"NRA Issues Call for White Supremacy and Armed Insurrection"

[Twilight Hue]

Not sure why you're attaching me to the content of the commentary, but just to remind you, the entire piece is a quote.

.

It was just a hunch as to why this particular piece was brought to people's attention.

 

[Rival]

The ad uses the acts of a minority of people to demonise all liberals, leftists etc in America. It's calling for violence against protesters, calling them the enemies of freedom for protesting (ironically they're protesting in the name of freedom) and calling their position "this violence of lies" which can only be fought with "the clenched fist of truth". How is this not the sort of language which militarises an already poisonous atmosphere in the USA.




It's at the very least implied - the NRA's target audience are privileged white conservative ammosexuals who would probably like nothing more than a fantasy of gunning down those evil communistic atheistic fascist Stalinist liberals who want to ruin America by making sure that minorities aren't shat on by white privilege which they (white people) would rather not even know about.

Spoiler: Look! A conservative!!

Yeah, it's called advertising.

 

[Nakosis]

It's at the very least implied - the NRA's target audience are privileged white conservative ammosexuals who would probably like nothing more than a fantasy of gunning down those evil communistic atheistic fascist Stalinist liberals who want to ruin America by making sure that minorities aren't shat on by white privilege which they (white people) would rather not even know about.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Yeah, it's called advertising.

And that advertising is calling for people to take up arms against other people. Come on, do you really think people in the NRA's target audience don't already own guns?

The things people say have consequences and effects on others. I'm not really sure why pointing this out is being met with such resistance.

 

[Nakosis]

What I think is really on point is the article's characterization of the members the NRA is trying to recruit; more people like themselves.

Hey, there's an idea. The NRA should target Muslims,...

for recruitment I mean.

 

[Rival]

And that advertising is calling for people to take up arms against other people. Come on, do you really think people in the NRA's target audience don't already own guns?

The things people say have consequences and effects on others. I'm not really sure why pointing this out is being met with such resistance.

Preaching to the choir is so much easier. Just like how most conservatives won't go to liberal news sources and vice-versa. Selling guns to folk who already own guns is simple; especially in a place like the U.S.

 

[BSM1]

What am I doing?

Saying that everyone should be condemning the act regardless of who committed?

So let me explicitly ask you then. Why did you bring up the topic of "specifically shoot Republican Congressman?"

What is your implication of Republican as opposed to simply Congressman? What is your implication of Congressman as opposed to simply person?

Let's hear it...

Dude! He specifically asked if those were Republicans before he shot them. You may talk about the Right condoning violence until you're blue in the face, but here is a poignant example of the Left mindset when it comes to gun violence.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Preaching to the choir is so much easier. Just like how most conservatives won't go to liberal news sources and vice-versa. Selling guns to folk who already own guns is simple, especially in a place like the U.S.

I agree but that doesn't denude the language used in this ad of its potency or its at-least-implied intent. You're also forgetting that people other than the target audience are going to see this ad - possibly more than once a day. How ought they to react to having someone aggressively telling gun nuts that homophobia, xenophobia and inequality are lies (while implying that admitting these are problems is a form of violence)? It's this sort of nonsense that can drive more people like the guy who shot up the Republicans at that baseball field to act as they did - it polarises society and sets people against each other. And in a gun-saturated society like America that's bound to end in violence.

 

[Rival]

and the fact it's advertising changes the bad nature of it... how? Exactly?

I never made a moral judgement.

 

[suncowiam]

Dude! He specifically asked if those were Republicans before he shot them. You may talk about the Right condoning violence until you're blue in the face, but here is a poignant example of the Left mindset when it comes to gun violence.

He as in an individual, as in the original shooter? What does he have to do with the left? Because, he's a Bernie supporter, you feel justified to label all the left?

Who's asserting the right to condone violence here?

To my understanding, the left is against gun violence as much as the right. Is this not true?

 

[suncowiam]

Would have been better if they used one of these ladies as their spokes person.
View attachment 18213

Or one of these:

What's your point now?

 

[columbus]

...and specifically shoot Republican Congressmen...

I am glad you brought this up. To me it goes to the heart of the issue, and the point to the thread.

