National Rifle Association gearing up for a fight - CNN
“We are mobilizing for a fight,” NRA President David Keene told CNN. “We will engage our members.”
The association is planning to send mailings to its members urging them to contact members of Congress with their opposition to new gun laws. “Let them know you feel strongly,” is how Keene summarized the group’s message to member.

Kids of Australia: 'It sure is hot, but we're not shot!'
So my question to you my friends in the public safety movement is, “What are you going to do to beat them?”
The NRA went into yesterday’s meeting with Vice-President Biden knowing they weren’t going to agree to any suggestions or make any concessions. How do I know? They had their statement written to send out before the meeting even started. Although I don’t have a time stamped copy, I’ve worked with organizations who put out statements. It takes days, sometimes weeks to get one put together. They are working hard to get the discussion back on their terms and on their turf. The NRA says, “Come on America, stop focusing on dead kids! Think of yourself!” I’m going to bet 200 Quatloos that there wasn’t a press release version that said, “It was a very productive meeting, we are looking forward to co-authoring bills that will save lives and reduced gun deaths and gun violence.”
Keen and the NRA leadership are going into this in the same way that the right wing has been going into governing meetings for years. They start as hardline as can be, even to the point of suggesting that they are the true victims. No crumbs given, no hint of compromise, because it makes their base angry. The key is to activate their base on something scary (even something that will not be done, something they will be willing to die, or even kill for.) What are they really saying to their base?
“They are going to take all of your guns! They are going to limit your rights! If you let them do that you are weak. Will you let that, that… woman, Feinstein, take your gun? She is taking your mancard! What do we do when someone tries to take what is ours? We don’t just defend, we attack.”
Note how they move from the issue at hand to:
“This is about you. You need to act. You are under attack. You don’t want to be a victim, you want to be the victor. You need to be in control. Don’t listen to them talking about how your gun wouldn’t make a difference. YOU know you could have saved the day if you were there in Sandy Hook. Don’t you want to have that chance to save lives? Think about how bad you would feel if that woman takes away your guns and you couldn’t protect yourself or family. She uses guns to protect herself! Hypocrite! If she was really brave she wouldn’t let her security guards carry.”
It has been documented that the lack of empathy is a trait of hardcore conservatives. The NRA wants to move the debate away from situations where normal people show empathy. (And by the way, hardcore conservatives do show empathy, but primarily for members of their own family, tribe.) They are going to ask their enthusiasts to show up at debates, write letters and comment on this issue from the position of focusing on their own lifestyle and needs rather than those of someone else in another place.
Now my question to you is, “What would it take for you to have this same level of activism?” Is it because you don’t care enough or you have come to accept that we just have to live with this level of death by way of guns? Is it because you have accepted the frames of the people who are having this discussion? Do you even use their terms? “Pro-gun, anti-gun? “Gun rights?”
Now I’ve been cautioned not to evoke the individual names of the dead children in getting people to act. So I won’t. But I also know that reluctance to return the focus on humans and their decisions and consequences fits perfectly into the status quo the NRA extremists want. Don’t talk about the dead and the specific reasons for their death. Move the focus elsewhere. Talk about being under siege, throw around numbers, statistics, slogans, choice to focus on only one part of the constitution. There was an example of this just this week.
How the NRA Activist Base Attempts to Skew the Reality of a Majority
I wrote on Tuesday of this week about Mark Thompson’s Town Hall Meetings in Napa, Vallejo and Santa Rosa. He’s the chair of the task force to reduce gun violence. I read yesterday’s Press-Democrat story closely, but I didn’t see any TV coverage of it. The TV story I predicted is a bit like the newspaper one, only longer with more “regular” people quotes. I then read the comments after the story. Usually comment sections in newspapers are worthless, but this one shows the vigilance of the people who have taken the extremists leaders of the NRA’s messages to heart.
The two comments interested me, this one first:
It was a divided crowd…. but not right down the middle, as you intimate by omission, Mr. Kovner. From those who spoke, I would say that only about 20% of the speakers favored stricter gun controls, and the other 80% spoke out against further limitation to the right to bear arms, or did not address that issue. And from the general mood of the crowd, I’d give roughly the same breakdown to the general populace that showed up.
(Full comment from Clay Mitchell, here.
Later, someone who was pro-public safety pointed out how the pro-gun crowd treated other people:
9 out of 10 of the people that went straight to the 2nd amendment as their focus (not the forum topic BTW) were gun fetishists. They acted like children, shouting and making buzzer noises to cut off comments they didn’t like and demanded that people who they did like be allowed to finish even after the their time was up. It was despicable to listen to people cheer a comment in which a cowardly man-child stated that he was okay with Thompson being hung from a telephone pole.
