NRA ad goes too far?

[BugI02]

Nice strawman, Dave.

No one here is ever justifying the Left tactics and open insurrection. Nor has anyone ever said we should just roll over and take it.


What folks have said is acting like the leftist rable rousers is not a good long term strategy.


Simply shouting, "They're evil and need to be silenced, so I can say the truth because I'm a better person!" ... keep that up Dave, let me know how many liberals sign up for your newsletter.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.

Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.

*.*

 

[gregr]

• Dana Loesch is awesome.
• She is an excellent choice as a spokesperson.
• The ad is fine in my opinion and doesn't even come close to "going too far."

And, who is to say, what exactly is "too far"? The left "decapitates" trump, in effigy, but says: "what, it`s metaphoric"! The right hangs the POS obama in effigy, and the SS shows up, and demands it be taken down. That happened right here in Indiana. Funny thing, that "freedom of speech". It`s a real problem now that much of America mistakenly believes they`re entitled, per the Constitution, to not be offended. And no offense rhino, but I`ll use you as the example: you stated the ad is fine, "in your opinion", but since everyone has an opinion, and some may be offended, some may not, freedom of speech and expression must prevail. There`s plenty I find offensive: take for example, the soft porn on commercial television. Liberals scream, if you don`t like it, turn the channel. Go figure, that when they`re "offended" by the mere sight of a cross in public, telling them to turn their head doesn`t suffice. All this just to say, freedom of speech and expression aren`t supposed to be bound by anyone`s sensibilities, whether right or left. Yet, the right allows the left to run roughshod over the nation in terms of defining the discussion, in terms of semantics, and renaming the terms. Enough is enough already.

 

[IndyDave1776]

And, who is to say, what exactly is "too far"? The left "decapitates" trump, in effigy, but says: "what, it`s metaphoric"! The right hangs the POS obama in effigy, and the SS shows up, and demands it be taken down. That happened right here in Indiana. Funny thing, that "freedom of speech". It`s a real problem now that much of America mistakenly believes they`re entitled, per the Constitution, to not be offended. And no offense rhino, but I`ll use you as the example: you stated the ad is fine, "in your opinion", but since everyone has an opinion, and some may be offended, some may not, freedom od speech and expression must prevail. There`s plenty I find offensive: take for example, the soft porn on commercial television. Liberals scream, if you don`t like it, turn the channel. Go figure, that when they`re "offended" by the mere sight of a cross in public, telling them to turn their head doesn`t suffice. All this just to say, freedom of speech and expression aren`t supposed to be bound by anyone`s sensibilities, whether right or left. Yet, the right allows the left to run roughshod over the nation in terms of defining the discussion, in terms of semantics, and renaming the terms. Enough is enough already.

 

[JAL]

What is the goal of NRA advertising? It's not political speech, per se, as one would expect from political commentary in a news program. I would think the purpose of the NRA's ads is to increase membership and current membership renewal rates. I would also expect it to solicit public good will towards the organization, looking on them favorably, or at least not negatively, from others who won't necessarily join them. Clubbing people over the head with extremist, confrontational, rancorous acrimony is not the manner in which to persuade people of anything. It panders to the choir already sitting in the choir loft. I can tell you how the middle-class 35 year old mommy living in the cul-de-sac with three kids age 4, 7, and 9, and a soccer van in the driveway reacts: "The sooner we get ALL the guns out of the hands of these LUNATICS, the safer we will all be, especially my children". It has the appearance of itching and spoiling for a violent civil war, as an excuse to, quite literally, gun down and murder all political opposition. We already had one 150 years ago, fought over states rights versus federal supremacy, by far the most costly war the U.S. has ever had.

What is the NRA's goal? What does the organization want at the end of the day? If it's cheering from the NRA's far right membership sitting in the stands watching it with a "You sure told off those left-wing libtards!" response, it's sure to accomplish that. An excellent characterization is "preaching to the choir" which does little to gain converts. It's not how to proselytize effectively as it drives potential converts off. If it's to convince the soccer mommy living in the cul-de-sac with the van in the driveway that preservation of 2nd Amendment rights is in the interest of the increased safety and security of her three children, for which she would do anything, it has just the opposite effect. The undecided or ambivalent people in the middle are not persuaded or recruited with rancorous, acrimonious, shouting. To them it's repulsive and comes across as being unhinged, from extremists teetering on the brink of mental adhesion.

