The pure constitutional argument persuades almost nobody. Everyone who believes gun rights should exist reads the 2A as we do. Everyone who hates those rights reads the 2A as the dissenters in Heller did. We're fortunate that the text and the case law is (somewhat) on our side... but it doesn't have that much persuasive impact with the populace.
New NRA ad gives liberals panic attacks
- Thread starter LiveLife
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
Alex Jones didn't crack somebody's skull with a bike lock in a cowardly attack from behind. It was a leftist college professor. The far left wants to ensure that none of their victims can defend themselves.
Jason_W
Member
I don't think anyone here will take the stance that it's ok for anyone to crack a skull using any object, regardless of the motivation. It's wrong to crack a skull for political reasons, and it's wrong to crack a skull for financial reasons, and it's wrong to crack a skull just for fun.
Violence, excepting in self defense, is wrong. It's wrong when left wing groups do it, it's wrong when right wing groups do it, it's wrong apolitical criminals do it. I guess I'm confused as to what the obsession with left wing political violence is when it is a statistically insignificant percentage of all violence committed in this country.
harrygunner
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,045
For those who don't know what guns are for, or why the Second Amendment is in place, ads explaining those points are a great idea.
If the NRA is doing that, then, I support them on that. They should keep that up.
On defending themselves against media attacks, better than letting "fake news" reign and left unchallenged.
If the NRA is doing that, then, I support them on that. They should keep that up.
On defending themselves against media attacks, better than letting "fake news" reign and left unchallenged.
cjwils
Member
Good idea, but in my opinion the ad at the beginning of this thread does not do that. It is counterproductive because it is too politically one sided and inflammatory.
Deanimator
Member
The victim wasn't totally incapacitated. If the attack had continued, a gun WOULD have mattered, A LOT.
Deanimator
Member
What you're trying [and failing] to do is minimize a growing trend of escalating violence by the far left in order to suppress ALL contradictory speech. Their allies in this are the anti-gun cultists pushing invidiously racist gun control laws.
This is of course bolstered by attempts to obfuscate the actual associations and motivations of the perpetrators, like the SANDERS SUPPORTER who tried to murder Steve Scalise and others.
The left OWNS that, and it's going to stick to them, no matter how much the fake news media tries to hide the truth.
Deanimator
Member
I'm going to always be on the OTHER side of hitting people in the head with bike locks, starting fires and shooting Congressmen. The hard left and its supporters excuse these things... when they're not actively advocating them.
Conversion on a one to one level is possible and obviously a good part of the fight. But those who are driving the anti gun agenda over the decades are not open to conversion.
They are hardcore Bolsheviks. What they can not change by propoganda, incremental gains at a political and legal level, they take by force. These people are deeply embedded in all the key institutions from private to public and government.
If you want to see their near future vision of America just look at Europe. They have had a stranglehold on the progression in that direction there as well. It is the same people with the same agenda.
Deanimator
Member
While it's literally "possible", the actual odds of my "converting" either an "antifa" brownshirt or an anti-gun cultist are as infinitesimal as "converting" an ISIS member to the cause of gay rights and religious freedom, or Charles Schumer to the right of armed self-defense.
What is VERY possible is to show the uninformed and loosely affiliated just how cravenly dishonest and indeed imbued with racism and infantile cruelty the anti-gun cult is. I know, I've done it.
What is VERY possible is to show the uninformed and loosely affiliated just how cravenly dishonest and indeed imbued with racism and infantile cruelty the anti-gun cult is. I know, I've done it.
I think that those here who resent the NRA ad in question are forgetting that for many, many years, going back to the early 1960s (As the media vomited incessantly, "JFK was assassinated because the NRA is against simple, common sense gun control laws,"ad nausem.) there has been a full court press by the media, the left wingers, academics, many politicians, etc., in vilifying, disparaging, condemning, and accusing the NRA and members as "murderers, racists, rednecks, hate filled idiots, and nut cases.
These incessant insults from every corner of the left wing spectrum have gone on for years with the purpose of brainwashing as much of he populace as possible to hate the NRA, the Second Amendment, legal gun ownership, and the unalienable Right of self defense. The left has done a pretty good job of it, too.
