Like I said at my blog, it’s great that Andrew Travor beat prostate cancer, but I don’t understand why the CSM sees that as a plus vis-a-vis his nomination as head of the ATF.
Looks like we’re slowly making progress on the language thing.
Note that instead of being defined as “The Gun Lobby” ™, our side is being referred to as “Gun Rights Groups.” EBRs are being referred to as “assault style” rifles and distinguished from their full auto brethern.
Looks like one reporter may be starting to get it. There’s still a reference to the Mexican gun canard but it looks like we’re making some inroads. Taking back the lexicon is an important step towards framing the issue in a way that allows us to retain and gain support from people who don’t know much about the issue, I think.
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:22 am
A: Yes
November 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Like I said at my blog, it’s great that Andrew Travor beat prostate cancer, but I don’t understand why the CSM sees that as a plus vis-a-vis his nomination as head of the ATF.
November 22nd, 2010 at 2:32 pm
Any questions left about our President’s opinion of the gun-owning citizens of this great nation?
November 23rd, 2010 at 3:42 am
Looks like we’re slowly making progress on the language thing.
Note that instead of being defined as “The Gun Lobby” ™, our side is being referred to as “Gun Rights Groups.” EBRs are being referred to as “assault style” rifles and distinguished from their full auto brethern.
Looks like one reporter may be starting to get it. There’s still a reference to the Mexican gun canard but it looks like we’re making some inroads. Taking back the lexicon is an important step towards framing the issue in a way that allows us to retain and gain support from people who don’t know much about the issue, I think.