We have known for some time now that the Democrats cannot debate positions that mainstream Americans truly care about on factual substance. The reason they cannot perform along these lines is because the facts get in the way of their deceitful narrative. We have seen this time and time again. We know, for example, that most Americans believe in the fight against terror. The Democrats do not. The problem with the Democrats is the emotion that is connected to terrorism is on the side of the coin that their logic is not. When this occurs then they flail about to find a new strategy and then ultimately they go to the playbook and just change the nomenclature because it, the terminology that currently exists, works against them. A terrorist act is now "an overseas contingency operation". Forever gone is the words "terrorist act" from being spoken by them. The Fort Hood terrorist act too was relabeled/classified as "workplace violence". See the difference.
We have always known that the Democrats blur the lines where ever it helps their positions ideologically. We refer to this as their "playbook" because they can never let a crisis go to waste. The Democrats play on the emotional aspects of their arguments on position instead of the facts. This has worked so successfully that it is ingrained into their DNA. I find it amusing that they actually have to write down this tactic in an actual playbook so they can study it in a "self help" manual.
The gun debate always rages after an emotional incident occurs here. Newton, Columbine, Ft. Hood and of course Travon Martin as just the latest examples of a "crisis too good to go to waste" in promoting the repealing of our 2nd Amendment rights. Travon Martin and the verdict that Zimmerman received after his trial is a prime example of how Democrats cannot rely on facts and go strictly to emotions as they argued racism was involved in the jury decision. When confronted with facts laid out into evidence, Zimmerman was acquitted as he should have been. But, this isn't good enough for them as they immediately went to race, emotions, chocolate covered peanuts, anything else but the fact he was found not guilty. He is guilty by emotional standards and that should be good enough to send him to jail to further their narrative. Remember Benghazi and the lefts insistence that this was not a planned terror attack, but a spontaneous gathering of those who were offended by a video. We know now, as we always have known, that it was an act of terror carried out on 9/11. The Democrats ruined a American filmmakers life to paint a different picture. Hello, it occurred on 9/11 and we are to believe that it is a mere coincidence. Facts.
Getting to the reason of this posting today, there is an 80 playbook that was recently uncovered as a self help guide when discussing gun issues. We know the Democrats want us disarmed and again never letting a crisis go to waste they write down their play on how to defeat those pesky facts that get in the way of logic and truth. Again, go for the emotional argument vs. facts. Change the nomenclature to support the emotion with the audience. For example, "never say gun crime" as the emotional imprint that comes to your audience is "criminal". Always use "gun violence" as the first thing that imprints is gun violence and not the criminal attached to the crisis.
It is an 80 page report but worth the read to show this audience how we need to expose them as the snake oil salesmen that they truly are. How's that for an emotional imprint?