NRA ad campaign goes beyond gun rights, reaches out to concerned citizens

Washington Times ^ | September 4, 2014 | Killy Riddell

[Hojczyk]

The National Rifle Association has unleashed a multimillion-dollar TV advertising campaign that its longtime leader says is aimed at messaging beyond gun rights and reaching middle-class mothers, minorities and other Americans “who believe our country is off the rails.”

The gun lobby’s campaign, launched in the last 10 days, uncharacteristically delves into issues far beyond the Second Amendment to explore the IRS scandal, media elitism and security vulnerabilities, with a call to return “good guys” to power.

“This campaign is a gathering of shared values that gives a sense of right and wrong,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre told The Washington Times in an interview. The collection of issues the ads confront are representative of the conversations Mr. LaPierre said he has had throughout the country with NRA members and concerned citizens.

In Mr. LaPierre’s 36-year career as a policy activist, he feels the American public has never been more worried about this country's. Future

“They’re worried the character of the country is at risk. It’s all collapsing,” Mr. LaPierre said. “They care about their Second Amendment freedoms but understand that all freedoms are connected.”

The first ad in a 16-ad series lays out a simple question to the American public: “Do you still believe in the good guys?”

[stevio]

The Second Amendment keeps the others possible.

[grandpa jones]

I’ve watched two of the ads. They are powerful!

[MtnClimber]

What channel are they running the ads on?

[DJ Taylor]

This ad came in an email today:
http://goodguys.nra.org/service.htm?utm_source=ggemail1&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gg1

[ChildOfThe60s]

The National Rifle Association has unleashed a multimillion-dollar TV advertising campaign

The regime needs to put a stop to this sort of sedition. It shouldn't be permitted.

[moodyskeptic]

I’m impressed with these ads, they are a good example of HOW to POSITION conservative thought. I am headed to NRA to join. I’s also like to see Tea Party and conservative organizations use this style of “surprise” editing. Set the premise, explain the challenge, coax the viewer in, THEN reveal the sponsor.

[Dracomeister]

The NRA has been “Preaching to the Choir” for far too long, it is high time they help get the message out to “Fly-Over Country”!

[nathanbedford]

The Second Amendment keeps the others possible.

If true, it appears the Second Amendment has been doing a poor job. Never has the Constitution been so abused as it is today. Mark Levin is fond of observing that we live in a post-Constitutional world and every indication tells us that he is correct.

While I understand the reasoning that says that an armed citizenry is vital to individual liberty I simply do not accept the reasoning we find so often republished on these threads to the effect that armed citizens can successfully wage guerrilla war against the federal government which deploys all the cutting edge weapons, including drones or robots, against middle-aged men with pot bellies bearing revolvers. That is absurd.

An armed citizenry raises the bar and forces the government to think twice. Beyond that we must consider that technology has long ago taken us out of the time when my ancestor took his flint lock down from over the mantle and volunteered for the French and Indian war. Today, a drone will smite us from the air with a laser and we will never even see it coming.

There are other amendments in the Constitution as you note but they have been sadly betrayed in recent years leaving the citizenry more and more vulnerable to an overweening government. The defense against such a government in the modern era cannot rest exclusively on citizens under arms but a culture that respects the legitimacy of the Constitution.

Regrettably, the NRA is one of the most irresponsible agencies on the right fighting against the Article V movement. One inescapably comes to the conclusion that the NRA will sacrifice all our liberties to save the Second Amendment. This is the opposite reality from the idea that the Second Amendment keeps the others possible. It is clear that the NRA fears a Constitution of the States because it fears that the second amendment will be weakened. For reasons which we can explore if necessary the likelihood of such an amendment emerging from a convention of the states is so remote as to be implausible.

I hope the NRA will in fact become not just a proponent of the Second Amendment but an organization that helps the others remain "possible."

[smokingfrog]

Today, a drone will smite us from the air with a laser and we will never even see it coming.

But they don't have enough of them to get all of us.

[donna]

Why can’t we get a conservative Republican who speaks of these things in that way?

[SoConPubbie]

The NRA would be much more believable in this effort if they would quit endorsing Democrats!

[NonValueAdded]

Hawt

[Windflier]

I simply do not accept the reasoning we find so often republished on these threads to the effect that armed citizens can successfully wage guerrilla war against the federal government which deploys all the cutting edge weapons, including drones or robots, against middle-aged men with pot bellies bearing revolvers. That is absurd.

Sorry you see it that way, Nathan. I feel exactly the opposite.

In my opinion, the odds greatly favor the citizens, should open hostilities break out between them and their government.

All of the cutting edge technology and massive levels of lethal force you describe have been abundantly available to our military in the recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we've achieved nothing that could be rightfully called an unqualified victory in either of those places in the last 12 years.

I read somewhere that, at no time, were there more than fifteen hundred active 'insurgents' fighting in the Iraq theater, yet they tied our entire military down for close to a decade. Even with the most advanced weaponry on the planet, our people couldn't completely subdue the terrorist forces in that country. They merely took a break when the 'surge' pushed them back to near complete inactivity. Once our forces left, they returned in even greater numbers, and vengeance.

You can counter with the argument that the rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan tied our military's hands, and that the same rules would not apply in a domestic rebellion. I don't buy that. Americans are not going to accept a no-holds-barred military response to a citizen uprising. The moment tanks and Warthogs mow down a U.S. city, the gloves will completely come off.

Consider that, at present, there are nearly 100 million gun owners in America, who possess an estimated 300 million firearms. That's a third of the population. If even one in ten of those Americans chose to answer the call of duty in the ultimate SHTF scenario, that would be 10 million dedicated fighters.

Compare that number to the estimated 1.5 million active duty military personnel, and you begin to see the lopsided situation there. Factor in the fact that only a minority of armed services personnel would even obey an order to forcibly subdue their fellow Americans, and the odds of military success against such an 'insurgency' grow even dimmer.

In fact, that minority of our military who would obey orders to inflict harm against their own people, would be violently opposed by those service members who held true to their oaths. The picture becomes even worse for the forces of tyranny when you add that reality into the equation.

In the overall analysis, it would be most unwise for the elites to spark the people to rebellion. Very, very unwise. Just imagine hundreds of thousands of Henry Bowmans to contend with.

It's a frightening scenario for any jack-booted thug to consider, and it's precisely why you and I aren't sitting in a concentration camp this very moment.

[backwoods-engineer]

Lest we forget, the NRA backed Harry Reid 100%.

Yes, I'm still a member, but the NRA needs serious reform in its political arm. It has got to stop supporting Democrat machine candidates, and squishy RINOs who will sell out the 2nd Amendment at the drop of a hat.

[backwoods-engineer]

Your #14 is RIGHT ON. Well said.

[Lurker]

For later

[Califreak]

Re: NRA support of people like Dingy Harry

My take on it is by doing that they are sort of helping to keep alive the very problems that they are supposed to be fighting against so they can be the solution

Kind of a sneaky leftist type of maneuver create the problem and have people throw money at you to solve it

Our family has somewhat cooled our opinion of the NRA due to things like that.

Also they only seem to fight what they are sure to win lawsuit wise

[stevio]

You make a lot of valid points which I cannot refute.

The violations of our Constitution come from our unwillingness as Americans to right the ship. The Jews in Nazi Germany had weapons but no will to use them. Have we become like them? Probably. Bread and circuses and all that. Our society is morally degenerate, God's hand of protection is lifting from us.

Like my tag line, we need all 3 in order to return to the greatness we once enjoyed.

[grandpa jones]

I saw them on FoxNews