NRA launches anti-Bloomberg ad campaign

[Kynoch]

Watched the commercial on local TV and missed the mention of Liberals.
I think it will resonate with the target audience and be worth every penny.

The VERY FIRST word coming out of the commentator's mouth. This commercial would have been acceptable (far from good, but acceptable) without that liberal slur. As it is, it blows.

 

[Kynoch]

I can't agree with delineating firearm rights along partisan lines. Liberal and conservative, particularly to younger voters is meaningless and often offensive.

I am a Life Member of the NRA and gun rights drive my voting decisions, unfortunately those people around me, urban, educated, pro gun rights voters are more difficult to influence when our side paints ourselves as alligned with seemingly inconsistent values. All supporters of gun rights, gay, straight, urban or rural, pro choice, pro life, wealthy or on public assistance, atheist or devout, should be able to find a home in the NRA. It is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue, and if we insist on making it one we will lose.

Wonderful post and I agree 100% I can see how your view is lost on some (perhaps even most?) here. They have been so inculcated to view "liberals" as the boogieman and as the ultimate scapegoat that they simply can't think in a critical, unbiased manner.

On the other hand I am truly appalled and stunned that a commercial like this could be approved by the NRA. Just exactly what is their agenda? I don't believe those in charge of planning, purchasing and producing this commercial are stupid. I also don't think they're ignorant but I'm beginning to wonder...

This commercial had a very "cheap" feel to it but it would still have been acceptable had it not begun with that liberal slur.

 

[DeepSouth]

My feeling is that if they can not be trusted to keep a small promice to a member, what will make me think they will do any of the big things that they talk about

Another way to think of it is.... If they mail you 12 magazines a year (estimated costs 20-25$ ?) plus a 10-15$ hat for a 35$ membership fee then they will not be ABLE to do any of the big things that they talk about. Sometimes it about more than the material possessions you get out of it.

Just saying.

 

[Flintknapper]

The NRA needs a new PR firm and it needs it badly.

Nope, someone just needs to better understand the purpose of this ONE commercial. It IS as you alluded to: To gin up the base, that is the ONLY group it could appeal to.

If you haven't been around long enough to recognize that NO amount of political correctness or 'cozy-ing up' to liberals will ever result in significant numbers changing their minds, then let me be the first to break the bad news!

This commercial will in no way 'offend' Liberals (most), they are already 'offended' that we don't share their views. Let's just accept that there IS a political and cultural divide/disagreement.

 

[Ed Ames]

Arizona liberalized their concealed carry laws a few years ago. Many liberals support gun ownership, and the more liberal they are, the more likely they are to support private ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, and other heavier weapons. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Many people today identify themselves as liberal but mean it in a way that has nothing to do with Soros.

Using the word "liberal" in this video is a classic echo chamber problem. Within the cohort making the video, nobody recognized it as a dated word choice that would offend a fairly large (and growing) subset of the pro-2A base. Anyone who would argue it is the right choice is just showing that they haven't stayed in touch with how the word "liberal" is used today. The fact that nobody recognized the problem hints at a lack of diversity amongst decisionmakers.

 

[hso]

I agree with the OP.

The NRA should never use "liberal" or "conservative". Antis are ANTIS regardless of their supposed afectation. We have many THR members that identify themselves as "liberal" and who refuse to identify with "conservative" and it is STUPID of the NRA to use any language that pushes people like our members away from their organization.

 

[45_auto]

Many liberals support gun ownership, and the more liberal they are, the more likely they are to support private ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers, and other heavier weapons.

Your liberals are VERY different (pretty much the exact opposite!) of the liberals in my area! Around here, the more liberal they are, the more they want to be like New York or California with firearms laws.

 

[DeepSouth]

The fact that nobody recognized the problem hints at a lack of diversity amongst decisionmakers.

The part people leave out is that the lack of diversity comes from a lack of supply of people other than conservatives that support the 2A. If their out there, in any significant number, they sure stay fairly quiet about it.

 

[Ed Ames]

The part people leave out is that the lack of diversity comes from a lack of supply of people other than conservatives that support the 2A. If their out there, in any significant number, they sure stay fairly quiet about it.

Maybe.

I have found that it is usually the result of pervasive intolerant attitudes causing people to self-censor.

It is like if a person tells you they don't know anyone who is homosexual, atheist, etc.. Regardless of what the person who says that thinks they are saying, what they are actually indicating is that they are perceived as intolerant and people are choosing to hide information about themselves to minimize their exposure to the effects of that person's intolerance.

