Why Do People Protest the NRA?

[MosinRob 1]

Great video showing just how dumb these liberals are and how their ideologies are just such nonsense.

 

[CMJeepster 2,780]

"Knife control."

[CMJeepster 2,780]

"30,000 gun deaths in a year..."

 

Try 11,000: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

[jm1827 284]

"30,000 gun deaths in a year..."

 

Try 11,000: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

Facts have no place in their argument...

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

The media message is that most Americans want stricter guns laws (the oft quoted 90% statistic), and the only thing standing in the way of them 

is the mean, out of touch NRA.

[T Bill 649]

In the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid."

 

Maybe if their First Amendment rights were licensed, narrowed, and restricted, maybe they would begin to understand their Second Amendment rights.

 

License to carry protest sign that includes a criminal background check.

Sign cannot be transferred to anyone without a license and only at the protest location.

Sign cannot weigh more than 50 oz.

No more than 7 words on a sign.

Protest location must meet with local ordinances.

If a "No protests allowed" sign is posted on private property you must leave it secured in your car.

When in possession of a protest sign you may only travel directly to and from the protest location. Any deviation in considered a violation of law.

et al.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

In the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid."

 

Maybe if their First Amendment rights were licensed, narrowed, and restricted, maybe they would begin to understand their Second Amendment rights.

 

License to carry protest sign that includes a criminal background check.

Sign cannot be transferred to anyone without a license and only at the protest location.

Sign cannot weigh more than 50 oz.

No more than 7 words on a sign.

Protest location must meet with local ordinances.

If a "No protests allowed" sign is posted on private property you must leave it secured in your car.

When in possession of a protest sign you may only travel directly to and from the protest location. Any deviation in considered a violation of law.

et al.

 

LOL!  Well done!

[maintenanceguy 510]

License to carry protest sign that includes a criminal background check.

Sign cannot be transferred to anyone without a license and only at the protest location.

Sign cannot weigh more than 50 oz.

No more than 7 words on a sign.

Protest location must meet with local ordinances.

If a "No protests allowed" sign is posted on private property you must leave it secured in your car.

When in possession of a protest sign you may only travel directly to and from the protest location. Any deviation in considered a violation of law.

et al.

 

This should be a satire video.   Cops show up to a NRA protest and start checking signs for number of words and arrest anyone with too many words, Cops tell everyone that signs are prohibited in places of assembly and since everyone is assembled there, it's a place of assembly.   Someone walks buy and gets upset at one protester's sign so the protester is arrested for disturbing the peace and terroristic threats.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Not for nuthin', but the protesters are stupid AND.............I didn't hear a single car horn honk during the entire clip, lol!  So it's a TOTAL FAILLLLLLLLL!  lol!

[Avalanche 42]

It's hilarious that the protesters didn't even realize they were being picked apart. 

[Gus 33]

In the words of Ron White, "You can't fix stupid."

 

Maybe if their First Amendment rights were licensed, narrowed, and restricted, maybe they would begin to understand their Second Amendment rights.

 

License to carry protest sign that includes a criminal background check.

Sign cannot be transferred to anyone without a license and only at the protest location.

Sign cannot weigh more than 50 oz.

No more than 7 words on a sign.

Protest location must meet with local ordinances.

If a "No protests allowed" sign is posted on private property you must leave it secured in your car.

When in possession of a protest sign you may only travel directly to and from the protest location. Any deviation in considered a violation of law.

et al.

 

Nice

[Gus 33]

 Cops tell everyone that signs are prohibited in places of assembly and since everyone is assembled there, it's a place of assembly.  

 

Can you imagine the look on their faces if a cop told them that, and then proceeded to handcuff people? Priceless!

[SgtToadette 59]

I know that this thread was more about sharing the video than actually asking the question in the title, but for the sake of conversation I'll actually try and answer the question the best I can.

