NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign

[Cee Zee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I like pro and anti Second Amendment.

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...ew-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]

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]

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.