NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign


PDA






wojownik
August 20, 2014, 12:29 PM
Pretty blunt and direct message, about Bloomberg and his agenda

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/19/nra-ad-campaign-targets-michael-bloomberg/14296467/

The NRA ads are supposed to start running today. Has anyone seen one yet in their area?

NRA put $500,000 into the ad campaign - not sure how wide play they can get nationally with that budget. (TV ads running locally run about $1000 per 30 second spot, a national ad during prime time can run north of $450k).

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wally
August 20, 2014, 12:38 PM
I'm not sure this is wise, Bloomberg is a media company and this is playing to his strengths, on his turf.

Hope I'm wrong here and its not a waste of resources.

I think targeted local ads would be more effective and not so straight up on Bloomberg's turf.

hso
August 20, 2014, 03:02 PM
I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.

TRX
August 20, 2014, 03:41 PM
Since that's the same amount they spent to buy themselves a NASCSR sponsorship, I assume they only intend a minimal level of commitment.

Theohazard
August 20, 2014, 03:41 PM
Hso, I agree 100%. I can't understand why anyone would want to alienate a huge group of potential allies by mis-using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". Sure, a liberal is more likely to be anti-gun than a non-liberal, but that doesn't mean they all are. I have plenty of liberal friends who are either pro-2A or at least not anti, and intentionally alienating them is a terrible idea (besides showing a complete lack of political nuance).

wojownik
August 20, 2014, 04:13 PM
Agree with HSO as well - there are other word choices out there for those who seek to restrict rights (whether 1A, 2A or 4A).

This seems to be a targeted ad, using a couple of standard themes - conservative vs. liberal, rural vs. big city, middle America vs. "New York".

That might explain the modest ad budget - to play the ad in specific geographic areas (probably in the West and south) - not national, and not big-market advertizing.

stonecutter2
August 20, 2014, 04:46 PM
I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.
Agreed. I think that part of the ad is insulting. The rest, I like.

Supporting 2A doesn't mean it rules your entire political outlook...I wish more organizations, like the NRA, understood that and really took it to heart.

cologuy
August 20, 2014, 04:47 PM
The article mentioned that the ads will run in several states that are considered important for Senate races, including Colorado, not nationally or regionally. They might get a decent amount of air time by concentrating in just a few spots, and I have the feeling that here in CO they'll get a positive response - the laws passed last year and the resulting recalls really caught people's attention, which I think is the first, important step in educating them. I've got my fingers crossed, anyway.

berettaprofessor
August 20, 2014, 07:37 PM
Except for the "liberal" reference, I love it. But I'm not sure what I would have used in place of it. "NorthEast Elitists"?

NRA put $500,000 into the ad campaign - not sure how wide play they can get nationally with that budget. (

The NRA will spend about $500,000 on the first round of ads, and officials plan to expand the campaign in coming weeks.

jerkface11
August 20, 2014, 07:51 PM
Liberals vote for anti gun candidates so they have a point.

Walkalong
August 20, 2014, 07:54 PM
One of the important things I have learned over my years here at THR is that you cannot paint all members of any one group with the same brush. Not all liberal voters are anti gun. In fact, many are not. We really do need to use anti in place of Liberal or Democrat, despite the averages on how they vote. We need to stand with all pro gun voters and against all anti politicians.

That said, I am sure the NRA picked their words carefully and think it will be effective.

There are some very staunchly pro gun Liberals here who must want to pull their hair out sometimes over some of the broad strokes we make here. I have been guilty in the past, but try to be more fair and inclusive these days.

It is us against the antis. Plain and simple. And "us" includes all kinds of folks. :)

Carl N. Brown
August 20, 2014, 08:03 PM
The antigun people have identified gun control as "the litmus test of liberalism", and they clearly identify gun control with the Democrat National Party, regarding local democrats against gun control as red state rednecks and not true national democrats.

Try discussing gun control in Washington Post comments without the anti-gun people knee-jerk calling you conservative, right-wing, Republican and racist to boot, finding clever ways of working KKK into the comments too.

Back in the 1980s, the curmudgeon on the staff of the local Mensa newsletter labeled me (on other issues) a "bleeding heart liberal" and I had to point out that I could never be a liberal because I didn't believe in gun control. One of my reference books for gun control debate is Don B. Kates "Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out" 1979. So there are a lot of liberals skeptical of gun control. Plus there are a lot of Dixiecrat conservatives who support gun control too.

I have not seen the ads. While the USA Today coverage quotes extensively from the ad, I used "Find:" to search for "liberal" which found no match in the USA Today article, Fredreka Schouten, "Exclusive: NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign", USA Today, 19 Aug 2014.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 20, 2014, 08:07 PM
Waste of money. Bloomberg is his own anti-Bloomberg advertising and will spend his own money to make the point far more effectively than the NRA can.

Speedo66
August 20, 2014, 08:09 PM
Using terms like "liberal" and "NY" in a negative connotation begins an "us against them" theme, which I find deplorable.

Certainly not all liberals are anti gun, and certainly not all of NY is NYC. Even if it was, there are plenty of gun owners in NYC, and probably many of them are liberals.

Making blanket suppositions and stereotyping is just wrong. In this day and age, do they really believe no one outside their target area will see these ads? Are they trying to appeal to a certain audience by trashing other parts of the country? Wrong, wrong, wrong!

george burns
August 20, 2014, 08:38 PM
Let him waste his money. This will do nothing but make people want more guns. He is such an ass that he doesn't realize this. Insulting 90% of the population was never a great political move. The guy is just an idiot. An idiot with a lot of money, but still and idiot never the less.

Carl N. Brown
August 20, 2014, 09:07 PM
Found someone quoting the ad's use of the "L" word.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-nra-ad-campaign-targets-michael-bloombergs-gun-advocacy/
Jake Miller, "New NRA ad campaign targets Michael Bloomberg". CBS News, 20 Aug 2014.
NRA Ad is quoted: "Liberals call this flyover country. It's an insult, but nobody insults your life like this guy: Michael Bloomberg - billionaire, elitist, hypocrite. Bloomberg tries to ban your snack foods, your soda, and most of all, your guns."

CBS says also: "Last month, though, Bloomberg dismissed the recall elections in Colorado, saying the communities that voted were "as far rural as you can get. I don't think there's roads" there, he said. Opponents deemed the remarks condescending, a characterization echoed by the NRA's ad."

Carl N. Brown
August 20, 2014, 09:08 PM
And Post#13 is probably right. :)

CLP
August 20, 2014, 09:09 PM
I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.
Very true. Inclusive vs. exclusive. The more numbers you have, the more votes.

X-Rap
August 20, 2014, 09:34 PM
I'd like to see honest numbers of so called 2a friendly liberals who vote for 2a candidates and causes regardless of party or union affiliation.
I don't believe that they could be counted on in a crunch so bowing to their sensitivities in hopes for their support is doubtful.
Bloomberg personifies the liberal/progressive attitude toward Middle America and his quote about roads in CO prove it to me.

Theohazard
August 20, 2014, 09:51 PM
I'd like to see honest numbers of so called 2a friendly liberals who vote for 2a candidates and causes regardless of party or union affiliation.
I don't believe that they could be counted on in a crunch so bowing to their sensitivities in hopes for their support is doubtful.
Even if that were true, so what? What advantage is there in using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". There's not a single one: It only alienates potential allies and also demonstrates that you don't understand the complexities of politics, especially on the state and local levels. And when trying to convince someone to see your side of the argument, it's not a smart strategy to start off the conversation by alienating them and showing your political ignorance at the same time.

X-Rap
August 20, 2014, 10:34 PM
As one of the unsophisticated "ignorant" residents of "road-less fly over country" I've learned that someone espousing the liberal agenda while saying he/she supports my 2a rights is most certainly full of crap or disingenuous at best.
We do have some liberal gun owners and they for the most part fall under what's good for me and my security team isn't whats good for you commoners and hold a much more European view of gun ownership.
I would have been much more offended if the NRA would have colored the Libertarians with that broad brush.
For the targeted audience I think they are on the mark.

Theohazard
August 20, 2014, 11:01 PM
As one of the unsophisticated "ignorant" residents of "road-less fly over country" I've learned that someone espousing the liberal agenda while saying he/she supports my 2a rights is most certainly full of crap or disingenuous at best.
Read what I wrote in post #20 again, because it applies to this also.

Cazadores
August 20, 2014, 11:09 PM
I can't agree with delineating firearm rights along partisan lines. Liberal and conservative, particularly to younger voters is meaningless and often offensive.

I am a Life Member of the NRA and gun rights drive my voting decisions, unfortunately those people around me, urban, educated, pro gun rights voters are more difficult to influence when our side paints ourselves as alligned with seemingly inconsistent values. All supporters of gun rights, gay, straight, urban or rural, pro choice, pro life, wealthy or on public assistance, atheist or devout, should be able to find a home in the NRA. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, and if we insist on making it one we will lose.

X-Rap
August 20, 2014, 11:18 PM
What happens when the tent gets to big and tries to be everything for every body is that the whole movement gets diluted to the point that it means nothing.
We also live with different demographics which are not one size fits all. I believe I know what they are in my neck of the woods and the lines are pretty clear. Those who ride the fence from either side can't be counted on.

lxd55
August 20, 2014, 11:20 PM
Hso, I agree 100%. I can't understand why anyone would want to alienate a huge group of potential allies by mis-using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". Sure, a liberal is more likely to be anti-gun than a non-liberal, but that doesn't mean they all are. I have plenty of liberal friends who are either pro-2A or at least not anti, and intentionally alienating them is a terrible idea (besides showing a complete lack of political nuance).
well another political thread.
these people know who they are
saying liberal will not sway them.
pass the hoppes#9 please.

bigfinger76
August 21, 2014, 02:32 AM
I can't agree with delineating firearm rights along partisan lines. Liberal and conservative, particularly to younger voters is meaningless and often offensive.

I am a Life Member of the NRA and gun rights drive my voting decisions, unfortunately those people around me, urban, educated, pro gun rights voters are more difficult to influence when our side paints ourselves as alligned with seemingly inconsistent values. All supporters of gun rights, gay, straight, urban or rural, pro choice, pro life, wealthy or on public assistance, atheist or devout, should be able to find a home in the NRA. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, and if we insist on making it one we will lose.

This is, hands down, the best 1st post I've ever seen on a forum. And this guy waited almost 2 years between joining and posting. Hats off, my friend.

And he is right, folks. Dividing our group will invariably result in defeat.

Theohazard
August 21, 2014, 03:58 AM
I agree with bigfinger76; Cazadores hit the nail on the head. If we want to continue to broaden the appeal of the 2nd Amendment and bring more people to our side, we have to stop portraying anti-gunners in partisan terms, because that's simply a dumb strategy if you actually want to win people to our side.

It saddens me that liberals often have to make their own gun forums because too many pro-gun people alienate them by using ignorant and short-sighted political rhetoric when discussing the 2nd Amendment. As far as I'm concerned, if you're against gun control and you support the 2nd Amendment, then I'm on your side. And for anyone who says there aren't any real pro-2nd Amendment liberals out there, then you need to get out more and stop listening to all the divisive political garbage you read on the Internet.

DeepSouth
August 21, 2014, 04:28 AM
The unfortunate truth is that if you look at the voting records of the over welming majority of current national level politicians this is infact a democrat vs republican issue, like basically every issue is now days.

EDIT:
From the 2012 Democratic platform, when they removed the phrase "what works in Chicago"
We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements – like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole

Does this mean ALL democrats or liberals or progressives are anti 2A? Of corse not! It dose to mean to link the two together to some extent is perfectly rational, especially in a 2A or political ad......... After all they do it.

Theohazard
August 21, 2014, 04:57 AM
The unfortunate truth is that if you look at the voting records of the over welming majority of current national level politicians this is infact a democrat vs republican issue, like basically every issue is now days.
Exactly. And if we want it to continue this way, we'll keep trying the ridiculous strategy of framing this debate in partisan terms. But if we want the 2nd Amendment to be a broader issue that's embraced by both major parties -- with gun control politicians pushed to the outer fringes -- then we'll start welcoming all supporters of gun rights, no matter their political persuasion.

Theohazard
August 21, 2014, 05:04 AM
After all they do it.
So because they do something stupid means we should too? I personally know a bunch of liberal-leaning people who were completely alienated by the Democratic push for gun control in 2013. These people were sick of being called "right-wing extremists" for being against gun control. So are you saying we should do the same thing and push away potential allies because we don't agree with them on unrelated political issues?

DeepSouth
August 21, 2014, 05:30 AM
I'm simply saying if you don't want to equated with a particular point of view you shouldn't be assoating with groups that push that point of view, and if you do then you should be ready to take the criticism.

Just for the heak of it. I'll go on the defensive.
So because they do something stupid means we should too?
Nope, but it is logical to point out the facts that many want to ignore.

So are you saying we should do the same thing and push away potential allies because we don't agree with them on unrelated political issues?
Nope, didn't say that just said they shouldn't be suprised by the criticism

start welcoming all supporters of gun rights, no matter their political persuasion
I already do, as likely everyone here. But the party as a whole, according to them, wants to restrict our rights so it would be foolish to embrace them.... The party, not the people.


Now I'll bow out to hopefully keep this thread going. You can have the last word.
My apologies to the OP for going off topic.

ljnowell
August 21, 2014, 07:24 AM
Hso, I agree 100%. I can't understand why anyone would want to alienate a huge group of potential allies by mis-using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". Sure, a liberal is more likely to be anti-gun than a non-liberal, but that doesn't mean they all are. I have plenty of liberal friends who are either pro-2A or at least not anti, and intentionally alienating them is a terrible idea (besides showing a complete lack of political nuance).


The problem is that all of those "pro 2a" liberals go every election and vote for anti- gun politicians. They may say or think they are pro2a but they aren't when they vote against it every chance they get.

bainter1212
August 21, 2014, 09:59 AM
The problem is that all of those "pro 2a" liberals go every election and vote for anti- gun politicians. They may say or think they are pro2a but they aren't when they vote against it every chance they get.
And you will never convince those people to consider the 2A when voting, if all you ever do is belittle them, insult and alienate and name-call. Nobody ever won a debate by calling their opponent "stupid". When you do that, the whole debate becomes childish and just pushes people who might have otherwise agreed with your arguments forcibly into your opponent's camp.

When the term "liberal" is thrown around like an ephitet, it is offensive to those who may be on the border of changing their minds.

And yes, people DO change! I spent years as a rabid, party-line liberal. I got into shooting with a passion and the firearms themselves have initiated a radical change in my thought patterns. If you had to label me, you could say that I am now a staunch libertarian. Now, if the people in the shooting sports community had told me to "git out!" when I started shooting, simply because I was a liberal, I may still have been one as we speak. Instead they welcomed me with open arms.
If you think you are too old to change your mind, or think others are incapable of doing so, then please do us all a favor and bow out of the fight now. You are a defeatist. Those who cannot be swayed also cannot sway others.

19-3Ben
August 21, 2014, 11:01 AM
I am a Life Member of the NRA and gun rights drive my voting decisions, unfortunately those people around me, urban, educated, pro gun rights voters are more difficult to influence when our side paints ourselves as alligned with seemingly inconsistent values. All supporters of gun rights, gay, straight, urban or rural, pro choice, pro life, wealthy or on public assistance, atheist or devout, should be able to find a home in the NRA. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, and if we insist on making it one we will lose.

I think we need to scream this from the rooftops!

100% to Bainter. My MIL is by far, the strongest and most loyal supporter of the liberal/Democrat party line that I've ever met.
Heck, she is outright socialist in a lot of ways.

