Apparently, I'm not the only one that thought it was "ill advised."
I would hope the NRA and others would hire a new ad agency and pr firm, and make ads that prove the point without taking cheap shots.
On the one hand, "our side" waits a dignified period of time after the last tragedy.... Then turns around vindictively, and promulgates yet more divisiveness.
Inconsistent messaging. Not wise.
The libtards took the gloves off and are now crying that they got punched in the nose. Do I think the ad was helpful overall? Not particularly. Did it win over any anti-gun folks? Definitely not. Dit it make any pro-gun folks jump teams? I seriously doubt it. Did it cause some to doubt the genuine nature of the liberal reaction to the NRA's response to the President's dog and pony show? Maybe in the minds of those in the middle who don't feel strongly one way or the other.
Personally I think they would have been better served to do an ad that points out "assault weapons" are used in les than 1% of all gun crimes. And that 58% of the US homicides occur in 5 cities and name them. And things of this nature. But at least they did something.
I tend to agree. The high ground is ours and we should be acting like it.Quote:
NRA senior lobbyist says attack ad was "ill-advised"
i thought the ad was right on the money,shows the hypocrisy of Obama..very effective!
Reading the article, I love that they only mention the Secret Service protection. The ad was about the other armed guards separate from the Secret Service that are present at the school, not the agents specifically assigned to Obama's daughters.
How do you fight the media when the majority of the media in this country are liberals and keep parroting that no one needs an AR, no one needs a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, the founding fathers never envisioned the weapons we have today,etc. I don't think we're going to convince any liberals, but we may convince some gun owners who don't understand all the issues. I was somewhat taken aback when I first saw the ad, but it is true and factual. If Obama is going to use kids in his assault on our rights, then lets let the facts speak for themselves.
Heck, you can't even convince the parents whose kids are at risk in unprotected schools. Here in Los Angeles a school district just received ARs they ordered before Newtown and some of the parents were outraged. People who are not gun owners just don't get it. We need a highly respected public figure who people might listen to, like a Charlton Heston, but there is no one like that on the horizon....
I have no problem with the ad whatsoever. It only points out the obvious fact that liberals choose to ignore.
I liked the add!!
What we have to remember is that even before the add came out the media were already making fun of it and attacking it. I would say that even a lot of us on this forum were negatively influenced by the media hype before they even saw the add.
I don't like seeing us second guessing ourselves?! The add was fine! It must have hit close to home considering how much the libs hated it!!
I have NO PROBLEM WITH THE AD,,,, the truth is the truth,,,,,, you should never apologize
for pointing OUT THE FACTS,,,, all of the gun control folks are for controlling OUR GUNS,,,
NOT THEIRS. Most of the gun control lobby have numerous bodyguards who ALL HAVE
WEAPONS, and some even carry themselves plus the bodyguards,
I liked the ad because it proves a key principle we all need to keep in mind.
When we as a people or single person have something we value, we protect it with firearms.
The President and his family are important, thus firearms are used to protect them.
My family is important to me, I use firearms to protect them
I am important to ME, I use firearms to protect ME
IMO the Ad didn't help our cause.
But here is what I've concluded just by talking with people on both sides. The media has painted the NRA as such a loony bunch that NOTHING the NRA puts out, no matter how truthful, will sway an anti.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. They came out with the ad before the EO was out anticipating that Obama would expand the Gun Free Zone idea. Instead, item 18 on his list is to incentivize schools to hire more resource officers (armed police officers). I don't expect Obama to actually follow through on that item, but it made the NRA and all of us by association look like idiots. Especially when they kept running the ad!
But that's just one specific example. In the broader sense, I'm not going to support any person or organization who uses attack ads to further their agenda. I don't care if we share the same agenda, the only thing they're doing is further polarizing the issue and making it harder to convince anti-gun people to take us seriously.
In my opinion it would be a lot more productive to run positive ads showing gun owners in a good light. Show hunters who use AR-15s teaching their children to shoot. Show grandpa out on the farm teaching his grand kids how to shoot with the 1911 he carried in the war. Reinforce the fact that guns are part of the heritage of the United States, and do it in a positive accessible way that will make people want to be a part of our group because, "hey, those are some happy family oriented folks right there!"
In short, I think the NRA reinforces the liberal perception of gun owners as ignorant rednecks who can barely communicate. And I know for a fact that's not who we are.