 

I'm a young dude and I am friends with other young dudes. Young people tend to lean more liberally and "older" people tend to lean more conservatively. That's a pretty static trend. As a result, I'm friends with plenty of liberal people. We don't usually agree on guns, though some points we share similar opinions on. Given past conversations about the issue, I don't think the hate on the NRA is of a specific nature, but rather because the NRA represents something bigger.

 

Liberal people tend to consider themselves especially rational and fair-minded. They consequently get upset when something doesn't go their way, especially when they don't see a rational reason for it. The vague concept of background checks, as an example, seems superficially to be common sense and simple. When people argue against it, they must be daft. So they get stereotyped as being redneck gun owners clinging to their guns and bibles.

 

The NRA as a lobby represents these people. After all, they get NRA hats, jackets, and bumber-stickers to show how proud they are to be members. The NRA represents the opposition to the gun control agenda and when it fails, the NRA becomes the idol of that failure.

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could solve the gun issue."

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could have common sense gun laws."

 

"If only nobody opposed us, we could do what we want."

 

I'm not saying that I agree with this. I certainly don't. But it's what we're dealing with. The NRA, at the end of the day, is really little different than other popular lobbying organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, PETA, etc. The only difference is the demographic of the supporters and the specific issue of the organization.

 

We need to remember that people who oppose the NRA aren't typically gun people. They lose nothing by implementing gun control measures and they gain peace of mind and political satisfaction. They are effectively fair-weather supporters of an issue they otherwise don't think twice about. I'll ask people if they feel in fear for their lives by merely crossing the Delaware River into PA. Nobody has ever answered yes, yet residents of PA are able to own dreaded assault weapons, carry firearms on their person, and own NFA items. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

[seamusSU 0]

We need to remember that people who oppose the NRA aren't typically gun people. They lose nothing by implementing gun control measures and they gain peace of mind and political satisfaction. They are effectively fair-weather supporters of an issue they otherwise don't think twice about. I'll ask people if they feel in fear for their lives by merely crossing the Delaware River into PA. Nobody has ever answered yes, yet residents of PA are able to own dreaded assault weapons, carry firearms on their person, and own NFA items. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

I am also a relatively young guy (32) and I completely agree with everything you said!

 

The last paragraph makes a great point about using logic to counter the arguments of the "fair-weather supporters" of anti-gun laws. Many of the young, center left people who support the "common sense" gun laws are mystified when you actually take the time to explain the current gun laws to them. My favorite is to describe how any of us becomes an instant felon if we have to stop to go to the bathroom or get gas. While they are trying to make sense of that, you can start explaining the other issues and offer to take them to see for themselves that guns aren't inherently scarey.

 

I say all this as a logical center left leaning man who came to understand the insanity of the current laws.

[WP22 1,558]

I know that this thread was more about sharing the video than actually asking the question in the title, but for the sake of conversation I'll actually try and answer the question the best I can.

 

I'm a young dude and I am friends with other young dudes. Young people tend to lean more liberally and "older" people tend to lean more conservatively. That's a pretty static trend. As a result, I'm friends with plenty of liberal people. We don't usually agree on guns, though some points we share similar opinions on. Given past conversations about the issue, I don't think the hate on the NRA is of a specific nature, but rather because the NRA represents something bigger.

 

Liberal people tend to consider themselves especially rational and fair-minded. They consequently get upset when something doesn't go their way, especially when they don't see a rational reason for it. The vague concept of background checks, as an example, seems superficially be common sense and simple. When people argue against it, they must be daft. So they get stereotyped as being redneck gun owners clinging to their guns and bibles.

 

The NRA as a lobby represents these people. After all, they get NRA hats, jackets, and bumber-stickers to show how proud they are to be members. The NRA represents the opposition to the gun control agenda and when it fails, the NRA becomes the idol of that failure.

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could solve the gun issue."

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could have common sense gun laws."

 

"If only nobody opposed us, we could do what we want."

 

I'm not saying that I agree with this. I certainly don't. But it's what we're dealing with. The NRA, at the end of the day, is really little different than other popular lobbying organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, PETA, etc. The only difference is the demographic of the supporters and the specific issue of the organization.