But through a couple years of discussion, I broke her out of the thought pattern that "because I believe in abortion rights, and gay rights, then I must hate guns because it's consistent with my party's platform."
At first, she supported the AWB and the background check initiative that BHO was pushing. But by talking it through with her logically, she came to see the side of the argument that Al Sharpton DIDN'T tell her on CNN.
Now she will still vote for a democrat at every election, but when she gets together with her Democrat buddies, she is a voice of dissent when it comes to gun laws.

---Divide and conquer.----

Just use patience and understanding. They expect us to be offensive, brash, and confrontational. If you don't give them what they expect you'll catch 'em off guard and maybe, just maybe convince them that gun owners aren't the boogy man that the media would have us all believe.

Oh, and as for Bainter... we're in the same boat on this. I say this as someone who was welcomed to the gun world with open arms by Kim DuToit back when i was in college. I had just finished working for the Gore-Leiberman campaign about a year before I drank the 2A koolaid.

wojownik
August 21, 2014, 02:22 PM
The problem is that all of those "pro 2a" liberals go every election and vote for anti- gun politicians. They may say or think they are pro2a but they aren't when they vote against it every chance they get.

Well, the reality may be that some folks - while pro-2a - have other issues and hot buttons that come first ... education, local programs, right to choose, health care, etc.

The issue here should not be liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican ... It could more appropriately be a careful examination of extreme forms government intervention that most moderate liberals and conservatives can agree on.

Yes, you'll never get the folks on the tail ends of the bell curve to meet in the middle (political/social extremists, as was discussed in another thread a while back). But the majority of Americans are middle-of-the-road. And can - and will - cross party lines (assuming they even bother to vote).

Political extremes are uncomfortable, and potentially negatives for the mass of us in the center of the bell curve. "Outing" the extremist, elitist, anti-2a, government interventionist, oligarchical, social nanny-state approach of Bloomberg and his fellow travelers (MDA, MAIG) is what needs to be stated. The bet is that this is not what a lot of middle America wants to hear or identify with. And to paint a broader picture that those that associate with Bloomberg are not only a concern for 2a issues, but for a plethora of other issues as well.

The NRA ad attempts to address and clarify those concerns to a certain audience. It falls short, IMHO, because it relies on tired jargon and stereotypes, rather than attacking a broader set of concerns - including 2a - that a lot more voters can grab onto even if 2a is not their main voting driver ...

ljnowell
August 21, 2014, 05:17 PM
And you will never convince those people to consider the 2A when voting, if all you ever do is belittle them, insult and alienate and name-call. Nobody ever won a debate by calling their opponent "stupid". When you do that, the whole debate becomes childish and just pushes people who might have otherwise agreed with your arguments forcibly into your opponent's camp.

When the term "liberal" is thrown around like an ephitet, it is offensive to those who may be on the border of changing their minds.

And yes, people DO change! I spent years as a rabid, party-line liberal. I got into shooting with a passion and the firearms themselves have initiated a radical change in my thought patterns. If you had to label me, you could say that I am now a staunch libertarian. Now, if the people in the shooting sports community had told me to "git out!" when I started shooting, simply because I was a liberal, I may still have been one as we speak. Instead they welcomed me with open arms.
If you think you are too old to change your mind, or think others are incapable of doing so, then please do us all a favor and bow out of the fight now. You are a defeatist. Those who cannot be swayed also cannot sway others.


I don't belittle or call anyone stupid. You won't find that in my post at a. I merely
Posted FACT.

Every single "pro 2a" liberal I know goes and votes for the worst anti-gun politician. You can't have it both ways.

ljnowell
August 21, 2014, 05:19 PM
Well, the reality may be that some folks - while pro-2a - have other issues and hot buttons that come first ... education, local programs, right to choose, health care, etc.

The issue here should not be liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican ... It could more appropriately be a careful examination of extreme forms government intervention that most moderate liberals and conservatives can agree on.

Yes, you'll never get the folks on the tail ends of the bell curve to meet in the middle (political/social extremists, as was discussed in another thread a while back). But the majority of Americans are middle-of-the-road. And can - and will - cross party lines (assuming they even bother to vote).

Political extremes are uncomfortable, and potentially negatives for the mass of us in the center of the bell curve. "Outing" the extremist, elitist, anti-2a, government interventionist, oligarchical, social nanny-state approach of Bloomberg and his fellow travelers (MDA, MAIG) is what needs to be stated. The bet is that this is not what a lot of middle America wants to hear or identify with. And to paint a broader picture that those that associate with Bloomberg are not only a concern for 2a issues, but for a plethora of other issues as well.

The NRA ad attempts to address and clarify those concerns to a certain audience. It falls short, IMHO, because it relies on tired jargon and stereotypes, rather than attacking a broader set of concerns - including 2a - that a lot more voters can grab onto even if 2a is not their main voting driver ...


It's anti-gun vs. pro-gun. If they have other issues and will vote against the 2A then they are not Pro2a. It's not hard to understand.

wojownik
August 21, 2014, 05:27 PM
I differ on this. I don't buy into that level of reductionism. There is Anti-2a, pro-2a, and those just not that interested or sitting on the fence. It's that third market that we should all be trying to reach.

In both sales and politics, it generally does not make a whole lot of sense to invest effort trying to convert those whom already with you, or whom are decidedly opposing you. The key - the target - is the market that has not made up its mind yet, or just needs a little push to get off the couch to the voting booth.

Cee Zee
August 21, 2014, 07:45 PM
There is a copy of the ad on the website linked in the OP. People seem to have missed it for some reason. It does talk about how liberals refer to middle America as flyover country. I know the power of emotionalism in ads (as evidenced by every ad the left runs in the this country) but it is is not factually correct to think gun control is a liberal only cause. Too many "conservatives" want gun control also. Bloomberg was considered a conservative on many issues if that tells you anything. It's also not true that all left leaning people want gun control. Several WV Democrats have spoken out about gun control (only to seemingly backtrack on certain issues after Sandy Hook).

blarby
August 21, 2014, 07:52 PM
I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist


Wish in one hand, ? in the other ....

If the NRA was run by the miraculous and properly attenuated editorial staff of THR, we'd probably have 50 state legal fully automatic missile launchers in walmart by now :D An exaggeration, clearly, but it does prove out that those who choose their words most carefully generally court the most allies.


I like the intent of the message, but many often forget exactly how many people get alienated when you use the big "L" brush.

Its not easy being squeezed in the middle of the red and the blue based on strongly held beliefs from both camps. You don't have anyone to rant to !

The key - the target - is the market that has not made up its mind yet, or just needs a little push to get off the couch to the voting booth.

Exactly. Every vote counts. Perhaps they've done the math and decided those that are offended by the big "L", but still are pro 2a, won't mind the knock, and will still vote the way the should.

It works like that sometimes, focusing on the bigger picture- and not getting bogged down in the little details.... I mean, we're all in it to win it right ?

Hard to tell. Much harder to get me to open my wallet however, while swearing at me out of the corner of your mouth :D

X-Rap
August 21, 2014, 11:51 PM
I can say that in my personal dealings I have know Democrat Union members from Alabama, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Colorado, Indiana, Kentucky and Utah and to the man they vote with the party no matter the position on the 2a.
These are men who hunt shoot and aside from their politics they are the picture of the rugged individual. I can say much the same of a lot of the farmers I know.
I don't come onto my views and opinions in a vacuum, if I had any faith at all that these fence sitters described in this thread I'd give them a chance, I've just seen to much to believe tigers will change their stripes.

blarby
August 22, 2014, 02:30 AM
and to the man they vote with the party no matter the position on the 2a.

Funny, "they" say the same thing about "you". Thing is, in this particular arena- its "us". Maybe you/we/us should have a much more open mind to what issues "they" are casting their votes based on, find some all too infrequent common ground- like guns- and keep that conversation open, moving, and fluid. You'd be surprised what a constant friendly (ok, sometimes pointy- but it keeps ya sharp, and makes it less like a lecture, and more like boxing with your tongue at times....exciting!) dialogue can do in the formation of opinions.

I don't know a lot ( ok, any) of actual concerned voters who blindly vote based on a paint swab. Its usually one or two key issues that hammer it home. I do know a LOT of people who are so confused or jaded at the process that they don't cast a ballot at all. Sad, but they are becoming the majority. Find those! Influence minds by speaking the truth, and you'll be surprised who you can get to the polls. Here in Oregon its easy, we get ballots through the mail. You just need to stop by "around that time" with a pizza or a 6 pack (if thats your persuasion), and get the conversation started so they open the damned thing... once they've got a pen in hand, its usually not hard from there.

Cant really do that in a polling station. Sorry all of you who don't get this luxury !

Not a lot of people try this technique. It's way easier to be insular, closed minded, and defensive. Always reacting, rarely proactively moving the conversation around so that everyone/thing gets heard. Just keep those 2 eyes forward, and never deviate. My way or the highway, and be damned with your healthcare ! Lots of minds get changed that way...

But heck, even if it doesn't work....

Thats the great thing about America : We're free to "agree to disagree" to our hearts' content.

As long as we have that freedom held in place every day by like-minded citizens that choose to keep and bear arms in that freedoms' defense; hopefully we can hold it together long enough that we'll "agree to agree" one day.

Until then, our voice on this issue needs to be unified and not divided. Here at least, on THR, it MUST be. Its a trick right out of any basic book on tactics.... Dividing by alienating, scapegoating, focusing on differences instead of similarities. And yet somehow we keep doing it to ourselves, even at our highest level of representation. Dividing, alienating, scapegoating. Right there, on the biggest of screens- not just some internet forum. What kind of message does that send ? If that doesn't make your mind stretch a little, I don't know what will.

Maybe a mutual appreciation of firearms could one day save all of us. Its a nice fantasy.

But stranger things have happened.

ljnowell
August 22, 2014, 02:35 AM
I differ on this. I don't buy into that level of reductionism. There is Anti-2a, pro-2a, and those just not that interested or sitting on the fence. It's that third market that we should all be trying to reach.

In both sales and politics, it generally does not make a whole lot of sense to invest effort trying to convert those whom already with you, or whom are decidedly opposing you. The key - the target - is the market that has not made up its mind yet, or just needs a little push to get off the couch to the voting booth.


Of course the undecided is the target market, however that seems to dwindle with every election.

My statement does not have an extreme level of reductionism, it's simply fact. No matter the claims of a person if they bite for anti-2a politicians then they are not pro2a.

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 02:58 AM
Watched the commercial on local TV and missed the mention of Liberals.
I think it will resonate with the target audience and be worth every penny.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 04:14 AM
It's amazing that the NRA can be so effective at lobbying and so hideously incompetent at public relations. I'm sure most have seen the new NRA commercial:

8IdlMdUL53M

It's OK. It's certainly not a first-class production but it's OK with one huge error. The very first word used -- "liberals." Why offend millions of pro-2A gun owners with using that label in that context? Why bunch them in with losers like Bloomberg? Talk about "insult(s)" and "hypocrites!"

Why couldn't the NRA have used something like "elitists", "arrogant politicians", "out of touch people", "confused individuals", etc., etc?

The NRA truly seems incompetent when it comes to PR. They seem more intent on getting the existing base ginned-up and not in getting more people to genuinely consider and support the pro-2A position. The NRA needs new PR help...

DeepSouth
August 22, 2014, 04:48 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=759570

Dmitri Popov
August 22, 2014, 06:01 AM
Sometimes you gotta call a pig, a pig. The people who are going to be considering theirselves "liberals" probably aren't going to be supporting the NRA any how.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 06:31 AM
Sometimes you gotta call a pig, a pig. The people who are going to be considering theirselves "liberals" probably aren't going to be supporting the NRA any how.

Naw. That's simply not true. Using that one word in this context might stroke some egos but it's terrible PR.

It's stunning that the NRA is so inept at PR. Perhaps this commercial is simply to gin-up some of the existing members? I suppose it would be fine in that case but it would be galactically ignorant to do so.

The NRA needs a new PR firm and it needs it badly.

C.R.
August 22, 2014, 06:33 AM
Well,the N.R.A. lost me. When I first signed up the N.R.A. promiced me a "shooters " baseball cap I never got it,and my good friend also was promiced a hat and never got one. My feeling is that if they can not be trusted to keep a small promice to a member, what will make me think they will do any of the big things that they talk about .A man or orginasation is only as good as their word and the N.R.A. has called me many times through the years after I stopped sending money,I tell them my story .....still no hat so I feel that those people are just like all of the other politicians lots of talk !

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 06:33 AM
I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.

+1000!

Using "liberal" as the first word instead of "arrogant politicians", "out of touch people", "elitists", etc. is stunningly stupid PR. Hard to believe this commerical was approved as is.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 06:35 AM
Watched the commercial on local TV and missed the mention of Liberals.
I think it will resonate with the target audience and be worth every penny.
The VERY FIRST word coming out of the commentator's mouth. This commercial would have been acceptable (far from good, but acceptable) without that liberal slur. As it is, it blows.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 06:43 AM
I can't agree with delineating firearm rights along partisan lines. Liberal and conservative, particularly to younger voters is meaningless and often offensive.

I am a Life Member of the NRA and gun rights drive my voting decisions, unfortunately those people around me, urban, educated, pro gun rights voters are more difficult to influence when our side paints ourselves as alligned with seemingly inconsistent values. All supporters of gun rights, gay, straight, urban or rural, pro choice, pro life, wealthy or on public assistance, atheist or devout, should be able to find a home in the NRA. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, and if we insist on making it one we will lose.

Wonderful post and I agree 100% I can see how your view is lost on some (perhaps even most?) here. They have been so inculcated to view "liberals" as the boogieman and as the ultimate scapegoat that they simply can't think in a critical, unbiased manner.

On the other hand I am truly appalled and stunned that a commercial like this could be approved by the NRA. Just exactly what is their agenda? I don't believe those in charge of planning, purchasing and producing this commercial are stupid. I also don't think they're ignorant but I'm beginning to wonder...

This commercial had a very "cheap" feel to it but it would still have been acceptable had it not begun with that liberal slur.

DeepSouth
August 22, 2014, 07:02 AM
My feeling is that if they can not be trusted to keep a small promice to a member, what will make me think they will do any of the big things that they talk about
Another way to think of it is.... If they mail you 12 magazines a year (estimated costs 20-25$ ?) plus a 10-15$ hat for a 35$ membership fee then they will not be ABLE to do any of the big things that they talk about. Sometimes it about more than the material possessions you get out of it.

Just saying.

Flintknapper
August 22, 2014, 07:20 AM
The NRA needs a new PR firm and it needs it badly.

Nope, someone just needs to better understand the purpose of this ONE commercial. It IS as you alluded to: To gin up the base, that is the ONLY group it could appeal to.

If you haven't been around long enough to recognize that NO amount of political correctness or 'cozy-ing up' to liberals will ever result in significant numbers changing their minds, then let me be the first to break the bad news!

This commercial will in no way 'offend' Liberals (most), they are already 'offended' that we don't share their views. Let's just accept that there IS a political and cultural divide/disagreement.

Ed Ames
August 22, 2014, 08:01 AM
Arizona liberalized their concealed carry laws a few years ago. Many liberals support gun ownership, and the more liberal they are, the more likely they are to support private ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, and other heavier weapons. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Many people today identify themselves as liberal but mean it in a way that has nothing to do with Soros.

Using the word "liberal" in this video is a classic echo chamber problem. Within the cohort making the video, nobody recognized it as a dated word choice that would offend a fairly large (and growing) subset of the pro-2A base. Anyone who would argue it is the right choice is just showing that they haven't stayed in touch with how the word "liberal" is used today. The fact that nobody recognized the problem hints at a lack of diversity amongst decisionmakers.

hso
August 22, 2014, 08:07 AM
I agree with the OP.

