I liked the ad. Sorry but any ad put out by any pro-gun group is going to be attacked by the anti gun liberals. It's their Modus operandi. Cry foul and unfair or even raciest every time an opinion opposing theirs is expressed. Ever notice how on TV they always start out with that snide smirk then dance in with an emotional response that has nothing to do with logic or reality?
The truth is indeed the truth; however; perception remains reality.
Originally Posted by Bullet1234
The left wing progressive socialists don't know what truth is. The truth is not part of their agenda. In actuality, the truth for the anti-2A crowd
is their sworn enemy. The truth will set you free, but to the anti-2A crowd, this runs counter to what they want; freedom? They don't want you to have freedom, hence; they remain bereft of the truth.
I love this line from (A Few Good Men) "You want the truth?" "You can't handle the truth!"
Caesar Augustus asked "What is truth?..is it our changing law?"
Most Americans get their dose of truth via sound bites and the tube.
Was the ad ill advised? I was probably one of the first who saw this ad for what it was, poorly conceived and poorly received.
The NRA needs to learn from it and move forward. It's only a mistake if the NRA doesn't learn from it.
Sales & marketing; like it or not is what moves most Americans. Nothing happens in this country until something is sold. It is the winning of hearts and minds.
When a well constructed and produced PR video is made, it will have tremendous effect upon the viewer; be it true or not.
I am not advocating the NRA lie; never. What I do advocate is a PR production with impact using the federal gov's own facts and figures backed by video that clearly shows how armed law abiding citizens are a plus to society in general.
Another video production showing the intent of the framers of the constitution..The list is long.
..and yes; a PR piece attacking those who would destroy our 2A right by exposing their lies.
The media + sales & marketing; love it or hate it; it must be used to win the day.
Well, IMO................I thought the content was spot on.......is the safety of his kids any more imprtant then mine...?
Some here need to get their priorities straight. The only things the Left understands IMO......is a Barrage campaign that destroys their credability and depicts them for what they really are.
Funny how the destain from the Left towards the NRA was so vindictive when their suggestion was made to place armed security in schools......now many of the schools in my area are considering just that........Hypocrates all of them and IMO..are not worthy of our respect...let them earn it.
I applaud the ad. The problem is not that the President's kids have armed guards. The problem is that everyone, including Obama and Biden, crapped all over the idea of armed guards in schools as ineffective. But it MUST be effective - that is what Obama's kids get.
I think the add should have been aimed more that way - sound bites from those that complained about the NRA's response to the shoot suggesting that.
And, for FreeFalling and others that think Obama's plan calls for armed guards. Read it again. It calls for 1,000 additional SRO AND counselors. There are approximately 100,000 public schools in the US. So, his plan calls for additional personnel at 1% of the schools, and some, unnamed percentage MIGHT be armed.
Very few ad's are "spot on" including this one. By taking a strong position on one side or the other they usually and intentionally omit facts that may appear counter to their point of view. I saw an ad yesterday that listed all the anti-gun legislation points and then ended by saying 53% of Americans are in favor of gun control. It left out that nowhere near 53% are in favor of all the proposed controls. 53% probably are in favor of some parts of the proposed measure. Ad's are what they are. designed to make a specific point at the expense of honesty. Designed to sway opinions not to be specifically accurate or factual.
To be redundant: I liked the ad even if it was a bit off the reality mark. It was designed to make a point and sway opinions not to make an anti gun liberal happy.
True, and thank you for pointing that out to me. Still, perception is reality and until we change the perception of gun owners to a positive the gun grabbers have the upper hand.
Originally Posted by TVille
For everyone's reference, it's on page 11:
In lamest terms, yes, in a way that is what the public wants you to believe. Because they are the children of the president, they can be targeted by people who want to get to the president. Yes, this is true. However, they are under the assumption that your children are "less likely" to be a direct target because of politics. I don't buy it. A persons child can be a target by some psycho regardless of how popular the parent is. Most people who thought this ad was bad PR agree that statistically the presidents children have a bigger bulls-eye on their back than your child does. Tell that to the parents and sandy hook, VA Tech, Columbine, and all of the other schools where kids were targeted.