For the fans with the 50 yard line season tickets, keep cheering this on. Understand, though, that persuasion and public good will is not achieved by clubbing people over the head with a spiked mace. Ads like this provide fuel for gun control advocates who argue that 2nd Amendment supporters are violent fanatics who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any weapons, or potential weapons, not just firearms. The NRA is damaging its own cause.

John

 

[bwframe]

...Ads like this provide fuel for gun control advocates who argue that 2nd Amendment supporters are violent fanatics who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any weapons, or potential weapons, not just firearms. The NRA is damaging its own cause...

There is about as much truth to that as the rest of the anti's argument. Blood in the streets and all...

Sometimes our worst enemies come from within.

 

[churchmouse]

What is the goal of NRA advertising? It's not political speech, per se, as one would expect from political commentary in a news program. I would think the purpose of the NRA's ads is to increase membership and current membership renewal rates. I would also expect it to solicit public good will towards the organization, looking on them favorably, or at least not negatively, from others who won't necessarily join them. Clubbing people over the head with extremist, confrontational, rancorous acrimony is not the manner in which to persuade people of anything. It panders to the choir already sitting in the choir loft. I can tell you how the middle-class 35 year old mommy living in the cul-de-sac with three kids age 4, 7, and 9, and a soccer van in the driveway reacts: "The sooner we get ALL the guns out of the hands of these LUNATICS, the safer we will all be, especially my children". It has the appearance of itching and spoiling for a violent civil war, as an excuse to, quite literally, gun down and murder all political opposition. We already had one 150 years ago, fought over states rights versus federal supremacy, by far the most costly war the U.S. has ever had.

What is the NRA's goal? What does the organization want at the end of the day? If it's cheering from the NRA's far right membership sitting in the stands watching it with a "You sure told off those left-wing libtards!" response, it's sure to accomplish that. An excellent characterization is "preaching to the choir" which does little to gain converts. It's not how to proselytize effectively as it drives potential converts off. If it's to convince the soccer mommy living in the cul-de-sac with the van in the driveway that preservation of 2nd Amendment rights is in the interest of the increased safety and security of her three children, for which she would do anything, it has just the opposite effect. The undecided or ambivalent people in the middle are not persuaded or recruited with rancorous, acrimonious, shouting. To them it's repulsive and comes across as being unhinged, from extremists teetering on the brink of mental adhesion.

For the fans with the 50 yard line season tickets, keep cheering this on. Understand, though, that persuasion and public good will is not achieved by clubbing people over the head with a spiked mace. Ads like this provide fuel for gun control advocates who argue that 2nd Amendment supporters are violent fanatics who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any weapons, or potential weapons, not just firearms. The NRA is damaging its own cause.

John

I can see your point but...........yes there is always a "But"...........After some so much hate a abuse coming our way it does seem that some are spoiling to give out some pay back.
How that is dealt out remains to be seen. Right/wrong I am not sure. But something has to be done/said to slow or stop the attacks from the anti's and their ilk as peaceful people are tired of being "CLUBBED OVER THE HEAD" with rocks bottles and bike locks.

I am on the fence as to how far the ad actually goes. It might be that I just like Dana.

 

[jamil]

The liberals are giddy at finding this guy:
How An NRA Ad Led A Member To Quit : NPR

He admits he was never a member by choice, but coerced into membership to join a gun club, nevertheless, he makes a good point. Personally, I find this commercial way to pandering, hyperbolic, divisive, simplistic, etc. I'd rather see them emphasize our heritage, but nothing raises money like scaring people...

[video=youtube;PrnIVVWtAag]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag[/video]

If that video is hyperbole it is in the sort of teeth-clenched, contempt dripping delivery and not in the content itself.

but I get the point and this is one of the reasons my membership is an anual choice. Each year the NRA must earn my membership with what it has actually accomplished on my behalf as a gun owner in the previous year. So the NRA is on a perpetual one-year probation. Some of the emails filled with half-truths designed to scare me into membership tend to have the opposite effect.

 

[patience0830]

. Understand, though, that persuasion and public good will is not achieved by clubbing people over the head with a spiked mace.

John[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. Clubbing people with a spiked mace would surely change some hearts and minds.

I think I need one of those.

 

[churchmouse]

I just watched it again and I have to agree with Jamil. There were no lies or deviation from facts.
Is this the NRA's place to say these things....well, they need to be said and the MSM is not doing it.

