Is is just me or is the NRAs new riot video distorting it message

I remember my union (local 2507) posted in their fliers support for gun control. I immediately called them up and informed that gun control has nothing to do with union issues such as fair working conditions. My union has helped me numerous times when I needed it but I don't attend any meetings and feel I have nothing to add. The reason is because of things like this caused by a lack of objectivity as well as obvious indifference to allowing the organization to be hijacked by people with political agendas at the cost of solidarity. My call and email were not addressed in any meaningful way.

Now I Am a Life Member of the NRA and have been very pleased with their progress. Up to now I really liked all of their videos and ads. I can clearly see the NRA had a duty to support Trump as there were no other options and their hands were tied. I am very glad a new pro second amendment justice has been appointed.

Trump can really be thankful to people like Hillary Clinton, Gov Mario Cuomo (who recently vetoed a bill that would moderate NYCs current extreme knife laws against the will of people of NY, all the Senate, and a huge majority of the house) , Micheal Bloomberg, and NYC mayor De Blasio, for his appointment as President of The United States. People all over in general were sick of the policies of the likes of Mario Cuomo.

The NRAs latest youtube video is going to distort their message. This video has footage of riots and presents a pro right message that borders on extremism. A woman closes her fist and states that we need to hit them with the fist of truth (it reminds me of communist and nazi extremism) and then tops it off with the message we are freedoms safest place, a sentiment which this video does not impart to me at all. Although the NRA is comprised mostly of non liberal people my impression is it was always an organization respected for it's moderation and open to all who embrace 2nd amendment rights and I fear they are catering to the worst of people (who by the way make a minority) for a few extra heads of support.

How can I feel right sporting the NRA sticker on my car in NYC if they continue to distribute inflammatory, extreme non 2nd amendment related messages that will alienate them from decent moderate people of all races, religions, beliefs, and political leanings.

 

Do you mean the Violence of Lies video?

Huh... Just ask the Korean community in Los Angeles about the importance of the 2A when people get whipped up into a violent rabble.

 

You might want to read the long thread we had on this just a while back. You certainly aren't alone in your feelings.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/new-nra-ad-gives-liberals-panic-attacks.824194/

Note that it got closed after five pages of replies, and members seemed as divided on it then as when we'd started.

 

God knows no one's ever been cornered by a mob & murdered in this country. Totally unbelievable.

 

I would rate civil disturbance/ unrest as my primary 2A concern in my neck of the woods. Hunting here is largely impractical due to sprawl and few edible game animals. Violent crime is as low or lower here than just about anywhere else either, but there are festering urban hives not far north and east of me. So, yes, I primarily base my firearm strategies around the eventuality of a breakdown in social order- and even I agree the new NRA ad goes too far. It doesn't show me anything I don't already know and trying to scare the middle-class moderate WASP hoard into joining the NRA and buying a gun just drives up the prices on my ammo......

 

I have listened to the Violence of Lies video twice now and it advocates meeting the "violence of lies" that stirs up riots with the "clenched fist of truth".

I guess my problem is I can recall from the 1950s on (Hungarian Revolution against the Soviets, Cuban Revolution against Batista really caught my attention as a grade-schooler) real inflammatory extreme rhetoric (Karl Hess: Moderation in the pursuit of justice is not a virtue, extremism in defense of liberty is not a vice, it would not be America if it did not produce at least a few men who tire of the palaver and take the gun down from the mantelpiece to use themselves or give to the underdog who needs it) and old liberal TRB of the The New Republic getting his knickers in a twist because NRA had given a gun club charter and DCM rifles and ammo to Rob Williams a civil rights leader in Monroe NC to form a black guard of WWII and Korean War vets to defend against the KKK.

Compared to the thetoric of the 1950s, Violence of Lies is pretty weak tea.

 

All advocacy organizations face a crisis when their position substantially prevails. After you "win" what do you do next? How do you convince people that they need to continue sending in money to pay your salary rather than going to a movie or using our freedoms to go buy a new gun? Well, you have to convince people that if they stop sending money in the "jackbooted government thugs" will come breaking down your door or riots will spontaneously break out on your street.

Yes, the message is muddled - we needed all these gun rights to ensure a free society and be safe and now that we have them your town is going to turn into the next Compton if you don't send us a check - but they're got a payroll to make and like all advocacy organizations that causes them to sometimes say almost anything to keep the checks coming in.

 

And/or to get involved in unrelated social issues that are not the focus of the organization.

 

I certainly don`t agree with some issues related to the NRA but the core principal I certainly do. J s/n.

 

Still a life member.

Any org as big and powerful as the NRA will do lots of things I disagree with. Still an overall positive influence for RKBA. Better for my voice to be heard from inside the NRA.

 

I dropped my membership several weeks ago. I simply can't support the new politics.