(Full comment from gad.seditious, here)
Sounds a bit like the GOP debates, eh?
This is how the NRA is going to fight this. They will do it publicly and behind the scenes. They will use the psychology of their extremist members to be the pointy edge of the spear (maybe I should say bayonette, but screw using their metaphors.) They know they can count on their shock troops to be scared and active. They believe that the media and politicians can be swayed, just as long as you don’t act and they can move the focus from those little bullet ridden bodies piled on a mountain of bodies.
You know, I try to be all reasonable and/or funny with my posts on pubic safety. I like to educate, engage and get people active. I like to figure out how to stick it to the right wing media and right wing nuts in general. I’ve listed before things you can do, buttons you can click, petitions you can sign, but I also want to you to understand who you are fighting and what lengths they will go to win this fight.
Because if they win it will be over your dead body.
Photo by Eva Rinaldi released under a Creative Commons Share Alike license.
Cross posted at Spocko’s Brain



32 Comments

I couldn’t figure out how to put a caption on that photograph.
These are Australian kids. Gun Massacre Free since 1996.
Do Australians love their kids more than Americans? Apparently so.
Or more accurately. Is the lifestyle of the NRA extremists more important than living humans? Answer? Yes!
Evening, spocko, rec’d, good topic. I think the MyFDL editors place the photo caption now at the bottom of the post in italics, with credit and “public domain” or “creative commons” …something like that, anyway.
I think it’s cruel right now for the NRA to announce this, because of the timing of it. Very insensitive to people’s pain. Heartless.
I am not necessarily in favor of more control, say in the form of even more background checks. I can never own a gun, because of my record. And I go to great efforts and lengths to be very sure that all the crickets and spiders in my home get to a safe home outside, and if it’s too cold, to get water for the night inside. Yet, the legislation is all about me, a non-violent person.
Don’t think background checks would have prevented a single mass shooting of late.
That said, 2 thoughts.
1. Nobody really needs 150 rounds of assault ammunition, now do they? I mean for real, come on. The Connecticut shooter had an astonishing amount of ammunition, right?
2. Not that we should focus on the ‘brilliant loner’ per se, but we really have to get some decent mental health care going on in this country. And that means real care, effective care, and that means everyone.
Hey, here’s some good news! Tennessee suspends James Yeager’s handgun carry permit
Thank for commenting CS.
Re 1) When asked this the gun enthusiasts say, “For Target practice!”
Apparently then they can more effectively kill people.
2) Yes, mental health care is important. And this also means that the medical profession need to work with law enforcement so that they can get the right data to the right place. Also that if their is a problem they can be due process. I recognize that this is an issue, so I want to have procedures to deal with it.
Now, that is some good news. Illustrates what I was kind of thinking: even though the guy may not have a non-violent conviction on his record, he shouldn’t be running around, buck wild, with a gun, talking about killing people. Not okay. Good to hear this.
How to fight them? I suggest a gun and ammo boycott.
And organizing a real “well-regulated militia”.
This issue is too polarizing. If Obama issues an executive order, the paranoids will be right. I hate that so many liberals cast anyone who isn’t anti-gun as extremists. I don’t own a gun currently, but I have in the past and I may again. The current hysteria makes the reactionary side of me feel like I should get one while I can.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYPD Roboforce fame, and the Totalitarians have been so good for gun sales that Smith and Wesson should be paying him kick-backs.
I think we should talk about the part of the 2nd Amendment that led to the current ruling. Standing armies and permanent wars at the pleasure of the president. The creeping security state and loss of civil liberties causes me to be paranoid. I am not going to help that process along.
The real problem to me, is politics of divide and conquer and media demagogues – lack of justice in this country and the financial attacks by banker cretins.
I am in favor of background checks at stores and gun shows but not for personal sales by non dealers. I am not in favor of registration or for denying ex cons weapons or the vote. (except for killers and schizophrenics)
No one has heard of gun locks apparently. I think they should be given away for free, and included with new guns. Marksmanship and gun safety should be taught in high schools, and through introduction liberals can learn to deal with the fear of guns.
I lived in Dallas during the Waco Siege, and democrats have not learned much.
Joe Biden led the effort last time, his idea was to implement an ineffective ban on so called assault weapons, and he’ll give us some new legislation to charge Americans as terrorists.
Joe Biden, in The New Yorker, on what he would say to John Kerry
Is he really the right choice for this?
