Gun Control Crowd Wants To Be Called ‘Gun Safety’ Crowd

[DonViejo]

EVAN MCMORRIS-SANTORO JANUARY 11, 2013, 6:10 AM

Anyone who’s written the words “gun control” since the push for gun violence prevention began in the wake of the Newtown shooting has received the emails. It’s not called “gun control” anymore, proponents of new and more stringent regulations on firearms write. Start calling it “gun safety.”

Gun control supporters say the term “gun safety” is less, well, loaded than “gun control,” the standard name for the push by groups like the Brady Campaign and others for decades. As part of their efforts to change the gun control push to make it more palatable politically, some are suggesting the phrase “gun control” be dropped once and for all.

During a brief press appearance on Thursday, Vice President Biden didn’t use the words “gun control” at all while talking about what actions the White House may push to help prevent future gun violence. But he did say “gun safety” three times in reference to groups like Brady, which favor new regulations on firearms.

The head of the Brady Campaign said gun control advocates have pushed to change the nomenclature. It’s another part of the movement’s attempt to learn the lessons of past defeats. Gun regulation advocates have promised to be more politically aggressive, punishing politicians who oppose their efforts and working to build the kind of financial and political infrastructure the gun rights community has relied on for years. Changing the wording is part of that process.

-snip-

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/gun-control-gun-safety.php?ref=fpb

[Buzz Clik]

1. Branding is crucial in any high profile debate.

"Gun control" gets demonized by the opposition, so you change brands.

The pro-gun lobby hides behind a bizarre interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Meh.

[MightyMopar]

2. NRA=Gun Rights Extremists

[onehandle]

3. Or Domestic Terrorism Enablers. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. What exactly is the "bizarre interpretation of the 2nd amendment" of the "pro-gun lobby"?

Are you alluding to the interpretation of the Supreme Court in the Heller opinion in which the Court held that

"1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53."

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some people who have not actually read the Heller opinion seem to be unaware that all of the Justices agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Even the dissenting Justices agree with that.

Justice Bryer, with whom the other dissenting Justices agreed, wrote:

In interpreting and applying this Amendment,I take as a starting point the following four propositions,based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an 'individual' right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting).
...
"I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. ...

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

If there is a "bizarre interpretation of the 2nd amendment," isn't it being made by those who take the position that the private ownership of firearms is somehow dependent upon or limited by membership in a militia? If there is a "bizarre interpretation of the 2nd amendment," isn't it being made by those who take the position that regulations do not need to be reasonably related to their goals and that the Second Amendment does not protect a right to self-defense within the home?

If all of the Supreme Court Justices agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, how is it that they can believe that they can deny that by merely asserting that their "literal" or "historical" interpretations is superior to that of the Supreme Court? If we have law in the country, when all of the Supreme Court Justices agree that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, and particularly protects a right to self-defense within the home, isn't it a "bizarre interpretation" for some to say that their interpretation is superior to that of the Supreme Court?

[Buzz Clik]

14. Great stuff! Did you read it?

Read your first point and see if you are missing anything.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

20. Did you miss this point?

"Some people who have not actually read the Heller opinion seem to be unaware that all of the Justices agreed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right."

Are you one of those who has been unaware of that?

[Buzz Clik]

21. Wow! Where we would be without you?

If all the stupid people here (you excluded, but not me) read that decision carefully, we would realize that, although the decision is willing to dismiss the word "militia" and attribute the full intention of the second amendment to individual possession of firearms, the decision most certainly did not dismiss "well regulated." Funny thing, that. I guess I find that interesting because of my diminished intellectual capacity. What do you think of that observation?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. None of the Justices in the Heller opinion nor any other responsible person has ever claimed that

firearms are not subject to being regulated or "well regulated."

No responsible person has ever claimed that.

You cannot provide even a single link to the contrary because there are none.

[Buzz Clik]

31. You asked what bizarre interpretation of the 2nd Amenment I was talking about. We are now there:

The people -- even here at DU -- who endlessly proclaim that there should be NO restrictions on their ability to buy guns. "Crazy people and felons for sure, but not me."

Any and all weapons are fair game. Weapons that the founding fathers never imagined. But, they did imagine that advancements would be made, and not every citizen should have the right to every weapon. "Well regulated." That means that restrictions will exist.

[bongbong]

29. Don't be alarmed by the NRA-bot

Here is a great rebuttal of every single "point" the 'bot makes about the 2nd Amendment

It goes in depth, and addresses many NRA Talking Points, and needless to say, destroys them.

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm

[groundloop]

4. Fuck it - I'm in favor of gun control

But if calling it 'gun safety' gets something done then so be it. We just can't sit on our hands anymore while the NRA sells more and more weapons, and while our streets and schools turn into the wild west.

[Chorophyll]

6. I just had this discussion with friends a few nights ago.

I honestly think that changing "gun control" to "gun safety" is a form of capitulation. "Safety" is a word for seatbelts and bike helmets. It's almost meaningless in the context of a culture that's obsessed with the gun.

