Is this ad by the NRA a hit or a miss?
This entry was posted
on Monday, February 18th, 2013 at 00:05 and is filed under 2A.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
It’s too focused on the president – most of the initiatives to ban standard capacity magazines are now on the state level.
Agreed, to Executively focused. It should push to a broader field of entities lobbying for gun control. This is a “political base” commercial, and a narrow one at that. Good attempt, but a miss.
Would have been better to show that middle class family attempting to defend themselves with the magazines. Lots harder to argue with “Bang. Bang. Click.” than with that which is ad hominem.
fear mongering much? miss
Agree that this is a MISS. This is not about the President or any other single politician, i.e. SEN Feinstein. Making it sound like a personal attack is not helpful and makes the issue seem like petty politics “as usual”.
The focus IMO should be about illuminating and preventing “feel good” laws curtailing or infringing individual liberties as addressed in the 2d and 4th Amendments in particular.
I firmly believe that reasoned arguments backed by facts are better in the long run. After all, aren’t we all concerned that the gun banners let their fears and dislike of firearms (emotion) drive their agenda? I don’t think it is wise to fall into that same trap.
And PLEASE don’t help the other side frame this as a Republican vs Democrat partisan issue. We need to emphasis that this cuts across party lines and frankly isn’t just about the NRA or even gun owners but rather the liberties of ALL Americans whether they choose to own guns themselves or not.
We may not want to frame this as an R vs. D argument but it largely is. We shouldn’t be afraid to tell Democrats their party is leaving them.
Terry, I agree with the majority of your points, but I think that there’s only so much that can be said in thirty seconds.
While I do believe that showing hypocrisy and irrationality within the anti-gun arguments with fact-based arguments (media excerpts) could have been more effective, the call to act knee-jerk response that the NRA is looking for is there in this piece. It would have been nice to see the NRA take a more “rights” based approach to the campaign by calling into question what part of ”shall not be infringed” was not made clear enough by our forefathers through using Supreme Court rulings, but who is to say that the next ad won’t?
I couldn’t agree more that the emphasis on politics is a gratuitous stab at the administration and takes away from the overall bipartisan message.
It would be interesting to see a campaign focused entirely on the promises of the Democratic party towards individual liberties, and how the anti-gun policies actually undercut the very liberal ideals that the candidates campaigned upon…
One thing that was interesting was how the NRA Stand and Fight website features more comprehensive propaganda (it has to be called that, it’s from a partisan group) that seeks to educate and dispel many of the myths that the anti-gunners are using to incite fear within the population.
I guess that my scorecard would rank the video as a hit for the knee-jerk response, but a miss on the call to action, and a miss on the bipartisan front for the last point made in the video.
While I think that this video is a bit off the mark too, it’s worth noting that the tone is much more level and relatively bipartisan: http://www.nrastandandfight.com/video/ask-obamas-experts
I may be a bit biased though, as I study International Relations and am in the process on writing an essay dealing with different theoretical explanations for political decisions…
Good points all. I do believe that the elephant (protection of our individual and collective civil liberties) has to be chewed one bite at a time…but it is more efficient to barbeque the beast in one fire. By that I mean that a coordinated campaign or connected series of 30 second spots could be used to illustrate the totality of the issue rather than a scattershot approach like the last couple of NRA ads.
I also don’t think that just speaking to or appealing to the base (many but not all gun owners) is a winning strategy. Our arguments need to connect with the folks in the middle ground. And we need to take the long view. No matter how this current push for new laws is resolved – and right now it is looking mixed at the state and federal level – we will likely face the same struggle in perpetutity.
Education has to be a key part of the effort and those TV spots I mentioned above could start that process. For example, take a lesson from the anti-tobacco ad campaigns a few years ago. Those spots collectively were very effective over time. Positively influencing opinions takes time but is how we will achieve the most enduring results.
We need to let people know that their liberties are as important to life as the air we breath or water we drink. And that the founders didn’t put the 2d Amendment in place to ensure duck hunters or skeet shooters could enjoy their sport (no offense to either group). If we don’t do it, who will?
That also means that we remind ALL of our political leaders that they have sworn oaths to support and defend the totality of the Constitution, not just the parts they might personally believe in. And that we are watching them…and we vote.
Hit. Even if its on the state level in a few states, the ad does a good at pointing out its futility in preventing gun violence.
Hit – good 30 second spot
One last point. This has never been about types of guns, or size of magazines or caliber of bullets (and we shouldn’t allow it to be framed in those simplistic terms). It has always been about our liberties and our individual and collective responsibility to ensure the perpetuation of those liberties.
The founders meant this to be a team effort. The Branches of the Federal Government have their roles; the State Governments have their part to play; but we as citizens have the greatest responsibility – one we cannot delegate to our representatives.
I certainly have no intention of ever abdicating my enduring obligation as a citizen to defend those liberties – by force of arms if required. Having said that, I truly believe that we can successful make that argument to our fellow Americans and win on that basis.
It’s hard for me not to think of a lot of these gun control debates as Urban vs. Rural cultures colliding.
It is not a hit or miss, it is simply the truth, and Obama is at the head of that snake. NRA is a long standing 2nd amendment lobby, they are one of the few lobby’s keeping Capitol Hill from INFRINGING on our God given rights. They need our support!
I understand the principle behind opposing the ban, but I can’t be the only guy carrying a 1911 or a K Frame, and surviving quite nicely.