 

We need to remember that people who oppose the NRA aren't typically gun people. They lose nothing by implementing gun control measures and they gain peace of mind and political satisfaction. They are effectively fair-weather supporters of an issue they otherwise don't think twice about. I'll ask people if they feel in fear for their lives by merely crossing the Delaware River into PA. Nobody has ever answered yes, yet residents of PA are able to own dreaded assault weapons, carry firearms on their person, and own NFA items. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Very well thought out post. 

Thanks

[Gus 33]

I know that this thread was more about sharing the video than actually asking the question in the title, but for the sake of conversation I'll actually try and answer the question the best I can.

 

I'm a young dude and I am friends with other young dudes. Young people tend to lean more liberally and "older" people tend to lean more conservatively. That's a pretty static trend. As a result, I'm friends with plenty of liberal people. We don't usually agree on guns, though some points we share similar opinions on. Given past conversations about the issue, I don't think the hate on the NRA is of a specific nature, but rather because the NRA represents something bigger.

 

Liberal people tend to consider themselves especially rational and fair-minded. They consequently get upset when something doesn't go their way, especially when they don't see a rational reason for it. The vague concept of background checks, as an example, seems superficially to be common sense and simple. When people argue against it, they must be daft. So they get stereotyped as being redneck gun owners clinging to their guns and bibles.

 

The NRA as a lobby represents these people. After all, they get NRA hats, jackets, and bumber-stickers to show how proud they are to be members. The NRA represents the opposition to the gun control agenda and when it fails, the NRA becomes the idol of that failure.

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could solve the gun issue."

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could have common sense gun laws."

 

"If only nobody opposed us, we could do what we want."

 

I'm not saying that I agree with this. I certainly don't. But it's what we're dealing with. The NRA, at the end of the day, is really little different than other popular lobbying organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, PETA, etc. The only difference is the demographic of the supporters and the specific issue of the organization.

 

We need to remember that people who oppose the NRA aren't typically gun people. They lose nothing by implementing gun control measures and they gain peace of mind and political satisfaction. They are effectively fair-weather supporters of an issue they otherwise don't think twice about. I'll ask people if they feel in fear for their lives by merely crossing the Delaware River into PA. Nobody has ever answered yes, yet residents of PA are able to own dreaded assault weapons, carry firearms on their person, and own NFA items. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

 

Nice post. Well explained.

[Gus 33]

I am also a relatively young guy (32) and I completely agree with everything you said!

 

The last paragraph makes a great point about using logic to counter the arguments of the "fair-weather supporters" of anti-gun laws. Many of the young, center left people who support the "common sense" gun laws are mystified when you actually take the time to explain the current gun laws to them. My favorite is to describe how any of us becomes an instant felon if we have to stop to go to the bathroom or get gas. While they are trying to make sense of that, you can start explaining the other issues and offer to take them to see for themselves that guns aren't inherently scarey.

 

I say all this as a logical center left leaning man who came to understand the insanity of the current laws.

 

Great post. Great Idea.

[raz-0 1,259]

There are a number of things wrong with this.

 

I know that this thread was more about sharing the video than actually asking the question in the title, but for the sake of conversation I'll actually try and answer the question the best I can.

 

I'm a young dude and I am friends with other young dudes. Young people tend to lean more liberally and "older" people tend to lean more conservatively. That's a pretty static trend. As a result, I'm friends with plenty of liberal people. We don't usually agree on guns, though some points we share similar opinions on. Given past conversations about the issue, I don't think the hate on the NRA is of a specific nature, but rather because the NRA represents something bigger.

