NRA: Stand and Fight

| January 15, 2013 | 174 Comments

The folks at the NRA send us a link to their latest campaign Stand and Fight and this is the first of their videos in that campaign.

If the video doesn’t work, it’s also at the link. I’m on my Kindle for the rest of night. Lazy person that I am.

Category: Guns

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (174)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. OWB says:

    Oh, that is excellent!

  2. Bern says:

    Bout time somebody starts telling the truth about this elitist.

  3. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I don’t like it. Oh, the message is fine and, of course, true, but the voice sounds mean and the direct attck on obamaman won’t help. It will be viewed by fence sitters as a racist attack on the 1/2 black guy in the White House. I’d rather see women and young people making the case.

  4. Old Trooper says:

    @4: Good point

  5. Gruntling says:

    Well, as a young kid currently in college, I fully agree with what the NRA is saying, if not quite the tone of their message. I do like that give him credit for taxing the wealthy though. It gives them a bit more credibility.

  6. budz says:

    cant get it to play…..is the oreo blocking it?

  7. rb325th says:

    Won’t open…

  8. Mike says:

    Yeah they will argue this point all day long. Just know there is campus security and cops on all college campuses though. Even the shitty ones…

  9. streetsweeper says:

    Is that a broad brush comment there, Mike? Or is that from actual experience? Because back in the day, campus security used to be night watchmen, or fire watch and carried a clock and insert a key that was at entry and exit of each building check. And God help you, if you came across criminal activity on shift. City cops rarely if ever showed up let alone arrive in time to extract an unarmed campus security guard from a hostile situation.

  10. streetsweeper says:

    And I like the commercial. Short, sweet and to the point.

  11. The Dead Man says:

    Mike, I’m a dispatcher. I work with the schools. At least one school doesn’t have armed security and Weber state has maybe one or two police wandering about. Funny thing is, as was pointed out to me earlier, our schools aren’t necessarily gun free though.

  12. B Woodman says:

    Won’t open on my Kindle Fire. . . .

  13. Living in Israel says:

    Good name for the video, in contrast to Homeland Security’s “Run and hide” training video.

  14. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    I like the video, I suspect of course it’s preaching to the choir and will not change any minds on the other side. Folks who are undecided might look at the messenger more than the message.

    I think the fence sitters are mostly namby pamby types as well….this is not a really hard issue to understand you either support the 2nd amendment or you don’t. Outright bans do nothing except violate that amendment, and have a zero impact on the crimes committed daily across the nation.

    As Hondo has pointed out in several of these threads, there is a method for altering the Constitution, it’s called the amendment process. Trying to legislate around that process is inappropriate. Period.

  15. OWB says:

    There are so many strawman arguments coming from the left that it’s easy to become overwhelmed by it. It’s not an entirely foolish endeavor for ads like this to remind the Constitutionalists among us that they are not alone in their frustrations.

    I have to laugh each time someone posits that the Constitution doesn’t mean this or that because technology had not yet advanced to that point. The Constitution doesn’t mention automobiles, steak knives or ball bats, so should those also be outlawed? (In the case of motor vehicles, there are many thousands killed each year, so that should be a priority, right?)

  16. Twist says:

    I was shocked when I woke up this morning and Indianapolis WISHTV was playing this video and being objective.

  17. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    You Americans should be ASHAMED of yourselves. Innocent children were killed and instead of your priority being safety and protecting your children, your priority is ensuring that guns remain on the market. You are all money hungry desperate losers. The President’s children are MUCH MORE LIKELY to be attacked than any other child, only an absolute moron would think of an AD like this it is hilarious. Any NORMAL human being would understand the President’s children are more of a target than any other child. You people are so hilarious and embarrassing and I am sincerely sad for all of you.

  18. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    We will see how fast you change your mind when someone YOU love is personally effected by gun violence.

  19. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @16 Except that the discussion isn’t at all about saving lives. Nobody talking about gun control thinks they will actually save a life. They know exactly what they are doing, disarming the majority of law abiding citizens. If they actually wanted to save lives we would be analyzing crime rates in major metropolitan areas and discussing methods for enforcement in high crime areas as well as options to reduce poverty and increase education in those areas to make crime a less viable option for the folks so affected.

    With steadily decreasing crime rates over the last 20 years it’s clear we are already on the right path without the AWB. Take the lessons learned and apply them to those areas we know are trouble spots and continue the efforts as they because without additional gun control laws crime is already falling.

  20. NHSparky says:

    @18/19…uh, dumbfuck? Most of us are veterans. A lot of us have seen combat. Some of us have been wounded and lost friends.