 

[HexHead]

I like the commercial, they called a spade a spade. "Liberal" has become PC-speak for "Socialist". I don't care who I offend, sometimes the truth hurts.

 

[X-Rap]

It's OK. It's certainly not a first-class production but it's OK with one huge error. The very first word used -- "liberals." Why offend millions of pro-2A gun owners with using that label in that context? Why bunch them in with losers like Bloomberg?

Wow! There must be a shadow group of gun lovers out there, what is the name of their organization?
Millions? Really? How many millions? Where do those numbers come from?
There might be a big bunch of Liberal gun owners but calling them 2a supporters would probably be a stretch.
The Liberals I know have a very twisted view of the 2a gun owners or not.

 

[Sam Cade]

There might be a big bunch of Liberal gun owners but calling them 2a supporters would probably be a stretch.
The Liberals I know have a very twisted view of the 2a gun owners or not.

Hold on a second...

You do understand that a large portion of THR (both Members and Staff) would identify themselves as politically liberal, right?

 

[X-Rap]

Hold on a second...

You do understand that a large portion of THR (both Members and Staff) would identify themselves as politically liberal, right?

Oh I do understand that. Some of the discussions here over the years amply prove my opinion.
If you all would describe yourselves in word and deed as Libertarian I would be much more in line with your point of view.

 

[blarby]

Libertarian

I'm going to identify as "Martian"

Thats the party thats pro humanities AND pro gun

As has been addressed earlier, most of these labels are beginning to lose importance (and relevance) quickly.

Us common folk are starting to realize that simply dividing us into two or three camps doesn't really do much other than divide us into two or three camps.

I could cast my lot in any of the three groups, and still end up supporting ideology I dislike.

wHAT "i/YOU/WE/US" can do is vet your candidates !

You can vote for different slates at all levels : local, county, state, and federal. As in all politics, there is give and take in almost any candidate- but you don't (and cant) need to blindly check "red, white, or, blue" on the box and assume that all of your needs or concerns will be addressed with that blind vote.

Hint : Most of that voting block that was in diapers not many election cycles ago is starting to figure this out.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Political advertizing is more about motivating "your side" to get off their duff and vote, than about winning over the "other side" with sweetness of reason and light of truth.

Still 'twould be nice if "we" and "they" tried restraint. I have followed the "liberal" "progressive" "Democrat" media--like The New Republic, The Nation, for example--on the gun control issue from the 1960s on, off and on, and they do not change. They have had no qualms at at all identifying unquestioning support for anything labelled gun control (as long as it is more restrictive than existing law) as liberal, progressive, and Democrat positions and recognize no bad or useless gun policy as long as it is against guns. TNR and The Nation proudly identify anything guncontrol as an unquestionable good and liberal Democrat progressive position and denounce anything pro-gun rights as evil conservative Republican neanderthalism.

There are times I feel frustrated at trying to stay "nice" and on topic in face of anti-gun commenters many who like to work in "KKK" for "k" or "c" in words. I have muttered "self-righteous Blue State Coastie" under my breath quite a few times the past few years. I understand why my ancestors moved to the mountains rather that stay on the coasts that increasing became patrician and elitist.

I have also been known (at times. not always) to write comments in Notepad or Vedit and go back and strip out any reference to political position words to stay strictly on topic. I try to remind myself of this quote I found in the 1960s:

"Once an argument has been classed as `positional,' it is regarded as having been demolished, since the `position' attributed to it is always selected with a perjorative intent. The choice of the position selected is an expression of the personal antipathies of the individual critic, and the same arguments can therefore be attributed to any one of a variety of `positions,' according to what comes most readily to the critic's hand. The wealth of variations afforded by such tactics is well exemplified by the variety of classifications to which I have myself been subjected. On my religious `position' I have been classified as a Protestant, a Catholic, an anti-Semite and as a typical Jew; politically, as a Liberal, a Fascist, a (Nazi) and a Conservative; and on my theoretical `position,' as a Platonist, a Neo-Augustinian, a Thomist, a disciple of Hegel, an existentialist, a historical relativist and an empirical skeptick; in recent years the suspicion has frequently been voiced that I am a Christian. All these classifications have been made by university professors and people with academic degrees."
--Eric Voegelin in Freedom and Serfdom: An Anthology of Western Thought, edited by Alber Humold. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1961), p. 280.

(I have kept this quote as I wrote it in my notebook in the library. It might not be word perfect, but it is what I copied.)

