Never mind. Likely a bad idea announcing some things to the general public.

Has anyone ever looked at firearm history in the U.S. against arguments? I know the lever action was the latest and greatest when it came out. I'm pretty sure it was regulated, probably encouraged more. Just another topic I thought my help in the fight. I hope some good smart people show up in Defense of our freedoms!

 

Now is one of those times that having had 13 strokes really is a danged handicap! Good luck to those among us who are effective public speakers! Rip them sweetly!

 

Looks like most of the "Invited" are from Occupy Portland...

 

Thank you for both posting this and encouraging people to prepare. I hope that any who show up to represent the community will do so with cool heads and well articulated points. The facts are on our side. I will try to attend.

 

There are also local Town Hall and coffeeshop events where you can talk with legislators directly.

Happy Valley, Jan 26
Hillsboro, Jan 26
Forest Grove, Jan 27
Beaverton, Feb 2, 7

Upcoming Town Hall

 

Actually, an emotional approach is better. People take sides based on how it makes them feel.

For example, see the following arguments:

- "Crime statistics show only 5% of gun crimes were committed using so-called assault weapons. If we rule out suicides and focus on murders, then it's only 1%."

Impact: Crime? Murder? Assault? Suicide? BAD feelings. This guy is bad. I feel stupid. This stuff is bad. BAN it.


- "I spent a week learning how to use a military rifle to protect my family. Now, here's a photo of my son. Shouldn't I have the right to pass on that skill to him?"

Impact: Wow, this guy is the protector of his loved ones. He LOVES his son. I'll let him teach his son. GOOD feelings.


Any presence is good, but let's avoid the witty debate. Let's engage feelings. That's how we'll win.

 

Purely emotional arguments are much more dangerous and can have unpredictable results. Facts, logic, and reason will help frame the argument so that an emotional connection can be grounded firmly and retained. Search 'engineering consent' or 'social engineering' to see how effective our mass media has been in changing attitudes towards firearms.

 

Yes, the best way to make a progressive liberal angry, is to calmly and rationally feed them facts and truth. The best thing in the world is to see them losing their temper, when they cant punch holes in what you're telling them, or when everything you tell them punches holes in their reality.

They expect us, as gun owners, and pro 2A people, to be hot headed and volatile. When we are rational and calm, it frys them.

 

Great, the Tea Party will be there to talk about how not being Christian is going to end the world and how Democrats suck, that makes SO MUCH headway for pro-2a civil rights people to not look like crazy left wing extremists.

 

My current three favorite videos may help your team prepare. In case you haven't already seen them:

Crime stats: Choose Your Own Crime Stats - YouTube

Fact based unbiased arguments: WVCDL - The State Journal's Decision Makers Interview - YouTube

The intent of the Founding Fathers: Founding Fathers Battle Gun Grabbers From the Grave - YouTube (I don't care much for Infowars but this is good)

 

This is too far a drive for me but for those attending make absolutely sure to do a little bit of background on the Delphi technique---it's a way of framing a discussion by the presenters to arrive at preconceived outcomes. It's super simple but subtle and dangerous in crowds of the compliant.

 

Is our goal to fry people? Or win them over?

I think you're on the right track, but need an emotional plea to actually gain mindshare. Pure debate won't win anyone over to our side. Though I agree it's certainly better than angry, bitter ranting - which actively turns them off.

Throw in some facts, if you wish, but the emotional content is key.