NRA...the good and not so good, lately

[tyme]

The point of the NRA ad was not that all children deserve the same protection as the president. The point was the hypocrisy of those who push gun control for others while never having to be worried about their own security.

I think almost everyone with USSS protection would dispute your second point, that they don't worry about their own security. They get protection because their high profile renders them vulnerable to a different category of attacks, to which they are still not immune. It's only incidental that that security protects against most garden-variety criminal attacks.

I think one of the better arguments against panicked, emotional public policy reactions to school shootings is how rare the shootings are. By suggesting that school shootings are a reason for the average child or parent to be worried about school security, aren't you playing into the hand of the hyperemotional anti-gunners?

@bsstan, that's exactly the point the NPR commentators were making. This ad solidifies the NRA's base, and does nothing to win over people in the middle.

I agree that the liberal press doesn't get much criticism when they run emotion-laden, biased, stupid stories against guns in favor of gun bans, while the pro-gun groups get hammered if they're a fraction off-pitch. It's not fair, but it's reality.

I'm confused about what the NRA is trying to do. Obama just got re-elected, and we aren't even past the inauguration. What does the NRA think making people dislike Obama is going to do? Congress is 2 more years from their next election, and everyone will have forgotten this by then. Will this ad somehow convince fence-sitting Senators or Congresspeople to vote against Obama's proposals, which have nothing directly to do with school security?

Mentioning armed guards in schools, in passing, in an advertisement, and leaving listeners to imagine what that might entail, is bad, bad, bad. I think they needed to lay the groundwork, publish proposals, get people on the news talking about it so everyone forms a consensus about what kinds of school security might work and what won't, before using that issue as a lever in an attack ad like this.

[johnwilliamson062]

Was the goal to drive revenue generation from the choir or to win public opinion?

I bet it received was cause for a lot of revenue generation.

[Rifleman1952]

The reason the anti-gunners may win this time is because gun owners are divided. Gun control in England did not happen overnight. It happened over a series of decades; by going after one segment of the firearms community at a time and by pitting one group of gun owners against another. Eventually the gun grabbers in England got most of them.

When we attack the NRA, we are cannibalizing our own. We see some of our own shooters saying we don't really need AR15s and high cap mags. But if we lose that fight, it will merely embolden them to go after the "holy grail" of firearms control...handguns. They won't stop. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the only type of handgun legal to own in England is a muzzle loader. That may be our future if we lose this fight. God Bless the NRA.

[tyme]

I'm not attacking any pro-gun policy supported by the NRA (and that's what distinguishes me from Piers Morgan, btw). I'm attacking their advertisement, which was silent on the issues of gun bans, EBRs and >10 round magazines.

The ad probably generated some money, but at what cost to public opinion and long term goals?

[overthere]

I agree with the posts questioning the messaging of the ad.

Like it or not, issues such as gun control are largely driven by the 'court of public opinion'. How Joe-sixpack who does not own guns perceives 'gun owners' as a collective matters because Joe-sixpack votes and has an opinion.

To all that think the advertisement is great, ask yourself, did it help or hurt gun owners in the court of public opinion?

Messaging matters.

What the NRA should be doing is to create a message that resonates more broadly. I am sure the ad did great with 'the base' as it were but to what end? Why preach to the choir at the expense of improving the 'public perception' of gun owners and gun ownership?

Why not focus more on prominent, sensible individuals of all stripes and backgrounds explaining, rationally and without going off the hilt, why gun ownership and guns are not the problem? Why focus on creating a message for people whose opinions do not need to be swayed?

[Rifleman1952]

Why not focus more on prominent, sensible individuals of all stripes and backgrounds explaining, rationally and without going off the hilt, why gun ownership and guns are not the problem?

Because it's difficult to accomplish that in a 30 to 60 second ad. The talking heads at MSNBC droned on for several days about how ugly and mean spirited was the NRA ad. I take that as a sign the ad worked, because MSNBC had to work so hard to discredit it. Just as some here on thefiringline are doing. I loved the NRA ad, because it is important to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement; and that the NRA understands, we are in a dog fight.

[coachteet]

Because it's difficult to accomplish that in a 30 to 60 second ad. The talking heads at MSNBC droned on for several days about how ugly and mean spirited was the NRA ad. I take that as a sign the ad worked, because MSNBC had to work so hard to discredit it. Just as some here on thefiringline are doing. I loved the NRA ad, because it is important to demonstrate the hypocrisy of the anti-gun movement; and that the NRA understands, we are in a dog fight.

First off, no one who has posted so far are trying "discredit" the video, or the NRA. The NRA is not the end all, be all of gun ownership, and blindly cheering for them no matter what they do is what sheep do, not reasoning adults.

The NRA could have made any video, with any message they wanted, that supported the RKBA. They chose to make a clumsy election-style attack ad, using one of the weakest arguments they possibly could have made. And they released it BEFORE the President announced his EO's, and before he announced his recommendations for new legislation. They were made into fools, because one of the President's EO's involves providing "incentives" for hiring resource officers (armed LEO's), which is what the NRA claimed Obama didn't approve of. He probably tacked that one on just to accomplish this tactical victory.

[Rifleman1952]

Obama expects news outlets like MSNBC to carry water for him in his fight to curtail second Amendment rights. But he was probably quite surprised to see supposedly pro-gun folks doing his work for him in forums like this one. When fighting for your rights, you don't turn your back on those who are fighting with and for you. The only thing I can figure, is those who are criticizing the NRA still don't fully understand, how bad this could possibly get.

[SPEMack618]

it irks me when people say that the President's daughters are more important because they represent a security threat if harm were to come to them.

I guess those people who want to infringe upon my 2nd Amendment rights aren't familiar with the 25th Amendment either. Not suprising, really.

[chucknbach]

I know a few people who exploit children.