Originally Posted by xXxplosive
Statistically, and politically correctedness aside, Obama's kids have guards, but he told the NRA that he doesn't want yours to. Because of this, I think the ad was right on the money. Something needs to be done to protect children at school, and it isn't an AWB like the media portrays.
This info might have been handy to include in the ad:
Sidwell Friends School: Admissions » Tuition and Fees
You can afford lots of security with this kind of cash.
IMO, the biggest problem with the ad was that no one understood the point of it. Looking at all of the comments on various news sites, everyone assumed that the NRA was talking about the Secret Service agents and NOT the schools own armed guards.
We don't have the high ground and if we did I would say the ad was ill advised. In my opinion if we continue to cave within our own ranks the administration has won.
Originally Posted by wmhawth
Right there Chuck..................IMO an overwhelming response is neede to quell these asshats who have no reguard for our Constitution and Bill Of Rights. Forget about changing mindsets......just eliminate any counter with a strong initial surge.....they're mostly spineless types who run when the going gets tough.
The ad doesn't really make sense if it was only referring to the school's own guards. The Obama girls attend a private school. If anyone wants their children to be under armed guard at school, then they are free to find a private school in their area that offers this service. To my knowledge, Obama has never been against private schools hiring their own private security. The big issue here is that most of us in the middle class couldn't afford to send our children to such a school. On top of that, the government can't afford to station police officers in every public school in the nation.
Originally Posted by tokerblue
With the amount that I pay in taxes to my local school system (and everyone else in my county), they could afford it, too. The problem is the extreme misappropriation of funds and ridiculous paychecks of the top administrators and their minions. My county superintendent makes well into six figures and has SIX mini-intendents who make over six figure salaries. There is only two public high schools, three middle/intermediate schools, two elementary schools, and two primary schools. There is absolutely no reason for a staff that big collecting that much money.
Originally Posted by Mike1956
Then, we look at the high schools. The first high school was built to be expanded upon on a large piece of property. The school system chose to hire an out-of-state contractor to build a new 40 million dollar (ridiculously over-budgeted) school which had empty classrooms for FIVE years because there wasn't enough students to fill it. The new schools maximum occupancy is 1,200. The original high school still has 8+ trailer classrooms because they get more funding at their over-occupancy.
All the while, teachers aren't getting paid for crap and are being furloughed. ...Imagine what is happening in large districts. It is insane.
Even though I joined the NRA yesterday - as a matter of self preservation - I think they are incredibly inept in how they have responded to Newtown and the gun control aftermath.
First, LaPierre may be a wonderful lobbying strategist (though I doubt that), but he is a terrible front person for the organization. The public perception of gun owners is OFWG's and rednecks. The NRA should be putting a much broader range of demographically situated people in front of the camera. Look at some of the faces on TTAG's "I am a Gun Owner" series, these are the type of faces that should be in the ads. The 'old' and 'out of touch' aspect of their leadership goes beyond the faces in front of the camera, the NRA seems not to have heard of social media. There are only 4.5 million members of the NRA, there are 150 million+ firearms owners in the US, the NRA is doing a terrible job reaching them. If we are going to win this fight it needs to be a grass roots, broadly based effort, not just an inside the beltway campaign waged by overpaid lobbyists. This fight should center on the vital utility of semi auto rifles and handguns for self defense and the number of defensive gun uses annually. It should also harp on the fact that the guns they are trying to prohibit are protected by Heller. Hell. I just saw Newt Gingrich on Piers and when Piers said he had never heard of a DGU with an 'assault weapon'. Newty could not come up with a number or even a few recent anecdotes. Hell, just by reading DC and TTAG, I can rattle off three or four in the past month. Why in the world is the NRA not offering a briefing service for pro 2A guests headed for the major TV shows?
Second, The ad was insanely stupid. It came off as just another Republican election ad demonizing Obama. The Republicans just lost two elections in a row, the NRA should not be emulating the Republicans messaging if they want to win.
- I'm not disagreeing with you. I understood the ad's message. The problem was that 99% of the commenters assumed that ad was referring to the Secret Service.
Originally Posted by ElMonoDelMar