The NRA really had no way to fight back and even when they did, the vilification was just magnified exponentially by the left wing media, academics, etc. Teevee would not take their ads explaining anything about the Rights of the people regarding the Second Amendment. Main stream newspapers and magazines would not take their ads, either. Usually, when the NRA could find an "outlet" it was one wherein they were mainly"preaching to the choir," thereby ineffective.
Now, with the present NRA ad, a method of fighting back against the left's hatred and lies is available... and the left is rabid about their condemnation of the NRA. They've gone super nova. The left can not stand anyone who fights back against their ideology and narrative. Is the NRA's pointing out the raving hypocrisy of the various groups who are trying to destroy the Constitution and our Rights unacceptable? Not necessarily. . The left will continue to hate the NRA and the Constitution, no matter what the NRA says or does not say. I've been in this "gun fight" for a long, long time and I know the left's methods, tactics, and final goal: disarmament of "We The People."
I know supposedly "intelligent" people who advocate the confiscation of all our guns and have no problem with establishing a full blown police state to do it. Those I know are professional screenwriters who write every single thing you see on teevee and in the movies. In the magazine of the monthly Written By, the Writers Guild of America's official magazine, the gun control organizations place ads urging screenwriters to write anti-gun scenarios in their scripts and say to call them for information on anti-gun screeds to brainwash the viewing audience with their propaganda. I assure you screenwriters, most of whom entertain far left ideologies, march right along in lock step.
For those who resent the NRA ad, I suggest you might examine the "other side" of the fight... and it is, a fight.
FWIW.
L.W.
These incessant insults from every corner of the left wing spectrum have gone on for years with the purpose of brainwashing as much of he populace as possible to hate the NRA, the Second Amendment, legal gun ownership, and the unalienable Right of self defense. The left has done a pretty good job of it, too.
The NRA really had no way to fight back and even when they did, the vilification was just magnified exponentially by the left wing media, academics, etc. Teevee would not take their ads explaining anything about the Rights of the people regarding the Second Amendment. Main stream newspapers and magazines would not take their ads, either. Usually, when the NRA could find an "outlet" it was one wherein they were mainly"preaching to the choir," thereby ineffective.
Now, with the present NRA ad, a method of fighting back against the left's hatred and lies is available... and the left is rabid about their condemnation of the NRA. They've gone super nova. The left can not stand anyone who fights back against their ideology and narrative. Is the NRA's pointing out the raving hypocrisy of the various groups who are trying to destroy the Constitution and our Rights unacceptable? Not necessarily. . The left will continue to hate the NRA and the Constitution, no matter what the NRA says or does not say. I've been in this "gun fight" for a long, long time and I know the left's methods, tactics, and final goal: disarmament of "We The People."
I know supposedly "intelligent" people who advocate the confiscation of all our guns and have no problem with establishing a full blown police state to do it. Those I know are professional screenwriters who write every single thing you see on teevee and in the movies. In the magazine of the monthly Written By, the Writers Guild of America's official magazine, the gun control organizations place ads urging screenwriters to write anti-gun scenarios in their scripts and say to call them for information on anti-gun screeds to brainwash the viewing audience with their propaganda. I assure you screenwriters, most of whom entertain far left ideologies, march right along in lock step.
For those who resent the NRA ad, I suggest you might examine the "other side" of the fight... and it is, a fight.
FWIW.
L.W.
Jason_W
Member
So, if this is a fight and the ads are a way of fighting back, what were the strategic goals here? What was the planned outcome? I'm genuinely curious about this as from where I sit, all it seems like is insult flinging that an existing base will nod its collective head to.
Deanimator
Member
Those who oppose the ad don't WANT it to BE a fight.
They want us to roll over like the Canadian, British and Australian gun owners did.
They support the other side's goal of "reasonable gun safety measures"... like "universal background checks/AKA REGISTRATION", sham "assault weapon" bans, and elimination of shall issue concealed carry.
They're not afraid that the NRA will lose support.