The NRA should never use "liberal" or "conservative". Antis are ANTIS regardless of their supposed afectation. We have many THR members that identify themselves as "liberal" and who refuse to identify with "conservative" and it is STUPID of the NRA to use any language that pushes people like our members away from their organization.

45_auto
August 22, 2014, 08:09 AM
Many liberals support gun ownership, and the more liberal they are, the more likely they are to support private ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, and other heavier weapons.

Your liberals are VERY different (pretty much the exact opposite!) of the liberals in my area! Around here, the more liberal they are, the more they want to be like New York or California with firearms laws.

DeepSouth
August 22, 2014, 08:10 AM
The fact that nobody recognized the problem hints at a lack of diversity amongst decisionmakers.

The part people leave out is that the lack of diversity comes from a lack of supply of people other than conservatives that support the 2A. If their out there, in any significant number, they sure stay fairly quiet about it.

Ed Ames
August 22, 2014, 08:29 AM
The part people leave out is that the lack of diversity comes from a lack of supply of people other than conservatives that support the 2A. If their out there, in any significant number, they sure stay fairly quiet about it.
Maybe.

I have found that it is usually the result of pervasive intolerant attitudes causing people to self-censor.

It is like if a person tells you they don't know anyone who is homosexual, atheist, etc.. Regardless of what the person who says that thinks they are saying, what they are actually indicating is that they are perceived as intolerant and people are choosing to hide information about themselves to minimize their exposure to the effects of that person's intolerance.

HexHead
August 22, 2014, 09:03 AM
I like the commercial, they called a spade a spade. "Liberal" has become PC-speak for "Socialist". I don't care who I offend, sometimes the truth hurts.

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 10:44 AM
It's OK. It's certainly not a first-class production but it's OK with one huge error. The very first word used -- "liberals." Why offend millions of pro-2A gun owners with using that label in that context? Why bunch them in with losers like Bloomberg?

Wow! There must be a shadow group of gun lovers out there, what is the name of their organization?
Millions? Really? How many millions? Where do those numbers come from?
There might be a big bunch of Liberal gun owners but calling them 2a supporters would probably be a stretch.
The Liberals I know have a very twisted view of the 2a gun owners or not.

Sam Cade
August 22, 2014, 11:41 AM
There might be a big bunch of Liberal gun owners but calling them 2a supporters would probably be a stretch.
The Liberals I know have a very twisted view of the 2a gun owners or not. :uhoh:
Hold on a second...

You do understand that a large portion of THR (both Members and Staff) would identify themselves as politically liberal, right?

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 01:08 PM
Hold on a second...

You do understand that a large portion of THR (both Members and Staff) would identify themselves as politically liberal, right?

Oh I do understand that. Some of the discussions here over the years amply prove my opinion.
If you all would describe yourselves in word and deed as Libertarian I would be much more in line with your point of view.

blarby
August 22, 2014, 01:42 PM
Libertarian

I'm going to identify as "Martian"

Thats the party thats pro humanities AND pro gun :D

As has been addressed earlier, most of these labels are beginning to lose importance (and relevance) quickly.

Us common folk are starting to realize that simply dividing us into two or three camps doesn't really do much other than divide us into two or three camps.

I could cast my lot in any of the three groups, and still end up supporting ideology I dislike.

wHAT "i/YOU/WE/US" can do is vet your candidates !

You can vote for different slates at all levels : local, county, state, and federal. As in all politics, there is give and take in almost any candidate- but you don't (and cant) need to blindly check "red, white, or, blue" on the box and assume that all of your needs or concerns will be addressed with that blind vote.

Hint : Most of that voting block that was in diapers not many election cycles ago is starting to figure this out.

Carl N. Brown
August 22, 2014, 01:47 PM
Political advertizing is more about motivating "your side" to get off their duff and vote, than about winning over the "other side" with sweetness of reason and light of truth.

Still 'twould be nice if "we" and "they" tried restraint. I have followed the "liberal" "progressive" "democrat" media--like The New Republic, The Nation, for example--on the gun control issue from the 1960s on, off and on, and they do not change. They have had no qualms at at all identifying unquestioning support for anything labelled gun control (as long as it is more restrictive than existing law) as liberal, progressive, and democrat positions and recognize no bad or useless gun policy as long as it is against guns. TNR and The Nation proudly identify anything guncontrol as an unquestionable good and liberal Democrat progressive position and denounce anything pro-gun rights as evil conservative Republican neanderthalism.

There are times I feel frustrated at trying to stay "nice" and on topic in face of anti-gun commenters many who like to work in "KKK" for "k" or "c" in words. I have muttered "self-righteous Blue State Coastie" under my breath quite a few times the past few years. I understand why my ancestors moved to the mountains rather that stay on the coasts that increasing became patrician and elitist.

I have also been known (at times. not always) to write comments in Notepad or Vedit and go back and strip out any reference to political position words to stay strictly on topic. I try to remind myself of this quote I found in the 1960s:
"Once an argument has been classed as `positional,' it is regarded as having been demolished, since the `position' attributed to it is always selected with a perjorative intent. The choice of the position selected is an expression of the personal antipathies of the individual critic, and the same arguments can therefore be attributed to any one of a variety of `positions,' according to what comes most readily to the critic's hand. The wealth of variations afforded by such tactics is well exemplified by the variety of classifications to which I have myself been subjected. On my religious `position' I have been classified as a Protestant, a Catholic, an anti-Semite and as a typical Jew; politically, as a Liberal, a Fascist, a (Nazi) and a Conservative; and on my theoretical `position,' as a Platonist, a Neo-Augustinian, a Thomist, a disciple of Hegel, an existentialist, a historical relativist and an empirical skeptick; in recent years the suspicion has frequently been voiced that I am a Christian. All these classifications have been made by university professors and people with academic degrees."
--Eric Voegelin in Freedom and Serfdom: An Anthology of Western Thought, edited by Alber Humold. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1961), p. 280.
(I have kept this quote as I wrote it in my notebook in the library. It might not be word perfect, but it is what I copied.)

Like all ideals, it is like steering by a star: the ideal like the star is unreachable, but it beats steering by the wavetops, going whichever way the wind blows.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 01:56 PM
Another way to think of it is.... If they mail you 12 magazines a year (estimated costs 20-25$ ?) plus a 10-15$ hat for a 35$ membership fee then they will not be ABLE to do any of the big things that they talk about. Sometimes it about more than the material possessions you get out of it.

Just saying.

I suspect the magazine (including postage) costs them $.50/issue and the hat is $1.50 in quantity from China.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 01:58 PM
Nope, someone just needs to better understand the purpose of this ONE commercial. It IS as you alluded to: To gin up the base, that is the ONLY group it could appeal to.

If you haven't been around long enough to recognize that NO amount of political correctness or 'cozy-ing up' to liberals will ever result in significant numbers changing their minds, then let me be the first to break the bad news!

This commercial will in no way 'offend' Liberals (most), they are already 'offended' that we don't share their views. Let's just accept that there IS a political and cultural divide/disagreement.

Malarkey. Nothing more than an excuse for a very poor decision on the NRA's part.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 02:01 PM
I like the commercial, they called a spade a spade. "Liberal" has become PC-speak for "Socialist". I don't care who I offend, sometimes the truth hurts.

And people sharing your attitude have done hideous damage to the pro-2A camp over the years. Thanks for nothing.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 02:04 PM
Wow! There must be a shadow group of gun lovers out there, what is the name of their organization?
Millions? Really? How many millions? Where do those numbers come from?
There might be a big bunch of Liberal gun owners but calling them 2a supporters would probably be a stretch.
The Liberals I know have a very twisted view of the 2a gun owners or not.

Who says they're members of a pro-gun group? Many wouldn't go near the NRA due to its xenophobic blather exemplified by this commercial.

Stop using "liberals" as the ultimate scapegoat.

mokin
August 22, 2014, 02:05 PM
Nope, someone just needs to better understand the purpose of this ONE commercial. It IS as you alluded to: To gin up the base, that is the ONLY group it could appeal to.

If you haven't been around long enough to recognize that NO amount of political correctness or 'cozy-ing up' to liberals will ever result in significant numbers changing their minds, then let me be the first to break the bad news!

This commercial will in no way 'offend' Liberals (most), they are already 'offended' that we don't share their views. Let's just accept that there IS a political and cultural divide/disagreement.

I think this is the case. With an upcoming election the NRA wants to get the folks out to vote. That being said, I think the NRA does need to work on its' image. The NRA has not only succeeded in turning off many otherwise gun rights supporters, it has also turned off many gun owners.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 02:06 PM
Political advertizing is more about motivating "your side" to get off their duff and vote, than about winning over the "other side" with sweetness of reason and light of truth...


Says who? Do you make this stuff up as you type?

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 02:09 PM
The "liberals" comment was flat-out stupid. The chips/soda reference was bush league -- every bit as clumsy as "obesity kills many, when are they going to outlaw forks?!?"

The production of the commercial also has a very "cheap" feel to it.

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 02:13 PM
This is what a good portion of the Liberal press tries to do when dealing with the 2a in recent years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIKfoO-JTcc
They are on the losing end and make weak attempts to placate real 2a supporters with their frequent claim to support the 2a after clearly denying it even exists.
The same is frequent in politicians and internet posters.
It is not infrequent here to have a legitimate story outright denied simply due to the organization that is reporting it but rarely does it happen when reported by mainstream (Liberal) media.

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 02:19 PM
Who says they're members of a pro-gun group? Many wouldn't go near the NRA due to its xenophobic blather exemplified by this commercial.

Camp, group, organization whatever you wish to call it, to claim that the NRA is alienating millions of good 2a supporters is pure bravo sierra.
There are a number of left leaning 2a groups out there and one doesn't have to peel back the veil much to see exactly what they represent.

Flintknapper
August 22, 2014, 02:48 PM
Even if that were true, so what? What advantage is there in using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". There's not a single one: It only alienates potential allies and also demonstrates that you don't understand the complexities of politics, especially on the state and local levels. And when trying to convince someone to see your side of the argument, it's not a smart strategy to start off the conversation by alienating them and showing your political ignorance at the same time.

Just answer this one simple question:

Why do "liberals" take such offense at being called such?

Is there now something 'disparaging' about that label and IF so, why?

One would think a 'liberal' would be PROUD of it, no?

Sam1911
August 22, 2014, 02:54 PM
Just answer this one simple question:

Why do "liberals" take such offense at being called such?

Is there now something 'disparaging' about that label and IF so, why?

One would think a 'liberal' would be PROUD of it, no?

I don't know any liberals who are deeply offended at being called such. It isn't necessarily a pejorative word. That isn't the problem with this strategy.

The problem with this strategy is in saying LIBERALS are our enemy. When many self-identified liberals are not philosophically opposed to our views on gun control laws.

If the message said, "Liberals and Conservatives need to come together and fight for increased gun rights freedom for American citizens..." neither liberals nor conservatives would be offended by the labels.

When the message is "liberals are the ENEMY" then -- no big surprise -- you aren't going to get many of them to join you.

Theohazard
August 22, 2014, 02:57 PM
Why do "liberals" take such offense at being called such?

Is there now something 'disparaging' about that label and IF so, why?

One would think a 'liberal' would be PROUD of it, no?
You're completely missing the point. The point is that all liberals aren't anti-gun, and all people who are anti-gun aren't liberal. Conflating the two is not only ignorant, but it alienates many people who we want on our side.

blarby
August 22, 2014, 03:00 PM
If the message said, "Liberals and Conservatives need to come together and fight for increased gun rights freedom for American citizens..." neither liberals nor conservatives would be offended by the labels.

I don't think American hospitals have the kind of neurotrauma response necessary for that kind of message yet.

Would be amusing to watch though, like watching 50+million jack-in-a-boxes popping all at once.


Its a great point though, and it needs to happen !

benEzra
August 22, 2014, 03:04 PM
I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist or Ant or People Who Want To Ban Guns. We have plenty of liberal members and there are even more people out in America that see themselves as liberal but are 2A supporting that can be turned away from our message when it is used as an epithet.
I agree. A majority of liberals don't even consider Bloomberg a liberal, just an authoritarian police-state-aspiring elitist, so this is doubly insulting.

all liberals aren't anti-gun, and all people who are anti-gun aren't liberal.
This.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:05 PM
Just answer this one simple question:

Why do "liberals" take such offense at being called such?

Is there now something 'disparaging' about that label and IF so, why?

One would think a 'liberal' would be PROUD of it, no?

It's common where I live for some fairly ignorant people to use "liberals" as a catch-all slur. At the parish I attend (I'm a Catholic Christian) many self-professed "conservatives" or "traditionalists" are quick to hang the "liberal" slur on anyone that is actually a dissident. It would be almost comical at times, were it not so damaging.

The interesting thing is that these self-professed "conservatives" or "traditionalists" are usually dissidents themselves (not that they would recognize themselves as such) -- very much like the "liberals" they attack...

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:09 PM
Tom Gresham agrees with the stupidity of this commercial:

https://twitter.com/Guntalk/status/502786485540913152

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 03:10 PM
This is mostly a Straw Man argument IMO. Even if Liberals weren't PO'd about the ad they would be PO'd about a pro 2a politicians position on any number of other things and the vote is frankly what matters in the end.
When a Liberal can say "I won't stand with you because of an add by the NRA" it absolves them of having to say they have other philosophical reasons to vote for a given candidate.

Sam1911
August 22, 2014, 03:13 PM
Political advertizing is more about motivating "your side" to get off their duff and vote, than about winning over the "other side" with sweetness of reason and light of truth...

That's certainly deeply true. Politics is a very multi-layered business. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and so forth. Strange bedfellows and all that. And every action has secondary and tertiary effects.

Draw in this group, offend that group. Include these guys, annoy those guys. The proper strategy is whatever gets the MOST people of whatever stripe voting your way. So in a realpolitik view, if you deeply offend a group of people who will never vote for your candidates anyway, even if you don't really want to offend them, that might be a right strategy if it brings out to the voting booths a much larger group of people who WILL vote for your guy. It kind of sucks, but that's how it is.

To take an extreme view, there are some really racist, xenophobic, homophobic, paranoid, awful people in the US who would absolutely vote "our" way if they could be induced to come out and vote. Saying the sorts of things that would get them motivated to register and show up and pull a lever for you would probably REALLLY offend lots of other people who you really have no beef with. If there are enough of those guys out there who you could motivate, and if you're never going to get those "nice" folks on the other side to swing your way anyway, then taking the low road to appeal to the unpleasant ones might just be the most effective route.

Now, fortunately, that's not the case, and there aren't enough large pools of racist, homophobic, xenophobic jerks left these days to really make for a significant voting block that we need to use those tactics to dig out of their holes.

But using the old familiar "liberals" term as a way to identify the enemy sort of touches the same chord. It feels like the NRA is assuming that so many of their base (think they) hate "liberals" that the Association doesn't need to sharpen their strategy up to reach a broader, more enlightened 2014 audience.

And they may even be right ... for now. But those of us looking ahead find this very regrettable. That's not going to fly for very long and the activists of today, tomorrow, and next decade find themselves struggling to get out from under the public perception of the Association as a liberal-hating GOP mouthpiece.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:17 PM
This is mostly a Straw Man argument IMO. Even if Liberals weren't PO'd about the ad they would be PO'd about a pro 2a politicians position on any number of other things and the vote is frankly what matters in the end.
When a Liberal can say "I won't stand with you because of an add by the NRA" it absolves them of having to say they have other philosophical reasons to vote for a given candidate.

