Words Matter Because Control of Language Is Control of Perception
- Mom At Arms
- 2 hours ago
- 12 min read
A Psychological Analysis of Everytown’s/Moms Demand Action's “Words We Use” Framework
Most people believe the debate over the Second Amendment is about policy.
It is not.
It is about language.
And this is exactly why media literacy matters.
Preface
Please note: This article is a long one, but it's meant to educate those in the 2A Community on not only what our opposition is doing, but how we can counter them more effectively.
If you’ve been following me... Mom-At-Arms... for a while, you know I’ve built a small team of Pro-2A folks who volunteer their time to help advance this cause. I call them my “MAA Minions.” They handle everything from research and investigation to contacting legislators, showing up at protests, contributing articles, and yes… even going undercover when needed.
Long before it was trendy, we were operating in a way that some might compare to Project Veritas, just on a much more grassroots level. No shade to Project Veritas at all! They've taken the art of going undercover to get the truth to a level we can only admire.
About a month ago, though, one of my undercover minions, who is actually a member of Moms Demand Action, reached out to me with a couple of links that led to internal training documents used by Everytown/Moms Demand and Students Demand Action volunteers. That kicked off a deeper dive, and after a good bit of additional research, I’m now sharing what I found with you.
If you’ve been in the Second Amendment space for any amount of time, none of this will feel entirely new. You’ve seen the rephrasing, the redefining of terms, the subtle shifts in language. “AR” being pushed as “assault rifle,” or the shift from “gun control” to “gun safety.” For many of us, it’s almost second nature at this point.
But this isn’t about pointing out something obvious.
It’s about confirming something much bigger.
Because what looks like casual wordplay on the surface is actually part of a structured, organized effort to shape how people interpret this issue. The “common sense gun laws” narrative didn’t just happen. It was built, refined, and deployed in a way that leans heavily on emotional response, often at the expense of full context, logic, and individual reasoning.
And once you start to see it that way, it changes how you hear everything that comes after.
(Shoutout to "Amy"- my MAA Minion in the trenches for sending me the goods)
Why Media Literacy Is Important
If you cannot recognize how information is being framed, you are not actually evaluating the issue itself. You are responding to the way it has been presented to you. Media literacy is not just about identifying false information. It is about understanding how true information can be structured, filtered, and delivered in ways that shape perception before critical thinking even begins.
Because before people accept a policy, they accept the way it is framed.
Before they support an idea, they internalize how it is presented.
Before they reject your position, they are often taught how to feel about it.
Understand?
That is why documents like the ones we've come across matter more than most people realize.
After reviewing both the 2024 and 2025 versions of Everytown for Gun Safety’s “Words We Use” guide, what becomes clear is that this is not simply a collection of preferred terms or stylistic choices. It is a structured system for shaping perception, guiding emotional response, and standardizing how an entire movement communicates at scale.
Words We Use
The 2024 version presents itself as a resource for developing common language that is accurate, inclusive, and effective. The 2025 version expands on that foundation, emphasizing language that is thoughtful, resonant, trauma-informed, and designed to foster a sense of belonging while centering personal agency.
That shift is not cosmetic. It reflects a deeper refinement of the same underlying strategy, one that aligns with well-established principles in cognitive and social psychology.
At its core, this is not simply messaging. It is a system of psychological reframing.
Decades of research have shown that people do not respond to information in a vacuum. They respond to how that information is presented. The work of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated that identical sets of facts can produce entirely different reactions depending on the language used to describe them. That principle is applied consistently throughout this framework.
Everytown/Moms & Students Demand Activists are instructed to avoid the term “gun control” and instead use “gun safety” or “public safety.”
They are told to avoid “confiscation” and instead refer to “temporary removal” or “temporarily preventing access.”
They are directed to describe “Stand Your Ground” laws as “Shoot First laws,” and to replace “constitutional carry” with “permitless carry.”
The policies themselves have not changed, but the way those policies are experienced by the listener has. Once interpretation is shaped, the conversation that follows is no longer neutral. It has already been guided. Once you start paying attention to this, you will notice that different groups often use entirely different language to describe the same policy. Some of that language is a complete shock to many who hear it for the first time, because you're used to a different way of hearing it.
If you know my story, this is how I got started in the 2A World back in 2016, when catching a political commercial during the Presidential Election Season on "Gun Sense Laws." Long story short, I was confused by it because I grew up around firearms, and my parents worked in law enforcement and healthcare/safety. The messaging from that commercial didn't hit right and I've been debunking it ever since. It should be mentioned as you read further, I used to work in advertising and have a little educational background in psychology. Different groups using entirely different language: That alone is a signal that you are not just hearing information. You are hearing interpretation.