This may be right to an extent, but having had plenty of those conversations, there is a HUGE contingent that the hate for the NRA is of a specific nature, and a largely false one. That usually centers around the violence is evil, guns are evil, and corporations are evil idea. The specific hate is based on the notion that the NRA is a shill for big business. Which ignores the fact that 1) the firearms industry although much bigger than it used ot be is small compared to a huge number of other industries. 2) The NRA is actually a lobby group for actual people who actually vote. 3) That the NRA doesn't spend a lot on lobbying and elections. It's less than most reasonably sized unions, and WAAAAYYY less than real big business like comcast. 4) They don't get that a profitable company like midway writes the huge checks they do because the customers volunteer to contribute money to the NRA through them at the time of purchase.

 

Liberal people tend to consider themselves especially rational and fair-minded.

Which they aren't. Not even close. Most people aren't, but they mostly lack internal consistency much less facts. There is something really messed up about someone who believes the the government is broken/corrupt/a tool of corporations and that we must therefore turn to the government to fix these ills. Perhaps it is a knee jerk reaction without thought, but they don't seem to apply the thought and seem to be especially enamored at their own brilliance for having this contradictory idea. Add on to that the mass appeal of not bothering to ever check up on what passes as facts, if you even bothered to look for details, much less validity, and they are a mess.

 

They consequently get upset when something doesn't go their way, especially when they don't see a rational reason for it. The vague concept of background checks, as an example, seems superficially to be common sense and simple. When people argue against it, they must be daft. So they get stereotyped as being redneck gun owners clinging to their guns and bibles.

Yet they seem to be happy to imagine how something works, and get mad over that and reuse to examine the complaints against chnges in light of how a law currently in place is actually used. Nor do they concern themselves with the knock on effects of kicking the snot out of gun owners and how that precedent set there can and will be used to attack other things they might be fond of. But that's second order thinking on TOP of trying to force oneself to be rational despite the natural inclination not to be so. I think that may actually be illegal these days. You don't even need to get there though. I ask how can someone who odds are has procured and smoked weed and if not knows a buttload of people who do, honestly believe that saying something is illegal and shall not be done prevents any thing?

 

The short version is they believe their right, effort, facts, statistics, and reality be damned.

 

We'll skip over the bit of how a rational mind that says one should be tolerant and respectful of others loves to lead off with basically calling groups that don't agree wit them subhuman idiots, but hey. They are rational and enlightened so F you.

 

The NRA as a lobby represents these people.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there are some people who protest the NRA who believe this, but one of the MOST common objections to them I see basically boils down to them being industry shills who spend money to ensure they can make billions slaughtering children.

 

After all, they get NRA hats, jackets, and bumber-stickers to show how proud they are to be members. The NRA represents the opposition to the gun control agenda and when it fails, the NRA becomes the idol of that failure.

Yes, the NRA is the biggest target. Which actually underlines the lack of nuanced thought on the subject, or they would have a better idea of where the NRA fits on the spectrum of RKBA discussion, which I have never, ever seen demonstrated by anyone fitting the description of anti-gun liberal.

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could solve the gun issue."

 

"If only the NRA wasn't there, we could have common sense gun laws."

 

"If only nobody opposed us, we could do what we want."

I beleive these ideas to be reasonably accurate.

 

I'm not saying that I agree with this. I certainly don't. But it's what we're dealing with. The NRA, at the end of the day, is really little different than other popular lobbying organizations like the ACLU, NAACP, PETA, etc. The only difference is the demographic of the supporters and the specific issue of the organization.

More or less, yes they are, structurally at least. The NRA trades more tangibly with the voting membership than they do. In many ways the NRA is probably more akin to a union lobby than the ACLU or PETA. I highly doubt most of the people you are talking about see it as being akin to any of those groups though.

 

We need to remember that people who oppose the NRA aren't typically gun people. They lose nothing by implementing gun control measures and they gain peace of mind and political satisfaction. They are effectively fair-weather supporters of an issue they otherwise don't think twice about. I'll ask people if they feel in fear for their lives by merely crossing the Delaware River into PA. Nobody has ever answered yes, yet residents of PA are able to own dreaded assault weapons, carry firearms on their person, and own NFA items. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

This is why they are so largely ineffective. The anti organizations run on big money almost exclusively. Their "voter base" doesn't show up because when you take someone who actually doesn't feel threatened day to day and tell them there are bad guys all around you, they assume that at best they are acting on behalf of some poor down trodden guy someplace else. They also expect someone to do all the heavy lifting of solving that problem. It's hard to motivate people to act on something that is not supported by their own experiences. You can get them to BELIEVE all sorts of crap about it, but act on it? Not so much.