They're terrified that it WON'T.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Every action each of us takes is a stone falling in a pool of water with ripples all around. Some do good, some do harm, some may have no effect on anything we can discern.
When a huge national advocacy group like the NRA does something, especially something strong and deliberately public, there are effects which spread out in every direction.
What are the good effects of this?
1) Well now everyone knows that the NRA doesn't approve of political violence, particularly that which is enacted by those who identify on the left against the establishment or those on the right. Hey, great. Did that need to be said? Were we unclear about that. "Hey...maybe the National Rifle Association is really FOR urban thugs attacking and killing police officers. Gee, I wish they'd make a public statement so we had some clue where they stand..."
2) "Our" camp gets a big old pep rally speech about how we're against "them" and "they" and they're really evil people after all, and isn't it grand that we all feel the same way about these issues? This is probably the NRA's actual point here. Beating the drum, staying in the news, rallying up donations and enthusiasm from the folks who sure as shootin' want to see those (urban ner'do wells) get their thumpin'.
3) Spreading the word -- however much it might be somewhat true, or generally false, or grossly overstated -- that "Those people" are secretly all gun-grabbing boogey men, or are the bought-and-sold puppets of those sons of the devil who pull the strings to oppose us.
What are the bad effects?
4) We look paranoid and more than a little looney to the (uh...probably about 300 million) folks who aren't ever going to buy the theory that George Soros is hiring killers to incite riots as part of his master plan to take our guns and destroy the USA.
5) We reinforce beyond a shadow of a doubt that we DO NOT and NEVER will accept anyone who sympathizes with BLM, or more socialist fiscal policies, or gay marriage, or whatever else it is we're railing against. We tell half the country that if they care about gun rights and want to work together to fight for them they have to abandon, ignore, and even pay money to an organization that opposes lots of non-gun-control issues they really care about.
Which are the most important and impactful of these effects? I sure don't think most of the first three are worth a tablespoon of dog spit. But I sure am sorry that the fourth and fifth hit us so hard.
Truth is, I'm sure (very sure) that the NRA is still playing cards just like they always do, and they're sure that Billy Bob and Cleetus are going to pony up another few bucks when they see these videos, while writing off completely the several million left-of-center gun owners they just slapped in the face.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Careful there, you're showing your backside and it ain't pretty.
I am not happy with that ad, myself, and if you feel that any of the things you just wrote are true of ME then you a) aren't very observant, b) may be becoming unhinged by your own fear and anger, and most definitely C) need to take a BIG step back from the keyboard.
Deanimator
Member
Hmmm, the NRA points out that the same people financing political violence are financing invidiously racist gun control activism.
That's about as as "paranoid" as drawing a connection between NAMBLA and child molestation.
I'm Black and don't have one iota of trust for the police and will NEVER accept anyone who sympathizes with Black Lies Matter. That's precisely because Black Lies Matter is EVERY bit as self-servingly dishonest as any police union. Their support for the LIE that Michael Brown was a victim of anything besides his own malice and stupidity, is every bit as despicable as police unions' support for the cop who assaulted James Blake and the cop who shot Charles Kinsey.
Furthermore, they have repeatedly shown themselves to be virulent racists, the likes of Tom Metzger.
A Somali jihadi ran over and slashed people at Ohio State not so long ago. What was the response of a member of the "resistance" at Ohio State? A condemnation of the shooting of the wouldbe Nidal Hassan and a declaration that "Black [islamist, terrorist] lives matter!" THAT is to whom you think the NRA should be pandering.
I don't need or want the support of idiots, liars and racists (not to mention raving Jew haters), on EITHER side of the political spectrum.
They should be "writing off" Black Lies Matter just as they've "written off" the National Alliance.
Deanimator
Member
I'll leave the personal attacks to you.
I think one reason for this ad is that finally they are bringing the real fight into the open. And it is an ideological fight that spans more than just firearms.
I think they have also realized that if we don't win this fight very soon, our chances of winning it not so far down the road are slim to absolute zero. It would go beyond the topic to discuss it, but I will simply refer to the power struggle going on in DC right now.