This effect is reinforced through emotional priming. Research in social psychology has shown that repeated exposure to certain words and themes influences how people think and respond, often without conscious awareness. When language consistently centers safety, children, trauma, survivors, and public health, it establishes an emotional foundation that most people instinctively agree with. A conversation that begins with the idea that “we all want to keep our communities safe” creates alignment before any disagreement can take place.
See the screenshot below on the definition of Emotional Priming. Notice where this technique is used in Advertising/Marketing?
Do you remember who has a very successful background in Marketing & Public Relations?
If you need a reminder, here's the link to Copy Cats, where I breakdown how folks like Shannon Watts got ahead in the movement.
Over time, this does more than guide individual conversations. It conditions people to respond to certain emotional cues in predictable ways. It does not feel like influence. It feels like agreement. When you start noticing how often conversations begin with statements that are almost impossible to disagree with, it becomes easier to see how that agreement is being used to shape what comes next.
Side Note: If you're like me and asked yourself, "Are mass shooters affected by this kind of thing?" YES! Yes they are!
As far as Gun Control Proponents and their organizational methodology, this is where moral framing strengthens the effect. Research has consistently shown that people tend to make moral judgments first and then use reasoning to justify those judgments afterward. When an issue, such as "ending gun violence," is repeatedly framed in terms of protecting vulnerable populations and preventing harm, it establishes a moral baseline that influences how every related argument is perceived. NOT OBJECTIVELY... but SUBJECTIVELY.
Within that framework, disagreement is no longer just a difference of opinion. It risks being interpreted as a lack of concern for the people the language is centered around. ("If you're Pro-2A and support the NRA, you have blood on your hands!" Remember that era?) That shift changes the nature of the conversation entirely. It moves the discussion away from evaluating whether a policy is effective and toward evaluating whether someone appears reasonable, compassionate, or acceptable for even questioning it.
Repetition reinforces all of this. When people hear the same phrases repeatedly, those phrases begin to feel familiar. Familiarity leads to acceptance, and acceptance often leads to belief. Terms like “common sense gun laws,” “gun safety,” and “public health crisis” begin to feel self-evident, not because they have been fully examined, but because they have been consistently reinforced across multiple sources.
Feel free to go through the collage of snapshots below. I'm sure you'll find many that you've had questions about before. My favorite is how they frame "Gun Safety" as not "Gun Control," because using "Gun Control" stops conversations. They do NOT, however, say their purpose is not "Gun Control." That right there is probably the biggest expose in this who article.
Once you start noticing repeated phrases across media, advocacy, and everyday conversation, it becomes easier to recognize how repetition contributes to perceived consensus. The more something is heard, the more natural it feels, and the less likely it is to be questioned.
All of this leads to something more significant than messaging alone.
It becomes psychological conditioning.
Psychological conditioning does not require force, deception, or even false information. It operates through repetition, association, and reinforcement.
Language is introduced, repeated, and reinforced until it becomes familiar.
Familiarity becomes acceptance, and acceptance becomes belief.
Eventually, the framing itself becomes difficult to question, not because it has been fully tested, but because it has been consistently experienced.
At that point, people are no longer evaluating ideas from a neutral starting point. They are responding to associations that have already been built for them. And because this process happens gradually, it does not feel like influence. It feels like understanding.
It is important to be precise here. My team and I try our best to be as unbiased as possible in our efforts, despite our snark... but this method does not require false information, and it isn't about denying reality, either. It is about shaping how reality is interpreted before people have the opportunity to evaluate it fully. That distinction matters, because it keeps the focus on how influence works, not on exaggeration.
One of the most important aspects of this framework is that it does not depend on outright falsehood. It depends on selectivity.
Much of what is presented is grounded in real data, real events, and real experiences, BUT it is consistently presented through a narrowed lens that prioritizes certain aspects while minimizing or excluding others. (Are you a victim of a Watt's Block?) This creates something far more subtle than misinformation.
It creates partial truth presented as complete understanding.
When the focus remains on trauma, public health, and vulnerable populations without equal consideration of lawful use, defensive use, cultural context, or legal complexity, the audience is guided toward a particular interpretation of the issue. Not because they were lied to, but because they were not shown the full picture. This aligns with what communication research describes as omission bias, where what is left out can be just as influential as what is included.
Once you begin asking what is missing instead of only reacting to what is present, the structure of the message becomes much clearer. THIS is media literacy.
OPTICS
Another layer that often goes unnoticed is how much of this framework is built around controlling optics. Not just what is said, but how it appears, how it feels, and how it is received before it is ever critically evaluated. Optics determine whether something sounds reasonable, compassionate, or extreme at first glance... and that initial perception influences whether it is examined further. Hence today's "Social Media Influencer Movement."
Language that sounds protective is prioritized over language that sounds restrictive.
Terms that create resistance are replaced with ones that feel neutral or positive.
Shared values are used to establish agreement before disagreement can take place.
Over time, this shapes how ideas are perceived on the surface, which directly influences whether they are questioned beneath it.