Heres a good example of how Democrats screwed up in Waco. They don’t listen- they give orders and make demands.
http://www.vicfeazell.com/html/Austin%20Lawyer%20Feazell%20Says%20He%20Could%20Help%20Koresh.PDF
The nation has a good piece on the source of Alex Jones’s claim that Hitler came for the guns. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control.
If the rampage shootings continue and the media continues to report on them, then people can stand up to the NRA. Charles Krauthammer had an unusually thoughtful column on gun violence recently. His approach: 1.) more gun control, 2.) more mental health care and the ability to more easily commit the extremely mentally ill, and 3.) discourage media violence. But he warns that it all comes at some price to our libertarian style freedoms. It’s okay with some from the gun crowd if we have multiple rampage shootings a year, because “that’s the price of freedom. Just put a guard at every school door,” they seem to say. I don’t think the public at large will accept that, and I don’t think people will accept multiple rampage shootings every year like we had in 2012.
“We are mobilizing for a fight,” NRA President David Keene told CNN. “We will engage our members.”
Not a good move. I think the NRA members are much better armed than the NRA itself.
They’re Birchers. Time machined in from 1959. Buzz cuts and conspiracy theories for every occasion….
This crap was on JBS mimeograph sheets: “They are going to take all of your guns!” The smelly, blue ink stain making mimeos.
Now it’s in press releases from an organization with a $1,000,000-a-year lobbyist. Now it’s what you read in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. (Woe. Woe. Woe to Capitalism that WSJ has gone to Satan.)
This is crazy “paranoid style” politics same as then with the John Birch Society, same as the anti-Catholic, anti-Mason, anti-futures markets, anti-Mormon, anti-Black, anti-you-name-it Know Nothing movements in American history.
“The current hysteria makes the reactionary side of me feel like I should get one while I can.”
That seems to be going around.
Wow, the stupid. I can only imagine a few scarier things than my having a gun….at least I wouldn’t try to use it.
It’s interesting seeing what groups like the NRA are up to, but I think it’s valuable to remember that they have little power in and of themselves. It’s Democratic leaders in DC who enable them, particularly through the drug war and the national security state.
The NRA claims they need guns to stop oppressive governments yet we have been living under NDAA and FISA for years…..when is the NRA going to stop the oppression?
i very much appreciated your well thought out entry. however, i urge you to proof-read. the flow of reading is annoying interrupted by incorrect phrasing and non-words, like”reflectance”. i assume you meant “reluctance”, but it’s only a guess…..
When liberals get up and take to the street about Obama droning down hundreds of women and children ill give a shit about this political distraction theater between Obama and the NRA.
Unfortunately the right’s advantage in this and other issues is their extremist members make for good theater.
As despicable as this behavior is, this is what gets on TV. A respectful discussion between orderly people would never get the media attention that the chaos does. We saw that with the health care debates in 2009 with the clowning, threats and violence at the town halls.
The right knows it can mobilize these people, guaranteed to act out, and at minimum their issues get a widespread hearing in the media. And it has the same effect as product advertising does: the more people see it, the more think they want or agree with it.
I don’t advocate producing mirror images of their protests, but countering them through mobilization and sheer numbers of folks. Already people are starting to forget the 20 kids killed in Sandy Hook, sadly. We can’t let ourselves get distracted by the next news cycle and maintain focus if we want to beat these people, and they are beatable.
Thank you. Fixed. I blame Otto Correct. He’s hard if herring.
True. Question: do you think if the public saw more comments from the extremists frothing at the mouth would they be disgusted by them and act, or just ignore them?
Should they be confronted by survivors of shootings? Who would benefit in showing them as unreasonable?
In my blog discussions, I have decided to rename assault weapons as “mass-murder weapons.” As in, “we need to reinstate the ban on mass-murder weapons.”
The 800 lbs. gorilla in the room in America is Hate Radio and Television. They do not want to do any thing about that because to much money is envolve. This is another one of The Great Emancipator great ideas. The Vermins Of Intrigue/The democrats will past some bull shit and call it a win, like all that other feel good garbage they have pass. No thank, I think I will keep my guns. I remember the 50′s were the stealing of my oldest sister by some crazy white man who thought she was someone purse..If it was’t for” “prasing the lord while pass the amunition” and a couple well place buckshots, he might have gotten away with.
No: extremest viewers will get more riled up, rational viewers will continue to disregard the crap as the theater that it is.
Hi Spocko, thanks for doing this. I regard you as a great thinker/leader and am always interested in, and grateful for, your efforts to civilize us humans. As a human also interested in a better, more logical life on this planet, I will try to help by giving a human (at least this one human’s) consideration of your very important questions.