May I ask what you mean by "Straw Man argument?" I certainly know what a straw man argument is. However when I see comments like yours I wonder if the maker of the comment does?

blarby
August 22, 2014, 03:20 PM
When a Liberal can say "I won't stand with you because of an add by the NRA" it absolves them of having to say they have other philosophical reasons to vote for a given candidate.

Missed the point again, sadly.

It becomes much more of a "why on earth would I support a group that thinks I'm the devil"

I'm in that camp. This happens with Nuge a LOT, now its just kinda bleeding over into everything else as the election cycle ratchets up.

Lets face it, the NRA needs the money. I hate to say it, but all of that old rich gentrified white guy money isn't going to last forever- and neither are their votes.

We really ARE coming to a point where thats a reality, like it or not.

So, you have a choice to keep courting ONLY your primary constituency which is dying off at an alarming rate, or try and bridge the divide- and get the money AND the votes you need to be successful.

^^^ ACTUALLY THE #1 REASON I HATE POLITICS. Pure ideology loses elections- thats a fact in the modern era. Compromise is best defined as a result neither party likes, but both sides can live with. Scorched earth policies in the "hearts and minds" department WILL cost you the end game- every time.

And they may even be right ... for now. But those of us looking ahead find this very regrettable. That's not going to fly for very long and the activists of today, tomorrow, and next decade find themselves struggling to get out from under the public perception of the Association as a liberal-hating GOP mouthpiece.

In the pipe, 5 by 5.

Amen to that.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:21 PM
That's certainly deeply true. Politics is a very multi-layered business. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and so forth. Strange bedfellows and all that. And every action has secondary and tertiary effects.

Draw in this group, offend that group. Include these guys, annoy those guys. The proper strategy is whatever gets the MOST people of whatever stripe voting your way. So in a realpolitik view, if you deeply offend a group of people who will never vote for your candidates anyway, even if you don't really want to offend them, that might be a right strategy if it brings out to the voting booths a much larger group of people who WILL vote for your guy. It kind of sucks, but that's how it is.

To take an extreme view, there are some really racist, xenophobic, homophobic, paranoid, awful people in the US who would absolutely vote "our" way if they could be induced to come out and vote. Saying the sorts of things that would get them motivated to register and show up and pull a lever for you would probably REALLLY offend lots of other people who you really have no beef with. If there are enough of those guys out there who you could motivate, and if you're never going to get those "nice" folks on the other side to swing your way anyway, then taking the low road to appeal to the unpleasant ones might just be the most effective route.

Now, fortunately, that's not the case, and there aren't enough large pools of racist, homophobic, xenophobic jerks left these days to really make for a significant voting block that we need to use those tactics to dig out of their holes.

But using the old familiar "liberals" term as a way to identify the enemy sort of touches the same chord. It feels like the NRA is assuming that so many of their base (think they) hate "liberals" that the Association doesn't need to sharpen their strategy up to reach a broader, more enlightened 2014 audience.

And they may even be right ... for now. But those of us looking ahead find this very regrettable. That's not going to fly for very long and the activists of today, tomorrow, and next decade find themselves struggling to get out from under the public perception of the Association as a liberal-hating GOP mouthpiece.

Very interesting post. This commercial bothers me not because I'm a "liberal" that's being bashed. It bothers me because I realize it drives people away from the pro-2A camp. It's also embarrassing. I don't want to have to defend such idiotic crap.

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 03:24 PM
You put up the notion that you can't vote for or contribute to the NRA or 2a candidate because of this use of Liberal but actually it is cover to continue support for Left Wing candidates and causes while claiming you are pro 2a. Win Win?

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:26 PM
Missed the point again, sadly.

It becomes much more of a "why on earth would I support a group that thinks I'm the devil"

I'm in that camp. This happens with Nuge a LOT, now its just kinda bleeding over into everything else as the election cycle ratchets up.

Lets face it, the NRA needs the money. I hate to say it, but all of that old rich gentrified white guy money isn't going to last forever- and neither are their votes.

We really ARE coming to a point where thats a reality, like it or not.

So, you have a choice to keep courting ONLY your primary constituency which is dying off at an alrming rate, or try and bridge the divide- and get the money AND the votes you need to be successful.

^^^ ACTUALLY THE #1 REASON I HATE POLITICS. Pure ideology loses elections- thats a fact in the modern era. Compromise is best defined as aresul,t neither party likes, but both sides can live with. Scorched earth policies in the "hearts and minds" department WILL cost you the end game- every time.

In the pipe, 5 by 5.

Amen to that.

Very good point. The NRA is still an old "blued steel and claro walnut" group. Very slowly over the last year or so it has tried to embrace the younger "stainless steel and polymer" group but I think the results have been mixed thus far -- embarrassing in some cases.

blarby
August 22, 2014, 03:30 PM
I think if I "claimed" to be "pro 2a", and you contested that I was not, my wife would point to the gun room and laugh at you. Probably while filling mags, at that.

This would happen in a lot of households you are broadcasting to right at this minute.

Not to be a jerk, but speaking of straws, I think some are being grasped at.

Sam1911
August 22, 2014, 03:30 PM
Kynoch, I find myself saying similar things with some regularity. And like blarby said, it's a big part of why I hate politics (even though that was a major of mine in college for a while). It is practically impossible to support any candidate -- and certainly to get one elected -- without having to hold your nose and swallow some awful unpleasant horse crap from them and their people. And your only consolation is that the opposition is worse in ways that are important to you.

It grates on me DEEPLY that "my" candidate might be supported by dudes with Klan robes in the closet at home. Or by some dude who championed the Patriot Act. Or ... a lot of other things that it would not serve my purposes here to get into (:rolleyes:).

But their vote serves my ends. <sigh>

And really, really, ticking off and politically repressing the two friendly gay dudes across the street who I was planning to take to the range with me next week ... well, that might be part of the price I end up having to pay to support a pro-gun-rights candidate in the upcoming election. Dammit.

X-Rap
August 22, 2014, 03:31 PM
So we are against judgement and labels but we use judgement and labels to support your position. Doubt much will be settled with that point of view.
Like I said, Straw Man.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:31 PM
You put up the notion that you can't vote for or contribute to the NRA or 2a candidate because of this use of Liberal but actually it is cover to continue support for Left Wing candidates and causes while claiming you are pro 2a. Win Win?

Pardon me?

It's not that I "can't vote for or contribute to the NRA or 2a candidate..." It's about the NRA driving people out of the pro 2A camp because of their misuse of the label "liberals."

It's also about me being embarrassed to be associated with any group that makes such inane mistakes. It can be difficult to defend the NRA when it continually steps on itself.

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:33 PM
So we are against judgement and labels but we use judgement and labels to support your position. Doubt much will be settled with that point of view.
Like I said, Straw Man.

LOL! I don't believe you know what a "straw man argument" is! Absolutely amazing to see people use "straw man argument" simply to dismiss things...

Sam1911
August 22, 2014, 03:35 PM
The NRA is still an old "blued steel and claro walnut" group. Very slowly over the last year or so it has tried to embrace the younger "nitride and polymer" group but I think the results have been mixed thus far -- embarrassing in some cases.

I see that two ways. Yeah, of course, there are a lot of hunters and traditionalists in the NRA. But the NRA (it seems to me) spends a lot more time preaching the good news of ARs and polymer and suppressors, and military-style hardware TO THEM -- getting THEM on board with a broader understanding of RKBA -- than it does acting as a sea drogue slowing down our progress.

For every time we rail at the NRA for being stuck in the blued and walnut past, 10 others are hollering at them for their "Jack-Booted Thugs" comments or for publishing another article about scary tacticool assault rifles. They have a hard road to walk, trying to keep as many on board as possible, and all moving in something that looks like the same direction.

Theohazard
August 22, 2014, 03:38 PM
Like I said, Straw Man.“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means."

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:38 PM
Kynoch, I find myself saying similar things with some regularity. And like blarby said, it's a big part of why I hate politics (even though that was a major of mine in college for a while). It is practically impossible to support any candidate -- and certainly to get one elected -- without having to hold your nose and swallow some awful unpleasant horse crap from them and their people. And your only consolation is that the opposition is worse in ways that are important to you.

It grates on me DEEPLY that "my" candidate might be supported by dudes with Klan robes in the closet at home. Or by some dude who championed the Patriot Act. Or ... a lot of other things that it would not serve my purposes here to get into (:rolleyes:).

But their vote serves my ends. <sigh>

And really, really, ticking off and politically repressing the two friendly gay dudes across the street who I was planning to take to the range with me next week ... well, that might be part of the price I end up having to pay to support a pro-gun-rights candidate in the upcoming election. Dammit.

Yep. That's why I'm astonished that a group as skillful and successful at lobbying as the NRA is often so inept at PR.

I still can't believe this commercial was approved by those in charge. It's politically naive. Then again maybe it IS focused at the blued steel/claro walnut group for the sake of $$$?

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 03:46 PM
I see that two ways. Yeah, of course, there are a lot of hunters and traditionalists in the NRA. But the NRA (it seems to me) spends a lot more time preaching the good news of ARs and polymer and suppressors, and military-style hardware TO THEM -- getting THEM on board with a broader understanding of RKBA -- than it does acting as a sea drogue slowing down our progress.

For every time we rail at the NRA for being stuck in the blued and walnut past, 10 others are hollering at them for their "Jack-Booted Thugs" comments or for publishing another article about scary tacticool assault rifles. They have a hard road to walk, trying to keep as many on board as possible, and all moving in something that looks like the same direction.

Unless they are pandering to the blued steel/claro walnuts folks for $$$, I really can't see how they would otherwise screw-up this badly on the commercial?

The NRA mostly certainly is now pushing the "stainless steel and polymer", although I'm not sure how well it's doing so...

Sam1911
August 22, 2014, 03:49 PM
And that's why some of use here are so annoyed by it. It doesn't seem necessary at this point for them to use a term that is so politically tone deaf in order to energize their base. Several other terms would work just as well without the negative effects.

Seems inept to offend some without tangible gains from others.

Maybe they really think there are enough "liberal" haters still out there that they'll get more action by tapping that button. Seems unlikely, but maybe.

Personally, I wouldn't take that risk for such a ephemeral, speculative benefit. If nothing else, it isn't very forward-thinking. As I said before, we've GOT to think not just about today's win, but the legacy of our actions as they'll bear on us in the future.

C.R.
August 22, 2014, 03:56 PM
Another way to think of it is.... If they mail you 12 magazines a year (estimated costs 20-25$ ?) plus a 10-15$ hat for a 35$ membership fee then they will not be ABLE to do any of the big things that they talk about. Sometimes it about more than the material possessions you get out of it. But,it isnt about the hat I have plenty of em.It is about keeping your word. If they cant keep a small promice to a nobody ,why would I think that they are keeping ANY of their word on anything?

Kynoch
August 22, 2014, 04:03 PM
And that's why some of use here are so annoyed by it. It doesn't seem necessary at this point for them to use a term that is so politically tone deaf in order to energize their base. Several other terms would work just as well without the negative effects.

Seems inept to offend some without tangible gains from others.

Maybe they really think there are enough "liberal" haters still out there that they'll get more action by tapping that button. Seems unlikely, but maybe.

Personally, I wouldn't take that risk for such a ephemeral, speculative benefit. If nothing else, it isn't very forward-thinking. As I said before, we've GOT to think not just about today's win, but the legacy of our actions as they'll bear on us in the future.

I agree with you...

To be blunt I have to question the baseline PR competence of those in the approval chain of this commercial.

I'm sure this was done by an a contracted ad firm and not in-house by the NRA. Part of that ad firm's job is to know the client's markets and to advise their client based on that knowledge and of course the tenants of good/effective advertisement.

Either the ad firm poorly advised its client -- and the client was too inept to realize otherwise, or the client ignored the ad firm's advice for which they no doubt paid $$$. That or the market is actually those already in the fold and this is more about revving-up the existing base to donate more $$$.

I'd like to believe the latter but given some of the Youtube-based NRA productions I suspect it might well be the former.

Cee Zee
August 23, 2014, 03:37 AM
Why couldn't the NRA have used something like "elitists", "arrogant politicians", "out of touch people", "confused individuals", etc., etc?


Because the word "liberal" has almost become a dirty word when talking about people. That label has been applied to many people that do things that aren't popular. It isn't fair for our cause here. But it probably is effective. The other side uses tactics like that all the time. That's all the more reason I wish the NRA didn't use those tactics.

ljnowell
August 23, 2014, 04:09 AM
I don't know any liberals who are deeply offended at being called such. It isn't necessarily a pejorative word. That isn't the problem with this strategy.

The problem with this strategy is in saying LIBERALS are our enemy. When many self-identified liberals are not philosophically opposed to our views on gun control laws.

If the message said, "Liberals and Conservatives need to come together and fight for increased gun rights freedom for American citizens..." neither liberals nor conservatives would be offended by the labels.

When the message is "liberals are the ENEMY" then -- no big surprise -- you aren't going to get many of them to join you.


If they are so pro2a then why do they vote for anti-gun politicians?

Sam1911
August 23, 2014, 09:18 AM
If they are so pro2a then why do they vote for anti-gun politicians?This again?

They vote for politicians who promise to push forward more of the issues they care about most, and promise to do the least harm to the issues they disagree on.

Same as YOU do.

So part of our job is getting other people to move gun rights higher in their spectrum of political importance so that they're less likely to vote for a gun-hating anti ... and also to try and get a) more candidates of all stripe to be more favorable to the 2nd Amendment, and b) our best gun rights candidates to be less onerous to the folk we're trying to sway to our side.

Talking about "liberals" (whatever that really is supposed to mean these days) as the enemy can't possibly advance any of those goals, and works against them.

Pilot
August 23, 2014, 10:11 AM
I don't think the NRA should have used the term "liberal" either. That being said, the vast majority of liberal/progressive politicians are VERY anti gun. Supporting them as a gun owner is highly hypocritical, and counterproductive to 2A rights, and legal gun ownership.

I prefer to use the term "statist", and discuss the erosion of freedom, liberties, and rights rather than "liberal" which is a term that has been bastardized in the last 40 - 50 years/

danez71
August 23, 2014, 11:41 AM
The reason they used 'liberal' is simple once you realized the word is used on this site weekly, if not daily, in a derogatory way to describe people that are not pro 2A.



Which is another point. I always try to say 'pro 2A' and not 'pro gun'.

Some say "its not a gun control issue, its a control issue. And I think they're right.

IOW: This is a Constitution issue. Not a gun issue.

wojownik
August 23, 2014, 12:24 PM
Just bear in mind, Anti 2a vfolks criticize Federal and state laws for being too "liberal." Virginia has more liberal firearms regulation than Maryland and DC, for instance.

So if you are a "conservative" you may well prefer "liberal" gun laws. And if you are "liberal" pro-gun person, you may also prefer "liberal" gun laws.

"Liberal" need not be a perjorative, even to the most staunch pro-2a mind.

I am still of the opinion that tossing the word "liberal" into the NRA ad was gratuitous and unnecessarily divisive. And many folks - even in the supposed target markets in which this ad will play - are plenty sick and tired of the political liberal vs. conservative logjam.

Yeah, the ad may play to motivate the existing core NRA base, but what if ... just suppose ... what if the NRA cast itself as a bit more inclusionary in its language, and got a few more moderates off the couch come time to go to the polls. Most elections are won and lost by just a few points ...

And now, I'm off to the range, but first need to "liberally" grease the rails on my Sigs.

mooosie
August 23, 2014, 12:47 PM
Bottom line if a liberal really is gun friendly they are still going to vote for our enemies if they really do support the 2 nd amendment and vote democratic they are either lie or they are brain dead mental midgits

Sam1911
August 23, 2014, 01:06 PM
Bottom line if a liberal really is gun friendly they are still going to vote for our enemies And that's EXACTLY what we're trying to FIX.