    In the civilian world, many of us have known victims of crime, both violent and non-violent.

    You want to know why we wish to keep our arms? 1–because we can. 2–look up the word “detterence” in the dictionary.

    Yeah, I’ll wait.

  21. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    No need to be so angry! Just a discussion I think priorities are a little bit messed up. Therefore you think it is necessary for teachers around 5 year old children to carry semi automatic weapons? What if a child gets their hands on a weapon? Then what?…………………

    Yeah I’ll wait.

  22. Anonymous says:

    @ 18

    You do realize that what your saying goes against protecting children in schools from shootings right?

    Stripping guns from good people that would protect your future child is at stake.

    How would you feel if a gunman showed up at your childs school and began shooting up the place?

    Would you rather have police show up 10-15 minutes and even possibly 20 minutes later?! Rather than having a policeman on-site to act literally within seconds or a private security officer trained just for those situations?

    Think before you type.

  23. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @18 Don’t be sad for me ASBE, I was fine without you and will continue to be fine regardless of your thoughts on this topic.

    Having an honest discussion means exactly that, what is the expected outcome of your desired law and what data are you using to support your claim? I don’t buy the nonsense about “if it saves one life it’s worth it” that’s patently untrue in every other aspect of our daily lives, after all if outlawing rock climbing saves just one life by your logic we should outlaw rock climbing just to save that one person who might day this year. If you are talking about reducing crime rates there is no statistical evidence in the US that supports your claim, in fact since the AWB expired 20 years ago violent crime and murder rates have dropped dramatically. You just want to ban guns that frighten you in the name of “doing something to protect the children”, regardless of whether or not you have any data that will support your position. I think that is the most interesting dynamic from those who favor more restrictive gun control, is that in spite of no supporting documentation they still believe they are creating a safer environment. While I agree not every advocate of gun ownership is using a fact based argument it’s clear that a great many anti-gun supporters are using only emotion and the deaths of some children to promote an agenda that has no factual supporting basis for action.

    If you want to create a more restrictive environment for guns that is your right, you are free to pursue that right. I disagree that your efforts will have any impact whatsoever on the crime rate in the nation as is my right. I intend to make every effort to thwart your attempts to impose your ideas on me. We shall see who is able to sway legislators and constituents with our arguments.

    You are wrong that having a loved one be the victim of a crime changes my mind, it has already happened to me and it doesn’t change my mind in any way. Because I believe in factual evidence, as opposed to emotional but ultimately useless reactions.

    Good day to you and best of luck in what I hope will be a doomed effort on your part.

  24. NHSparky says:

    @22…and what Eurotrash shithole might you be posting from, pray tell?

  25. Anonymous says:

    @ 22

    UHHHH……….

    Really? did that thought just come out onto this page?!!?

    Holy Jeeeez….

    Okay there are holsters and safeties on guns for a reason.

    You don’t have to leave it out for someone to get to, there are also lock boxes like pilots use to hold there gun that requires, guess what??! a combination to get to.

    Think before you type.

  26. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    My point guns are sold at your LOCAL WAL-MART and just anyone could pick up a semi-automatic weapon without being questioned and that in my opinion is a problem. Who needs a semi-automatic weapon unless they are in WAR? I realize the shooters mother was in possession of the weapons but why did SHE need a semi automatic weapon? There is no necessity for things like that.

  27. NHSparky says:

    Oh, and to answer your questions, nobody here has advocated children of any age (let alone 5) handling ANY weapons. We’re talking legal, mentally well-adjusted, non-criminal ADULTS who are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment rights. And if they happen to be a teacher, so fucking what? Do they have a lower set of rights than the rest of us, pray tell?

    Do you think that even the most loopy Lanza fuckstick would go into a school KNOWING there’s a distinct possibility one or more armed people might just fucking stop them from killing 26 people, or would they go something like, “Well, I guess I won’t be shooting up Columbine, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, etc., today!”

    Or did that confuse you just a bit, scooter?

  28. Anonymous says:

    @ 27

    You can’t just walk into a store and buy one and walk out.

    There are background checks for a reason.

    And HELLO EARTH TO 27!

    They are for protection…

    Think before you type.

  29. OWB says:

    Still waiting to hear from those who are honestly concerned with children and the violence against them. For instance – what is the most common cause of violent death of American children? If you are seriously concerned about the lives of the children, perhaps you should focus on that which actually canses the most deaths of children.

    Once again I ask, how exactly will removing guns from the homes of law abiding citizens reduce the number of traffic accidents, abusive parents/guardians, and everything else which takes many more lives of children each year than do guns effect the number of children who die?

