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

[MedicineBow]

Over the last week I've watched/listened to several interviews of David Keene, on a number of news outlets. He does a good job of hitting his points, sounding calm, thoughtful, etc. Nice work.

On the other hand, this new video ad that starts off with Obama's children...it is so tone deaf as to be startling. They should have left it in the can.

[JWT]

Agree with Medicine Bow on the ad. It's a bit over the top and will probably do more harm than good. Now is not the time to put out anything that could give the President sympathy on the gun control issue.

Also agree that Keane is a very effective spokesman for the NRA - significantly better than LaPierre. They need to keep using him as their primary spokesman.

[MacPointMan]

I believe that the new ad is a bit miss represented and sends a wrong message. It should state more to the point of security for schools and not use President Obama's children as an example. I would not want my daughter used as an example in that manner.

That being said I do agree with the point. School security should be a paramount issue in this debate. It is not being discussed as one of the root causes. I have a 6 year old daughter in a school just like Sandy Hook. I would like to know that her school is as secure as possible denying access to any unauthorized person period.

Basically the Narrative going in the wrong direction. However I am very interested in the message the NRA is putting out there. I have been a member for a very long time. The NRA is not perfect but it is the organization with the largest reach and loudest voice. Hollering doesn't effectively get the message across and I believe they have been doing a good job thus far.

I would like to see the NRA introduce a positive safety oriented message.

Long live the sheepdog for the sheep must graze.

[BarryLee]

Yes, I think the Elitist add while factual may not have been their best work. They have another video on their WEB site called “America Speaks” which seems a little better, but is also longer.

[Rembrandt]

The NRA video on the Presidents children's security is appropriate and directly to the point......hypocritical of him using other peoples children as "human shields" for his anti-gun lecture.

[MacPointMan]

While the message is accurate and makes a very valid point I see no value in criticizing the president and throwing insults at him.

I have been watching the reports on AFN News. For those that know AFN news we get a little bit of each network. The narrative has been what do you think about the ad.

The reaction on one news report was all Negative though those that were asked were very Anti NRA the perception is there. The message is that the NRA is detestable and insulting.

I think that the NRA needed to rise above the name calling and bring the message to the people that would be positive and help educate those who are looking in the wrong direction. The issue is School Security. The message could have been much more palatable for everyone.

Perhaps telling the American people that Sandy Hook while tragic was preventable and we as the NRA have a responsibility to help our country ensure that it never happens again. Using the example that many private schools have effective security to ensure the safety of the students and the same principles can be applied to our Public Schools.

In doing so we can enhance the quality of education for our children and promote a safe and secure learning environment for them. In the end the NRA can also promote the basics of firearms safety in all their adds. This kills two birds with one stone. It says Hey we understand and we care. It also says that here is a possible solution and here are basic safety measures Everyone should take with firearms.

Long live the sheepdog for the sheep must graze

[Come and take it.]

the commercial on Obamas kids was good until they referenced the elitists stuff. They made a very valid point.

I have an application I printed out laying before me that I am considering sending in but I am still wondering.

I have a feeling there is some compromise being worked out behind the scenes regardless of what is being said publicly. Specifically the Universal Background check (which is a huge infringement on our right to keep and bear arms).

Also the NRA needs to be able to deal with the media in a way that can measure up to the performance I have seen from Larry Pratt.

I keep getting the feeling that Pierre and Keene are negotiating the price of a car with someone. When I listen to Larry or Eric Pratt I see a clear line drawn.

That is what I want from the NRA.

[Kreyzhorse]

The NRA video on the Presidents children's security is appropriate and directly to the point......hypocritical of him using other peoples children as "human shields" for his anti-gun lecture.

+1.

Mr Obama didn't seem to have a problem using those children as props today and I don't believe there is a problem pointing out that his children are protected by firearms.

I'd also guess that those firearms are without a doubt "military style" assault weapons with high capacity magazines. Again, those are fine for his children's protection but not yours.

[coachteet]

The message of the video is clumsy and mean spirited, and worse, doesn't make the point it's trying to make. It found a way to say the president is a socialist, an elitist AND a hypocrite. And it's main argument supposedly proving this... doesn't-- and here is why.

The safety of the president's children is a matter of national security. The safety of your children or mine--is not. The same way the president's safety is far more important, inherently than yours or mine. Obviously.

It was a stupid argument, and it makes us all look stupid. It was also apparently unnecessary, since one of the EO's signed by the president promised incentives to hire resource officers, whatever that means. As a political move, the video was a disaster.

[mack59]

I have five kids in school from 7th thru first year of college and I don't think the President's kids are any more valuable than they are just because he's President. The second ad is better than the first and makes the same point.

[flyinpolack]

The NRA video on the Presidents children's security is appropriate and directly to the point......hypocritical of him using other peoples children as "human shields" for his anti-gun lecture.

I agree totally. The Anti gun establishment have been using children this whole time.
Mine, yours, & your neighbors as a matter of fact..

+1.

Mr Obama didn't seem to have a problem using those children as props today and I don't believe there is a problem pointing out that his children are protected by firearms.

I'd also guess that those firearms are without a doubt "military style" assault weapons with high capacity magazines. Again, those are fine for his children's protection but not yours.

Another good point. His children are NO MORE important than yours or mine!

[mack59]

As a previous poster pointed out, the President had no problem bringing kids into the issue, including kids with his announcements today, so it is fair to bring it up, especially when his proposed policies will do nothing to protect those kids or stop mass shootings.

[flyinpolack]

The message of the video is clumsy and mean spirited, and worse, doesn't make the point it's trying to make.

Same as these new gun laws?!?