Unpin the fight for RKBA from all this other liberal-vs.-conservative fluff so folks who care about different social issues don't HAVE to vote for an anti-gun candidate.

Sol
August 23, 2014, 01:15 PM
I compare most anti-gun folks to little kids.

They hate Brussel sprouts and spinach even though they never tried it.
Then one day it's prepared and presented in a consumable fashion and then they take the first bite, "hey that's not so bad!" they say.

Even though they love spinach, they still won't vote for Pop-Eye because Bugs Bunnys' views are better aligned with theirs.

Theohazard
August 23, 2014, 01:25 PM
Bottom line if a liberal really is gun friendly they are still going to vote for our enemies
And that's EXACTLY what we're trying to FIX.
Bingo! Mooosie, as long as you (and others) consider liberals "the enemy", you're hurting our cause and helping the anti-gun folks. We'll never defeat the constant push for more gun control if we allow it to stay a partisan issue. But as long as people keep using partisan rhetoric and refer to liberals and Democrats as "the enemy", it will stay a partisan issue and gun control won't go anywhere.

Theohazard
August 23, 2014, 01:34 PM
Even if all liberals always voted for anti-Second Amendment candidates (which is definitely not the case), there are still other things to vote for. Here in WA there’s a “universal background check” ballot measure coming up in November called I-594. This law would make almost all temporary gun transfers between non-family members illegal, which means if your friend simply shows you his gun and you hold it, then you’re both breaking the law.

I have a bunch of traditionally-liberal friends here in Seattle who aren’t necessarily anti-gun, but they probably tend to support more gun control rather than less. But I’ve managed to convince several of them to vote against I-594 by appealing to their reasonable sides. I did it by using logic and reason, not political rhetoric and partisan politics, because I doubt that would have worked anywhere near as well.

Keep in mind that gun control is usually a very low priority for most voters, especially non-gun owners. Even if a candidate is anti-gun, most people probably voted him into office for other reasons. What we need to do is continue to push for gun rights to be a universal issue, not a partisan one. But when we use partisan rhetoric, we hurt our cause and continue to help our opponents when they try to marginalize us.

Sam1911
August 23, 2014, 01:43 PM
The most ironic thing is, from a very pragmatic standpoint this COULD be a somewhat self-limiting problem.

Since Sandy Hook it has been plain for any observer to see that gun control is a dead end road for politicians these days. The old school few still rail on about it, but they have no traction because the majority of their fellow congress types simply won't die on that hill with them. There's a fair bit of lip-service to the idea, playing to the traditionally Democrat base that is still used to having that plank in their party's platform, but the operating plan seems to be to make some of the right noises but quietly hope that the issue just goes away. The old "third rail" analogy applies.

It is not inconceivable that extreme gun control simply evaporates out of the Democrat platform within a decade or so, in the face of the increasing RKBA freedoms we've seen blossom in the last 10 or 20 years all throughout the country. Given the right circumstances it may come to be, and they may come to recognize, that the big part of their loyal Democrat constituent base simply doesn't want it any more.

That should be MUCH more our goal than trying to force the GOP down everyone's throat simply because we are for gun rights.

And heck, maybe if the GOP isn't the only (vaguely) pro-gun game in town, they'll find they have to be really FOR gun rights, for REAL, in order to keep US on board with them.

Lycidas Janwor
August 23, 2014, 02:25 PM
Love it! The NRA and this commercial has some very valid points:

1. Bloomberg is out of touch with most Americans
2. Bloomberg is elitist and he's using his money to finance his views
3. This next election cycle is critical and you have to have some aggressive ads

Kynoch
August 23, 2014, 03:40 PM
Because the word "liberal" has almost become a dirty word when talking about people. That label has been applied to many people that do things that aren't popular. It isn't fair for our cause here. But it probably is effective. The other side uses tactics like that all the time. That's all the more reason I wish the NRA didn't use those tactics.

How so? Its use offends actual "liberals" -- be the pro or anti-2A. It embarrasses most others. The only people that word would play to are the ignorant who are already "on-board."

Kynoch
August 23, 2014, 03:43 PM
I don't think the NRA should have used the term "liberal" either. That being said, the vast majority of liberal/progressive politicians are VERY anti gun. Supporting them as a gun owner is highly hypocritical, and counterproductive to 2A rights, and legal gun ownership.

I prefer to use the term "statist", and discuss the erosion of freedom, liberties, and rights rather than "liberal" which is a term that has been bastardized in the last 40 - 50 years/

That word would have also failed in that context -- most have no idea what it means. I'm beginning to understand why the NRA's PR fails...

phil dirt
August 23, 2014, 03:54 PM
I like pro and anti Second Amendment.

Lycidas Janwor
August 23, 2014, 04:00 PM
Also, I like to point out one of the most ironic and saddest examples of more gun laws not working by pointing people to our nations capital city: Washington DC.

Washington DC has the most stringent gun laws in the entire USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia

Now, look at the gun murder rate for Washington DC. It's not just a little above the USA average, it simply blows all other states out of the water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Point being, criminals find ways around laws (this is why they are criminals). The only people who are adversely affected by yet more gun laws (we have a bunch of gun laws already on the books) are law abiding citizens who would never consciously break the laws to begin with.

Poverty, lack of education and jobs all contribute to violence. Help people out of poverty, get them a good education where they can get good jobs and most of the violence will go away (I also contend that keeping the family together--husband and wife--will radically improve the situation, but that's a whole other can of worms that liberals refuse to acknowledge).

Anyhow, I respect the debate and I respect all of your opinions. I'll get off my soap box now.

Cazadores
August 23, 2014, 04:01 PM
Love it! The NRA and this commercial has some very valid points:

1. Bloomberg is out of touch with most Americans
2. Bloomberg is elitist and he's using his money to finance his views
3. This next election cycle is critical and you have to have some aggressive ads

Valid points, yes, but meaningful in message, no. Attacking Bloomberg makes him the driver of the conversation, and gives his message power.

Using the term "Liberal" as a pejorative necessarily alligns the NRA with "Conservative" and the modern definition of a big "C" Conservative, to many people, comes loaded with perceptions linked with things like the Iraq War, the Patriot Act, religious and social intolerance, and countless other concepts entirely unrelated to our message.

Who cares about Bloomberg? He is an elitist egomaniacal narcissist. So what? He is able to buy his voice time in the legislative industrial complex, troubling, yes, but again, unrelated to our message.

We believe a single mother living in public housing has the right to defend herself and her family regardless of her wealth. She should not be excluded from this right based on a social engineering experiment rooted in an asinine taxation scheme because "guns and cigarettes are bad for you, duh!"

We are inclusive, we welcome all to the right of firearm ownership. We know we come from all backgrounds, all colors, all creeds.

We believe individual firearm ownership is a right sewn in our social fabric with intent, it defends all other rights and privileges and is as important in their defense as our right to speak, assemble and investigate our government's actions freely.

We know the value of firearms safety and the effect exposing young people to firearms has on encouraging responsibility and lifelong connections.

We know how disengenuous the arguments against us are, we know more young people die in pools than firearm accidents.

We have powerful, meaningful ideas, a message more than "from my cold dead hands".....a message considerably more powerful than giving Bloomberg more airtime, caling him a bully. We should be airing them.

ljnowell
August 23, 2014, 05:34 PM
This again?

They vote for politicians who promise to push forward more of the issues they care about most, and promise to do the least harm to the issues they disagree on.

Same as YOU do.

So part of our job is getting other people to move gun rights higher in their spectrum of political importance so that they're less likely to vote for a gun-hating anti ... and also to try and get a) more candidates of all stripe to be more favorable to the 2nd Amendment, and b) our best gun rights candidates to be less onerous to the folk we're trying to sway to our side.

Talking about "liberals" (whatever that really is supposed to mean these days) as the enemy can't possibly advance any of those goals, and works against them.


If things are more important to them than the 2a then an NRA ad isn't going to change their mind! What's do hard to understand about that? They have already decided that whatever cause is much more important so they will sacrifice the 2a for it. They ARE NOT pro 2a then.

They will never be swayed by anything the NRA has to say because guns are not as important as liberal policies.

This entire argument about offending liberals is ridiculous. The people offended by that commercial weren't going to be swayed by it anyway.

greenr18
August 23, 2014, 06:01 PM
Isn't basically every media corporation in the pockets of anti-gun left-wingers? It's like asking a hawk to babysit a mouse.

Theohazard
August 23, 2014, 06:06 PM
This entire argument about offending liberals is ridiculous.
This entire argument isn't about offending liberals, it's about us pushing them away because we're ignorant and short-sighted enough to frame the gun control debate in partisan terms.


If things are more important to them than the 2a then an NRA ad isn't going to change their mind! What's do hard to understand about that? They have already decided that whatever cause is much more important so they will sacrifice the 2a for it. They ARE NOT pro 2a then.
You're completely missing the point here. The point is that we need to stop pushing them away from the rest of the pro-gun cause, and instead try to convince them to put 2A issues higher on their voting priority. So how in the world are we going to accomplish that by convincing them that they aren't welcome with the rest of us 2A supporters?


They will never be swayed by anything the NRA has to say because guns are not as important as liberal policies.
Once again, you're completely missing the point. The whole purpose of this argument is that we should all strive for this to stop being a liberal vs. conservative issue. But as long as we keep framing it in such a way, you're right; most of them will never be swayed by anything the NRA and the rest of the 2A community has to say.

Sam1911
August 23, 2014, 06:07 PM
If things are more important to them than the 2a then an NRA ad isn't going to change their mind! But if 2A IS the most important thing to a voter, then the NRA doesn't NEED to sway them. So why are we wasting money on ads?

Obviously, the ad is meant to sway SOMEBODY, and that somebody includes a lot of people out there who are somewhat open to our pitch, but aren't completely absorbed by this one issue as we are. So, that's going to include some folks who think they are some sort of "liberal" or some kind of "conservative." Now why would we kick in the crotch about half of that group we think we're trying to sway?

The people offended by that commercial weren't going to be swayed by it anyway.I think we're in agreement. The commercial was pointless and can only harm our position with the people we SHOULD BE trying to sway.

Theohazard
August 23, 2014, 06:25 PM
I simply don't understand why so many people here are willing to write off all liberals as anti-gun instead of trying to win a few of them to our cause. What do we possible have to lose? Why not try to broaden our tent?

There's a pro-gun liberal Democrat blogger who calls himself "Kontra" who has written two of the best pro-gun articles I've ever read. He talks about being torn between two worlds: He often feels villianized by some of his fellow liberals for liking guns, but at the same time he doesn't feel at home among many pro-gun folks. But why? Why do we need to push people like him away? Especially when he writes such a great article about the "assault weapons" ban:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/

Or when he writes such a scathing article against the Democratic gun control push of 2013:

http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/

Isn't this someone we want on our side, even though he's a liberal Democrat? Heck, especially because he's a liberal Democrat; he can help convince other liberal Democrats that their ideas on gun control are ridiculous. They're more likely to listen to him than they are to many of us, especially when we keep misusing partisan terms as pejoratives.

Cee Zee
August 23, 2014, 06:32 PM
It is not inconceivable that extreme gun control simply evaporates out of the Democrat platform within a decade or so

IMO it will die for about a decade then once again be brought up because it is a never ending desire of the control freak types to make sure they have control over your life. Gun control died after the unpopular AWB of the 90's when the Democrats lost both houses of Congress as a direct result (some would say that but IMO other factors were in play). It came back again with the Obama administration. Now it's failed again and politicians suffered the humiliation of being recalled. It wasn't enough but it sure makes for a bad image in the eyes of the public to see politicians sent packing because they violated the public trust. I think they will try again when they think they've won the hearts and minds of a new generation of voters who have been indoctrinated by the education system.

How so? Its use offends actual "liberals" -- be the pro or anti-2A. It embarrasses most others. The only people that word would play to are the ignorant who are already "on-board."

Because it motivates the base to come out and vote. That's a much bigger force in politics than appealing to the middle of the road voters. That's why the left constantly tries to label the NRA as a tool of the gun industry and made up of buffoons and losers and (gasp) right wingers.

The thing about this is that the 2A is a single issue and there are dang few single issue voters. I think the NRA has those locked up. That's why i think using the term "liberal" doesn't really help them. They are essentially campaigning for Republicans by doing that and I don't like those guys any more than I like Democrats. I want people who actually represent their constituents and those are hard to find it seems. There's a lot more money in representing the money brokers. We need to end this false dichotomy and get people to vote with their heads instead of their stiff necks. We have too many issues tied together in the political parties and it seems you have to swallow the entire package of a party to move your cause along at all. And that's a shame. The Republicans don't represent my views on most issues but they do on the 2A. But they want unfettered immigration as much as the Democrats do. That's getting into other issues so I won't go that way far. It just illustrates that the 2 party system really isn't serving us well at this point. We really need a third party. We almost had one but the IRS made sure they were dead before the 2012 elections. That was about the worst thing our government has ever done to the people IMO. It took away their right to organize politically and regardless of what you think of the Tea Party it was a viable third party. That's why one party set out to destroy it and the other party turned it's head. What really stinks is that only the right looks to form a new party from time to time in this country. The left is dominated by a small group of dictator like leaders that destroy their own if they don't play along and they do it in a way where they can be replaced with politicians that will toe their party line. The right does that too but the grass roots types have tried twice in the last 30 years to form a new party on the right. At least they're trying. I sure didn't like Ross Perot but having a third choice would help us a lot IMO.

benEzra
August 23, 2014, 08:46 PM
This entire argument about offending liberals is ridiculous. The people offended by that commercial weren't going to be swayed by it anyway.
The whole point of the ads is to motivate those who are pro-2ndA to vote the issue, as a counter against Bloomberg's attempts to buy authoritarian laws. A good number of those pro-2ndA people either identify themselves as socially or economically liberal, or as independents unbeholden to any political ideology. So when the NRA attempts to turn the broad issue of the 2ndA into a narrow "us conservatives vs. those libruls" thing, it pushes away those of us who aren't conservatives, and brands the NRA as an organization that represents only conservatives. That is an epic fail, and plays right into the hands of the communitarian Third Way branch of the Dems who have been trying to brand gun ownership as "conservative" and regressive civil rights infringements as "liberal" since the Clinton administration.

Kynoch
August 24, 2014, 03:51 AM
The reason they used 'liberal' is simple once you realized the word is used on this site weekly, if not daily, in a derogatory way to describe people that are not pro 2A.

Which is another point. I always try to say 'pro 2A' and not 'pro gun'.

Some say "its not a gun control issue, its a control issue. And I think they're right.

IOW: This is a Constitution issue. Not a gun issue.

That's precisely why the NRA should not have used the word.

Kynoch
August 24, 2014, 03:57 AM
If things are more important to them than the 2a then an NRA ad isn't going to change their mind! What's do hard to understand about that? They have already decided that whatever cause is much more important so they will sacrifice the 2a for it. They ARE NOT pro 2a then.

They will never be swayed by anything the NRA has to say because guns are not as important as liberal policies.

This entire argument about offending liberals is ridiculous. The people offended by that commercial weren't going to be swayed by it anyway.

Your comment illustrates very clearly why the NRA and the pro-2A camp in general struggles so mightily with PR matters. In simplest terms, you don't get it and the fact that you don't is costly to my RKBA.

ljnowell
August 24, 2014, 04:40 AM
Your comment illustrates very clearly why the NRA and the pro-2A camp in general struggles so mightily with PR matters. In simplest terms, you don't get it and the fact that you don't is costly to my RKBA.


And I feel the same about people like you so what's your point?

