From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Alternative RKBA Groups Needed
Date: 12 Nov 1992 07:10:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu () says:

>Should new pro-RKBA groups, not affiliated with the NRA, be formed and
>supported ?
>
>The NRA has a problem - a piss-poor public image. TV ads featuring a
>few aging movie personalities has not changed that one bit. The NRA
>has another problem - they have become identified as the sole voice
>for the 2nd amendment. This makes it all too easy for groups like
>HCI to demonize them and focus its propaganda campaign against them.
>
>Consider the difficulty that HCI would have if there were a dozen
>strong and vocal pro-RKBA groups out there, each with its own 
>special flavor, each with its own political contacts and funding
>resources. As long as NRA is the one and only 'official' voice of
>the 2nd amendment, it is also a conveinent whipping-boy for the
>anti-gunners. Dispersing the effort amongst a number of non-NRA
>affiliated groups would make HCI nuts. Their one great-Satan would
>be replaced with a host of troublesome demons. Tailor-made 
>propaganda would become difficult. 
>
>I am not suggesting disbanding the NRA or greatly reducing its funding.
>What I am suggesting is that a number of different groups, providing
>a number of slightly different points of view, creating somewhat
>different publicity themes has merit. It de-focuses the efforts of HCI
>and offers the public a greater number of pro-RKBA ideas and images.
>The more images one offers, the greater the chance that a person will
>find one that agrees with them. 
>
>A few days ago, I offered an advert scenerio involving two elderly
>people facing a break-in by punks. The message was "This can happen
>to you if you have no personal protection". Indeed, I see the ideal
>pro-RKBA ad as *not* showing people using guns, but instead showing
>what happens if you don't have one. The need for a gun is *implied*
>rather than stated outrightly. By using sympathetic characters in
>believible situations, counter-attack by HCI becomes difficult ...
>how do you suggest that Granny and Gramps should die while scummy
>punks get off free ? Can't be done - if HCI wants to maintain
>credibility.
>
>Now, the NRA would never fund such an ad - no matter how effective
>it would be. They are stuck on 'traditionalism' and have been so
>badly hurt in the PR department that they could never risk a radical
>approach. However - other groups ... well apart from NRA ... could
>do such ads. At the price of video equipment these days, a broadcast
>quality tape could be made for peanuts. Knee-jerk anti-NRA might
>listen to an alternative group ... and negative reactions could not
>be legitimately directed against NRA. A winning strategy.
>
>-- Jim Mason
>


How about the Libertarian Party of the United States?
-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns