NRA Stand and Fight

[Midnight Oil]

a new NRA ad has been released. a short 35 second magazi.... clip about the hypocrisy of our leaders and representatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miSjgv1MH7s

seems like the gloves are starting to come off.

 

[firedawg60]

I hope the gloves are coming off. I know commercials and all need to be well thought out, but I was beginning to wonder if all commentary was going to be reactionary. I think citizens, the NRA, and pro-gun legislators need to go on the attack, not physically but use every form of technology to get the truth out in a professional manner that doesn't do more harm than good.

 

[Boostedtwo]

I hope the gloves are coming off. I know commercials and all need to be well thought out, but I was beginning to wonder if all commentary was going to be reactionary. I think citizens, the NRA, and pro-gun legislators need to go on the attack, not physically but use every form of technology to get the truth out in a professional manner that doesn't do more harm than good.

Agreed!

 

[foghornl]

we can only hope that the gloves are coming off, to be replaced with larger gloves filled with wet sand....

if you have ever been 'whomped upside the head' with a sock/glove of wet send, you will understand.

 

[Midnight Oil]

up until yesterday, it seemed like they only had little ads in the sidebars of random websites and youtube. I'm glad that they're starting to release more commercial type ads. in today's day and age, it will definitely reach a larger audience whose attention span has gotten significantly shorter. 35 seconds is about as long as they probably want to make it.

I think citizens, the NRA, and pro-gun legislators need to go on the attack, not physically but use every form of technology to get the truth out in a professional manner that doesn't do more harm than good.

while I agree with you to a point, studies have shown (whatever that means) that people respond more to negative/attack ad campaigns and remember them more when it comes time for conversation and/or voting. The studies were based off the attack campaigns that are so plentiful during election times.

 

[firedawg60]

There's nothing wrong with negative/attack ads, that is part of going on the attack. But there is a fine line of being professional and not crossing the line and turning people off as well. The media turns as much as possible against us anyway; we just don't need to make their job easier.

"while I agree with you to a point, studies have shown (whatever that means) that people respond more to negative/attack ad campaigns and remember them more when it comes time for conversation and/or voting. The studies were based off the attack campaigns that are so plentiful during election times."

 

[Halal Pork]

The responses in the comments section are horrifying.

 

[Houser52]

The NRA should go all out on attack ads and not hold out on the content. Crime and violence is not pretty and I think they need to drive that point home in their ads.

 

[Midnight Oil]

The responses in the comments section are horrifying.

E***** S**** 6 minutes ago
What happened to the America where all kids had to worries in school mostly consisted of lunch, grades, and the school dance?
Amazing how such a gun-happy group is able to use a tragedy to their own benefits.

it's scary how these people don't see themselves and their views as dancing on the graves of those children. disassociation and denial make for one hell of a combination...

The NRA should go all out on attack ads and not hold out on the content. Crime and violence is not pretty and I think they need to drive that point home in their ads.

i agree with this, but think it may be too early right now. everyone is giving the entertainment industry the cold shoulder. They're pretending like they don't like violent movies and games until their emotions die down. until then, they'll force themselves to feel offended that the NRA is "tugging at raw emotions and heart strings" if they show crime and violence in these ads.

 

[RockyTop]

The ad showed Obama's hypocrisy, but the anti's (and much of the media) of course are twisting it to act like the NRA is attacking the POTUS kids.

If you are entrenched on one side or the other then it's not going to change anything. It's all geared towards the "independents". Unfortunately the bulk of the media has such a left leaning bias that they will probably be effective in shaping public opinion against the NRA.

 

[berettaprofessor]

If we're talking about the "Obama's kids are protected, why aren't yours?" ad, then I've got to tell you, I think that was a stupid stupid way to start running ads. The NRA should be running ads on how the assault weapons ban had no effect on crime or how it only hurts law-abiding owners, not attacking the President because his kids are protected by the Secret Service.

Because, frankly, they should be; they're more likely to be in danger than my own, like it or not. Calling the President "elitist" or "hypocritical" is just playground comebacks people, the actions of a hurt child, not a rational response.

There, I said it.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

The gloves should never go on. That's the problem, apathy. And I've been guilty myself.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

berettaprofessor, I agree that the chances of his children being in danger are greater than mine, but it doesn't change the fact that he wants his protected with guns and not ours. The children in the recent shootings had the same low percentage of being harmed as mine, but it happened to them anyway. Also, the school he sends his children to had the armed guards before they got there. They are not there simply to protect his children, but all of them.
Calling him hypocritical on this is not the actions of a child and it is very much a rational response. It is what it is. I don't blame him for a second for sending his children to a school with armed guards, I just blame him for not wanting to give me the same option.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

I don't blame him for a second for sending his children to a school with armed guards, I just blame him for not wanting to give me the same option.

Exactly!

 

[Kansan]

we can only hope that the gloves are coming off, to be replaced with larger gloves filled with wet sand....
if you have ever been 'whomped upside the head' with a sock/glove of wet send, you will understand.

I laughed so hard at this, I am crying...




edit: I know this subject is not a laughing matter. I hope the NRA takes the gloves off too. This comment struck me funny.

 

[Ryanxia]

Pretty neat. Wish it was a bit longer... AND HAD CHUCK NORRIS.

 

[481]

Because, frankly, they should be; they're more likely to be in danger than my own, like it or not.

That is simply not the case.

The parents of the dozens of children lost during the dozens of school shootings during the tenure of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban probably believed this to be the case, too. Those children were no more "at risk" than any other group of kids and whether we wish to admit it or not, all of our children face the same threat. We can never know that it will not happen to our kids. The threat might be 'remote', but it is still 'present'.

Ultimately, we need to secure our schools (if it requires competent, professional armed security personnel, so be it) against those who'd inflict upon us another tragedy like the one we saw in Sandy Hook.

While I detest the thought of having to resort to armed security in our schools, the world is no longer as it was when I was a little one and I'd rather see our schools secured by competent armed security personnel than hear of another child perishing in school.