Theohazard
August 24, 2014, 05:25 AM
And I feel the same about people like you so what's your point?
Except when people like you intentionally alienate fellow gun-rights supporters over unrelated political issues, you're hurting our right to bear arms. Whereas people like Kynoch are trying to remove these stupid partisan divides and include more people in our pro-Second Amendment cause.

Ljnowell, your partisan attitude is actively hurting our cause. You might as well just donate money to Bloomberg and be done with it.

Sol
August 24, 2014, 11:05 AM
The NRA should have themed their commercial on a thing nobody likes: hypocrites.

They could of had a montage of anti-gun politicians and public figures showing or stating their disgust for private gun-ownership while pointing out that they have guns or have private security that has guns.

I'm positive that there are mountains of material.

jerkface11
August 24, 2014, 11:10 AM
I still fail to see how alienating people who vote for anti-gun politicians is somehow worse for the second amendment than actually voting for anti-gun politicians.

Sav .250
August 24, 2014, 11:20 AM
Anti- gun folks are out there. They can be anybody, group, organization,
even .....Liberals.

If the shoe fits..........

X-Rap
August 24, 2014, 12:31 PM
Hold on a second...

You do understand that a large portion of THR (both Members and Staff) would identify themselves as politically liberal, right?
__________________


This has to be the only reason this has survived as long as it has.
Politics, circle talk, name calling are always the death blow to a thread yet rampant in this one.

Sam Cade
August 24, 2014, 01:41 PM
This has to be the only reason this has survived as long as it has.
Politics, circle talk, name calling are always the death blow to a thread yet rampant in this one.

I am very disappointed if that is what you think the content of this thread has been.

A cognitive bias is a pattern of deviation in judgment, whereby inferences about other people and situations may be drawn in an illogical fashion.Individuals create their own “subjective social reality” from their perception of the input

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_bias

hso
August 24, 2014, 01:48 PM
Someone posited "What happens when the tent gets to big and tries to be everything for every body is that the whole movement gets diluted to the point that it means nothing.".

That's not even possible as long as the message if focused on real Antis. Marginalize that group and we have the best chance of the voting public not identifying with them and with us.


As to why the thread is open, what name calling or partisan politics has gone on in the thread? Disagreement on how the NRA should have packaged that message to appeal to the greatest number of people and marginalize Antis is why the discussion is going on.

benEzra
August 24, 2014, 03:02 PM
I still fail to see how alienating people who vote for anti-gun politicians is somehow worse for the second amendment than actually voting for anti-gun politicians
Identifying as liberal or independent is not the same as voting for anti-gun politicians. I am a centrist independent who is center-left on social issues, and I vote for the pro-gun choice or leave that spot on the ballot blank. Saying that people like me should either embrace all of social conservatism or go home---or lumping us in with Bloomberg and Feinstein---doesn't further the NRA's mission at all, IMO.

rbernie
August 24, 2014, 04:12 PM
You do understand that a large portion of THR (both Members and Staff) would identify themselves as politically liberal, right?Oh, freakin' spare me. One of the historically most common and worn-out excuses from the folk that don't fully align with THR's content or moderation has been to trot out the accusation that either we're a bunch of 'closet liberals' or a bunch of 'slack jawed rednecks', depending on which pole the accusation happened to come from. It's always struck me as an utterly lame and intellectually deficient accusation, since it is inherently based on scant knowledge of the ACTUAL political leanings of the site's members or staff.

It might surprise you to learn that the Mod Squad is about as politically diverse as the larger RKBA community, and that the THR membership is by all observation equally as diverse. The one thing that this site's staff and membership does seem to be united behind is the notion that the RKBA is a social issue and not a political one, and therefore no political party gets to claim it as their own. Historically, by the way, that has proven to be true (even as one political party is far more overt in their assails against the RKBA than t'other).

HexHead
August 24, 2014, 04:20 PM
Washington DC has the most stringent gun laws in the entire USA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia

Now, look at the gun murder rate for Washington DC. It's not just a little above the USA average, it simply blows all other states out of the water:

Well, black population in DC as of the 2012 census was 50.1% vs 14.1% for the USA as a whole. I would expect their rates to be "blows all the states out of the water" higher.
I'm just pointing out that there's more at play here than just stringent gun laws not working.

Sam Cade
August 24, 2014, 04:23 PM
Oh, freakin' spare me.

Did you quote the wrong post?

HexHead
August 24, 2014, 04:27 PM
Because of the rest of the liberal baggage they bring with them. And just because some liberal like Kerry owned a shotgun, or Biden advises having one, doesn't make them Pro-2nd. Only a fool would be swayed by that photo op.

BullfrogKen
August 24, 2014, 04:28 PM
Oh, freakin' spare me. One of the historically most common and worn-out excuses from the folk that don't fully align with THR's content or moderation has been to trot out the accusation that either we're a bunch of 'closet liberals' or a bunch of 'slack jawed rednecks', depending on which pole the accusation happened to come from.

You forgot jack-booted, Nazi thug.


Some years back I was called a pinko-commie, bleading heart liberal and a jack-booted, totalitarian brownshirt both in the same day.


I briefly thought about having an identity crisis, but I got over it.

:cool:

Sam Cade
August 24, 2014, 04:31 PM
Ken is a complicated guy. :neener:

HexHead
August 24, 2014, 04:39 PM
Some years back I was called a pinko-commie, bleading heart liberal and a jack-booted, totalitarian brownshirt both in the same day.



That just means you're doing it right then.

Cee Zee
August 24, 2014, 11:00 PM
Some years back I was called a pinko-commie, bleading heart liberal and a jack-booted, totalitarian brownshirt both in the same day.

I briefly thought about having an identity crisis, but I got over it.

Probably couldn't decide whether to have that crisis or not just like you couldn't decide to be a brownshirt or a pinko. ;) Pink and brown actually look pretty good together. At least they did when hippies weren't afraid to wear pink. :) I'll pass for less than PC reasons.

The one thing not being mentioned in this thread is that commercials should do MORE than just try to get voters to the polls. That certainly should matter but we should also care about winning the hearts and minds of the country. Even if the ad doesn't convince a dyed in the wool liberal to vote for the more likely to support 2A issues conservatives in elections we can still benefit from moving the needle on polls that are taken. It doesn't do us much good to insult people who might actually take our side in opinion polls and there's no doubt that politicians stick their finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing every chance they get. And mostly they do that by looking at polls. If they see that a lot of otherwise liberal people support the 2A they will be less inclined to try to push gun control issues. They obviously want those control laws whether or no but many of them don't want to ruin their joyride in Washington. Clearly there were some libs that voted to recall the gun grabbers in CO for example. That will definitely make a dent in the gung ho gun grabber march to eliminate all 2A rights.

We lose too many of these battles to alienate anyone that might help us in any way. Heck those liberals might have joined the NRA to fight for the 2A if they hadn't been insulted by the NRA. Not all liberal causes are bad. Not all liberals are loons. We need to stop adopting the tactics of the left which drive wedges between groups and make them choose one side or the other. They accuse us of all being right wing. It makes it seem they are right when we attack liberals. It isn't liberals we are fighting. It's gun grabbers. Someone who wants more government spending, for example, doesn't automatically want gun control.

One of my best friends is a liberal in almost every respect except the 2A. We shoot together a lot. We've been friends since we were in grade school. I don't want the NRA driving him away. He might well join the NRA despite being liberal on all issues besides guns but if they insult him like that he isn't likely to join up.

Heck my brother is a card carrying union liberal type. We grew up shooting as one of our main pastimes. How does it help us for the NRA to slam liberals when some of them support the 2A? If anything they might drive him away from the cause by doing that. Why would he want to associate with a group that demonizes him?

I used to support women's rights when it was about equal pay for equal work and things like that. When it became about all men being rapists who want to keep their wives barefoot and pregnant I stopped supporting their cause. They drove me away. I don't want the NRA doing the same thing to people who support the 2A now and insulting them is a good way to drive them away.

jcwit
August 26, 2014, 08:04 PM
Damed if they do, damed if they don't.

Oh well, I like the commercials.

Arizona_Mike
August 26, 2014, 11:21 PM
There are these anti-Bloomberg commercials targeted at "flyover country" and there are some even newer pro-NRA short adds that are running nationwide (including on Fox News). I think are two separate campaigns.

Mike

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 12:29 AM
And I feel the same about people like you so what's your point?

The point is that you damage the overall pro-2A effort. I do not.

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 12:32 AM
I still fail to see how alienating people who vote for anti-gun politicians is somehow worse for the second amendment than actually voting for anti-gun politicians.

Did you honestly feel you could sell that here? Really?

The point is this: The is absolutely no upside to offending/alienating pro-2A individuals by using the term "liberals" in a pejorative manner. Absolutely none.

Can you wrap your noggin around that without introducing extraneous variables or not?

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 12:42 AM
Anyone else here listen to "Gun Talk" with Tom Gresham last Sunday? I'm the "liberal" (he got that part wrong but no big deal) who emailed him about the NRA's obtuse use of the term "liberal" in their commercial.

I don't know if some of Tom's callers are truly as ignorant as they sounded or if they're simply so filled with hate that they can no longer think straight any longer? Tom's message was simple -- there's no upside to using "liberals" as a pejorative term -- it offends many pro-2A individuals, no matter how difficult this might be for some to grasp. Tom DID NOT say:

* To vote for anti-2A politicos (liberal or not.)

* To join the Democratic Party.

Some simply can't grasp (or don't want to grasp) the most simple of things -- Using "liberals" as a pejorative term offends many pro-2A individuals with absolutely zero upside.

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 12:44 AM
Damed if they do, damed if they don't.

Oh well, I like the commercials.

Poppycock. Not one person would have complained about using another word (one that actually made sense) in place of "liberals" on that commercial. Not one.

RPRNY
August 27, 2014, 12:50 AM
It is my view that nobody who would self identify as a liberal will vote anything but Democrat and, In a primary where the endangered species known as the "moderate" Democrat (or DINO) faces a liberal, will vote anything but left. In other words, there is no such thing as a pro 2A liberal. There are pro 2A Democrats, but they should be no more offended by the liberal term than a so-called "mainstream" Republican should be by people talking about Tea Party "extremists".

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 02:25 AM
It is my view that nobody who would self identify as a liberal will vote anything but Democrat and, In a primary where the endangered species known as the "moderate" Democrat (or DINO) faces a liberal, will vote anything but left. In other words, there is no such thing as a pro 2A liberal. There are pro 2A Democrats, but they should be no more offended by the liberal term than a so-called "mainstream" Republican should be by people talking about Tea Party "extremists".

What does that have to do with using the label "liberal" as a pejorative? Where's the upside to using that term in that manner?

The downsides? There are many. It might just keep someone who joining the NRA or other pro-2A organization. It could keep someone from making a donation to a pro-2A group. It might just keep them from calling or emailing a politico when anti-2A legislation is in the pipeline (as it is right now here in CA.)

It's chilling that people would use that term in a pejorative manner for no reason other than make themselves feel good in some perverse way while employing the excuse "they should be no more offended by the liberal term than a so-called 'mainstream' Republican should be by people talking about Tea Party "extremists"."

Downright sad.

Theohazard
August 27, 2014, 02:50 AM
there is no such thing as a pro 2A liberal.
You obviously don't know very many liberals then.


There are pro 2A Democrats, but they should be no more offended by the liberal term than a so-called "mainstream" Republican should be by people talking about Tea Party "extremists".
Yet again, nobody is say that the term "liberal" is offensive to a liberal. What we're saying is that mis-using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun" is not only incorrect, but it hurts the 2A cause by defining the 2A argument using unrelated partisan terms.

ljnowell
August 27, 2014, 03:07 AM
The point is that you damage the overall pro-2A effort. I do not.


Amazing you feel the ability to pass judgement on one based on your opinions.

I personally feel that bowing to those who vote against us is damaging the 2a. Therefore you damage the overall pro-2a effort, I do not. Isn't that near how that works?

silicosys4
August 27, 2014, 03:19 AM
Amazing you feel the ability to pass judgement on one based on your opinions.

I personally feel that bowing to those who vote against us is damaging the 2a. Therefore you damage the overall pro-2a effort, I do not. Isn't that near how that works?

No, that's not how it works. You are very impassioned about 2a. Some people are very impassioned about, say, gay rights, and don't exercise their 2a rights, so vote primarily on gay rights. To them, the right to do what they please with who they please impacts their lives just as much as the 2a impacts yours...while the 2a impacts their life just as little as gay rights impacts mine. Do we expect those people to abandon a candidate that enforces their rights on an issue that impacts them first and foremost, to support a candidate who is 2a friendly but anti gay rights? The matter of 2a support may seem very cut and dry, important, and critical to you, but there are many many people who vote based on other factors.

People who vote for anti 2a candidates are very rarely voting specifically against the 2a. They mostly are much more impassioned about other issues that happen to be on that candidates agenda as well. People aren't usually dumb, many are just not focused on the same things as you or I are...particularly firearms.

If you work to convince those people that 2a rights are very much worth seriously considering when voting, and leave all other politics out of it, many's views on suitable candidates would likely change. Nobody likes a meanie though, so when you demean someone based on their political beliefs aside from the issue you have odds with, it endangers your chances of coming to an understanding. People will tend to reject your beliefs just out of displeasure in your attitude.

Imagine a world where all manner of social and economic issues are relevant, but the 2a is not even up for consideration as an issue...If you realistically want such a world, you have to give up the "us vs. them" attitude, ignore all aspects of a persons political views except the 2a, and go from there. You aren't easily going to change a persons entire life's philosophical/political views from a "liberal" to whatever you deem worthy of support, but you can, surprisingly enough, convince many people that more rights are better than less if the right info is presented in the right ways, regardless of their political orientation.

Most people don't "want" less freedom, they just don't understand the importance of those freedoms, and feel that sacrificing a right little used by them personally is worth whatever they have been convinced they will gain...safety, warm fuzzies, the lives of the children, puppies, etc....

Plain and simple, a great many people are not impacted by the 2a one way or the other...and they vote based entirely on other things.

Gotta convince them otherwise. The lack of choices in the current 2 party system also forces many people to vote for whichever lesser of two evils they feel they can sleep with at night, based on their beliefs. If you, say, have a gay family member and a gun collection, that could be a tough choice. One way or the other, somebody's rights are likely to be endangered.

Theohazard
August 27, 2014, 03:26 AM
^^^ Very well said! That should probably end the thread right there.

Cee Zee
August 27, 2014, 05:49 AM
there is no such thing as a pro 2A liberal.

That's just not true. The friend I mentioned earlier is very much a liberal on almost all issues. I agree with him on some of those issues but mostly not. But we have both been on a gun buying binge for the last 5-6 years and the first thing we do almost when we get a new gun is go shooting with each other. I've got to compare lots of brand new guns like that. For example he bought 2 new 10/22's at the same time I bought a new Marlin 60 and got my old 60 working right again (I mucked it up with the ejector wire while cleaning the action). We were about a week apart on all those getting going back then. We've both bought a lot of guns since then too. We shoot all the time or we did until I had to move away temporarily. I borrow guns from him and I give him ammo when I find it and you get the picture.

In all things guns he is gung ho. So is his wife and family who are all liberals too BTW. They all belong to the gun club too. All of them. But I know I can reach him on the issue of gun rights and maybe influence his votes when it comes election time. I know he cares a lot about shooting. I doubt he would vote for a gun grabber. Lucky for him we don't have many in our area anyway no matter which party they're in. But if it was a choice between a total liberal and a gun grabber vs. a defender of the 2A I think I might convince him to vote the right way.

