NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign

[RPRNY]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

^^^ Very well said! That should probably end the thread right there.

 

[Cee Zee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.




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]

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]

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]

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]

This isn't the 1960's any longer. The political reality has changed.

Precisely.