NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign

[wojownik]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Kynoch

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]

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.