 

[jamil]

Understand, though, that persuasion and public good will is not achieved by clubbing people over the hefad with a spiked mace.

John

I beg to differ. Clubbing people with a spiked mace would surely change some hearts and minds.

I think I need one of those.

Unless you can convince the disinterested majority that those people need clubbing, advocating clubbing people you disagree with will only pique the disinterested people's interest against you. Especially when the narrative has been established that gun owners are all dangerous.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Unless you can convince the disinterested majority that those people need clubbing, advocating clubbing people you disagree with will only pique the disinterested people's interest against you. Especially when the narrative has been established that gun owners are all dangerous.

If showing them the video to remind them of the riots and such doesn't convince them, nothing will. If they are too damned stupid to realize that clubbing may well be the only way to deal with people who are coming to club you, there is no helping them. Besides, Dana recommended that the police need to get busy stepping up clubbing, as opposed to calling for a free-for-all which seems to be the premise of this discussion. I could also say that there is utility in following through with the narrative in question. Maybe people like Antifa, et alia, need to come to understand us as being dangerous enough that bringing riots to a neighborhood near us is not a good way to see old age.

 

[two70]

IKR?

I wonder if he tells the left how wrong they are when they label him an extremist?



Left, right; republican, democrat - the argument is always the same, "They lie and do evil things and say X to get their people to do Y! Because they are the sheep, but I know the truth, and if I just shout the truth, they will all slap their heads and come to their senses."



The podcast I posted (You Are Not So Smart) definitely addresses this issue.

As opposed to those that embrace the false equivalence of both sides so that they can then abdicate all responsibility to make tough decisions and choose a position? After all, if both sides are alike, then there is no reason not to float from one side or the other depending on which offers the most at any given time. No reason not to have your gun rights and the Government take care of you too either. Frankly, though I may vehemently disagree with leftists and be frequently disgusted by their antics, I have more respect for them than the milquetoasts that run to the middle to hide. At least the leftists have made a decision, informed or not, and taken a stand.

 

[two70]

So, it's OK with you for leftist agitators to engage in large-scale acts of violence and property destruction but it's not OK for any of the rest of us to get thoroughly pissed about it and call the situation as it is. I am not seeing the cloaked call for insurrection in that video.
QUOTE]

In point of fact, the video is a call to be prepared to defend one's self, in whatever form, against such insurrection. Apparently it hits the mark very well or there would not be such uproar over it.

 

[JettaKnight]

Strawman?

Do I really have to explain it? Because I don't have the time today to point out how clear of a strawman argument you offered.

In the video, the unpopular truth that the left is what it claims to oppose is placed under the harsh light of day. Please tell me what is wrong with that.

The only thing that could be considered a call to 'violence' was a demand for the police to crack down on this. One may choose to interpret the fact that they clearly are failing to do so as in implication that the rest of us may have to defend ourselves without the police is open to one's own inclination to take a pretty significant stretch.

If this video is too extreme and too much a call to violence, then, by extension, bringing the truth to light and demanding that the police do more than stand back and watch is too extreme and violent given that this is exactly what the contents are. If that is too much, then what else is there this side of simply accepting it?

So Antifa is great boogeyman - they're loud, scary, and yet they're rarely seen in person (have you met one on the street?). But to make the leap that they're in the schools brainwashing kids is just plain silly.

As for that last little bit, the liberals aren't signing up for my newsletter or any newsletter with which I may agree anyway, so why should I worry about them? This false premise of appeasement has already done too much damage.

In other words, you're agreeing that this is an ineffective ad to garner more membership and quite possibly could have a negative effect?

As for taking on characteristics of the mob, I really doubt that there is anything that Antifa would understand or conform with other than imprisonment or getting their heads split open with bullets. Reason and civil discussion are obviously outside the realm of their understanding.

There's so much irony here.

 

[JettaKnight]

As opposed to those that embrace the false equivalence of both sides so that they can then abdicate all responsibility to make tough decisions and choose a position? After all, if both sides are alike, then there is no reason not to float from one side or the other depending on which offers the most at any given time. No reason not to have your gun rights and the Government take care of you too either. Frankly, though I may vehemently disagree with leftists and be frequently disgusted by their antics, I have more respect for them than the milquetoasts that run to the middle to hide. At least the leftists have made a decision, informed or not, and taken a stand.

Who's saying no side has been taken? I'm merely against the method of communication.

