many violent people in this country. I know that gunhumpers really hate to talk about the tens of thousands of American deaths from people using guns with each other (and tha countless numbers of non-fatal injuries), but what's the point of getting so pissy with people who disagree with the premise of gunhumping in the face of all that unnecessary carnage?

The gunhumpers have won already, don't you know that? Isn't the fact that guns are everywhere, including places where people don't want them proof that America is a gunhumper's paradise?

What is it... You want everyone else as scared as gunhumpers are and armed to the teeth too?

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. Who's scared? The murder rate is half what it was thirty years ago.

I can't think of any other group besides gun control advocates that display such obvious anhedonia
over what anybody else would welcome as good news

Sooner rather than later, I think the US will have universal background checks for firearms purchases
and I'm all for them (and have said so here at DU many, many times).

I've got news for ya, Bunky: we (as in gun advocates here at DU) are not your enemy,
nor does being a gun control advocate necessarily make someone your friend (crypto-fascists
like William Bennett, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg are the most obvious examples)

Given your demonstrated disdain for "those people", I'd be willing to wager $50
to the gun control .org of your choice that you've done exactly bupkes to try and get what
you so quaintly term 'gunhumpers' to vote Democratic.

I know I have- the last time I went out shooting, I was quite open about being a trade
unionist and Democrat. You know, trying to offset the fear, loathing, and stereotyping about gun owners
that emanates from too many self-described "progressives"...

[MrScorpio]

58. Now, see... That's a very typical gunhumping reaction you have there

The mere fact that I said that the gunhumping lobby has, in fact, won in this country just went over your head.

I mention gun carnage and you act like it doesn't even exists.

You're even accusing me of being "friends" with Republicans (Anyone who has read anything that I've written here on DU for the past nine years would find that really laughable).

And you're angry... I can tell, because you're using the bold font as well.

Oh, and you're personalizing something that I've never accused you of doing, shooting others, as well as throwing some bona fides at me that I have no way of verifying.

Dude, the problem isn't me. It's clearly you. You're very, very touchy and you've mentioned that you're ARMED... Now how am supposed to take that, as a threat? How is my, or anyone else's opposition to rampant gun violence from the proliferation of firearms in the hands of too many violent people in this country any threat to you and YOUR guns?

Except, that it's all in your mind, right?

Please. This is the internet, "Bunky".

Anyway, thanks for reinforcing my own observations about the gunhumping demographic and their love of fetishizing over firearms, while expressing outrage over anyone else who won't.

If you don't understand what your posts say about you, even after I took the time to point them out to you, then I figure that you never will.

Happy gunhumping, fellah.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Insulting me seems to makes you feel better about yourself, so insult away.

It neither breaks my leg nor steals my purse. It's your karmic load, not mine
However, some of what you've posted deserves a fisking, so it'll get one

Dude, the problem isn't me. It's clearly you. You're very, very touchy and you've mentioned that you're ARMED

Pay closer attention, I said I "went shooting" and I did- with a borrowed gun, as I do not own one.

(When jumping to conclusions, it pays to see where you'll land beforehand)

Now how am supposed to take that, as a threat?

If you take a bald statement about going shooting that had nothing to do with you in any way, shape, or form
as a threat, you ARE the one with a problem...

[MrScorpio]

67. I'm fine, dude.

And my problem is rampant gun carnage and the proliferation of too many firearms in this country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. NRA election spending: $24 million. Brady Campaign: $5,816

It has been known to pour hundreds of thousands of dollars into a single congressional race. According to Lee Drutman, of the Sunlight Foundation, during the last election cycle, the NRA spent more than $24 million. “The money on one side is enormous. The money on the other side is tiny.”

In contrast, Drutman says, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence -- the largest gun control organization -- spent just $5,816 during the election. Total.
...
“The NRA alone has given to more than 290 candidates already this cycle so far,” she says. “So, that’s a lot of money in a lot of pockets in Washington.”

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/gun-lobby-outspends-gun-control-advocates

Who needs messaging guides posted on the internet when you have rich lobbyists and 290 politicians in your pocket? When you spend $231 million a year, you can afford a bit of privacy.

We can understand that the DUers who are on the side of the huge industry lobby get frightened at the thought of anyone doing anything in terms of organising against the industry. And we understand that your instinct is to fire back at random the moment you feel threatened. After all, that's what George Zimmerman did. But you convince no-one. We know you are lovers of guns and the industry that sells them, and will cheerfully throw Democratic principles overboard to support your love.

[coldmountain]

37. Patriots of convenience these gun lovers

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. That says rather more about the "supporters" of gun control than the NRA, I think.

