NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign

Cazadores said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

DeepSouth said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

DeepSouth said:

After all they do it.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Theohazard said:

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).

Click to expand...

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.

ljnowell said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Click to expand...

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.

bainter1212 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

wojownik said:

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 ...

Click to expand...

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.

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).

I wish they had not used "Liberal" in place of Prohibitionist

Click to expand...

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 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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

and to the man they vote with the party no matter the position on the 2a.

Click to expand...

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.

wojownik said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 NRA are a bunch of ham-fisted PR louts!

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:



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...

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.

Dmitri Popov said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 !

hso said:

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.

Click to expand...

+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.