2013 "code name"

[Jasonw560]

This is just for something we can reference and call it. I pulled these names from a previous thread.

Like UpTheIrons said, it should be semantic enough to get the point across, but innocuous enough as not to raise any red flags, until the conversation gets deep enough to where people are open a little more to the idea.

My favorite is the License Extension Act. IMO, that's what it does. It extends the license to a place where it's been verboten before. Gets the point across, but vanilla enough that it won't raise any flags at first.

[Dave2]

The "Campus Crime Curtailment Clause"? It might get people thinking about the relationship between guns and crime. Plus, I like alliteration.

Ok, so I was actually thinking of the "Campus Crime Reduction Act".

[RPB]

To me ...... it's personal ... "SELF-defense" can't get much more "personal"

Personal Safety (I like this one)
Personal Responsibility & Safety Act.
Personal Protection (But it kinda sounds like a deodorant)
Personal Security (sounds like a security guard/CHL badge carrier)
Bullying Deterrence Act...... it actually is, if you think about it.

[flintknapper]

CHL Extension Act (2013).

"CHL" denotes exactly what it is (as opposed to the ambiguous license extension label).

There is no need to include any of the "protection" labels either, everyone knows the purpose of a CHL.

A CHL extension act could encompass more than just Carry on a University Campus (if desired) and by designating it by year... the same name could be used in future efforts to introduce bills...by simply changing the year/date.

The thrust of any arguments for this bill should revolve around simply "extending" the ability a CHL holder ALREADY has.... to the campus environment. The words "Student and Campus Carry" need to be dropped immediately! Much too easy for the anti's to misrepresent the intent of that (and they are all too happy to do so).

[Jasonw560]

CHL Extension Act (2013).

"CHL" denotes exactly what it is (as opposed to the ambiguous license extension label).

There is no need to include any of the "protection" labels either, everyone knows the purpose of a CHL.

A CHL extension act could encompass more than just Carry on a University Campus (if desired) and by designating it by year... the same name could be used in future efforts to introduce bills...by simply changing the year/date.

The thrust of any arguments for this bill should revolve around simply "extending" the ability a CHL holder ALREADY has.... to the campus environment. The words "Student and Campus Carry" need to be dropped immediately! Much too easy for the anti's to misrepresent the intent of that (and they are all too happy to do so).

I see what you're saying. And the ambiguous license label will prompt the first question: "What kind of license?"
That does make more sense.

[UpTheIrons]

Jason, thank you for putting this poll together.

Flint, thank you for coming up with a great choice.

I knew the folks here would be able to come up with something that worked. Even if this isn't the final name, it's a great start.

Almost every day, I force myself to spend some time doing opposition research in my field (reading up on what the unbelievers and "godless heathens" are doing/saying). It has really helped me to sharpen and focus my language and thought process on faith-related things, and I think the same idea applies here.

We can't concede a single point from the start, but we can't start the discussion off at a disadvantage, either. Focusing first on the simple extension of what the CHL holder is able to do (carry his self-protection firearm unmolested across imaginary lines) instead of focusing on where that happens might be the right starting point.

What's up with SB 905? If that finally goes through, there's another place to start: "The legislators/big wigs/'important' people have been doing this for two years, and there are no issues. Why not "extend" the rights of the rest of us to do the same? Oh, and why not "extend" where they can carry even further, too?"

[Jasonw560]

You're welcome. (As an aside, I'd go nuts having to read Dawkins et. al. every day)

I'm just trying to get the gist of it.- It is our right to protect ourselves. We choose to do that with a firearm. We can carry unless there's a state restriction against it. That's the law. Then we point out the law as it's written. If you don't want to do this, then fine. However, don't infringe on our rights if we choose to exercise them.

How far off base am I?

[Hoi Polloi]

I forgot who posted the No, No, No post in the other thread (Uptheirons?), but I agree with him.

All of these share the same problem as Campus Carry. They only resonate and speak to the sympathies of those who already know about it, understand, and agree. To someone who does not know, these all say, "Guns and Kids!" The group of people you're wanting to reach do not place a strong value on anything mentioned. I'm still thinking on what would and don't have suggestions.

