Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[GratefulCitizen]

It occurs to me that there is a persuasion problem in the gun rights debate.
This is primarily a political issue, not a logical problem to be solved, and therefore it should addressed using political persuasion methods.

Key points:
-who are we trying to persuade?
-what are the most effective methods of persuasion?

This is a republic, not a democracy.
We are trying primarily to persuade office holders and candidates, not voters.

Voters also matter, but they should be viewed as force multipliers in the persuasion mission.
Changing voters attitudes on guns isn’t as important as figuring out a way to use their influence to serve the primary objective of persuading office holders and candidates (hereafter referred to as politicians).

The most effective persuasion tool is fear.
What do politicians fear?

They fear being branded with something negative that “sticks” to them.
Once that happens, their political career has just become much more difficult.

So, how do we do this?
Don’t make the issue about guns, make the issue about the particular politician in question.

This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process.
Put them in a position of being guilty until proven innocent.

Now into specifics.
This is the messaging:

***
Why is it important that a politician be pro-gun?
Because it is the only way we can truly tell if they view themself as the people’s servant, or the people’s master.

If a politician doesn’t have a problem with the people being well-armed, then that politician doesn’t have a problem with the people saying “no”.
A politician who seeks to neuter the people doesn’t want the people to be able to say “no”.

They view themself as the people’s servant or the people’s master.
Choose.
***

Notice how this avoids getting into the weeds about magazine capacities, operative clauses of the Second Amendment, etc.
It bifurcates and brands with simple messaging.

It leaves absolutely no room for “reasonable” gun control.
(“Reasonable” gun control is just the persuasion technique known as “thinking past the sale”…gun control is assumed).

Also, there’s no limit to how “pro-gun” is enough.
A politician would have to be more pro-gun than the next politician to prove relative “people’s servant” credentials…it has a ratcheting effect.

It also feeds into the natural disdain most voters already feel for politicians.
Winning the title of “people’s servant” is difficult, whereas branding a politician as “people’s master” is easy.

The voters don’t even have to have a dog in the fight of the gun debate.
They’re pressed into service because everyone cares whether a politician seeks to be a servant or master.

Well, that’s my pitch.
Don’t talk about guns, brand the office holders and candidates as wanting to be the “people’s servant ” or the “people’s master”.