    Seriously, you uninformed loons do understand that you really look stupid continuing to mime this craziness when there are thousands of American children every day being raped, subjected to drug abuse, and neglected. Are they not important? Yet you continue to parrot nonsensical ideas.

    Whatever.

  30. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    I personally do not agree with guns, lost someone I know to guns.
    I wish they were not around it is my personal opinion.
    I am a teacher and do not think I need a gun to protect my students.

    I am entitled to my own opinion I just think it is sad what this world is coming to.

  31. NHSparky says:

    My point guns are sold at your LOCAL WAL-MART

    How the fuck would you know?

    Oh, and the one in my town does not. Has not. They sell ammo, but not very much, and certainly not in the more popular calibers. I think the last box of .45 ACP I saw on the shelf there was like 5 years ago.

    And no, you can’t just “pick up any weapon, no questions asked” scooter. We do have background checks, they do work, and the last two weapons I bought (shotgun and pistol) I had to wait while they conducted checks on both. All of about 10 minutes.

    And next question–what kind of car do you drive? Does it go faster than the posted speed limit? WHY? You don’t need a car that can do that unless you’re on a race track, you speed freak!

  32. Jonn Lilyea says:

    “My point guns are sold at your LOCAL WAL-MART and just anyone could pick up a semi-automatic weapon without being questioned and that in my opinion is a problem.”

    If that’s your only worry, stop worrying. I’ve bought guns at WalMart and they go through the same background checks procedures as everyone else.

  33. NHSparky says:

    And you are located where, again, anon?? Think carefully.

  34. 77 11C20 says:

    #27
    You can’t buy any firearm without a valid ID then a FBI check before you can walk out with the rifle, also in some states there is also a waiting period before you can complete the purchase.

  35. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    Canada. THANK GOD

  36. Jonn Lilyea says:

    “I personally do not agree with guns, lost someone I know to guns”

    What is there to “not agree with guns” about? Maybe the person you “lost” isn’t really lost – they’re just hiding from you.

  37. Anonymous says:

    @ 31

    Everyone has lost someone, be it guns, drugs, driving, alcohol, etc.

    I have lost someone to guns as well, it doesn’t change the fact that they are and will always be needed in a free and open society.

  38. NHSparky says:

    Oh, nevermind. That explains a lot.

  39. Anonymous says:

    I live in the most regulated gun state in the country, CA.

    That is all you need to know.

    # 34

  40. Canadian says:

    I agree with #36 we live in Canada and we don’t have these issues
    There is a reason for that

  41. NHSparky says:

    Anon @40…sorry, was referring to the Canuck.

    No gun murders in Canada? Really want to go there, eh?

  42. Anonymous says:

    #41

    I would rather not end up like Australia thank you very much.

    There are a lot more criminals here in the USA than up there.

    Removing guns is like painting a target on peoples homes, saying come and rob me i have no gun.

    If you spend the time researching what happened to Australia, you would find crime went up 67%.

    Think about it.

  43. Anonymous says:

    No worries NHS

  44. Jacobite says:

    Ah yes, Canada, where homicides country wide saw a 7% increase from 2010 to 2011, and where child pornography arrests saw a 40% increase in the same time period. Yep we should all be like Canada. Bwahahahahahaa!!

  45. NHSparky says:

    Damn Jonn, whoda thunk someone would come in here with a bunch of sockpuppets???

    Why, da noive!

  46. Canadian says:

    Not to say that there have never been, that would be a lie. We are not innocent. However, we do not have the same worries that mentally ill individuals (such as the man who killed people at a movie theatre) will have the same access as they do here, which is slim to none.

  47. 77 11C20 says:

    #41
    You must not read your own papers: after a 5 second search. In the 1989 massacre of 14 women at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal, Marc Lepine used a rifle, at the time equipped with a substantial magazine.

    And in 2006, Kimveer Gill used a rifle to shoot 72 rounds at Montreal’s Dawson College, injuring 16 and killing one.

  48. Americans should be embarrassed says:

    @40 I never said there were no issues in Canada I just said it is not as bad.

  49. Anonymous says:

    # 48

    It does not take much to kill any person. Bows and Arrows, Cross Bows, IED’s (Implemented Explosive Devices), anyone with half a brain can learn to make one from the internet.

    Oh, darn, maybe we should ban that too…

    not to mention 3-4 pounds of force on the human nose can kill someone.

    The way you are going, maybe we should have all our hands removed, i mean it is for safety so we should do it right?

    Think before you type.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *