NRA...the good and not so good, lately

[Ben Towe]

Meanwhile, it was entirely OK for Obama to call the NRA hypocritical, while dancing in the blood of Sandy

Hook, and using kids as props for his gun control?

No. And us stooping to that isn't either. It's what separates us from them.

 

[Pond James Pond]

I didn't think much of the ad when it was aired on a news channel over here as part of a report on Obama's announced legislation.

It seemed to be targeting the same emotional chord (he thinks he's better than you) as the anti campaign might do with "assault rifles make people go crazy".

I don't recall any stats, I don't recall any supporting arguements for the 2A. It was just sensationalist and peddling the only solution I've really heard from the NRA which is "fortify schools".

I'd have hoped they would have more in their repertoire in the search for solutions to this plague of "solo-gunman" violence.

And, to top it all off, it had the type of tough-guy voice over that I'd expect for the latest Steve Austin movie trailer that, to my mind, cheapens the ad further. Again; sensationalism.

Next time:
More logic and case study material based on the actual status quo in the USA: pro-gun v anti-gun states for example, all delivered by actual members of the American public, (voice over or interview with actual gun owners from around america: men, women, different ethnicities and faiths) and no comic-book graphics.

 

[dayman]

I guess I also fall into the group that agreed with general idea of the message, but found the add to be a bit distasteful/counterproductive. I thought the NRA did a fantastic job in the aftermath of Sandy Hook by staying above it, and I thought the first press conference went very well, and hopefully they'll get back up onto the high road.

I will also remind everyone that the NRA is always being tagged as being compromising and not hardcore enough, well now they are pulling out all the stops

I do not know anyone - aside from a few extremely advocate gun owners - who thinks that the NRA is too compromising. And that's certainly not going to be the opinion of anyone who's on the fence about gun control.
60% of Americans don't own guns, and those are the people we need to be trying to get onto our side. A message that's going to appeal primarily to anti-Obama gun owners is kind of a waste of time.

 

[Famas]

For all the talk about the NRA ad being a bit uncomfortable...I just have to ask: what exactly does the NRA have to lose? Keep in mind that in the past 2 months, we've seen the NRA labeled as "KKK", "racist", "terrorists", and just last night a prominent journalist *cough-cough* likened the NRA and it's members to Nazis......for defending a constitutional right.

Just who is being distasteful here? IMO - the NRA needs to continue attacking. My only complaint is that other pro-RKBA groups seem to be keeping quiet. I'd like for them to also get a little limelight and say something. Anything which exposes the antis true agenda and their never ending hypocrisy is all good and fair game, and if it gets them riled and foaming at the mouth, then we're doing something right.

 

[Rifleman1952]

Coachteet:

It doesn't matter what you think. Notice, I didn't say "Obama's kids". The safety of the President's kids, wife, and himself are matters of national security. Whether you voted for him or not. And the safety of your kid is not. Period. End of discussion.

The problem and the point of the ad is that politicians have been forcing us to live under laws, they themselves do not. The rich leftist elites are mostly anti-gun (for average folks), but have armed bodyguards to keep themselves safe. In all probability, these bodyguards, protecting the leftist elites, carry semi-auto pistols with high capacity magazines. This is a classic case of unbridled hypocrisy and applies whether you are speaking of President Obama or Rosie O'Donnell. To screech about "national security", misses the point by light years.

 

[Skans]

"Rising to the occasion" gets us nowhere. This is now a down and dirty fight - time for the gloves to come off....no-holds-barred is my preference. I would like to see the NRA actually go on the attack for a change, and not sit back and dodge punches from the gun-banners.

 

[tyme]

I just heard the NRA ad a few minutes ago on NPR and I have to say that the NRA should be ashamed on behalf of all the members who joined recently, who deserved a better start out of the gate.

The ad was criticizing Obama for being hypocritical because his children are guarded at school, while he's opposed to armed guards for schools generally.

Here's why the NRA's ad is stupid.

First, the USSS is in an entirely different class of guards from the kind of guards that could be hired and placed in schools generally.