With that supposed vast army of support just waiting to be unleashed, why aren't they raising more money?

It's not as if progressives as a group are cheap, rather the opposite.

NRDF and the Sierra Club can raise tens of millions, the ACLU can as well. The EFF likewise.
More importantly, they know how to motivate people and how to get listened to.

Lately, the ACLU and EFF especially have been running a full-court press on the subject of
NSA surveillance and they've been all over the web (and DU).

In contrast, what do we get from gun control advocates?
(I refuse to reeuphemize them as 'gun safety advocates'- they are no more "gun safety advocates" than
the NSA is an "internet safety organization&quot

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3397152

When the Senate gun control bill died, so did the story...

And when the story died, so did the momentum for new Federal gun control laws.
Thinking and acting as if the media were going to do your heavy lifting for you was
a recipe for failure, and the people you despise here told you so at the time

If you lot want to get anywhere, you need to organize and actively seek out people
like Gabby Giffords has been doing- the Brady Camapign are a bunch of ineffectual
dilettantes run by Republicans. They're headed for the dustheap of history.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. But when gun control organises, some DUers make threads like this, implying there's something wrong

with organising. How do you "actively seek out people " in the 21st century? You put stuff on the internet. But here you are, gloating that the NRA talking points aren't available on the internet, while gun control groups' are, as if this means the NRA have the moral high ground. And don't pretend that's not what you're doing with this thread - see post #7, and your reply to it. But its your side that is funding the politicians with millions, so I think we know where the moral high ground does lie.

[beevul]

73. No, thats a mischaracterization.

"But when gun control organises, some DUers make threads like this, implying there's something wrong with organising."

Let me make this abundantly clear by being as blunt as I possibly can be:

It isn't about the nra, or organizing, politicians, or anything of that sort.

Its about whats been going on on DU, with people that hold views ranging from "we need lots more control" to "ban them all", accusing those of us who are pro-gun of using "nra talking points"/"taking our marching orders from the nra" without a shred of evidence, in between assertions and insinuations that "we don't care about dead children" and the like...rather than debating or discussing any given issue on the merits or lack there of, in good faith.

Make no mistake, that's what people on your side of the issue have been doing quite regularly.

That's why I posted the original OP in the gun forum - to point out the utter hypocrisy of those that make such claims and insinuations.

Its not a matter of "taking the moral high ground", its a matter of making it clear that those of you that make such insinuations haven't a leg to stand on, because those of you that claim we use "nra talking points" have been spouting canned talking points of your own.

Documented ones at that.

[Just Saying]

51. If something looks fake.

It probably is.

It's actually a gun lover talking point to accuse those of us who want sensible gun laws of running on emotion. And #3 reminds me of almost every conversation I've had with gun "enthusiasts."

This looks like a list made up by gunners and since your links don't work, it lacks credibility.

[Duckhunter935]

64. what about the new links?

I did see the PDF from the other link.

[Just Saying]

66. No

All 3 in OP don't take me to those quotes. One is a DU link to a post with a dead link, one is to a page but there are no gun stories or links and the last is a dead link.

[Duckhunter935]

68. talking points

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/gun_messaging

[Just Saying]

71. This site has information that's interesting

It backs up its arguments and makes good points. I'll have to bookmark it for future reference.

[Duckhunter935]

69. cached version

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YK5yILDuuVoJ:www.tbe.org/uploadedFiles/site/Rabbis_Corner/Rabbi_Study_Materials/Gun%2520ViolenceMessaging%2520Guide%2520PDF-1.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[Just Saying]

70. Yeah I can see that one

Thanks!

Okay, so this is some policy group I've never heard of and I've never seen any of these talking points. And I'm on email lists for Brady and several other groups. If they're talking points they're not very effectively being promoted and in fact aren't even at active links anymore. And as an advocate for gun laws, I think their points are all wrong.

[friendly_iconoclast]

57. UPDATE: I found another one, "Voicing Our Values—To Curtail Gun Violence"

This one is by the Progressive Majority Action Fund:

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/gun_messaging

https://progressivemajorityaction.nationbuilder.com/assets/pages/64/Voicing_Our_Values-To_Curtail_Gun_Violence.pdf

They even use the term "talking points"!

http://www.progressivemajorityaction.org/sources_for_more_detailed_talking_points

Sources for more detailed talking points

[Duckhunter935]

65. just went to the first link

Wow, I see those axact same phrases here all the time, seems like talking points to me. If it walks like a duck........

[stone space]

76. Wouldn't It Be Great if Everybody Had a Gun?

[stone space]

77. "Happiness is a warm gun": John Lennon (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980)