NRA ad goes too far?

[jamil]

I have a very, very good friend, who was adamantly opposed to those who, not too long ago, were showing up at rallies, toting those evil black guns. I applauded them, but he was angrily opposed to them doing that. I asked him why not only the opposition to a lawful, and peaceable assembly. His very emotional retort was that, even though carrying those long arms was lawful, he was upset, because that upset others. I said, let me understand...you`re upset with law-abiding American citizens, who are exercising their rights to assemble peaceably, and bear arms...

So, like my very, very good friend, I just have to very respectfully disagree with your stance on this issue.

I do understand. I have a brother in law who is very progressive. We do not see eye to eye on gun control. There are some people like that. But I do know many liberals who are pretty middle of the road on gun issues. The distinction is more along the lines of collective vs individual rights. We can pick up allies among individualists who happen to be liberal. But probably not by acting like we're the epitome of the stereotypes.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;6M92H8oTH64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M92H8oTH64[/video]

 

[gregr]

[video=youtube;6M92H8oTH64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M92H8oTH64[/video]

I didn`t know there were black or white or yellow or red gun rights...I kinda thought every law-abiding U.S. citizen had the same ones...

 

[bwframe]

I didn`t know there were black or white or yellow or red gun rights...I kinda thought every law-abiding U.S. citizen had the same ones...

There are a lot of things addressed in the video. Pretty much a reaction to the "outrage" of the left after Dana's last NRA vid. I wouldn't have chose that title either, but Noir did.

 

[Lex Concord]

I support the NRA bc they are the most powerful 2A support group. They get people elected that help protect our [STRIKE]second [/STRIKE]most important fundamental right.

FIFY

 

[jamil]

There are a lot of things addressed in the video. Pretty much a reaction to the "outrage" of the left after Dana's last NRA vid. I wouldn't have chose that title either, but Noir did.

My reaction isn't outrage. It's more disappoint that it wasn't what it could have been.

ETA: Not Noir's vid. I was referring to Dana's.

 

[churchmouse]

I didn`t know there were black or white or yellow or red gun rights...I kinda thought every law-abiding U.S. citizen had the same ones...

Obama has successfully completed the grouping of society. Divided we are more easily controlled and conquered.

You are correct in your statement. We all get the same package of rights and privileges when we draw our 1st breath. No one gets more. No one gets less.
Well, unless you are a squeaky wheel special interest.

 

[GIJEW]

Just out of curiousity, can you provide a link to Loesch's statement that she gave about the Castile shooting right after it happened? I've been trying to find it (as I fully admit, she was not on my radar whatsoever until I saw this ad). I've only seen the initial NRA non-statement, but I saw that on Facebook from their page, with no connection to Loesch.

As to whether I draw an equivalency between an LEO who makes a mistake and a terrorist, I don't. However, I don't agree that all these police shootings can simply be attributed to an "LEO making a mistake when he thinks he's in danger". There have been way too many shootings and excessive beatings of unarmed people (including children) for me to not suspect a pattern of behavior. I also don't think it is as simple as just saying "racism". Personally, I think it has a lot more to do with a militarization of our police force over the last 30 to 40 years, combined with training that emphasizes aggressive action and escalation, rather than de-escalation, plus a lot of excuse making in the conservative echo chamber, and yes, there is an element of racism involved as well, particularly in profiling (as Castile clearly was, since the officer claims to have identified him as looking like a robbery suspect, as Castile's car whizzed by, because of his "wide nose").



With all due respect, I highly doubt it.

I don't have a link to Dana's comments other than WIBC.

Good point about militarizing the police. We've found some common ground. "Some" in that I do see a place for SWAT units and IMO the question becomes to what extent is "SWAT" spilling over into regular LE.

As for your doubts, they made for a self fullfilling prophrecy

 

[GIJEW]

You got me mixed up with someone else.

Yes, I did. Sorry about that

 

[BugI02]

You know what, I was actually going to start a whole new round of nonsense, going over my statement and trying to figure out how the use of murder instead of manslaughter makes a substantive difference when talking about a supposedly trained police officer who shot an innocent man at point blank range 7 times (and manage to miss him twice... putting those bullets into the back seat where a young girl was sitting).

But, I realized that isn't relevant to this conversation at all. The whole point of this conversation was how the NRA initially made no statement at all and then only after large numbers of NRA members demanded that they did, they issued a non-statement, stating they needed to wait until the facts were out. Then, a full year later, issue yet another non-statement about how "this was regrettable... but really, just buy our Carry Guard insurance, it's great". In the mean time though, they created this ridiculous ad with Loesch that we are talking about.

So, get bent out of shape over the definition of manslaughter and murder if you want, but I still stand by my earlier statement... the one after I lost everyone because I used the wrong "m" word:

I would simply remind you that 'prejudge' is the root concept of 'prejudice'. Mayhap you should read some of Dddrees body of work if you wish to see how not to have a substantive discussion.