Second, the President's family has USSS protection for reasons completely different than armed guards at schools being contemplated by the NRA. The USSS has contingencies, much better logistics and manpower, and they only need to protect one or a few people... it's an entirely different dynamic.

Third, a uniformed armed guard wouldn't accomplish anything. Another school rampage shooter would simply shoot the guard first. Concealed carry by a large, or unknown, number of teachers or staff, is the only way to provide a reasonable chance at stopping another school rampage shooting.

Of course, I'm pro-gun and I think Obama's gun control proposals are stupid and ineffectual and unconstitutional, but the NRA was so far off on this advertisement that they hit the target carrier.

 

[Rifleman1952]

Of course, I'm pro-gun and I think Obama's gun control proposals are stupid and ineffectual and unconstitutional, but the NRA was so far off on this advertisement that they hit the target carrier.

How is your position on the NRA ad any different than that of Piers Morgan?

The point of the NRA ad was not that all children deserve the same protection as the president. The point was the hypocrisy of those who push gun control for others while never having to be worried about their own security. All too often those who scream the loudest to ban evil "assault rifles" have either tax payer funded or private security. Obama is the leader of the gun grabber movement at present and has used children as props in his push. We are in a vicious political struggle at present. If you own a firearm and are an NRA member, you have been likened to a Nazi or KKK member by CBS & CNN news. Don't fall for the media spin on this.

 

[bsstan]

The bad thing is that we, gun owners and conservatives, are held to a higher standard than the "liberal media". They can do gut wrenching promo's and "news stories", and be praised. We can tell the truth, in a not so touchy feel y way, we will get abused. I think we should take the gloves off, occasionally. We will never be loved by the liberal city dwellers. They live in Ivory towers, in a false security.

 

[Chaz88]

The bad thing is that we, gun owners and conservatives, are held to a higher standard than the "liberal media".

I think that it is an ongoing mistake to equate gun owners with conservatives. Often the most vocal people tend to be at extreme ends of the spectrum. But this battle, like most others, will be won or lost with those that reside in the middle. Often those people are looking for a direction to jump and base it on what camp they find more alienating to them. I am one of the people in the middle and agree with most of what the NRA has to say. But they do not need to sway my opinion. They need to talk to the people in the middle, that have not formed a solid opinion, and convince them.

 

[tyme]

The point of the NRA ad was not that all children deserve the same protection as the president. The point was the hypocrisy of those who push gun control for others while never having to be worried about their own security.

I think almost everyone with USSS protection would dispute your second point, that they don't worry about their own security. They get protection because their high profile renders them vulnerable to a different category of attacks, to which they are still not immune. It's only incidental that that security protects against most garden-variety criminal attacks.

I think one of the better arguments against panicked, emotional public policy reactions to school shootings is how rare the shootings are. By suggesting that school shootings are a reason for the average child or parent to be worried about school security, aren't you playing into the hand of the hyperemotional anti-gunners?

@bsstan, that's exactly the point the NPR commentators were making. This ad solidifies the NRA's base, and does nothing to win over people in the middle.

I agree that the liberal press doesn't get much criticism when they run emotion-laden, biased, stupid stories against guns in favor of gun bans, while the pro-gun groups get hammered if they're a fraction off-pitch. It's not fair, but it's reality.

I'm confused about what the NRA is trying to do. Obama just got re-elected, and we aren't even past the inauguration. What does the NRA think making people dislike Obama is going to do? Congress is 2 more years from their next election, and everyone will have forgotten this by then. Will this ad somehow convince fence-sitting Senators or Congresspeople to vote against Obama's proposals, which have nothing directly to do with school security?

Mentioning armed guards in schools, in passing, in an advertisement, and leaving listeners to imagine what that might entail, is bad, bad, bad. I think they needed to lay the groundwork, publish proposals, get people on the news talking about it so everyone forms a consensus about what kinds of school security might work and what won't, before using that issue as a lever in an attack ad like this.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Was the goal to drive revenue generation from the choir or to win public opinion?