The last several years have seen an uptick in the sort of senseless, ideological, violence and shooting we are talking about here. From the #BLM snipers shooting Dallas cops to the Orlando nightclub, from Bible study groups to women's clinics, and now this. Shooting up some guys practicing ball.

The perps have almost nothing in common, ideologically. They have wildly different religions and ethnicity and political leanings. But they obviously do have one big, defining, thing in common.

They all were convinced that violence, specifically gun violence, was the way to solve some social issue they felt otherwise unable to address. Not peaceful protests or democracy or anything like that. Guns.

"Guns are the solution" is not a liberal message. Not all conservatives promulgate that, but almost everyone who does qualifies as a conservative in my book. From the NRA to the talk radio hosts to Trump, the premise that guns and violence are the solution is a conservative trope, not a liberal message.
So yeah, when the NRA sends messages like "An armed society is a polite society" and "Go get more guns and ammo before the government takes away your 2nd amendment rights" and stuff like that they are one of the biggest, if not the very top, corporate instigator of violence and homegrown terrorism in the USA. Those messages don't only go out to mentally stable, trained, responsible citizens. They also go out to the nut cases and people off their meds.

So yeah, I blame the NRA for a lot of the violence, including the shooting of the Republican congressmen on the ball field. Not "liberals".
Tom

 

[Father Heathen]

As goofy and as alarmist as the video is, I'm not sure how "white supremacy" or "armed resurrection" fits into it. I only saw "give our lobby money".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't see the white supremacy but it certainly is divisive.

 

[Nakosis]

Or one of these:

What's your point now?

The point is, how would they feel encouraging Muslims Americans the same freedom to own, possess and carry firearms.

 

[suncowiam]

The point is, how would they feel encouraging Muslims Americans the same freedom to own, possess and carry firearms.

OOOOOOOOooooooh.

Gotcha

LOL

 

[Sunstone]

I'm not saying that buying guns is a good way to deal with the problem, but the fact is that people are doing what was said in the video. They are ever-protesting, calling Trump Hitler etc. Like Trout said: it makes sense from a marketing perspective. Using fear to sell guns? It's a no-brainer.

Do you seriously think that people calling Trump "Hitler" is justifiable grounds for airing a commercial that all but calls upon America's village idiots to use violence to stop those people from calling him "Hitler"?

 

[Rival]

Do you seriously think that people calling Trump "Hitler" is justifiable grounds for airing a commercial that all but calls upon America's village idiots to use violence to stop those people from calling him "Hitler"?

No, but no-one ever said that marketing had to be moral and it rarely is.

 

[BSM1]

I am glad you brought this up. To me it goes to the heart of the issue, and the point to the thread.

The last several years have seen an uptick in the sort of senseless, ideological, violence and shooting we are talking about here. From the #BLM snipers shooting Dallas cops to the Orlando nightclub, from Bible study groups to women's clinics, and now this. Shooting up some guys practicing ball.

The perps have almost nothing in common, ideologically. They have wildly different religions and ethnicity and political leanings. But they obviously do have one big, defining, thing in common.

They all were convinced that violence, specifically gun violence, was the way to solve some social issue they felt otherwise unable to address. Not peaceful protests or democracy or anything like that. Guns.

"Guns are the solution" is not a liberal message. Not all conservatives promulgate that, but almost everyone who does qualifies as a conservative in my book. From the NRA to the talk radio hosts to Trump, the premise that guns and violence are the solution is a conservative trope, not a liberal message.
So yeah, when the NRA sends messages like "An armed society is a polite society" and "Go get more guns and ammo before the government takes away your 2nd amendment rights" and stuff like that they are one of the biggest, if not the very top, corporate instigator of violence and homegrown terrorism in the USA. Those messages don't only go out to mentally stable, trained, responsible citizens. They also go out to the nut cases and people off their meds.

So yeah, I blame the NRA for a lot of the violence, including the shooting of the Republican congressmen on the ball field. Not "liberals".
Tom

So you think banning the NRA is going to eradicate the lunatic fringe in our society?

 

[Sunstone]

No, but no-one ever said that marketing had to be moral and it rarely is.

Is that a concession that your original claim there's nothing wrong with the commercial because it's "accurate" was poorly thought out?