 

You can defend it as some sort of through process, but people hate the NRA because that is the message that is beaten into them. Something bad happens to some people, they have empathy, and someone uses that empathy to beat a message into their head. That message in this context is guns are bad. The knee jerk response to that from a passive person who believes in massive authoritarian structures is that the people in authority should do something about that. SO rather than take responsibility for not really doing anything, they say they can't and point at the NRA. Because short of switching sides, that is the optimal solution for keeping lobbyist money hitting their bank account, and keeping votes rolling in.

[Newtonian 453]

"30,000 gun deaths in a year..."

 

Try 11,000: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

They're including suicides. Maybe justifiable homicides as well. 

[Hooligan 0]

"one of the MOST common objections to them I see basically boils down to them being industry shills who spend money to ensure they can make billions slaughtering children."

 

I've been seeing and hearing a LOT of this lately.  There must have been a propaganda push recently.  I remember when the anti-gun crowd targeted individual gun owners.  Now they're convinced the NRA is a giant, runaway, baby-killing corporation that has gun-owners brainwashed into buying more guns.

[SgtToadette 59]

There are a number of things wrong with this.

 

 

 

This may be right to an extent, but having had plenty of those conversations, there is a HUGE contingent that the hate for the NRA is of a specific nature, and a largely false one. That usually centers around the violence is evil, guns are evil, and corporations are evil idea. The specific hate is based on the notion that the NRA is a shill for big business. Which ignores the fact that 1) the firearms industry although much bigger than it used ot be is small compared to a huge number of other industries. 2) The NRA is actually a lobby group for actual people who actually vote. 3) That the NRA doesn't spend a lot on lobbying and elections. It's less than most reasonably sized unions, and WAAAAYYY less than real big business like comcast. 4) They don't get that a profitable company like midway writes the huge checks they do because the customers volunteer to contribute money to the NRA through them at the time of purchase.

 

 

Which they aren't. Not even close. Most people aren't, but they mostly lack internal consistency much less facts. There is something really messed up about someone who believes the the government is broken/corrupt/a tool of corporations and that we must therefore turn to the government to fix these ills. Perhaps it is a knee jerk reaction without thought, but they don't seem to apply the thought and seem to be especially enamored at their own brilliance for having this contradictory idea. Add on to that the mass appeal of not bothering to ever check up on what passes as facts, if you even bothered to look for details, much less validity, and they are a mess.

 

 

Yet they seem to be happy to imagine how something works, and get mad over that and reuse to examine the complaints against chnges in light of how a law currently in place is actually used. Nor do they concern themselves with the knock on effects of kicking the snot out of gun owners and how that precedent set there can and will be used to attack other things they might be fond of. But that's second order thinking on TOP of trying to force oneself to be rational despite the natural inclination not to be so. I think that may actually be illegal these days. You don't even need to get there though. I ask how can someone who odds are has procured and smoked weed and if not knows a buttload of people who do, honestly believe that saying something is illegal and shall not be done prevents any thing?

 

The short version is they believe their right, effort, facts, statistics, and reality be damned.

 

We'll skip over the bit of how a rational mind that says one should be tolerant and respectful of others loves to lead off with basically calling groups that don't agree wit them subhuman idiots, but hey. They are rational and enlightened so F you.

 

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that there are some people who protest the NRA who believe this, but one of the MOST common objections to them I see basically boils down to them being industry shills who spend money to ensure they can make billions slaughtering children.