I think there is a threshold effect involved in this. I believe that a major goal of human persuasion is to normalize the desired behavious. We are still very much herd animals, perhaps more than we are family animals (anyone else remember saying, or having said to them, “Well, if all you friends were jumping off cliffs, would you do that too?”) I believe we are wired to ‘fit in’, and that this was necessary for our survival in groups. Still is, come to that. Deviant behaviour is bad simply because it deviates. I have come to the conclusion that most discussion of ‘intrinsic’ good and evil, and nearly all of the institutions that promulgate and promote such thought, are rationalizing.
If that is so, then the way to persuade humans (the cheapest and most convenient way of controlling them, violence can work too, but expensive, messy, and carries more risks) is to make them believe that everyone else already believes that thing. Now, in this time and place, we live only a little in the world of real people. Mostly we live in the world of images of people, which are profoundly edited, for many reasons, but we give them the weight of real people in forming our opions of what is the societal norm. ‘Real’ TV ‘people’ are usually treated as ‘most real’, then interviewers/pundits; radio is next, then newspapers, and books are usually last, but it varies some w/the individual. Movies fit in there somewhere, too, people absorb huge amounts of their worldview from quite incidental things in movies and TV; I remember being shocked to see in an actual photograph of a bunch of US cowboys mid-late 19th C how many were black, and how many wore derby hats. But I digress…)
However, I think the key to truly informing people of what the majority feels, and how the viewer/hearer/reader should make sense of it, is the associated reaction *on camera*, or by the interviewer/host. I am reminded of a film version of Richard III set in Nazi Germany. The Richard III character never grimaced or frothed or acted any other than the competent general. It was his subordinates reaction to his orders that made the audience understand how depraved the order and therefore how evil Richard was.
So, short answer to your question. It would depend on the reaction that the frothing got. If the interviewer just say, “And now to Julie for the weather…” my guess is that it not only would just pass over, it would be included in the viewer’s worldview of ‘normal’.
Hmm, this does seem to be boiling down to ‘where is the outrage?’, doesn’t it? Burning in effigy is a good and traditional US expression of outrage… but not civilized, I suppose.
Damn, this is serious stuff, and I have thinked myself into a headache. (LOL!) I goes for some coffee and will think some more about what would actually get non-guntoters to express outrage, and what that outrage would I think the second q is v important, as we humans need to know very closely what exactly is expected of us (vote for X, march on location y at time z, don’t buy Barfo food products, sign this petition.) Yes, we are very lame, as a species.
Quick thought — a parade of Elmer Fudds past the gunstores the day *after*?? Complete with popguns?
Interesting. Would that make them ‘weapons of mass destruction’? Weren’t we talked into a war or two over that? Sounds like it could fly.
So you’re anti drone?
Good, so am I.
Wow. Thank you for your comment! You have hit upon something that really makes sense.
The need to consider the response of “normal” citizens.
The reason people are often disgusted by the broadcast journalists is that they are trained to try to be neutral. So when they hear lies that people know are lies and don’t respond as a human would (with skeptical comments or disgust) that normalizes their disgusting comments.
So what I might want to do is show these outrageous comments to normal people and get their reactions.
Thank you for this insight! If you do this Before coffee, who know what you will do after!
LLAP
Spocko
Interesting. One of the terms that I want to propagate is pro-public safety. Or just public safety. This way we can include mental health programs as well as methods to get people into a database. Limiting types of guns is included, but also other programs that increase public safety, like CDC reseach showing how death via guns impacts heath.
Could this be framed as ‘pro-life’, or is that too loaded?
Is there a 12-step program for gun nuts?
Having had personal experience with a life crushing addiction (still recovering) I believe that I understand gun addiction. Same with wealth addiction.
There is no rational thought involved. An addiction-obsession is overwhelming, way beyond any personal understanding or self-examination. It has a rightness that is the self. There is no comprehension of possible existence of the self beyond the addiction. R.M. Rilke espressed his fear of analysis (paraphrasing)
If you free me of my demons, will you drive away my angels?
Hotflash is entirely correct in that others need to see the depth of possession enthralling otherwise normal individuals. It is an illness and their denial of it is both incomprehensible and profoundly disturbing to those who do not share it.
12 step programs work (when they do) by bringing the addict into contact with groups of individuals who do understand – people who share it. We admitted we were powerless over ….
But the zero-th step is the realization that
This-s**t-has-got-to-stop.
We already have a militia. It was sent into Kent State U. in 1970 just to oppose unsanctified opinion with force, opened fire and killed 4 unarmed students. Why not because of broken laws by a domestic terrorist organization? Makes more sense to me.
Does not death regardless of cause signify the ultimate impact to health?
Yep.
“He came down with a bad case of death.”