Like all ideals, it is like steering by a star: the ideal like the star is unreachable, but it beats steering by the wavetops, going whichever way the wind blows.

 

[Kynoch]

Another way to think of it is.... If they mail you 12 magazines a year (estimated costs 20-25$ ?) plus a 10-15$ hat for a 35$ membership fee then they will not be ABLE to do any of the big things that they talk about. Sometimes it about more than the material possessions you get out of it.

Just saying.

I suspect the magazine (including postage) costs them $.50/issue and the hat is $1.50 in quantity from China.

 

[Kynoch]

Nope, someone just needs to better understand the purpose of this ONE commercial. It IS as you alluded to: To gin up the base, that is the ONLY group it could appeal to.

If you haven't been around long enough to recognize that NO amount of political correctness or 'cozy-ing up' to liberals will ever result in significant numbers changing their minds, then let me be the first to break the bad news!

This commercial will in no way 'offend' Liberals (most), they are already 'offended' that we don't share their views. Let's just accept that there IS a political and cultural divide/disagreement.

Malarkey. Nothing more than an excuse for a very poor decision on the NRA's part.

 

[Kynoch]

I like the commercial, they called a spade a spade. "Liberal" has become PC-speak for "Socialist". I don't care who I offend, sometimes the truth hurts.

And people sharing your attitude have done hideous damage to the pro-2A camp over the years. Thanks for nothing.

 

[Kynoch]

Wow! There must be a shadow group of gun lovers out there, what is the name of their organization?
Millions? Really? How many millions? Where do those numbers come from?
There might be a big bunch of Liberal gun owners but calling them 2a supporters would probably be a stretch.
The Liberals I know have a very twisted view of the 2a gun owners or not.

Who says they're members of a pro-gun group? Many wouldn't go near the NRA due to its xenophobic blather exemplified by this commercial.

Stop using "liberals" as the ultimate scapegoat.

 

[mokin]

Nope, someone just needs to better understand the purpose of this ONE commercial. It IS as you alluded to: To gin up the base, that is the ONLY group it could appeal to.

If you haven't been around long enough to recognize that NO amount of political correctness or 'cozy-ing up' to liberals will ever result in significant numbers changing their minds, then let me be the first to break the bad news!

This commercial will in no way 'offend' Liberals (most), they are already 'offended' that we don't share their views. Let's just accept that there IS a political and cultural divide/disagreement

.

I think this is the case. With an upcoming election the NRA wants to get the folks out to vote. That being said, I think the NRA does need to work on its' image. The NRA has not only succeeded in turning off many otherwise gun rights supporters, it has also turned off many gun owners.

 

[Kynoch]

Political advertizing is more about motivating "your side" to get off their duff and vote, than about winning over the "other side" with sweetness of reason and light of truth...

Says who? Do you make this stuff up as you type?

 

[Kynoch]

The "liberals" comment was flat-out stupid. The chips/soda reference was bush league -- every bit as clumsy as "obesity kills many, when are they going to outlaw forks?!?"

The production of the commercial also has a very "cheap" feel to it.

 

[X-Rap]

This is what a good portion of the Liberal press tries to do when dealing with the 2a in recent years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIKfoO-JTcc
They are on the losing end and make weak attempts to placate real 2a supporters with their frequent claim to support the 2a after clearly denying it even exists.
The same is frequent in politicians and internet posters.
It is not infrequent here to have a legitimate story outright denied simply due to the organization that is reporting it but rarely does it happen when reported by mainstream (Liberal) media.

 

[X-Rap]

Who says they're members of a pro-gun group? Many wouldn't go near the NRA due to its xenophobic blather exemplified by this commercial.

Camp, group, organization whatever you wish to call it, to claim that the NRA is alienating millions of good 2a supporters is pure bravo sierra.
There are a number of left leaning 2a groups out there and one doesn't have to peel back the veil much to see exactly what they represent.

 

[Flintknapper]

Even if that were true, so what? What advantage is there in using the term "liberal" to mean "anti-gun". There's not a single one: It only alienates potential allies and also demonstrates that you don't understand the complexities of politics, especially on the state and local levels. And when trying to convince someone to see your side of the argument, it's not a smart strategy to start off the conversation by alienating them and showing your political ignorance at the same time.

Just answer this one simple question:

Why do "liberals" take such offense at being called such?

Is there now something 'disparaging' about that label and IF so, why?

One would think a 'liberal' would be PROUD of it, no?