 

Well stated OP. LaPierre is dragging the NRA off message and while I may agree with the message personally, turning the NRA into an operation of the extreme right wing of the Republican Party is as alienating as labor unions becoming mere adjuncts of the DNC. The NRA needs to stick to protection of RKBA, and teaching firearms safety and marksmanship.

 

Politicians have lied about gun owners and statistics since I have been paying attention which was circa 1990. The AWB, state restrictions in NY, MD, Conn, Washington, DC and Cali. NRA has been playing general defense for 30 years, with the swing of politics in the current environment and now you don't like their tone or message, I say thats weak. The NRA has a real chance at moving things forward for gun owners and doing so while calling out people and specific media outlets that don't believe you have 2A rights. I equate it to a sport. You have 2 teams (currently) and now the NRA has targeted the weaknesses in the other team. Time to exploit that weakness.

 

Well said. I've been a member of the NRA for many years and don't plan on quitting my membership. A local club, of which I am a member, requires NRA membership. This turns many people off from joining the club and several acquaintances have been surprised to find out I am a member. On the other hand, the NRA gives the club a lot of money for upkeep and improvements. Folks I talk to are surprised to find out the NRA does such things. I think most of them already think of the NRA as a political organization. I believe you'll draw more flies with honey than vinegar, and most of the people who see such a video are not likely to change their views on gun ownership.

 

A lot of people and organizations in the "gun community", including the NRA, often forget that the 2A has nothing whatsoever to do with hunting and very little to do with self defense from civilians. That ability is a side benefit, not the main purpose. I think they need to focus more on the continued infringements that we're currently living under. Start with repealing the NFA.

 

Strictly speaking, those points are true, and the NRA understands them well. But hunting and self-defense are two of the primary reasons a lot of citizens own guns, and the NRA also understands that the more gun owners who vote in every election, the more positive the long term outcomes will be for RKBA.

Support for hunting and self-defense protects RKBA in the long term by increasing the numbers of gun owners and the number of guns.

 

I see nothing wrong with the video, and I will be keeping my NRA membership.

I saw it as a call to us as individuals that we need to do more to stand up to the rhetoric of the hard left, and that the NRA is a good hub in which to do it.

 

It's a strong video. The message is pointed at the motivation of those who would take away all guns from the population. As harsh as it is, I find nothing false about its message.

I don't think it's intended to persuade people.

Maybe a wake up call to those who take the RKBA for granted?

The reaction by anti-RKBA is predictable. Just look at their messaging if you want to see real examples of truly extreme false information.

 

I love the Rooftop Koreans. They took a stand to protect what was theirs.

 

It is always wise to pause when watching, listening to, or reading anything published and to answer for yourself the question of "what is this person's or organization's motivation in publishing this?"

A few things in this world are published simply due to the joy and fun or personal compulsion of doing so. Everything else is published for a purpose. Making professional quality videos costs money, takes time, and comes with positives and negatives.

The NRA didn't publish this just to be helpful to the nation, to beg for calm and clear-headedness in a time of social disquiet, or because their publications team was bored and didn't have anything else to do.

Why did they publish this video?

Who is the audience? Who are they thinking this will convince to do something? Are they trying to motivate you, the member? Or other people who aren't NRA members, and/or who may or may not be gun owners?

What do they hope these people will do?

Who does that benefit?

What are the downsides of this? What do they risk in putting out a video with this bias and message?

Who are they representing in this video? Do you feel like, "I AM the NRA?" as the slogan used to be? Are they representing you in this matter?

If yes, or if no, SHOULD they be publishing something like this on your behalf? What does it gain for you, the member, that they do so? What does it cost you?

 

I see the "we're coming for you" message to journalists as an offensive double entendre. It's got an implied threat of physical violence when coming from a firearms organization, with just enough plausible deniability that the NRA can say "oh, I didn't really mean it like that, grow a thicker skin." I find it very offensive and disappointing.

I also think that the NRA has lost its core focus when it starts publishing videos like "The Truth about Benghazi." Benghazi has NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with party politics.

 

It may be political....but the whole issue is. And I don't mind if they help to illustrate the underhanded tactics and dark, self serving character of those who would like to see us all disarmed.

The core focus was to improve the marksmanship of our riflemen..... I think we passed that exit a long time ago.

 

If I want to help the GOP, I'll work with the GOP. Why even have the NRA as a separate organization of its just going to generally support the GOP and not restrict itself to Second Amendment issues?

There's a difference between saying a particular candidate is bad on second amendment issues and saying they're bad for other unrelated reasons. The Benghazi ad crossed that line by a large margin, actually hurting the Second Amendment by suggesting that it's just political litmus test and not an important constitutional right regardless of an individual's views on taxation, health care, etc.

And the "we're coming for you" ad really, really, really bothers me. I just can't see it as anything but an implied threat against journalists whose editorial bias we don't like. And that's NOT what the Second Amendment is about.