So yeah there are liberal supporters of the 2A. I can see insulting people who slam us people in flyover country but for one thing that is NOT just libs. I've seen lots of so called conservatives think the same way. To blame that kind of thinking on just liberals is wrong although most gun grabbers probably are liberal. It still doesn't mean they all are.

ljnowell
August 27, 2014, 07:27 AM
No, that's not how it works. You are very impassioned about 2a. Some people are very impassioned about, say, gay rights, and don't exercise their 2a rights, so vote primarily on gay rights. To them, the right to do what they please with who they please impacts their lives just as much as the 2a impacts yours...while the 2a impacts their life just as little as gay rights impacts mine. Do we expect those people to abandon a candidate that enforces their rights on an issue that impacts them first and foremost, to support a candidate who is 2a friendly but anti gay rights? The matter of 2a support may seem very cut and dry, important, and critical to you, but there are many many people who vote based on other factors.

People who vote for anti 2a candidates are very rarely voting specifically against the 2a. They mostly are much more impassioned about other issues that happen to be on that candidates agenda as well. People aren't usually dumb, many are just not focused on the same things as you or I are...particularly firearms.

If you work to convince those people that 2a rights are very much worth seriously considering when voting, and leave all other politics out of it, many's views on suitable candidates would likely change. Nobody likes a meanie though, so when you demean someone based on their political beliefs aside from the issue you have odds with, it endangers your chances of coming to an understanding. People will tend to reject your beliefs just out of displeasure in your attitude.

Imagine a world where all manner of social and economic issues are relevant, but the 2a is not even up for consideration as an issue...If you realistically want such a world, you have to give up the "us vs. them" attitude, ignore all aspects of a persons political views except the 2a, and go from there. You aren't easily going to change a persons entire life's philosophical/political views from a "liberal" to whatever you deem worthy of support, but you can, surprisingly enough, convince many people that more rights are better than less if the right info is presented in the right ways, regardless of their political orientation.

Most people don't "want" less freedom, they just don't understand the importance of those freedoms, and feel that sacrificing a right little used by them personally is worth whatever they have been convinced they will gain...safety, warm fuzzies, the lives of the children, puppies, etc....

Plain and simple, a great many people are not impacted by the 2a one way or the other...and they vote based entirely on other things.

Gotta convince them otherwise. The lack of choices in the current 2 party system also forces many people to vote for whichever lesser of two evils they feel they can sleep with at night, based on their beliefs. If you, say, have a gay family member and a gun collection, that could be a tough choice. One way or the other, somebody's rights are likely to be endangered.


People who put the 2a below issues such as gay rights, social welfare programs, etc. aren't going to be magically swayed to vote against such things. It's not going to happen.

We can preach and pontificate all day but it doesn't change the fact that people either vote 2a or don't.

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 07:35 AM
Plain and simple, a great many people are not impacted by the 2a one way or the other...and they vote based entirely on other things.

Gotta convince them otherwise.

And that pretty much nails the whole point of this. When the NRA says (paraphrasing), "We gotta fight the LIBERALS" it sweeps up a whole lot of people who have no argument with us at all and DECLARES them to be our enemy.

To use an historical analogy, in WWII we fought against Japan. They were our enemy. But we were not so dumb as to say "Buy war bonds and help us fight the Asians!" Whoa there, pal. You just circled up Chinese folks, Malays, Philippines, Koreans, Mongols, Tibetans, Siberians, Vietnamese, Indians, Russians, and a whole lot more.

Some of them DO lean toward supporting our enemy, but not all, and there are a lot of neutral parties and even some sympathetic ones and you just told them, and our troops, the good folks at home, and the rest of the world, "It's US vs. THEM, and you guys are THEM!"





We've got to be smarter that this.

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 07:42 AM
People who put the 2a below issues such as gay rights, social welfare programs, etc. aren't going to be magically swayed to vote against such things. It's not going to happen. That's not the point. The point is that we're trying to UNPIN these things from each other. We don't WANT gay folks to have no choice but to vote against us. Or social welfare fans. We don't want politicians that swing left on whatever else to adopt gun control as a de facto part of their "liberal" platform.

You're looking at the choices from this last election and a few prior ones. But some of us plan to be around for decades to come and don't want to keep fighting this same stupid either-or battle.

It is NOT a "liberal" and "conservative" issue.

We can preach and pontificate all day but it doesn't change the fact that people either vote 2a or don't.

And if we keep drumming it into their heads that they should expect their social issue choice to come with a side of gun control, that's what it will be. If we keep posturing and positioning ourselves as tied to being THEIR enemy, that's all they'll ever see us as.

Is is so stupid as to boggle the mind.

RetiredUSNChief
August 27, 2014, 08:05 AM
I haven't seen any of these commercials yet, but I'll google them later when I have time.

On the subject of "Liberal" being used as a general descriptor, here's my two cents:

It has always been my opinion that the way forward is to stand on the high ground. "The High Road", so to speak. In the long run, that gets us much further along.

We cannot be the ones to exaggerate claims, for example, because it simply gives our opponents something to point out as obvious lies and misdirection. I don't care how much they do it and any perceived advantages that gets them. In the long run, calmly pointing out lies and obvious misdirections tends to make more people see those who spout such things as what they are: liars. DON'T be the liar.

When we point out the lies and misdirections of others, we have to do it with firmly entrenched facts. We can't sling BS, nor can we rely on hearsay or rumor. Hard, fast facts. If we allow ourselves to put out false or unverified information, then our own position becomes weaker...and we tend to be viewed as untrustworthy and liars ourselves. Let's leave that to our opponents.

Leave off with the overgeneralizing and inflated claims/descriptions of events and people. "Liberals" aren't all on the same page with any given issue any more than "Conservatives" are. There are specific crowds involved here which can be accurately described by much better terms. "Pro-gun control people", "anti-gun", and so forth very accurately, and vividly, describe who our opponents are. These people are who we should be speaking of. Not all liberals are pro-gun control. Not all mothers are pro-gun control. Not all urban people are pro-gun control. Take care not to alienate these people through our own ignorance or callousness.


Taking the high road in these, and other things, EARNS us a valuable commodity amongst a larger group of people: respect and a good reputation. Once we have respect and a good reputation, we have a larger following.

Don't throw that away.

Davek1977
August 27, 2014, 08:21 AM
I disagree the NRA needs a PR firm. They have a membership number that mocks lesser groups. They do more to support gun rights than all other groups combined. With millions f members, apparently not every one is upset by the language they use, and rather, with membership growing, people seem to be embracing the NRA. I tend to agree with DeepSouth, in that the Democratic party, as a whole, has made gun control a majorly partisan issue. Democrats, even those who claim they are against gun control, tend to vote Democrat, which in many cases is a vote for gun control. Lip service means little when its votes, not statements, that are counted and tallied in the end. If pro-gun Democrats don't like the liberal label, they are free to vote in a way that distances them from that stereotype. If they vote tru to their party, while claiming to be "pro-gun" they have some serious soul-searching to do, as those two things are in conflict as far as I'm concerned. A "pro-gun" Dem who votes for solidly anti-gun candidate deserves to have a little criticism thrown their way. If you don't want to be called a liberal, change your voting patterns to reflect your views. Otherwise, as upset as people may be, they're mad because we're calling a dog a dog, instead of pretending its a kitten. You can't say one thing, and vote another, and have any credibility in my book.

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 08:28 AM
If pro-gun Democrats don't like the liberal label, they are free to vote in a way that distances them from that stereotype. If they vote tru to their party, while claiming to be "pro-gun" they have some serious soul-searching to do, as those two things are in conflict as far as I'm concerned. A "pro-gun" Dem who votes for solidly anti-gun candidate deserves to have a little criticism thrown their way. If you don't want to be called a liberal, change your voting patterns to reflect your views. Otherwise, as upset as people may be, they're mad because we're calling a dog a dog, instead of pretending its a kitten. You can't say one thing, and vote another, and have any credibility in my book.

OMG. :banghead:

They DON'T dislike being called "Liberal." That's part of their self-identity.

When we say Liberals are OUR enemy, we aren't calling them a nasty name, we're just telling them that they aren't welcome in our camp, that we don't like them, and that we oppose them (and what they want).

Even when those things are not necessarily true!

The idea here is that gun control is NOT (or should not be) a "liberal" thing. LIBERAL people should be AGAINST more control. We don't hate liberals. We fight against gun control. That's it. Telling them that their whole self identity is against us is wrong and stupid.

Does that make the problem with this ad more clear now?

...

Look, a lot of black people have historically vote for candidates who endorse gun control. Might as well just say we're fighting against the black people, too. And the Jewish people. Don't they "usually" vote for gun control supporters? City folks? Are we against urbanites?

We wouldn't say ANY of those things. That sweeps up whole groups of people and tells them that we are their enemy. So why do we do it with "liberals?"

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 08:29 AM
Amazing you feel the ability to pass judgement on one based on your opinions.

I personally feel that bowing to those who vote against us is damaging the 2a. Therefore you damage the overall pro-2a effort, I do not. Isn't that near how that works?

Has nothing to do with my opinion. The NRA showed shocking obtuseness by using the term "liberal" as it did in that commercial. Very embarrassing.

If you think that NOT using liberal in that context would have been a case of "bowing to those who vote against us" then you're 100% part of the problem. You simply don't get it. You endanger my RKBA.

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 08:35 AM
People who put the 2a below issues such as gay rights, social welfare programs, etc. aren't going to be magically swayed to vote against such things. It's not going to happen.

We can preach and pontificate all day but it doesn't change the fact that people either vote 2a or don't.

Maybe, maybe not. But they might be persuaded to join the NRA or another pro-2A group. They might be persuaded to make a donation to a pro-2A group. They might call a liberal politician (who they have actually met) in their state and ask that they vote against pending legislation.

You're trying to make this a simple cut-n-dried matter and simply put, it's not...

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 08:41 AM
I disagree the NRA needs a PR firm. They have a membership number that mocks lesser groups. They do more to support gun rights than all other groups combined. With millions f members, apparently not every one is upset by the language they use, and rather, with membership growing, people seem to be embracing the NRA. I tend to agree with DeepSouth, in that the Democratic party, as a whole, has made gun control a majorly partisan issue. Democrats, even those who claim they are against gun control, tend to vote Democrat, which in many cases is a vote for gun control. Lip service means little when its votes, not statements, that are counted and tallied in the end. If pro-gun Democrats don't like the liberal label, they are free to vote in a way that distances them from that stereotype. If they vote tru to their party, while claiming to be "pro-gun" they have some serious soul-searching to do, as those two things are in conflict as far as I'm concerned. A "pro-gun" Dem who votes for solidly anti-gun candidate deserves to have a little criticism thrown their way. If you don't want to be called a liberal, change your voting patterns to reflect your views. Otherwise, as upset as people may be, they're mad because we're calling a dog a dog, instead of pretending its a kitten. You can't say one thing, and vote another, and have any credibility in my book.

Good grief...

First, I'm sure the NRA does engage PR/ad firms -- more than one I suspect. They just need to find a good one.

There was absolutely NO UPSIDE to the NRA using the term "liberal" as it did in that commercial. It was a foolish/punk move. It was also highly unprofessional. Do you get that or is that fact completely lost on you?

You speak about the "millions" that make up the NRA. Ever consider what sort of power the NRA would have if it was 10, 15, 20M+ instead of 5M or less? Do you?

YOU and people LIKE YOU are a problem. You provide political ammo to the opposition with your comments. You threaten my RKBA.

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 08:47 AM
OMG. :banghead:

They DON'T dislike being called "Liberal." That's part of their self-identity.

When we say Liberals are OUR enemy, we aren't calling them a nasty name, we're just telling them that they aren't welcome in our camp, that we don't like them, and that we oppose them (and what they want).

Even when those things are not necessarily true!

The idea here is that gun control is NOT (or should not be) a "liberal" thing. LIBERAL people should be AGAINST more control. We don't hate liberals. We fight against gun control. That's it. Telling them that their whole self identity is against us is wrong and stupid.

Does that make the problem with this ad more clear now?

...

Look, a lot of black people have historically vote for candidates who endorse gun control. Might as well just say we're fighting against the black people, too. And the Jewish people. Don't they "usually" vote for gun control supporters? City folks? Are we against urbanites?

We wouldn't say ANY of those things. That sweeps up whole groups of people and tells them that we are their enemy. So why do we do it with "liberals?"

While I appreciate the contents of your posting I doubt it hit home to those who need it the most. These people seem to have marinated so long in a concoction of ignorance and hatred that they simply can no longer (or never could) think in a critical manner. They are a real threat to gun rights.

HexHead
August 27, 2014, 08:51 AM
The one thing not being mentioned in this thread is that commercials should do MORE than just try to get voters to the polls. That certainly should matter but we should also care about winning the hearts and minds of the country.

When has that strategy worked? It was a miserable failure in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. I prefer Chuck Colson's version, "When you have them by the balls, their 'hearts and minds' will follow."

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 09:03 AM
Maybe, maybe not. But they might be persuaded to join the NRA or another pro-2A group. They might be persuaded to make a donation to a pro-2A group. They might call a liberal politician (who they have actually met) in their state and ask that they vote against pending legislation.

You're trying to make this a simple cut-n-dried matter and simply put, it's not...

Exactly. Things are shifting these days. The old lib-vs.-con spectrum isn't holding up. And we don't want it to.

HexHead
August 27, 2014, 09:04 AM
No, that's not how it works. You are very impassioned about 2a. Some people are very impassioned about, say, gay rights, and don't exercise their 2a rights, so vote primarily on gay rights. To them, the right to do what they please with who they please impacts their lives just as much as the 2a impacts yours...while the 2a impacts their life just as little as gay rights impacts mine. Do we expect those people to abandon a candidate that enforces their rights on an issue that impacts them first and foremost, to support a candidate who is 2a friendly but anti gay rights? The matter of 2a support may seem very cut and dry, important, and critical to you, but there are many many people who vote based on other factors.

People who vote for anti 2a candidates are very rarely voting specifically against the 2a. They mostly are much more impassioned about other issues that happen to be on that candidates agenda as well. People aren't usually dumb, many are just not focused on the same things as you or I are...particularly firearms.

If you work to convince those people that 2a rights are very much worth seriously considering when voting, and leave all other politics out of it, many's views on suitable candidates would likely change. Nobody likes a meanie though, so when you demean someone based on their political beliefs aside from the issue you have odds with, it endangers your chances of coming to an understanding. People will tend to reject your beliefs just out of displeasure in your attitude.

Imagine a world where all manner of social and economic issues are relevant, but the 2a is not even up for consideration as an issue...If you realistically want such a world, you have to give up the "us vs. them" attitude, ignore all aspects of a persons political views except the 2a, and go from there. You aren't easily going to change a persons entire life's philosophical/political views from a "liberal" to whatever you deem worthy of support, but you can, surprisingly enough, convince many people that more rights are better than less if the right info is presented in the right ways, regardless of their political orientation.

Most people don't "want" less freedom, they just don't understand the importance of those freedoms, and feel that sacrificing a right little used by them personally is worth whatever they have been convinced they will gain...safety, warm fuzzies, the lives of the children, puppies, etc....

Plain and simple, a great many people are not impacted by the 2a one way or the other...and they vote based entirely on other things.

Gotta convince them otherwise. The lack of choices in the current 2 party system also forces many people to vote for whichever lesser of two evils they feel they can sleep with at night, based on their beliefs. If you, say, have a gay family member and a gun collection, that could be a tough choice. One way or the other, somebody's rights are likely to be endangered.
You've summed it up well, but to the wrong conclusion. Dems that like guns but still vote for those with Socialist agendas in the long run do NOTHING to help the RKBA. Those that support gays, illegal immigrants, and making people as dependent on the federal government as possible are ultimately about control. Period. Not just gun control, but people control. And guns are the only thing standing in their way from achieving their goal. Those of you that think playing nice with Liberals will achieve anything need to read the Left's playbook, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 09:05 AM
I prefer Chuck Colson's version, "When you have them by the balls, their 'hearts and minds' will follow."