 

[jamil]

If showing them the video to remind them of the riots and such doesn't convince them, nothing will. If they are too damned stupid to realize that clubbing may well be the only way to deal with people who are coming to club you, there is no helping them. Besides, Dana recommended that the police need to get busy stepping up clubbing, as opposed to calling for a free-for-all which seems to be the premise of this discussion. I could also say that there is utility in following through with the narrative in question. Maybe people like Antifa, et alia, need to come to understand us as being dangerous enough that bringing riots to a neighborhood near us is not a good way to see old age.

I have no problem with showing the video of ANTIFA rioting (more on that in my response to two70). Anyway, that absolutely has happened. ANTIFA *IS* a problem which will only grow from here. And if you pay attention to a wide range of sources, and see how well organized they are, and how their organization is growing, and especially how powerful they are world-wide, it's plainly not as benign as JettaKnight seems to think it is.

Of course, there is not much we can do to change their minds. They are extremely cult-like. It's damn hard to reason people out of cults. These people are every bit as capable of drinking the koolaid for their cause as the people at Jonestown.

However, if you're talking about the answer being an offensive stand, I'm going to have to disagree. Defending ourselves is a right, and absolutely we should vigorously defend our right to free speech, and defend our selves from any harm. If they bring violence against those who advocate for free speech, it is everyone's right to defend themselves with like force. But if we're talking about beating them up to show our own might, I'm just not down with that. All that does is it gets each side to escalate. After getting their asses handed to them in what's now dubbed "the battle of Berkley", they've decide that they have to escalate. While I'm not all that concerned over a bunch of candy assed betas, betas aren't all they have. If this cult feels an existential threat, they will escalate to meet it. So matching their violence to scare them off won't work.

While I have to admit I do feel some satisfaction seeing the ANTIFAs getting beaten back (I've heard it called riot-porn) I don't think it is a good long-term strategy for wining the war of ideas. I think what wins is exposing it for what it is, and along with that, exposing how the MSM seems to wink at ANTIFA's violence. Catch the media condoning this and that will hasten the MSM's demise. Show rational rational people what is going on, even if they slumber in complacency, they are still capable of thinking rationally when they're *****-slapped with reality. Seeing ideological liberals stand up and oppose ANTIFA was a turning point for me because it shows me that they see how irrational ANTIFA and their ideology is.

So, it's OK with you for leftist agitators to engage in large-scale acts of violence and property destruction but it's not OK for any of the rest of us to get thoroughly pissed about it and call the situation as it is. I am not seeing the cloaked call for insurrection in that video.

In point of fact, the video is a call to be prepared to defend one's self, in whatever form, against such insurrection. Apparently it hits the mark very well or there would not be such uproar over it.

As I said to Dave I'm okay with with the backdrop video depicting real events. Those things happened and they ARE a growing problem. And we shouldn't wear blinders so that we just feel like we're being more moderate or rational. It is real. Exposing ANTIFA for the true fascists they are is an important part of the solution.

My problem with the video is the tone of the video. The angry woman shtick makes the underlying message seem like it's more hyperbolic than it actually is. My advise to the NRA and Dana, unclench your fists. Remove the bite from your voice. Be the rational ones. I understand the video really is about recruiting members. Okay. Fine. Hyperbole sells to some people. But it absolutely turns off others. Like me. Just simply expose the reality, honestly, factually, and suggest why joining the NRA will help them solve the problem. Not everyone response to angry people positively, and if that's who you try to appeal to, then angry people will be mostly what you get.

So Antifa is great boogeyman - they're loud, scary, and yet they're rarely seen in person (have you met one on the street?). But to make the leap that they're in the schools brainwashing kids is just plain silly.

ANTIFA in the US is not nearly the eminent threat they are elsewhere in the world. Did you see what happened in Germany for the G20? If you watch mainstream US news, you likely didn't see the extent of it. An estimated 6000 ANTIFA thugs armed with homemade weapons descended rank and file on the G20 and cops couldn't stop them. ANTIFA is more powerful in the nations that are more left leaning than they are in the US. But, as the pendulum swings lefter, the atmosphere improves for their proliferation. It is rational to want to stop the pendulum.

Who's saying no side has been taken? I'm merely against the method of communication.

I can agree with this much. As I said, I can do without the clenched fists. That's overdramatic and a clenched fist will not defeat these people. Clenched fists will only make them clench theirs harder. And I'm not saying we shouldn't defend ourselves with appropriate force. I'm saying the solution revolves more around a rational response where the absurdity of ANTIFA's goals are exposed plainly. And part of the problem is that the media now infested with activists tend to wink at ANTIFA. Case in point, the safe haven they gave to Moldylocks.