 

 

Yes, the NRA is the biggest target. Which actually underlines the lack of nuanced thought on the subject, or they would have a better idea of where the NRA fits on the spectrum of RKBA discussion, which I have never, ever seen demonstrated by anyone fitting the description of anti-gun liberal.

 

I beleive these ideas to be reasonably accurate.

 

 

More or less, yes they are, structurally at least. The NRA trades more tangibly with the voting membership than they do. In many ways the NRA is probably more akin to a union lobby than the ACLU or PETA. I highly doubt most of the people you are talking about see it as being akin to any of those groups though.

 

 

This is why they are so largely ineffective. The anti organizations run on big money almost exclusively. Their "voter base" doesn't show up because when you take someone who actually doesn't feel threatened day to day and tell them there are bad guys all around you, they assume that at best they are acting on behalf of some poor down trodden guy someplace else. They also expect someone to do all the heavy lifting of solving that problem. It's hard to motivate people to act on something that is not supported by their own experiences. You can get them to BELIEVE all sorts of crap about it, but act on it? Not so much.

 

You can defend it as some sort of through process, but people hate the NRA because that is the message that is beaten into them. Something bad happens to some people, they have empathy, and someone uses that empathy to beat a message into their head. That message in this context is guns are bad. The knee jerk response to that from a passive person who believes in massive authoritarian structures is that the people in authority should do something about that. SO rather than take responsibility for not really doing anything, they say they can't and point at the NRA. Because short of switching sides, that is the optimal solution for keeping lobbyist money hitting their bank account, and keeping votes rolling in.

 

I think we agree much more than you lead on. Perhaps it was the style with which I wrote my comment, but your commentary seemed to largely build upon what I was saying rather than rebut it.

[CMJeepster 2,780]

They're including suicides. Maybe justifiable homicides as well. 

OK, then we'll go with the FBI's murder victims data:  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

 

8,583 in 2011

[CMJeepster 2,780]

Oh, and my first reference DOES have a separate category for suicides.  Those two do add up to about 34K.

[Newtonian 453]

You have to realize that when anti-gunners cite stats they will count every single person who dies as a result of firearms use. 

 

And when you consider that 80% of firearm murders are confined to, ahem, two ethnic groups, and probably 90+% involve gangs, the drug trade, or other criminal activity (I need a stat on that if someone has one), the case for denying ordinary citizens the right to use guns as they please pretty much evaporates.  

 

The suicide/gun connection is indeed a dark cloud. The silver lining: The U.S. ranks about 17th in suicide rate among "significant" countries: http://goo.gl/MVLE. In fact, suicide rates in two countries with total gun bans, S. Korea and Japan, are double ours.

 

Moral: If you're gonna do it, you'll find a way.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

"one of the MOST common objections to them I see basically boils down to them being industry shills who spend money to ensure they can make billions slaughtering children."

 

I've been seeing and hearing a LOT of this lately.  There must have been a propaganda push recently.  I remember when the anti-gun crowd targeted individual gun owners.  Now they're convinced the NRA is a giant, runaway, baby-killing corporation that has gun-owners brainwashed into buying more guns.

 

There's another consideration, I believe... perhaps a bit painful for gun rights advocates and many loyal NRA members to face. But it must be faced and overcome, because the anti's are taking rampant advantage of it.

 

I believe they feel the NRA is the "front face" organization for all gun owners and speaks for all of them... or at least, that's their (anti's) perception.  It seems the NRA often gets the most MSM exposure, as opposed to other gun rights advocacy groups (example, I don't ever recall seeing the 2AF on MSM). That makes it a very easy target for the anti's to pick and hit. And the problem is further exacerbated by having people without as much media savvy as the antis respresent the NRA and it's brand on MSM. I think the anti's love the NRA because the people that come forth to represent it and the brand play right into how they want to spin the gun control issue to the sheeples...portraying gun owners and gun rights advocates as an idiotic, buffoonish, bunch of "Fudds" etc. etc. etc ... something to be feared and controlled. 

