REFRAMING THE GUN DEBATE | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED


REFRAMING THE GUN DEBATE

We The People understand that the Second Amendment is about protecting the people from Tyranny in government. But the government will never publicly acknowledge this as an issue even as they clearly embark on a tyrant's program of public disarmament. And, everyone dependent on a check from the Federal Government will refuse to consider the government they are dependent on is in any way, shape, or form bad, just as a wife dependent on a husband will believe she is at fault, rather than the battering husband. Hence, a focus on defiance of tyranny will not and has not gained much traction with the general public.

It is time to re-frame the debate into terms that will prevail with the public, even with those who are dependent on checks from the government itself. Let us drop the image of defiance to government and focus the debate onto two issues; Personal protection from crime, and the link between mass violence and prescription anti-Depressants.

Optional Banner: 
WRH Exclusive

Comments

The term 'disarmament' should more properly be ...

Diogenes

DISENFRANCHISEMENT.

Yes: To be disarmed, is in actuality to be disenfranchised of a CONSTITUTIONALLY enumerated right.

Any questions?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR SOCIAL MEDIA