NRA Removes Facebook Page

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trent

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
25,151
Location
Illinois
Noticed today NRA (or someone) removed it's Facebook social media page; in it's place is a link to the Wikipedia entry for NRA.

Main NRA website still works; couldn't find an explanation as to why the NRA removed it's social media feeds.
 
The NRA is correct to keep a low profile at this time. The atmosphere for debate will be much more favorable once the immediate passion of the moment has cooled. Time is on the side of gun owners. Don't engage the antigunners, and let them pound air for the time being.
 
I am a little concerned about this. I understand the silence however, pulling the page makes us seem ashamed of our rights. The debate on the site will happen no matter when the page is put back up. It's time to grieve, but also time to take on the anti-gunners that will come out the woodwork. Social media is THE communication medium. Our presence needs to be there...IMHO...
 
The debate on the site will happen no matter when the page is put back up.

I agree. If the NRA doesn't want to debate right now until more of the facts come out that's fine, but that's no excuse for not putting out the facts. Which are needed now more then ever.
 
distra, mikael; I agree.

This appears not well-intentioned, to the layperson, but "oh look, the world's biggest gun organization just stuck their head in the sand."

Heck, my own WIFE said much the same this morning when she told me about it. She picked up the article on an UK website (DailyMail).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...akes-Facebook-page-wake-Newtown-massacre.html

The National Rifle Association has been strangely quiet since the Sandy Hook shootings two days ago in Newtown, Connecticut.
There has been no response to the horrific shootings, no heartfelt note of sympathy to the families of the victims or any press release once again defending the right to bear arms.

And now, after being slammed by millions online for their gun rights advocacy, the group has taken down its Facebook page.

The NRA could not be reached for comment regarding their Facebook page or the Sandy Hook shootings.

There has no mention of the shootings on the NRA's web site.
Instead there were stories about new developments in after-market items for AR assault rifles, similar to the type used in the Sandy Hook shootings.

They're looking real bad now.
 
They're looking real bad now.

There is no way to look good on this. Those children should have been better protected and I hold the school district totally responsible for this incident.

They had a locked down system and did not use it. How do you walk into a school with two or three weapons with a mole vest and not get challenged.

Jim
 
There is no way to look good on this. Those children should have been better protected and I hold the school district totally responsible for this incident.

They had a locked down system and did not use it. How do you walk into a school with two or three weapons with a mole vest and not get challenged.

Jim

The doors WERE locked. Fire code says those doors have to open when pushed from the inside.

The guy shot the windows out of the doors, and reached through to open them.

Anyway, let's not get derailed here. Stick to the NRA please.
 
I hold the school district totally responsible for this incident.

that is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read posted hear.
how do you hold the school responsible for the actions of the insane?
Actually, don't answer, I dont want to hear your ignorant response.
 
I will hold my responses to the whole thing until the full as reported facts come out. NBC has already reported several wrong FACTS and had to back peddle a few times in their zeal to be the first to give those FACTS in the last few days .:banghead: This crap hurts the media's credibility for sure unless you are already brainwashed to believe that the media can never be wrong.:eek: This is especially true to firearms related topics.:scrutiny: The NRA might even have this action/plan thought out ahead of time and is not necessarily a bad thing. Why be the lightning rod for all this.
 
Strange that they didn't remove their Twitter or Google+ pages. I wonder if they did this themselves or if Facebook might have taken the page down.
Well for Google +, like most people, they may have forgot it existed. :)
 
Should not have taken down the page. Should have disabled all commenting and simply posted a banner reading "We will not host the gun control debate on our page while the victims of this latest tragedy are not even yet buried. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families, and we ask all of our members and fans to lend their support to those affected by this unspeakeable act of violence"
 
I'm not suprised that the anti-gun sector didn't give our country even a second to mourn over the horrible events of last week. They will let no tragedy go unexploited.

I am shocked that the NRA would just roll over and hide this way.
 