 

We, the 2A community as a whole (and the NRA in particular), need to get a lot smarter about our media presence and "brand representation." We need to stop giving the MSM (and thus the anti's) anything that they can spin in their direction and make us look idiotic, buffoonish, etc.). We need to have some of those same slick "you know whats" the antis have, representing us. The anti's can't very well spin it against us if we're looking exactly like them. Otherwise, they look bad, reflexively.

 

When I look at pictures/video of us at political rallies in front of the "govt. house"  (whichever govt.), the first thing I see is a lot of people in cammo, open carrying, and bearing sinage saying "<insert official's name> is a(n) <insert derogatory reference>." Yes, I know it's a matter of pride to be able to open carry and to exercise our right to free speech. But at what cost? 99% of the time, the anti's will see those same images as a threat, and spin it to the sheeples, accordingly. That's their mindset. We need to stop giving them the opportunity to do that.  Is the ability to open carry at those rallies worth the risk of them spinning it the wrong way to the sheeples? Is showing up in cammo or hunter's gear worth it? Is it worth bringing posters/sinage that mocks the intended target (govt. official or law)? Or, maybe, is it worth it to take a little extra time and organize one's thoughts, and prepare some rational, thoughtful and effective remarks when speaking before  a group of legislators and/or reporters? Is it worth it to consider dressing as they do? (well, maybe not "full business dress" but at least a "professional" appearance.. dress slacks, polo shirt and/or the female equivalent for the ladies).   Is it worth re-considering whether or not to swallow our pride a little, and not open carry in places where the MSM can take those images and twist them to facilitate their own agenda? I know... I know.... I said this would be painful.... but It's all part of the "risk/benefit" calculations we need to do when advancing our message and our brand. We want the MSM to take us seriously. We need to start acting like it.

 

Likewise, so does the NRA. Use some of that wealth for hiring some of those high priced media consultants and brand experts and give them a "makeover."  The more they look, feel, act like the anti's do, the less ability for the anti's to make them look bad on the MSM. Pick spokespersons that can match the anti's toe for toe and score points with our message.  Everytime an anti says "If it saves one life..."  I want to hear, "What if it *costs* a life.." (as it did, for example, in a shopping mall parking lot in Short Hills).  The more we "fight fire with fire,"  and  better our media approach, the better our chances at getting the "right" kind of media attention paid to us, and much better, the chance of actually reaching the sheeples... the very people we need to reach in this struggle.

 

<puts on flame retardant suit>  OK, have at me. 

[CMJeepster 2,780]

<puts on flame retardant suit> OK, have at me.

Well put. Here's S.E. Cupp's take on it: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/21/in-just-17-seconds-s-e-cupp-perfectly-explains-why-bloombergs-mayors-against-illegal-guns-has-crumbled/

[Newtonian 453]

There's another consideration, I believe... perhaps a bit painful for gun rights advocates and many loyal NRA members to face. But it must be faced and overcome, because the anti's are taking rampant advantage of it.

...

 

We, the 2A community as a whole (and the NRA in particular), need to get a lot smarter about our media presence and "brand representation."

 

When I look at pictures/video of us at political rallies in front of the "govt. house"  (whichever govt.), the first thing I see is a lot of people in cammo, open carrying, and bearing sinage saying "<insert official's name> is a(n) <insert derogatory reference>." 

<puts on flame retardant suit>  OK, have at me. 

You don't need any kind of suit by me bruh. You have spoken the troof.

[seamusSU 0]

You don't need any kind of suit by me bruh. You have spoken the troof.

+1 to that

[SgtToadette 59]

LaPierre needs to go. I don't disagree with his positions, but we needs someone more articulate and palatable.

[HBecwithFn7 296]

LaPierre needs to go. I don't disagree with his positions, but we needs someone more articulate and palatable.

 

He's spot on about "bad guy/good guy with a gun." And I wouldn't want him to leave the NRA as his heart/mindset is in the right place.

 

But, perhaps a different "brand ambassador/rep."