[WildmanWilson]

I think the add was spot on. He nor his family will ever have to worry about the same things we do. He has lifetime protection...we don't. He wants to make decisions about my how my family is protected yet he doesn't have to follow the same rules.

The day he lives under a GUN FREE ZONE and sends all the security home then I will believe he walks the walk.

[coachteet]

I don't think the President's kids are any more valuable than they are just because he's President.

It doesn't matter what you think. Notice, I didn't say "Obama's kids". The safety of the President's kids, wife, and himself are matters of national security. Whether you voted for him or not. And the safety of your kid is not. Period. End of discussion.

There were many, many other ways to actually make the point the were trying to make. They made a video that would have ranked a "C-" in a high school film class. With a "Clumsy, and heavy handed--you can do better" in red writing next to the grade.

This is not to say I disagree with the point the video tried, and failed to make-- that school safety cannot be achieved through legislation, but through making schools hard targets. I agree wholeheartedly.

[Xaak]

MedicineBow, it was quite insensitive. When I saw it I kind of cringed, sensing what the intended message likely was, but how perception could go way wrong.

We as firearm enthusiasts do not have to lower to any level to make a valid point. And while the objective was likely to state that all children are equally as defendable under all circumstances, it should have said that, with no reference to indicate the President, or his children in specific.

[Ruthless4christ]

I loved the Video. It is in your face and to the point which is what is needed right now.

I will also remind everyone that the NRA is always being tagged as being compromising and not hardcore enough, well now they are pulling out all the stops.

[PlungerLips]

I loved the Video. It is in your face and to the point which is what is needed right now.

I will also remind everyone that the NRA is always being tagged as being compromising and not hardcore enough, well now they are pulling out all the stops.

Amen to that!

[RC20]

The reaon hikly tarer Predisne Regan was becuase he was preisblend.

He would not target me. I could possibly have become colltarl damge but not targeted.

Are the Presidutsn children more valubel than your? No. Are they at higher risk becuase of who they are, damned right.

I have five kids in school from 7th thru first year of college and I don't think the President's kids are any more valuable than they are just because he's President. The second ad is better than the first and makes the same point.

And I do not have secret service protection me, but the President of the US (no mater who or what party he or she is) has them protecting him and others at high risk people.

And what would it cost to secure the nations schools? Do you want to pay the taxes needed?

Swimming pools and movie theaters?

I won't say I have any answers, but I do know that the President the US has two Children vs how many tens of millions of children.

When I was 10, the President The US was assassinated and it shook the nation.

A year latter I lost my father when I was young, it shoot up two families.

Some deaths do have more impact than others.

[WildmanWilson]

No one thinks the president shouldn't have protection. Its just hypocritical for someone setting under guard 24/7 to tell us what we need to protect ourselves and our families and our children in schools. Gun free zones do not work. If they did the President and his children wouldn't need life time protection. The law is a joke to protect him or us....that's the hypocrisy.

The gun free zone should be banned and allow any trained teacher to carry concealed in schools. Will it stop every mass shooting? Maybe not. But at least they would have a fighting chance. These kids are sitting ducks for any crazy person.

[mack59]

Simply this, allowed concealed carry by lawful citizens or have armed security - at government buildings that are Gun Free Zones - with the private sector let people carry or have the owner provide armed security.

Funny, I don't think the President's life is anymore important than the life of my neighbor down the street. I don't begrudge him or his family armed protection, but evidently he does mine. He's stated he would like a nationwide ban on concealed carry. As far as who is at greater risk? Probably some Kid on the South Side of Chicago in a gang and drug infested neighborhood. The impact of one life or death, maybe that kid on the South Side of Chicago was going to solve nuclear fusion or become President himself.

Everyman lives and Everyman dies - rich, poor, famous, unknown, powerful, weak - each has a right to life - I don't weigh this man's life as more important than that man's life - whether he serves as a President, an infantryman, or a janitor.

[mack59]

And yes the ad was in your face, it was meant to be. Why shouldn't it be if we really take these mass shooting seriously. The President's proposed legislation will do nothing to stop these shootings. Actually putting armed protection in place will help to prevent or minimize these tragedies.

The cost would be much less than many other things the government spends money on, a third of schools already have armed security and some are moving to train and arm school staff. Besides if this is as important as the President says then can we afford not too? How much is it going to cost to ban private sales and set up registration of all guns, which is the only way to, even theoretically, monitor all gun sales and transfers?

[WildmanWilson]

Obama just sighed $500 million for a "study" on guns. I would rather that money be spent on protecting the schools rather than pi$$ed into the wind on a study.

[NWPilgrim]

Originally Posted by mack59

Simply this, allowed concealed carry by lawful citizens or have armed security - at government buildings that are Gun Free Zones - with the private sector let people carry or have the owner provide armed security.

Funny, I don't think the President's life is anymore important than the life of my neighbor down the street. I don't begrudge him or his family armed protection, but evidently he does mine. He's stated he would like a nationwide ban on concealed carry. As far as who is at greater risk? Probably some Kid on the South Side of Chicago in a gang and drug infested neighborhood. The impact of one life or death, maybe that kid on the South Side of Chicago was going to solve nuclear fusion or become President himself.

Everyman lives and Everyman dies - rich, poor, famous, unknown, powerful, weak - each has a right to life - I don't weigh this man's life as more important than that man's life - whether he serves as a President, an infantryman, or a janitor.

Perfectly stated. I agree on all points, Mack.

[Bamashooter]

NRA is doing a fine job in my opinion. They have my support 100% and some of my cash when the budget allows. Somebody has to stand up to this administration's gun grab. Obama sickens me with his parading these kids around and the exploitation of sandy hook.