But for that strategy to work, it has to be done in a rational way. We can't have people on the side which opposes ANTIFA advocating for the same violence that ANTIFA advocates. If both sides advocate oppressive violence against the other, obviously both sides think the violence part is just fine, it's merely an ideological disagreement beyond that. I'd rather say violence against people who simply disagree with you is irrational, regardless of ideologies. The rational cause for violence is to defend yourself from violence, not to force your ideology on someone else.

 

[gregr]

What is the goal of NRA advertising? It's not political speech, per se, as one would expect from political commentary in a news program. I would think the purpose of the NRA's ads is to increase membership and current membership renewal rates. I would also expect it to solicit public good will towards the organization, looking on them favorably, or at least not negatively, from others who won't necessarily join them. Clubbing people over the head with extremist, confrontational, rancorous acrimony is not the manner in which to persuade people of anything. It panders to the choir already sitting in the choir loft. I can tell you how the middle-class 35 year old mommy living in the cul-de-sac with three kids age 4, 7, and 9, and a soccer van in the driveway reacts: "The sooner we get ALL the guns out of the hands of these LUNATICS, the safer we will all be, especially my children". It has the appearance of itching and spoiling for a violent civil war, as an excuse to, quite literally, gun down and murder all political opposition. We already had one 150 years ago, fought over states rights versus federal supremacy, by far the most costly war the U.S. has ever had.

What is the NRA's goal? What does the organization want at the end of the day? If it's cheering from the NRA's far right membership sitting in the stands watching it with a "You sure told off those left-wing libtards!" response, it's sure to accomplish that. An excellent characterization is "preaching to the choir" which does little to gain converts. It's not how to proselytize effectively as it drives potential converts off. If it's to convince the soccer mommy living in the cul-de-sac with the van in the driveway that preservation of 2nd Amendment rights is in the interest of the increased safety and security of her three children, for which she would do anything, it has just the opposite effect. The undecided or ambivalent people in the middle are not persuaded or recruited with rancorous, acrimonious, shouting. To them it's repulsive and comes across as being unhinged, from extremists teetering on the brink of mental adhesion.

For the fans with the 50 yard line season tickets, keep cheering this on. Understand, though, that persuasion and public good will is not achieved by clubbing people over the head with a spiked mace. Ads like this provide fuel for gun control advocates who argue that 2nd Amendment supporters are violent fanatics who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any weapons, or potential weapons, not just firearms. The NRA is damaging its own cause.

John

If NRA prescribed their advertising to your expectations, I`d renounce my Life-Endowment membership. NRA has to toughen up, and become more like GOA, period. Those who are against us, will be against us anyway. Talking nice won`t attract anyone who won`t be there regardless, and it`s high time NRA showed passion in defending the Second Amendment. If doing the tough work offends your sensibilities, that`s for you to think through, and NRA owes no apologies.

 

[gregr]

I just watched it again and I have to agree with Jamil. There were no lies or deviation from facts.
Is this the NRA's place to say these things....well, they need to be said and the MSM is not doing it.

Gun Owners of America has been saying this, and in this tone...I likes me some GOA.

 

[jamil]

If NRA prescribed their advertising to your expectations, I`d renounce my Life-Endowment membership. NRA has to toughen up, and become more like GOA, period. Those who are against us, will be against us anyway. Talking nice won`t attract anyone who won`t be there regardless, and it`s high time NRA showed passion in defending the Second Amendment. If doing the tough work offends your sensibilities, that`s for you to think through, and NRA owes no apologies.

"Nice" talking isn't what I would advocate for. But neither are clenched fists. They have fists too. Them clenching fists while making us the boogie man is as much a recruiting tool for them as it is for us. Rage sells to angry people no matter which side the angry people are on. How about just calmly, rationally, exposing ANTIFA and the regressive left and the complicit media for what they are?

 

[rhino]

"Our side" has advocated calm, dispassionate discourse based solely on facts and logic. "Our side" similarly criticizes those who oppose us for the almost total emotional basis for their rhetoric.

We know emotional appeals are effective. Sometimes they are too effective.

Why not have arguments that are based on facts and logic, but deliver them with emotional appeal as well? It seems that as long as the foundation is sound, passionate expression is not necessarily a bad thing and can be a very powerful complement.