I bet it received was cause for a lot of revenue generation.

 

[Rifleman1952]

The reason the anti-gunners may win this time is because gun owners are divided. Gun control in England did not happen overnight. It happened over a series of decades; by going after one segment of the firearms community at a time and by pitting one group of gun owners against another. Eventually the gun grabbers in England got most of them.

When we attack the NRA, we are cannibalizing our own. We see some of our own shooters saying we don't really need AR15s and high cap mags. But if we lose that fight, it will merely embolden them to go after the "holy grail" of firearms control...handguns. They won't stop. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only type of handgun legal to own in England is a muzzle loader. That may be our future if we lose this fight. God Bless the NRA.

 

[tyme]

I'm not attacking any pro-gun policy supported by the NRA (and that's what distinguishes me from Piers Morgan, btw). I'm attacking their advertisement, which was silent on the issues of gun bans, EBRs and >10 round magazines.

The ad probably generated some money, but at what cost to public opinion and long term goals?

 

[overthere]

I agree with the posts questioning the messaging of the ad.

Like it or not, issues such as gun control are largely driven by the 'court of public opinion'. How Joe-sixpack who does not own guns perceives 'gun owners' as a collective matters because Joe-sixpack votes and has an opinion.

To all that think the advertisement is great, ask yourself, did it help or hurt gun owners in the court of public opinion?

Messaging matters.

What the NRA should be doing is to create a message that resonates more broadly. I am sure the ad did great with 'the base' as it were but to what end? Why preach to the choir at the expense of improving the 'public perception' of gun owners and gun ownership?

Why not focus more on prominent, sensible individuals of all stripes and backgrounds explaining, rationally and without going off the hilt, why gun ownership and guns are not the problem? Why focus on creating a message for people whose opinions do not need to be swayed?

 

[Rifleman1952]

Why not focus more on prominent, sensible individuals of all stripes and backgrounds explaining, rationally and without going off the hilt, why gun ownership and guns are not the problem?

Because it's difficult to accomplish that in a 30 to 60 second ad. The talking heads at MSNBC droned on for several days about how ugly and mean spirited was the NRA ad. I take that as a sign the ad worked, because MSNBC had to work so hard to discredit it. Just as some here on thefiringline are doing. I loved the NRA ad, because it is important to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement; and that the NRA understands, we are in a dog fight.

 

[coachteet]

Because it's difficult to accomplish that in a 30 to 60 second ad. The talking heads at MSNBC droned on for several days about how ugly and mean spirited was the NRA ad. I take that as a sign the ad worked, because MSNBC had to work so hard to discredit it. Just as some here on thefiringline are doing. I loved the NRA ad, because it is important to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement; and that the NRA understands, we are in a dog fight.

First off, no one who has posted so far are trying "discredit" the video, or the NRA. The NRA is not the end all, be all of gun ownership, and blindly cheering for them no matter what they do is what sheep do, not reasoning adults.

The NRA could have made any video, with any message they wanted, that supported the RKBA. They chose to make a clumsy election-style attack ad, using one of the weakest arguments they possibly could have made. And they released it BEFORE the President announced his EO's, and before he announced his recommendations for new legislation. They were made into fools, because one of the President's EO's involves providing "incentives" for hiring resource officers (armed LEO's), which is what the NRA claimed Obama didn't approve of. He probably tacked that one on just to accomplish this tactical victory.

 

[Rifleman1952]

Obama expects news outlets like MSNBC to carry water for him in his fight to curtail second Amendment rights. But he was probably quite surprised to see supposedly pro-gun folks doing his work for him in forums like this one. When fighting for your rights, you don't turn your back on those who are fighting with and for you. The only thing I can figure, is those who are criticizing the NRA still don't fully understand, how bad this could possibly get.

 

[SPEMack618]

it irks me when people say that the President's daughters are more important because they represent a security threat if harm were to come to them.

I guess those people who want to infringe upon my 2nd Amendment rights aren't familiar with the 25th Amendment either. Not suprising, really.

 

[chucknbach]

I know a few people who exploit children.