Joe Honick, GMA International Ltd (1/02):
Fraser, this is extremely well done. You can't knock a guy who happily and efficiently collects a tremendous salary and other goodies if he simply declares his employer's positions as virtually signs from heaven. And he did really set the lines for the public agenda. However, what even many of his supporters overlook is that many of those who hold the 2dAmendment sacrosanct were also among those who mainly in the South but elsewhere as well fought hard to keep segregation and engaged in the assaults ob MLKjr and his troops fighting for civil rights...and those folks were from both parties. We used to call this hypocrisy.
But we also have learned that not all Constitutional Amendments were so holy. After all, prohibition was not as rabidly defended by the 2dAmendmenters now, was it?
Brian M. (1/02):
"Give the devil his due," indeed. But I question the admiration of a PR strategy that fosters a predominantly negative reaction. The image of the NRA is worse now than before LaPierre held his ridiculous "press conference." Fail.
Wes Pedersen (1/02):
The NRA has from its beginning sought to bind the young to its cause: love of guns and their defense. Think of the sense of incredible power some men and women feel when first they cradle weapons of potential mass destruction in their arms. I know that feeling. I got as a kid in the army.
Good column, Fraser. Thanks.
Bill Huey (1/02):
"Set the agenda?" Yes, it says the NRA's opening bid is zero. Less than zero in fact, because they advocate more, not fewer guns, armed guards in schools, and a thoroughgoing rout of the makers of those threshold drugs for gun violence--video games.
This is nuts. LaPierre is nuts. Anyone who owns an AR-15 or similar weapon is nuts. Any society that permits people to own assault weapons and stockpile ammo (happening in my home town right now) is nuts.
[email protected] (1/03):
Fraser -- Thus far his agenda has received continuing condemnation. Let's wait and see how his PR plan plays out before we nominate him for president of the PRSA. (But a good column.)
Thinkman2 (1/03):
If the right wing folks like the NRA are so rabidly gun defenders, why in hell do they call the draft "involuntary servitude" and helped knock it out so eligible young men and women could learn to use weapons responsibly and of course effectively?
Note that it was also the right that, prior to WWII, refused FDR's call for a draft.
Kathy Lewton (1/08):
I suppose it all depends on LaPierre's objectives.
How many of us would ever tell a client in a situation like this, wth public opinion turning against the organization, to "concede NOTHING?" and risk hardening opposition?
And while satisfying the "base" may sound intuitive, that seems to be how Romney won the primaries, but lost the election. Owning the "base" is a sound strategy IF the base happens to represent the majority, or close to it. If the base is decidedy in the minority, then tacking far right or far left to satisfy that base can only be done with a message that will offend or alienate the majority in the middle. May help make NRA's dues-paying members feel happier, but in terms of swaying public opinion, which continues to shift toward more support of stricter controls on assault weapons, the "base-based" strategy seems short sighted.
Yes, there are 4 million NRA members. And there are about 218 milllion adults in the U.S., more than half who currently want to see laws strengthened (and polls show that even some NRA members support more regulations on gun ownership).
Is LaPierre's strategy a good way for him to keep his job? Yes, so if that's his only objective, kudos to him. But if his members are going to hold him accountable for moving the needle on public opinion, his short-term approach may be a longer-term failure. |