"The Clenched Fist of Truth"?

This is not the NRA I thought I knew.



The old concept was always that an armed citizenry could hedge against government tyranny. That's not what is on offer here.

17 comments:

Eric Blair said...

Yeah, well, this is posturing, unfortunately.

Grim said...

Apparently it came out before the shooting of the Congressfolk a couple of weeks ago. Still, it's not that it's posturing that bothers me. It's the particular posture they're choosing.

douglas said...

I watched it twice, and I'm not entirely sure what the point was. I think your concern is that it's more partisan and less rights oriented, is that correct?

Grim said...

It's not that it's partisan per se. It's that the NRA has always, until now, portrayed itself as a defense against an overweening government.

Here it is calling for the state to engage in more aggressive police action against protests and other forms of free expression. It blurs, carelessly, violent protests of the sort the police might actually have to stop with 'marching,' and 'protesting,' and even newspaper reporting that they find biased (those are the ones called "assassins").

The long-held position was, 'There will never be a tyranny in America, because we and our privately-owned guns will never endure one.' That I could wholeheartedly support.

The new position is, 'We call for the government to take aggressive action against our political enemies, and promise to support armed agents of the state insofar as they feel called to do so.' To my ear that's very close to, 'We are now calling for the tyranny we long pledged to prevent.'

E Hines said...

I don't know what you guys are listening to. The ad clearly states that the only way to defend ourselves against the misbehaviors, the violences, the lies of the Left, after the (last resort) of police involvement has failed is to hold to the truth. Sometimes with a clenched fist because the sheaves of truth in an open hand just get lost in the gale of lies.

There's no call for government involvement. There's not even any call for violence in response to violence.

It does tend toward partisanship because the Left have made the thing partisan.

Eric Hines

Grim said...

There's no call for government involvement.

She says, "Until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness."

raven said...

There have been countless complaints of the leftist protesters turning to violence and the police standing down-maybe this is what she is referring to. Asking the police to do a job they would normally do, but don't, because of leftist government control or instruction, is not "tyranny". The videos are out there- people being spit on, beat up, while the cops just stand around.

This is just a indication of how pissed off people are getting in this country- it is everywhere-little cracks in the wall of restraint-the essence being the mostly conservative, quiet average folks are tired of always backing down down down and compromising with what ever harebrained scheme the left and it's collection of insane diversity harpies insist on forcing down peoples throats.
The average joe has been taking steps back for a long time and their backs are now against the wall. Maybe what we just watched was in fact a desperate plea for the legal authorities to take care of the problem before the matter gets out of their control and goes to the lowest common denominator.
Closing some ladies cake shop because she declines to violate her religious beliefs, or shutting a taco stand because it is cultural appropriation, or tearing down Lee's monument, these things are a direct attack on peoples culture- and they are getting tired of it.
Very tired. This video is just a reflection of that mood.

Krag said...

Just had to applaud Raven's comment. Very well said.

Grim said...

I understand how tired people are. But bear in mind that the incidents you cite -- destroying the cake shop, tearing down Lee's statue -- are themselves often acts of government, not acts of protest groups.

The job of the police is to enforce the court ruling that destroys the cake shop owner. They're the ones who will be tasked to seize her property and expel her from her home so it can all be sold at auction to pay part of the absurd settlement the court imposed on her.

The job of the police is to provide snipers to prevent anyone from interfering with the destruction of the statues. Police have been present at all of those events, doing their job -- their job of enforcing what the government orders.

More often than not, we're the ones on the outside, having the dictates of a hostile state enforced upon us. This readiness by the NRA to urge the police to shut down such protests -- and this willingness to blur cases of legitimate protest with things better described as riots -- is more dangerous to what we believe in than it is to the other side.

E Hines said...

She says, "Until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness."

Indeed she did. Within the context of the Left forcing just that response--at the Left's call--so as to take the next step: decrying that, too.

Eric Hines

Ymar Sakar said...

The videos are out there- people being spit on, beat up, while the cops just stand around.

Americans actually thought the police worked for them. Maybe, once upon a time ago.

douglas said...

" This readiness by the NRA to urge the police to shut down such protests"

I think you meant 'riots' or 'assaults' or something similar. I don't think anyone was calling for the shutting down of legitimate protected speech except the left, and by their inaction, the government.

Also, watching it again, it seems to me that she refers to the police 'doing their job' as something that will inevitably happen as a result of the escalations of the left, not as a particular endorsement of or push for action.

Cassandra said...

I think you meant 'riots' or 'assaults' or something similar. I don't think anyone was calling for the shutting down of legitimate protected speech except the left, and by their inaction, the government.

Bingo.

I watched this, and like the Trump/CNN video, it's a great example of why "how you say things" often eclipses "what you say". Inartfully stated and utterly tone deaf, unless the goal is to appeal ONLY to the folks like me who are beyond angry with the violent left.

At some point, these folks need to decide whether their goal is to validate one group's fee-fees, bolster conservatives while persuading those who are open to persuasion, or... what?

There's nothing really wrong with anything she said, but this ad is pitched to people who already understand/know about the violence perpetrated by the Left. It errs (IMO) in painting with a too-broad brush that alienates many who are already inclined to agree with them.

If that was the aim, they hit it out of the park. If, OTOH, they wanted to draw attention to the violent tactics of Antifa, et al and remind the public that guns are useful for self defense, this is pretty much an epic fail. The sneering, angry tone is calculated to either piss people off or cause people who would otherwise be inclined to agree to write the speaker/org off.

Seems like a bit of an own goal.

Cassandra said...

Another aside - more than anything else, the tone of this ad reminded me of Barack Obama talking about Fox News and conservatives and republicans. Dripping with contempt, and unfortunately reasonable people in the center and left leaning folks take it as a personal attack and don't respond well.

That said, as with the Trump cnn thingie, the actual content isn't necessarily wrong (aside from the "THEY use their...." crap at the start).

Cassandra said...

FWIW, I also agreed very much with Raven's comments. Especially here:

Maybe what we just watched was in fact a desperate plea for the legal authorities to take care of the problem before the matter gets out of their control and goes to the lowest common denominator.

Unfortunately, though I understand the anger, it eclipsed what I suspect was the actual intent of the ad. And that's a real shame.

I can guarantee that if my cop-supporting Dem friend has watched this, she didn't get that message - and it's one she would be inclined to support.

Grim said...

The Trump/CNN thing didn't strike me as problematic at all; it was a reference to professional wrestling, for goodness sake. You could hardly be more explicit in saying, "This apparent fight is all for the sake of entertainment; just roll with it and have fun. Don't worry -- nobody's really getting hurt, and even the guy who seems to be taking a beating is benefiting from all the attention."

The trick is that it's distracting from important public debates we really should be having. The message the media should have taken is that they're being played for suckers with a fake fight. Instead, they're acting like wrestling is real.

Cassandra said...

I agree with you on the Trump/CNN video - that said, having watched both sides because uber-outraged about various things, it was pretty predictable that it would send the media into orbit. That's OK, if that's your goal.

It's when that's *not* the goal that it's a problem. Or when it becomes a distraction, as you say.

I found myself laughing at the TrumpCNN video. It's just such an apt metaphor, and the press really need to get lives.