Ok, great strategy.

When you have the other 51% of the country "by the balls" call us and let us know.


:rolleyes:

Chuck Colson's a moron and listing a bunch of failures of "by the balls" diplomacy doesn't support his idiotic theory. (Not that history really has any good examples of that working, short of genocide.)

HexHead
August 27, 2014, 09:13 AM
I disagree the NRA needs a PR firm. They have a membership number that mocks lesser groups. They do more to support gun rights than all other groups combined. With millions f members, apparently not every one is upset by the language they use, and rather, with membership growing, people seem to be embracing the NRA. I tend to agree with DeepSouth, in that the Democratic party, as a whole, has made gun control a majorly partisan issue. Democrats, even those who claim they are against gun control, tend to vote Democrat, which in many cases is a vote for gun control. Lip service means little when its votes, not statements, that are counted and tallied in the end. If pro-gun Democrats don't like the liberal label, they are free to vote in a way that distances them from that stereotype. If they vote tru to their party, while claiming to be "pro-gun" they have some serious soul-searching to do, as those two things are in conflict as far as I'm concerned. A "pro-gun" Dem who votes for solidly anti-gun candidate deserves to have a little criticism thrown their way. If you don't want to be called a liberal, change your voting patterns to reflect your views. Otherwise, as upset as people may be, they're mad because we're calling a dog a dog, instead of pretending its a kitten. You can't say one thing, and vote another, and have any credibility in my book.
Exactly. Well said.

HexHead
August 27, 2014, 09:19 AM
OMG. :banghead:

They DON'T dislike being called "Liberal." That's part of their self-identity.

When we say Liberals are OUR enemy, we aren't calling them a nasty name, we're just telling them that they aren't welcome in our camp, that we don't like them, and that we oppose them (and what they want).

Even when those things are not necessarily true!

The idea here is that gun control is NOT (or should not be) a "liberal" thing. LIBERAL people should be AGAINST more control. We don't hate liberals. We fight against gun control. That's it. Telling them that their whole self identity is against us is wrong and stupid.

Does that make the problem with this ad more clear now?

...

Look, a lot of black people have historically vote for candidates who endorse gun control. Might as well just say we're fighting against the black people, too. And the Jewish people. Don't they "usually" vote for gun control supporters? City folks? Are we against urbanites?

We wouldn't say ANY of those things. That sweeps up whole groups of people and tells them that we are their enemy. So why do we do it with "liberals?"
Substitute the word SOCIALIST for LIBERAL in your post and see if it still makes sense. This isn't the 1960's any longer. The political reality has changed.

HexHead
August 27, 2014, 09:23 AM
They might call a liberal politician (who they have actually met) in their state and ask that they vote against pending legislation.


How's that been working for you in CA?

Sam1911
August 27, 2014, 09:32 AM
This isn't the 1960's any longer. The political reality has changed.Precisely.

wojownik
August 27, 2014, 01:50 PM
It's one thing to go around in circles about those "liberals" who hold far left positions. They are incorrigible, and as incorrigible as those "conservatives" on the extreme right. They polarize

I'm getting the disturbing feeling that some who abhor the term "liberal" or "progressive" may be lumping in moderates with liberals as well. This is important, as some moderates - who do support 2a, but also want to see a more progressive social agenda - will self-identify as "liberal" even if they really are not.

I had the opportunity to have a lunch in DC yesterday with a dozen or so folks from a cross the political spectrum. While socially debating a number of hot topics - and 2a was one - the discussion really brought home this political spectrum. Folks that self identified as "liberal" ranged from hard-core to really quite moderate. And there appeared to be a gender factor as well - females in the group tended to identify as "liberal" more than their male counterparts with pretty much the exact same positions. (except for the single "liberal" males that were trying to ... um ... self-identify with female "liberals." You know how that goes...).

So tossing around "liberal" as an epithet only serves to further alienate those on the center-left that may not be slavishly beholden to party lines. If folks on the center-left never crossed party lines, then Republican Rudy Giuliani would not have become mayor in NYC (arguably good), nor Bloomberg (decidedly not good). (yes, 2a was not an factor in those elections, but hey, its NYC).

Moderates represent the swing vote. Moderates are the political battleground. Moderates - including those who self-identify as "liberal" - can and will do some very interesting things come election time.

The NRA ad plays right into that - it pulls the discussion to the right - alienating moderates as well as liberals. It makes no sense to drum up the support of 5 voters that know you already have, while alienating 7 more. Politics is a numbers game.

Also, there is no longer any such thing as a "local ad". They may intend to play the ad in the hills of Pennsyltucky, but are surely aware that any ads of this sort are going to get national play in the media. And if the PR folks at the NRA are not aware of that fact of modern media, then it perhaps is time for the NRA to do some staff re-evaluations.

SilentStalker
August 27, 2014, 02:04 PM
I haven't read everyone's responses to this but I have to say that I think its a terrible ad. Its just not a strong well put together ad. I think if I was going to spend $500k on something like that then i would hire the best ad agency in the biz to put it together. Just my .02 cents.

Elkins45
August 27, 2014, 02:41 PM
Our enemy is the anti 2A crowd, not liberals. Anybody who equates the two doesn't know the same people I do. While there is a general correlation between anti 2A views and "liberal" political positions the relationship is far from absolute.

Name calling has rarely been an effective lobbying strategy.

Arizona_Mike
August 27, 2014, 02:44 PM
I think it is a pretty good ad, esp targeted at midwestern and mountain states. I do not believe it is running nationwide.

Mike

silicosys4
August 27, 2014, 03:06 PM
You've summed it up well, but to the wrong conclusion. Dems that like guns but still vote for those with Socialist agendas in the long run do NOTHING to help the RKBA. Those that support gays, illegal immigrants, and making people as dependent on the federal government as possible are ultimately about control. Period. Not just gun control, but people control. And guns are the only thing standing in their way from achieving their goal. Those of you that think playing nice with Liberals will achieve anything need to read the Left's playbook, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

It is very clear that you do not have much experience with anybody you consider "liberal", nor do you understand their goals.
Some people just need to have a particular group to point at and hate, and I think we are seeing a lot of that in this thread.

" Those that support gays, illegal immigrants, and making people as dependent on the federal government as possible are ultimately about control. Period."

Lets break that down...."those that support gays" is not the same as those that support the rights of gay people. Thats as absurd as saying that I can only support gun rights if I am a gun enthusiast. Supporting illegal immigrants has NOTHING to do with rights, and as far as I know, most liberals dont "support illegal immigration"...but rather, are concerned about the treatment and living conditions of illegal immigrants after they have broken the law by crossing the border illegally into the US. Making people dependent on the federal govt? I have no idea where you pulled that one from.

Only in your mind does this describe a liberal. You are descending into exaggerations, falsehoods, and hatespeak, and that does nothing to reinforce your point, but rather reinforces points that have been made in this thread about anti liberalism being damaging to the 2a.
And hey, freedom isn't free. It's also universal. I don't see a valid argument being made here about which freedoms and rights are more important, based on YOUR use of them. What, its honorable for you to vote for a candidate who does nothing for, or even restricts women's rights or gay rights, because they are pro-2a, but its an act of evil to vote against the 2a for a candidate who is pro women's rights or gay rights? Why do you get to choose what importance people place based on their various rights? You don't. The truth is, we are stuck in a system that often forces people to choose.

I will say that I was EXTREMELY dissapointed in the Patriot Act. That little piece of garbage did much to shape my opinion of the "freedom loving, rights embracing" conservatives that those who seem to hate liberals for their anti freedom/rights, also seem to embrace wholeheartedly.
Both sides are capable of trampling rights as they see fit.

The goal of the average "liberal" isn't to "control you". Its to live their life in safety and peace. Anti 2a's are, for the most part, confused as to how that goal is achieved, or if it can be achieved at all while remaining free. Some people, liberals and conservatives, need to be convinced that freedom ultimately contains elements of risk, but is worth it.

Since I'm along for the ride, I have to ask...what do you do to advance the 2a? How do you convince people who would otherwise not care about the 2a, to change their minds? Do you do anything at all, or do you feel that nothing is to be done about people that don't vote 2a?

I'm sick of listening to this mindset, while continuously reading stories from other members about converting fence sitters. You should read this thread about someone who is actually working to advance the 2a, by introducing people you would probably consider hopeless, evil "liberals" to firearms. These were members of the media, the absolute best people to support the 2a, and foreigners to boot, from a hopelessly socialist country...France.
THIS is what advances the 2a. NOT name calling and attempts to demean people.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=760096

Dude, the evidence is in. People change their views based on new info. Being a jerk tends to close people off. You aren't making a valid argument, ultimately you are doing nothing more than showing your prejudices, ignorance, and certain anti-social/tribal tendencies.

X-Rap
August 27, 2014, 04:14 PM
With one man one vote I believe few true Liberals that will take offense from the use of it in the commercial will change their vote next time they pull the lever for president, senator, representative, gov, or statehouse.
Philosophically they are opposed to individualism and personal freedoms and many that do own guns would gladly relinquish them if there were an opportunity to rid the country of them. As has been pointed out they want safety.
Over the years the NRA has made some huge blunders in supporting and ranking politicians who later have shown their stripes, I can think of none who were liberal but turned more conservative. To a man they have been just the opposite.
The notion that the NRA could more than double their membership by embracing the Liberals is hilarious but a Danger To My RTKBA;) http://images.thehighroad.org/smilies/wink.gif

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 04:20 PM
You've summed it up well, but to the wrong conclusion. Dems that like guns but still vote for those with Socialist agendas in the long run do NOTHING to help the RKBA. Those that support gays, illegal immigrants, and making people as dependent on the federal government as possible are ultimately about control. Period. Not just gun control, but people control. And guns are the only thing standing in their way from achieving their goal. Those of you that think playing nice with Liberals will achieve anything need to read the Left's playbook, Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

You're simply wrong.

Citizens can "help the RKBA" through many means in addition to their votes.

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 04:23 PM
When has that strategy worked? It was a miserable failure in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. I prefer Chuck Colson's version, "When you have them by the balls, their 'hearts and minds' will follow."

Just about every presidential election.

Colson was a DB.

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 04:26 PM
How's that been working for you in CA?

Pretty well, actually. It led to Gov. Brown vetoing a bunch of anti-2A legislation not too long ago.

At this very moment we're in a fight over SB53 and AB1014 that have yet to come to the floor for a vote due to pressure from ALL pro-2A Californians.

Feeling humbled?

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 04:29 PM
I haven't read everyone's responses to this but I have to say that I think its a terrible ad. Its just not a strong well put together ad. I think if I was going to spend $500k on something like that then i would hire the best ad agency in the biz to put it together. Just my .02 cents.

Amen. The soda/chips part was childish. Overall, the commercial looked cheap.

blarby
August 27, 2014, 04:33 PM
He talks about being torn between two worlds: He often feels villianized by some of his fellow liberals for liking guns, but at the same time he doesn't feel at home among many pro-gun folks.

Its a tough row to hoe, lemme tell ya...

Best part is, you usually end up with both sides calling you weak-willed, and a fair weather friend.

I'll show 'em. I'm voting Cthulhu this year. Time to put this "lesser evil" crap to bed for good.

As possibly the only functional blending of "blue and red" evidently coming out as some sort of grey.... he fits the bill.

Besides, he'll never judge me for my sinister views. I also have a notion he'd be a mighty gun owners advocate... if a little stern on things like sunlight, free will, and the happily ever after.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/ll50492d58.png


Philosophically they are opposed to individualism and personal freedoms

We studied different, and live on different planets, apparently.

Anti-prohibition, pro-choice, pro-gender equality, pro-equal race rights, pro-porn, pro-environment, and just flat-out pro being pro.

Seems "they" are all about personal freedoms in reality- just not the "one" you happen to like and thats the topic of discussion here. Sadly, all of it falls outside the scope, but some light on the issue to illustrate the illegitimacy of that comment seemed appropriate.


Maybe if we could switch out the talking heads that get all of the press, and educate a lot of these folks, we could get one more "pro" added to that list.

We'd need some more neurotrauma units in short order though.....

With one man one vote I believe few true Liberals that will take offense from the use of it in the commercial will change their vote next time they pull the lever for president, senator, representative, gov, or statehouse.

This enormous point you keep missing- it keeps getting bigger and bigger, kinda like I wish my x ring would at the 300 yard line... So, let me make it a little more plain for those following along :

By using words, terms, and tactics that lump all of the people who don't think exactly like you into a group you don't like, you alienate a great many of the folks on the fringes of that group with your zealotry- and drive them firmly into the camp you don't want them to go into with your "passion" for the "cause".

You can snag quite a few more votes for life by not being a bleeding idealist, and at least having a little decency in how you conduct your affairs.

Cee Zee
August 27, 2014, 05:28 PM
When has that strategy worked? It was a miserable failure in Vietnam and more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It has worked very well right here in the USA. We have succeeded in getting concealed carry back after almost 200 years. The first concealed carry restrictions were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana back in 1813. Now there are ways to get permits to carry concealed in all 50 states with some much easier to get than others and some requiring no permit at all. I'd say that was a big example of us winning the hearts and minds of the public. We showed people that guns weren't the enemy. Gun grabbers have had a very hard time in most places in the last 20 years. So I definitely think there's reason to win the hearts and minds of the public. This isn't a third world country like Vietnam. This is America where people still think things through sometimes anyway.

DeepSouth
August 27, 2014, 05:54 PM
Embracing the enemy never works, ever.

Now many will argue the point that they aren't our enemy, which according them they are.... See my post #28.....but anyway some small, silent portion of them are likely pro 2A. But they are small enough and silent enough to frankly be insignificant, sorry but that's my take and apparently the take of their fellow liberals as well.

I'm also reminded of a saying I once heard "the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead animals"

Elkins45
August 27, 2014, 06:10 PM
I'm also reminded of a saying I once heard "the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead animals"

You left one out: "the majority of American voters."

Kynoch
August 27, 2014, 06:16 PM
Embracing the enemy never works, ever.

You simply don't get it. There's no upside in offending liberals/Democrats by what the NRA did in that commercial -- except possibly to entertain people like yourself.

"The enemy" are NOT pro-2A individuals be they liberal, moderate or conservative. People like you are.

Now many will argue the point that they aren't our enemy, which according them they are.... See my post #28.....but anyway some small, silent portion of them are likely pro 2A. But they are small enough and silent enough to frankly be insignificant, sorry but that's my take and apparently the take of their fellow liberals as well.

Bull manure. Even if they were "small enough and silent enough to frankly be insignificant" (which they are not) there's still no upside to using the word "liberal" in the manner the NRA did.

I'm also reminded of a saying I once heard "the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead animals"

You're simply a bigot. Spin things any way you want but you're a bigot -- you get a kick out of the NRA offending others and that makes you my enemy.

DeepSouth
August 27, 2014, 06:40 PM
Dude, chill man

Apparently I seriously offended you. I'm not really sure how but That wasn't my intention.
I would have to point out that the obvious up side the "offending" NRA ad is to fire up the people that agree with it and get them talking, calling senators, donating, ect. Ect.
I'm also not sure what exactly in the ad is offensive.

Sam Cade
August 27, 2014, 06:45 PM
Normally we don't moderate in threads that we have "been in" but in this case I'm going to go ahead and shut this one down before someone says something regrettable and our fellowship is broken.

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!