 

[BugI02]

Ornery is fun. Fun is a great tack if it's inclusive.

Fun being a destination on INGO is more of a close reach than a tack

 

[BugI02]

I have a very, very good friend, who was adamantly opposed to those who, not too long ago, were showing up at rallies, toting those evil black guns. I applauded them, but he was angrily opposed to them doing that. I asked him why not only the opposition to a lawful, and peaceable assembly. His very emotional retort was that, even though carrying those long arms was lawful, he was upset, because that upset others. I said, let me understand...you`re upset with law-abiding American citizens, who are exercising their rights to assemble peaceably, and bear arms...

So, like my very, very good friend, I just have to very respectfully disagree with your stance on this issue.

^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

Trying to conduct a bare knuckle brawl according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules seems a particularly Republican/Conservative conceit. I find it reminiscent of the whole 'We can't call it Islamic Terrorism because it will make the people already trying to kill us, and their supporters and enablers, mad at us' school of thought.

I think you meet force with proportional force. Bare knuckles with bare knuckles. Bike locks with 'The clenched fist of truth'. If they don't respect you as an adversary you will not be able to hold meaningful dialog with them

 

[IndyDave1776]

^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

Trying to conduct a bare knuckle brawl according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules seems a particularly Republican/Conservative conceit. I find it reminiscent of the whole 'We can't call it Islamic Terrorism because it will make the people already trying to kill us, and their supporters and enablers, mad at us' school of thought.

I think you meet force with proportional force. Bare knuckles with bare knuckles. Bike locks with 'The clenched fist of truth'. If they don't respect you as an adversary you will not be able to hold meaningful dialog with them

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to BugI02 again.

.

 

[wagyu52]

Got him

 

[IndyDave1776]

Got him

 

[snowwalker]

A good and honest hard hitting commercial. We need more of that to deal with the Democratic sleaze.

 

[jamil]

^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

Trying to conduct a bare knuckle brawl according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules seems a particularly Republican/Conservative conceit. I find it reminiscent of the whole 'We can't call it Islamic Terrorism because it will make the people already trying to kill us, and their supporters and enablers, mad at us' school of thought.

I think you meet force with proportional force. Bare knuckles with bare knuckles. Bike locks with 'The clenched fist of truth'. If they don't respect you as an adversary you will not be able to hold meaningful dialog with them

I hate to Denny this up for you but we're talking about an NRA add that's purposed to increase membership. My beef with it all along is that it's aimed at the right. We're not going to win with echo-chambers. They have theirs too. I think our best weapon is cognitive dissonance. Blow their minds with truth. Instead the NRA chooses to recruit from the same usual tribe.

But nevertheless, I'd like you to wargame this out for me with your "Knuckles of truth" strategy. And let's speak in concrete terms. What, exactly is it that the other side is doing? And, what exactly do you propose to counter what they're doing? Just how metaphoric are your knuckles?

 

[JettaKnight]

I fail to see how NRA, finally taking a tougher approach, can cause anything to "derail". Look, those who are determined to attack our Second Amendment rights won`t ever suddenly wake up and have a different outlook on liberty. They are dead set on eroding your rights, as much as possible, to keep and bear arms. Period. End of Story. Conversely, I know I`m not the only NRA member who has had reservations about how mild and politically correct NRA had seemed to become. This, no doubt, will cause many members to take notice that NRA leadership may finally have that fire in their belly again. I say, it`s about time.

No, Gregr, it's not the end of the story. If "those who are determined to attack our Second Amendment rights won`t ever suddenly wake up and have a different outlook on liberty" won't ever change, then what's the point of the closed fist of truth? What do you do with this truth? Normally you use truth to persuade your opponent to change their opinion...

People aren't either dead set against guns or in full support of liberty - there's a vast middle ground of people like the subject of this thread that are in support of some rights. Those are the people that must be swayed toward, not pushed away from, liberty.

 

[4651feeder]

I doubt there could ever exist an ad or statement from the NRA which the liberal movement would not attempt to interpret for the rest of us as anything but threatening or menacing to further their own cause. Those who give merit to such opposition are best served also holding another's hand while crossing the street, as they appear unable to think clearly on their own.

 

[rhino]

^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

Trying to conduct a bare knuckle brawl according to the Marquess of Queensberry rules seems a particularly Republican/Conservative conceit. I find it reminiscent of the whole 'We can't call it Islamic Terrorism because it will make the people already trying to kill us, and their supporters and enablers, mad at us' school of thought.

I think you meet force with proportional force. Bare knuckles with bare knuckles. Bike locks with 'The clenched fist of truth'. If they don't respect you as an adversary you will not be able to hold meaningful dialog with them

I'd kinda enjoy going a bit further responding to cowardly pu****s who take cheap shots at people with bike locks. That's just me.

In the bigger picture, had NRA done an ad with a less aggressive spokesperson that matched the sensibilities of the current objectors, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe that at least an equal number of NRA members would find it weak, excessively deferential, and most importantly ineffective.