Oops, I think I responded to the “magazine ban will get you killed” bit
Criminals spray and pray or do go point-blank; law-abiding responsible civilian gun-owners keep calm and return fire. One aimed shot at a time.
On a personal note I find this ad going a bit Freudian with the mag sizes.
BTW, did I spot a Fedorov magazine between the steel STANAG and AK mags?
Unlike the latter two, I don’t see much circulation for that 25rd mag, as the weapon that accepts it is a collector’s antique.
It makes a great point about the criminals still having access but I’d also like to see an ad targetted specifically at democrats showing “Bush’s police state” to remind them that it’s not just right side of the quadrant that gun rights affect (even though he didn’t hurt gun rights, it’d resonate more for some of them if they remembered the protests back then).
Generally though the ad did a decent job of planting seeds about magazine capacity. I could see a follow up ad of a rancher and his family in arizona being attacked by cartel members at their home and another ad of a single mother in her apartment being sexually assaulted by a small group of men. It’d then show both of them with guns stopping the incident before it could escalate to the point of them being victims.
MISS, as has been the case with most of what the NRA has been doing. My question is who, if any, has actually stated the true purpose of the 2A on a national media outlet or MSM. I have not see or heard it said yet. Did I just miss it? Is the NRA afraid to state that we need standard capacity mags and military pattern rifles to effectively resist our own government if it ever becomes tyrannical? The framers were not duck hunters. But I can see where sheeple would get bunched up over the above reality, who wants to see their great country thrown into revolutionary or civil chaos. So we stick to the story that it is all about personal defense. At least that seems the case with this latest spot, and basically everything else.
The NRA has focused in the hypocrisy of the gun control issues. This ad and the previous one about the schools focusses on the gun control advocates as being in the elite class and the rest of us are not entitled to the same privileges.
It amazes me that people didn’t think this was coming all along, the current administration and their party just took advantage of the Sandy Hook incident. Firstly, being the father of three and now the grandfather of 7, my beliefs are, the very worst thing in the entire world is a parent having to bury their child. I can’t think of anything that could be worst. However, in the same breath I don’t think anybody should exploit an incident of this magnitude either. Using the death of these children and some very brave teachers to push a political objective is just about as low as it gets.
But, who could be surprised after watching the last election, the performance of our politicians and now as you watch the upcoming budgetary destruction of our military, our president is playing golf in florida and congress is on vacation. I bet Iran and North Korea are scratching their heads in disbelief and ultimately laughing at us.
Losing our rights or any part of our constitutional rights is a slippery slope, what is next? How do we stop the next political action that infringes on our liberties? Who will we trust in the future to safe guard our rights? Is their anybody left who is not afraid of the mainstream media, has the guts to push Political Correctness off to the side and deal with the real problems in our country? I hope and pray that a Leader will appear, a Leader who wants to put our great country back on azimuth to greatness.
To get back on topic, the NRA has to pull out all stops, maybe instead of spending big bucks on political commercials they need to be out talking to our members in congress. They have to leave that congressman with no doubt that if he supports the attacks on our rights that they will put all their collective resources in seeing that he is never elected again. We as members of the NRA have to do same thing to the NRA. If they don’t put the 110% effort in making sure we retain our rights, we will pull our support from them.
Politicians only understand one thing “Votes” without them they loose their power, their perks, their time in the spotlight, and their seat at the marble palace. They depend on us having only a short term memory and will not remember how they voted at any given time. We have to remind them that when it comes to our rights we have a very long memory and it is just as easy for us to vote “NO” on the next election as it was for them to vote “YES” to attacks on our constitutional rights.
I just wish they would get rid of “the voice”. They use that guy everytime and I think it turns people off. There has to be some rightwing or conservative actor or voice personality out there they can get that sounds more reasonable. Not the best example but a personality/voice like Fred Thompson. Someone convincing not scary.
As others have said – its an attack ad that places too much of the attention on the President, as its NOT just him alone that’s pushing this agenda.
Also, they turned me off right at the beginning by using the gun-banners “high capacity magazines” jargon.
It did make a couple of very good valid points about the hypocrisy of it all, and about how it won’t deter criminals in the slightest though.
I wish they had focussed more on that core message – and used a positive tone.
This one was just as much an emotionally-driven, negative, attack ad as the ones that the gun-banners are doing.
The NRA’s most recent ads are on point, but the delivery misses the target audience, and draws their argument toward class warfare, versus the need for 2A, or the poor logic behind gun control.
The NRA should air an ad highlighting how Chicago and DC, with their gun laws and crime rates, are essentially failed test cases for gun control.
I think it’s a miss. It would have been much more effective showing my little 4’11″ Guatemalan wife using a revolver to defend my daughters against a group of huge gang bangers and running out of ammo after shooting only one (like the recent lady who shot the home invader who found her hiding in the closet 5 times with her. 38 and he still walked away).
Then by innuendo letting the viewers figure out that now with one injured gang banger the rest are going to be pissed and want revenge…and the results won’t be pretty.
Then at the end of the commercial run a caption with something like:
“This is the reason why Americans need standard capacity magazines, sometimes there is more than one threat and a few rounds just won’t do…doesn’t your family deserve a fighting chance?” or something like that.
We reserve the right to refuse advertising to anyone
and Comments (RSS).
Copyright © Soldier Systems Daily 2008 - 2013