As far as alienating people who are just slightly "left of center", I do not see that as an issue or reason for anyone, NRA or other, to not spell out the truth. I hear nothing in the ad that is not absolutely true! And there really is not a nice way of saying it.
At this stage, with what is at stake, the time to be polite is over with. And I say that in regards to the political leadership and it's branches (institutional, commercial, private and public). There are too plenty of pro gun conservatives who really do not really understand the true brutal nature of their political opposition; the subtleties and "mechanics" of their propoganda, and that it is a global agenda. There can be no middle ground on this. The political MO is basically incrementalism. Two steps forward, one step back. Taking middle ground does not stop them.
Check the views, ratings etc of CNN et al versus the so-called "alt right". We are winning. At least on that front, and people are hungry for the truth. They need to hear the truth spelled out in plain English, while the means for them to hear and see it are still there.
I think they have also realized that if we don't win this fight very soon, our chances of winning it not so far down the road are slim to absolute zero. It would go beyond the topic to discuss it, but I will simply refer to the power struggle going on in DC right now.
As far as alienating people who are just slightly "left of center", I do not see that as an issue or reason for anyone, NRA or other, to not spell out the truth. I hear nothing in the ad that is not absolutely true! And there really is not a nice way of saying it.
At this stage, with what is at stake, the time to be polite is over with. And I say that in regards to the political leadership and it's branches (institutional, commercial, private and public). There are too plenty of pro gun conservatives who really do not really understand the true brutal nature of their political opposition; the subtleties and "mechanics" of their propoganda, and that it is a global agenda. There can be no middle ground on this. The political MO is basically incrementalism. Two steps forward, one step back. Taking middle ground does not stop them.
Check the views, ratings etc of CNN et al versus the so-called "alt right". We are winning. At least on that front, and people are hungry for the truth. They need to hear the truth spelled out in plain English, while the means for them to hear and see it are still there.
modifiedbrowning
Member
"and they're sure that Billy Bob and Cleetus"
Wow, just wow. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Wow, just wow. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Deanimator
Member
Don't you know? Only toothless, backwoods hicks are opposed to leftwing political terrorism.
If you were "woke" you'd understand the true motivations of Melissa Click, Eric Clanton, and James Hodgkinson.
You'd also see that those like George Soros and Chuck Schumer are just trying to protect legitimate political violence. What kind of country would this be if you couldn't crack somebody's skull with a bike lock without fear of getting shot?
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You are very adept at skipping the meat of what other people are saying and using your hot words and cartoonishly extreme rhetoric to stir up emotion to cloud people's rational judgment. I know that's a powerful political tool, but using it here is not appreciated.
What the NRA should spend money, time, and political capital making public statements about is a whole other matter. It really doesn't matter whether YOU don't make nice with your neighbor who thinks BLM raises some important points and considers justice system reform to be worth voting for. But it DOES matter if the NRA comes out and makes it clear that your neighbor -- who never smashed anybody with anything and who just doesn't think it's right that our demographics relating to incarceration and violent encounters with law enforcement look as they do -- is not welcome in our fight for gun rights.
You really don't get how national issues work. The NRA doesn't need to agree or endorse any of that behavior. But it also has no need to further alienate the millions and millions of Americans who -- while they certainly wouldn't hurt anyone else, and personally believe that people who assault others even at political protests should be punished -- feel these issues need serious consideration.
The NRA needs to be the nation's most eminent GUN RIGHTS organization. It has no business being "Anti-BLM Association." No more than it should be the "Anti-Gay-Marriage Association." Or the "Anti-ObamaCare Association."
And that's too bad. Because these issues -- all of them, social justice, gay rights, abortion, science-v-religion as political policy guide, interventionism-vs-isolationism, public healthcare and insurance, etc. -- will eventually find new norms. They'll be sorted out, just as slavery, universal suffrage, the gold standard, imperialism, and many other very vitriolically contested issues have been over the last couple of centuries. The country will move far beyond those fights and the people who struggled (in marches, at the polls, in their own minds trying to decide what was right) on both sides of the issues will move on and live their lives. And if the NRA has set itself as their enemy, then the NRA isn't ever going to be seen as on their side, or a worthy cause to join in the decades that will follow.