When something feels reasonable, people are less likely to challenge it.
When something feels extreme, people are less likely to engage with it at all.
Paying attention to your immediate reaction to a phrase can often tell you more about how it was constructed than what it actually means.
When this kind of conditioning is effective, people do not feel influenced. They feel certain. They believe they have arrived at their own conclusions through independent thought, when in reality those conclusions have been shaped by repeated exposure to specific language, emotional framing, and selective context.
Over time, this changes what feels reasonable, what feels extreme, and what people are willing to question. If something that once seemed worth examining now feels obvious or unquestionable, it is worth asking what contributed to that shift.
Years ago, I wrote about the term “crime guns.”
At the time, I could not fully articulate why it stood out to me. I mean... I went into it, but I knew something about it did not sit right. It was not because it was false, but because of what it implied. It shifted focus away from behavior and context and placed it onto the object itself, assigning meaning before a conversation could even begin.
Looking back now, that was not an isolated phrase. It was part of a broader pattern. What once appeared as individual wording choices is now clearly part of a structured system designed to guide interpretation in advance.
That system is reinforced through consistency.
Activists are not only given preferred terminology, they are guided on how to describe themselves, how to communicate their roles, and how to maintain clarity and alignment across different environments. The 2025 version of Everytown's/Moms Demand's "Words We Use" strengthens this even further by emphasizing consistency and accessibility in messaging. This is not just about sounding polished. It is about ensuring that the message remains stable no matter who is delivering it.
The strategy itself did not change from 2024 to 2025.
It matured.
The newer version expands beyond policy language into everyday communication, which signals a shift from influencing debate to influencing culture. When a framework begins shaping how people speak in everyday life, it is no longer just guiding arguments. It is shaping perception at a broader level.
Understanding this is only useful if we are willing to apply it.
Where the 2A Community Falls Short
There is something we need to be honest about within our own community.
We do not have a knowledge problem. We have the data, we have the case law, we understand the Constitution, and we can cite statistics, historical context, and real-world examples all day long. That has never been the issue.
The issue is how we communicate.
Within the Second Amendment community, we often spend more time reacting to language than understanding it. We argue against phrasing that has already shaped the conversation instead of recognizing how that framing influenced the conversation before we ever entered it. If one side is using structured messaging to guide perception, then unstructured responses will always fall short.
Too often, we rely on information alone and assume that if the facts are strong enough, they will speak for themselves. But facts do not speak for themselves. They are always received through language, tone, and framing, and right now, that is where we fall short. (I have been testing this a lot lately by being very direct with the 2A Community, as a 2A Proponent, and the evidence has proven the very point this article is making.)
This does not mean abandoning principle. It means becoming more intentional in how those principles are communicated. It means recognizing that how something is said influences whether it is even heard, and understanding that facts alone are not enough if they are delivered in a way that people are not prepared to receive.
It also means learning to step outside of someone else’s framing. Instead of arguing within the language that has already been provided, we should be asking better questions, identifying what is being emphasized, and recognizing what has been left out. That shift alone changes the dynamic of the conversation, and if you’ve made it this far in this article, you’ve already seen how that works.
There is also responsibility within our own community.
If we want to be taken seriously, our communication has to reflect that. Consistency, clarity, and discipline all matter, not as a way to control what people say, but as a way to ensure that what we are saying can actually be understood. That our presence is legitimate and precise, not reactionary.
That does not require losing authenticity.
It requires recognizing that communication itself is part of the strategy.
Because the reality is, if one side is consistently shaping how the conversation is understood while the other side is simply reacting to it, the outcome is predictable. WE lose. It is not because one side has better facts, but because one side is more disciplined in how those facts are communicated.
That is something we can fix.
If we understand how framing, priming, repetition, conditioning, and optics shape perception, then we can begin to communicate in a way that is not just reactive, but effective. And once you start noticing these patterns, they become difficult to ignore.
We talk a lot about situational awareness in the Second Amendment community, but situational awareness is not just physical. It is cultural, psychological, and informational. If we cannot recognize when perception itself is being shaped through language, then we are not as aware as we think we are.
Because this is not just about words. It is about what those words train people to believe and how.
And once that training takes hold, people do not feel influenced.
They feel certain.
Anywho... Be sMART... or is it, BEsMaRt... or BeSMART...?
Maybe we should just call it what it is, and that's a rip off of the NSSF's "Child Safe" Project.
As much as Everytown, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, and similar anti-2A groups position themselves as “proponents of gun safety,” they are ultimately advocating for gun control. They have taken language that has long been established within the Second Amendment community, terminology rooted in real firearms safety, and repurposed it within their own messaging while weaving in subtle political bias.
Here's the files you can download for yourself.
*Have you been following whats happening in Virginia right now? If so, consider joining the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and help us fight back!
Only $25 a year! www.vcdl.org
Comments