Yeah that was a bad move for the NRA. I think...or hope...I know why they might have done it...but not the right move. I agree...turn off the comments and put up some sort of memorial kind of thing but they need to be there. Yep, they (and we) are going to take some gut punches during this mess. Gonna have to resolve to deal with it.
 
Rather than type out the long explanation, I'll let TechCrunch do it:

http://techcrunch.com/2012/12/16/nra-facebook-page-down/

From the article:
Unpublishing goes a step further than shutting off the ability for people to post on the Page’s wall, which still allows it to be tagged, see how friends have interacted with the Page, and importantly, comment on old posts by the Page. That means the same flame wars could have erupted in the comments of previous NRA posts, such as the image it published Thursday celebrating the milestone of 1.7 million Likes. Unpublishing was the only way to totally avoid becoming a canvas for controversial debate at this sensitive time.


I personally don't use facebook and it sounds like simply disabling comments may not have been enough in this case.
 
You'd think the NRA could have posted something to that effect instead of the wikipedia.org link.

They didn't explain it, which leaves their actions open to speculation (and speculation is running RAMPANT on other conventional media sites.)
 
I am a little concerned about this. I understand the silence however, pulling the page makes us seem ashamed of our rights. The debate on the site will happen no matter when the page is put back up. It's time to grieve, but also time to take on the anti-gunners that will come out the woodwork. Social media is THE communication medium. Our presence needs to be there...IMHO...

I agree with you.

I am a Life Member of the NRA, and while I understand why they did what they did, I also believe that the NRA's action has a certain "head in the sand" quality to it in spite of their intentions. As MachIVshooter said, it would've been better for them to have simply disabled all commentary options, offered their condolences to the grieving and left it at that.

There is going to be a debate about this tragic event whether the NRA wants it or not and the NRA should've been more prepared- it's not as if horrific events like this have never happened before. The anti-2A movement will always exploit the loss of others because that's their strongest selling point- macabre as it is.

On the other hand, I find it difficult to believe that the NRA was caught flat-footed on this and had no advance plan for this contingency and that a "tactical retreat" from social media was their best option.
 
The NRA is being respectful of the lives lost during a national tragedy by being silent. If only our politicians would do the same.
 
You know, it occurred to me just now that this is the best strategy. Remember Columbine? The next week the NRA held a rally there and it looked REALY bad. They are being tactically smart. Let the Antis rant and rave, and when it comes time to go through with their ranting THAT’S when we fight back. We lay low, gather our resources, rally and prepare, until they start to take definite actions. THAT is when we fight them. In a few months the sensationalism will have subsided, and when they try to act on they're words we fight back. Think about it; WE are in the majority, and they will not be able to garner much additional support. In the end they will look bad, and public opinion will be on our side.
 
That doesn't look like a smart course of action in spite of what might be posting to the page.

Simply shutting the posting down and stating that they're awaiting the results of the investigation and careful and thoughtful analysis of all the issues to begin before engaging out of respect for the families of the slain.
 
The NRA is in a Damned if you do, damned if you don't position. There is nothing they can do or say that will appease the libs at all. Even an attempt at condolences would be twisted. The best they can do is lay low and wait for the tide of emotion to ebb and return to a discussion based in logic and reason. In so far as the media will allow it.
 
It's a tough call but I have to agree. Even my usually rational,gun owning 40 year old daughter, was questioning me this morning about the need for 30 round magazines.

I won't bore you with my explanations about Prohibition,England,Stalin,slippery slope,camels tent,etc.

The emotional level is the highest I can ever remember. Just read the "A place at the table" thread here among others. The Brady's and VPC are joyful over dozens of posts at THR in the last 72 hours.

I felt sorry for several mods having to try to keep up with the numerous Quislings over the weekend. It wasn't pretty. :(

When someone starts collaborating with the Nazis after having their country invaded then you can call someone a Quisling, otherwise you are being ungodly insulting.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2
 
91 people also died in auto accidents that day, 28 of them due to drunk driving, where is the outrage? That said, I see no emergency for the NRA to "answer to" the talking heads of the MSM (much less Schumer et al}.

t
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top