I didn't say there wasn't some grain of potential truth to that. I said it makes us LOOK paranoid and looney to the vast majority of people who aren't going to ever believe or much care about the fact that one guy or one set of guys may be putting money toward two different leftist social issues. We come out as conspiracy kooks, when there's no value to us in getting wrapped up in this.
ONCE MORE: Great. YOU don't have to trust anyone or accept anyone who does anything, anywhere, ever. That's your business.
What the NRA should spend money, time, and political capital making public statements about is a whole other matter. It really doesn't matter whether YOU don't make nice with your neighbor who thinks BLM raises some important points and considers justice system reform to be worth voting for. But it DOES matter if the NRA comes out and makes it clear that your neighbor -- who never smashed anybody with anything and who just doesn't think it's right that our demographics relating to incarceration and violent encounters with law enforcement look as they do -- is not welcome in our fight for gun rights.
Sigh. Yes, of course. I think the NRA should pander to the extremists who would do that. It would be easier to discuss things with you in a serious manner if you didn't leap to absurd hyperbole about ... well, everything really. It isn't a very honest form of debate, nor very mature.
You really don't get how national issues work. The NRA doesn't need to agree or endorse any of that behavior. But it also has no need to further alienate the millions and millions of Americans who -- while they certainly wouldn't hurt anyone else, and personally believe that people who assault others even at political protests should be punished -- feel these issues need serious consideration.
The NRA needs to be the nation's most eminent GUN RIGHTS organization. It has no business being "Anti-BLM Association." No more than it should be the "Anti-Gay-Marriage Association." Or the "Anti-ObamaCare Association."
No. Well, not exactly, anyway, but we DO need the support of as many millions of utterly peaceable average citizens on both sides of the political aisle. And the more social issues the NRA picks a side on and makes public statements about -- the more it self-identifies with the "FORs" or "AGAINSTs" in any non-gun-related hot button issue -- the more of those average citizens say, "Nope. That group's not for me."
And that's too bad. Because these issues -- all of them, social justice, gay rights, abortion, science-v-religion as political policy guide, interventionism-vs-isolationism, public healthcare and insurance, etc. -- will eventually find new norms. They'll be sorted out, just as slavery, universal suffrage, the gold standard, imperialism, and many other very vitriolically contested issues have been over the last couple of centuries. The country will move far beyond those fights and the people who struggled (in marches, at the polls, in their own minds trying to decide what was right) on both sides of the issues will move on and live their lives. And if the NRA has set itself as their enemy, then the NRA isn't ever going to be seen as on their side, or a worthy cause to join in the decades that will follow.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I take it you don't know Billy and Clete. They're pals of mine. They HATE BLM and go really strongly right wing on 'most everything. Enough so that I have trouble agreeing with everything they're into, though I'm usually sympathetic to their point of view. They've been NRA life members forever, and always will be. And they always vote Republican, and listen to Rush a lot, when they aren't listening to the local alt-right AM radio guy. I think you could say they're pretty predictable in the political views. Pretty much, if Trump, Rush, Beck, Hannity or any of those guys says something, it is absolutely and completely gospel, beyond any need for reflection or a second look.
Every time the NRA sends out another pamphlet or puts out another video, they're good for another few bucks. I'm sure this will be no different. Sometimes I think I could get Billy to think a little deeper about an issue, but when he and Clete are together it's like they reinforce whatever the other thinks, and it's like a Fox news echo chamber sitting in Clete's garage. I like them, and wouldn't insult them for the world, but when we're together, I've got to try to stick to shooting stuff because swallowing their constant self-assured rightness is wearisome.
Their example brings me back to my statement about WHY the NRA would make statements like this. What's the motivation?
Remember, the NRA is not a think tank on the general issues. Not Moses with a bunch of social commandments or ideals about how society should work. Not your (or my) grandpa full of sage life advice. They have ONE role. To promote gun rights.
In order to promote gun rights, they need money and they need political influence. These sorts of videos get money coming in and they reinforce the "scratch-my-back" symbiosis with the R party.
- Status
Similar threads
