USA Today Full Page Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
NO. NRA or GOA or any other org would either not touch it or want to take it over. I've worked with most of them on other projects, trust me. AFTER we have about 500 people signed on, I would go directly to Wayne LaPierre, Charlton Heston, et al, and ask them for their $50.

as for the finances, I never meant for the paper to run the ad first, merely to lay the ground work. IOW, I would talk to them about the project without divulging the exact contents of the ad. They would be told that they are going to get approxiamtely 1000 seperate checks made payable to them for the ad, if they were cool with that, then that's all they would need to know and we would be off to the races.

If, after a significant amount of time, we only had half the money, we only run half the ad. WE would ned to have clearly deliniated objectives. ie- Less than half a page is not an option. At a certain date, we would just turn over the checks and run the biggest ad that we could afford (at least half a page, though).

How does that sound?
 
I like it, but I'm not what you'd call experienced in this arena. I'll spread the word hereabouts, and ask for feedback.
 
Rob,
Even if you keep the contents of the Ad from the newspaper I highly doubt that they will do the accounting and process 1250 individuals' checks; why should they. That would simply lower their profit on that Ad. I think a seperate account for this project is the way to go. I'll make some inquiries.
 
I'm in for fifty. Let's get creative. First, let's decide how to handle the cash. Surely there's a progun, reputable CPA firm that will handle the cash. Who knows of some? After that is set up...sure, Rob, post it to rec.guns and I'll post it to guns save lives, maybe DC and Oleg will put it on their websites and you other folks can put it on your sites. With the invitation for other fellow travelers to put the information up on their sites.

I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of a thousand separate checks to the paper and I am sure USA Today would be also :) July 4th sounds like a good target date to me. Let's consider carefully approaching any of the well known NRA people such as LaPierre and Heston. Might the average person reading the ad react in this manner:"Ho-hum, just another tactic by the NRA..."? Celebrities that support the 2nd Amendment are another matter. So are any sheriffs, police chiefs, LEO's, and federal agents that would be willing to put their titles with their signatures. If that's possible in today's political climate.
 
I'd think twice about readership on July 4th. I suspect USA Today's greatest circulation channels are at office kiosks, airports and hotels. None of the above sees high traffic on the 4th.
Rich
 
As was pointed out, let's get the financial situation settled BEFORE taking this anywhere outside of TFL.

I am in favor of a grass roots thing, no titles, first come first serve on the name placement. Charlton Heston can be right in between Joe Schmoe and Bubba Smith.
 
I can virtually guarantee that the Law Enforcement Alliance Of America and all of their leadership will put their names on it, for a start.

I am really hoping that someone Emails me soon about how they are a CPA and would love to set up the financial side of this project.. ;)

I emailed Coineaches contact at USA Today to explain the project more fully, I expect to hear back form her tomorrow.
 
I'm there.

Even though I'm a life member of the NRA I would like the ad to emphasize that it was NOT financed by or connected with the NRA or GOA or any other organization. It is from the general, law abiding, tax paying, hard working, family loving public.

- Ron V.

------------------
 
I like the idea and I will go for $50 because it is an opportunity to sound off.My only reservation is that I have no idea of what if anything it could accomplish.


------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Perhaps, if the people pushing pro-tyrrany legislation realize that there is a reaction brewing...that there is a line drawn. Maybe, if they realize that 1300 people have signed this proclamation and ask themselves,"How many others are out there who feel the same and will act the same?" This ad could help them realize that they and we are on a collision course. Perhaps it will them recognize the abyss that approaches and draw back.
 
How about contacting Joseph Farah of World Net Daily?

www.worldnetdaily.com

He is pro gun and has one of the highest rated news sites on the web. I don't mean to contact him for a donation but for a bit of publicity.

I.m in for the $50.00 and having my name in the ad, Make it big ala John Hancock.

------------------
Ne Conjuge Nobiscum
 
I'm in for $50 as well, with reservations as noted below.

The newspaper won't go for separate checks. This will be enough of a hot potato, and they'll be looking for an excuse to pass on the deal. I'm a CPA (but not in public practice), and if you can't find anyone else, I can find an associate's firm to handle the task. It is a straightforward deal.

I will tell you that when I read that paragraph (especially the one with the re-written words, such as 'calss' ;) Just joshing with ya, Rob.), it says exactly what I feel emotionally. However ... if you're Joe Ignorant-About-Guns Citizen, what do you get out of that statement? [I expect to be chastised for the following consideration, so blast away.]

It says exactly what I want to say. I'm sitting here thinking about it, and I'm honestly not sure it says what I should say. I'm not trying to be politically correct - I'm trying to strategize. I want to help restore and defend the RKBA. Does this get us closer, or further away? Does it just feel good, or does it really accomplish the goal?



[This message has been edited by Jeff Thomas (edited March 03, 1999).]
 
I'm In!
Lets keep NRA, GOA and other big organizations out of it and stress the fact that this is a grassroots thing among idividual gun owners. I think it would carry more weight that way.
 
It is exactly what I want it to be, from Me...

the only line I would consider changing for gun owners of america is the last one.

I'd accept some input on whether or not the "Hell" needs to be in there. What do you guys think on that one?

Meanwhile, Jeff, start looking for a gun friendly CPA and let me know how much it will cost to finance the project (not the paper's fee, the CPA's...)

Thanks.
 
Rob,

Personally, I think the "hell" adds the proper emphasis to the foregoing statements.
It is appropriate in my opinion. I think people should realize we are getting somewhat exasperated with all the legislative attacks.
 
Rob, I'll weigh in on the opposite side of the usage of "hell". I think the message is incredibly powerful and unequivocal without the word. Now, I'm all in favor of cussing, but we are seeking to establish ourselves:

1) with the people of America, and
2) with the Fed.

The people who read USA Today are just plain folk; some are Very Conservative Christians. Such people might be turned off by the word. In my opinion, the message itself is clear, forceful and resonant, and that removing "hell" adds to its stark truth.

Another concern: If a full-page ad is taken out, initial media response will almost certainly label it a plot by special interest groups. I'm not sure how to counter this. One idea is to avoid any contributions from the NRA or prominent members of the NRA. If this becomes big, we may be called upon to give an account of the ad's genesis; if NRA board members are found to be associated in any way, it might look as though we were puppets. Also, painfully, it seems as though contributions from large gun manufacturers should be avoided. In the current climate of animosity toward these guys, an ad supported by them would be seen as just another tactic.

What's important right now, though, is money. To that end, I'm good for at least $50.
 
Hey, I'm a new user, referenced to this board by Mort. I don't know a whole lot about guns, but I felt the need to reply in this particular thread. I consider myself to be a relatively intelligent person, but when I read the text that you all wanted to place in the ad (which I completely agree with), I found it a bit confusing. Part of the confusion comes from my lack of knowledge on guns and all the issues and such that surround them. But from an entirely fresh perspective, the text makes little sense until you read it a couple times. To tell the truth, my initial impression of the text was that you were trying to ban guns (no kidding), until I read on and realized that the point was diametrically opposite. And besides for $68,000 it should convey the point the first time. And remember that the rest of the paper is written for 4th graders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top