[hirundo82]

As much as I hate harm to come to anyone, we really need a victim's face to put on campus carry. The "Jane Everywoman Campus Self-Defense Act" has a much better ring than "campus carry."

[Dave2]

I forgot who posted the No, No, No post in the other thread (Uptheirons?), but I agree with him.

All of these share the same problem as Campus Carry. They only resonate and speak to the sympathies of those who already know about it, understand, and agree. To someone who does not know, these all say, "Guns and Kids!" The group of people you're wanting to reach do not place a strong value on anything mentioned. I'm still thinking on what would and don't have suggestions.

That's why I put "Crime Reduction" in my suggestion. It doesn't mention guns in the title, and it gets people to at least contemplate the link between more CHLs and lower crime rates. Statistically it's true, so why can't we use that to our advantage? Especially since most (I think) of us will say that's generally the point anyway (that is to say, using guns for defense against robbery, assault, rape, murder, etc, rather than the exceedingly rare mass-shooting).

[Hoi Polloi]

I forgot who posted the No, No, No post in the other thread (Uptheirons?), but I agree with him.

All of these share the same problem as Campus Carry. They only resonate and speak to the sympathies of those who already know about it, understand, and agree. To someone who does not know, these all say, "Guns and Kids!" The group of people you're wanting to reach do not place a strong value on anything mentioned. I'm still thinking on what would and don't have suggestions.

That's why I put "Crime Reduction" in my suggestion. It doesn't mention guns in the title, and it gets people to at least contemplate the link between more CHLs and lower crime rates. Statistically it's true, so why can't we use that to our advantage? Especially since most (I think) of us will say that's generally the point anyway (that is to say, using guns for defense against robbery, assault, rape, murder, etc, rather than the exceedingly rare mass-shooting).

I agree with the thinking, but I don't think it hits the target. Go onto a college campus and ask around what they are passionate about and I don't think you'll hear "reducing crime." That's kinda an abstract idea for most, really. Protecting and helping victims (especially women, minorities, homosexuals, domestic partners, etc) will come up frequently, though. Two sides of the same coin, but they resonate with the latter far more than with the former. I think hirundo has hit the nail on the head.

[hirundo82]

I agree with the thinking, but I don't think it hits the target. Go onto a college campus and ask around what they are passionate about and I don't think you'll hear "reducing crime." That's kinda an abstract idea for most, really. Protecting and helping victims (especially women, minorities, homosexuals, domestic partners, etc) will come up frequently, though. Two sides of the same coin, but they resonate with the latter far more than with the former. I think hirundo has hit the nail on the head.

I think the obvious solution is we need to find a black or Hispanic lesbian who is confined to a wheelchair after being attacked while walking back to her car at night after class. I'd love to see the Democrats try to block that one.

[Jasonw560]

I agree with the thinking, but I don't think it hits the target. Go onto a college campus and ask around what they are passionate about and I don't think you'll hear "reducing crime." That's kinda an abstract idea for most, really. Protecting and helping victims (especially women, minorities, homosexuals, domestic partners, etc) will come up frequently, though. Two sides of the same coin, but they resonate with the latter far more than with the former. I think hirundo has hit the nail on the head.

I think the obvious solution is we need to find a black or Hispanic lesbian who is confined to a wheelchair after being attacked while walking back to her car at night after class. I'd love to see the Democrats try to block that one.

Well, RPB claims to be a Violence Prevention Activist. Maybe the Violence Prevention Act?

Wasn't there a young lady who testified for this that actually was attacked?

[UpTheIrons]

I forgot who posted the No, No, No post in the other thread (Uptheirons?), but I agree with him.

All of these share the same problem as Campus Carry. They only resonate and speak to the sympathies of those who already know about it, understand, and agree. To someone who does not know, these all say, "Guns and Kids!" The group of people you're wanting to reach do not place a strong value on anything mentioned. I'm still thinking on what would and don't have suggestions.

Yes, that was me.

It may well take someone from the outside looking in to come up with the real name. A neutral outsider (if one can be found) or (God forbid!!) a marketing firm. I'm open to more suggestions, because this is almost like defining obscenity - I'll know it when I see it.

Perhaps I voted too soon.

[Jasonw560]

WWLLCI?

(What Would Loaded Liberal call It?)