I don't see why our side of the argument always has to back down. They have the guns, they have the money. We have words. We should use them wisely. The gun lovers are offended? Tough shit!

[SpartanDem]

15. Words matter

The right has long had excellent message discipline read about Frank Luntz and work he's done. I not sure how is this backing down? I'm no linguist but if "gun safety" sells with public than "gun control" then so be it. You said it yourself should we should use our words wisely.


George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

[Chorophyll]

18. I agree that words matter. But I think the left is more effective when we stop looking weak.

And "gun safety" has a very different meaning than "gun control." Just as "global warming" has a much more specific meaning than "climate change." Once you start watering down the language, the chance that real action will be taken sort of dwindles too.

[global1]

7. If The Shoe Were On The Other Foot - What's His Name - Frank Luntz Would Probably Suggest .....

safety over control.

[RC]

8. "Gun Safety" is an oxymoron.

How safe can you make a device, machine, etc., that is designed from the git-go, to kill, to be safe?

[Ed Suspicious]

10. It's the Clean Coal of gun verbiage.

[Paladin]

16. Nicely Put.

Like I said on another thread recently: A thread devoted to gun safety issues would die of loneliness in the DU Gun Control/RKBA group (or the virtually unused Outdoor Life group). It would get in the way of all those sweaty discussions of bump-firing assault rifles*, how many extra pistol magazines must you should pack before going out your front door, and what "well regulated militia" REALLY meant in 1791. You know---productive topics like that.....


Definition of "assault rifle"? Glad you asked. It's whatever the New York Times says it is.

[2pooped2pop]

9. they can be called that when they show some gun safety.

All we seem to be seeing is small penis, small brains, big gun, murdering fools. Perhaps they should be the anti-lifers.

Maybe just go with the pro small penis, small brained, big gun, crowd since they want pro in there instead of anti.

and this is only for the crowd who really want machine guns, tanks and anti-aircraft weaponry. The ones for which a shotgun to hunt with and a firearm for protection just won't do.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. How about "Freedom from gun violence" crowd?

But call it what you want, I'm sick of having to live with the idea that wackos with weapons are popping up everywhere.

[Politicub]

12. Let's call them corn sugar and be done with it

Or what they really are - radical extremists.

[marble falls]

13. Its too late for 'gun safety'. If they had really been at that for years, cutting accidental.....

deaths and 'kid-finds-gun' shootings that would be one thing. But they arrogantly became the "from my dead fingers crowd" instead, proudly and on purpose. Now they get the reaping of a whirlwind of crazies who listened to the rhetorical BS they amen-cornered loud and proud. Hunters? Yeah, they mostly are. And so are the psychopaths they attracted - hunters of men and women and children. Its too late for "gun safety" alone. Now we need at the very least background checks even for private sales and stiff - VERY STIFF - jail time for those who circumvent the process and bannings for felons/ multiple DUIs (particularly if the driver was exercizing 2nd amendment rights at arrest), any kind of treatment a therapist determines gun ownership is dangerous with, etc. If we can't put the over 200M guns-genie back into the bottle we need to work on keeping more arms from joining it in the hands of people society knows are dangerous, criminal, unqualified.

[jinx1]

17. Smart move

Psychologist would support this move to "gun safety" for several reason but first, because it con-notates a positive action. It shows a positive reaction to a very difficult situation that everyone can agree is desired, safety. Any actions that encourages that should be considered. Listen up Republicans before you become completely irrelevant!

[LeftInTX]

19. I agree

We have to sell the concept to middle America - hunters - people who don't have guns, but support the 2nd Amendment etc. Like smoking, you want people to make a decision on their own. You want them to buy into it.


We aren't trying to sell this concept to the gun nuts. They are nuts and will always be. They won't come around, but middle America will.

[jinx1]

22. Love the Faux News icon...can I have one because, I say it all the time!

[LeftInTX]

23. Sure, it's free domain

[frylock]

24. common-sense gun laws is the meme that needs to be pushed

[Iggo]

25. Not me.

I'm for Gun Control.

[MotherPetrie]

26. Ditto. You can call me a gun hater too.

[samsingh]

27. we need more gun safety

[Kalidurga]

28. Here is what is good about the term Gun Safety

When Republicans and Conservative Democrats oppose gun control measures they will be showing they are against safety. That they aren't bothered by the gun violence that we have in the US. It will be accurate and easy to say they don't care about the people in this country and if you want to go there, they don't care about children. But, really who they don't care about are young men who are the largest group killed in gun violence some of these young men are barely older than children though. So let them be arrogant and block common sense regulation and let the public see them for what they are.

On the other hand, it sort of sounds like powder puff football. It just doesn't sound all that serious. As someone said it sounds like we are talking about bicycles and stop signs. Serious issues, but ones that aren't looked at as being all that serious.