Latest NRA Ad on “High Capacity” Magazine Ban

Fresh off the presses, here’s the NRA’s latest retort to Obama’s proposed “high capacity” magazine ban. Gotta say the editing quality has gotten a whole lot better on these videos lately as compared to the older images of soaring bald eagles and wide expanses of land. Also, I’m loving their use of the “middle class” phrase in this ad. It perfectly illustrates exactly what those in favor of civilian disarmament are trying to do, with things like mandatory firearms insurance and “sin taxes” on guns and ammo. Poll taxes indeed . . .

avatar

About Nick Leghorn

Nick Leghorn is a gun nerd living and working in San Antonio, Texas. In his free time, he's a competition shooter (USPSA, 3-gun and NRA High Power), aspiring pilot, and enjoys mixing statistics and science with firearms. Now on sale: Getting Started with Firearms by yours truly!

79 Responses to Latest NRA Ad on “High Capacity” Magazine Ban

  1. avatarBlehtastic says:

    I love the NRA.

    I’m gonna go stare at my membership card for a minute.

    • avatarRick says:

      I love it… PERFECT… Good job NRA…
      I have my NRA Membership Card in front of my bank card so every time I use my bank card, I use it instead of carrying a lot of cash, people see I’m a proud member of the NRA…

      • avatarhutch1200 says:

        Same here. My Pa CCP has all my Drivers License info on it. SS# etc.. So I use that for ID when I (rarely) use a check or Credit Card. Wigs some ppl out, but they are usually much more polite afterwards!
        TIP, FWIW. In the section on my Cred Card where the signature goes I write “Ask for ID”.

    • avatarpat says:

      Nice ad, but NEVER call them ‘high capacity’. They are STANDARD capacity. Over 20 rounds for pistols and 30 rounds for rifles I would consider high capacity. FORCE the effing libtards to call the magazines they are trying to force on the citizens LOW or REDUCED capacity.
      We should have never let the leftists set the parameters on the topic in the first place. ‘Assault weapon’ is a ficticious term, by the way. Remember, there are only semiautomatic rifles. Assault rifles are military guns that fire intermediate powered rounds in full auto (machine guns).
      From now on ‘high capacity’ and ‘assault weapon’ or (more worthlessly) ‘assault STYLE weapon’ are forbidden terminology and no longer to be used, period. The libs have gotten too much mileage from these propaganda terms, as it is.

      • avatarJeff R says:

        You said what I was going to say. You are exactly right.

        • avatarWilliam says:

          NO. He proposed “banning” the term “high capacity”, then immediately gives an example of what he considers IS one.

          Stupid, stupid, stupid.

        • avatarpat says:

          William. Please keep your eye on the ball. The libtards WANT the 11-19 round magazines of the pistols and the 11-30 round magazines of the rifles because ALMOST ALL of the mags people use are in this realm and are thus STANDARD sized magazines.
          While I dont believe the 50-100 round drum magazines should be banned, how in the name of God can you NOT call them ‘high capacity’?
          The main goal is to call the magazines EVERBODY uses STANDARD (which is what they are) and thus deprive the libtards of their main weapon (a false definition) which will, in turn, keep them from banning the firearms (which we ALL can agree are SEMIAUTO).

      • avatarmike marriam says:

        You are correct. Another phrase that needs to be banished is “gun violence”. It needs to be replaced with ” violence committed with guns”.

        • avatarDaveL says:

          I disagree. The issue is violence, period. I’ll say straight out, I’m completely uninterested in reducing “gun violence” per se. I want to reduce violence.

          I want to reduce the number of violent incidents. I want to reduce the severity of those incidents. But even if gun control laws were successful in reducing “gun violence”, it would be idiotic to take satisfaction in it if overall violence were not thereby reduced.

        • avatarpat says:

          Good Dave. Violence is violence, period.
          The libtards are slick and use GUN suicide rather than just suicide rates, which, for instance, is at a much higher rate in Japan, but the leftists just focus on the gun suicide rate (which, odviously, is much higher in the US…..SO EFFING WHAT). It is total suicide rate that is important, not gun suicide.

  2. avatarjgardner says:

    I don’t know what the antis will find “wrong” or “offensive” in this ad but I’m sure they will find something..

  3. avatarOkieRim says:

    Agree, much better than before…NRA really needs to step up their message delivery. I re-tweet NRA, GOA and other gun sites as much as possible (including TTAG), but the getting with the social media AND broadening their message will go a long ways to helping the 2A.

  4. avatarRandy Drescher says:

    Go NRA, the last thing I want is daddy obama & uncle joe telling me anything about firearms. They need to spend their time fawning over their magnificent coalition, Randy

  5. avatarLoyd says:

    That is probably the single best ad I have ever seen the NRA put out.

    • avataranonymous says:

      Agreed.

      Usually NRA public statements make me cringe, but this was good.

      I know that Gun Culture 1.0 will resist the idea, but the NRA should really expose gun control for the “class warfare” that it is. Use phrases like “poll tax”, “1%” (or whatever number), “racism”, “choice”, etc.

      • avatarBrian says:

        You are absolutely right. If gun culture is to survive it is going to need to appeal beyond its traditional base, and this is one way to do it.

    • avatarCliff says:

      We really need to focus on the Poll Tax issue. This could help bring the attention of minorities to what the gun grabbers are really trying to do.

      If the government can set licensing requirements according to its own standards and then charge you to take a class to get the license, charge you for the license, AND charge you for the NICS check that they mandate, this is no longer a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it’s a privilage granted by government that can be taken away by the simple expedient of making it too difficult, or too complicated, or too expensive. POLL TAX.

      • avataranonymous says:

        > POLL TAX.

        Here’s an ad idea:

        SCENE: Two people at a counter. One is behind the counter, the other person is standing in front of it.

        The person sitting hands the person standing a form which looks (not coincidentally) like a 4473. After the person fills it out, she is asked for her driver’s license. The person sitting examines the license to verify it.

        PERSON BEHIND COUNTER: “I have to enter this into the computer to run the background check. It will only take a moment.”

        The peson behind the counter types something. After a moment, the words APPROVED appear on the screen.

        PERSON BEHIND COUNTER: You’ve been approved.

        The person behind the counter hands something to the person in front of the counter.

        PERSON BEHIND COUNTER: Here’s your ballot. The voting booths are right over there.

        The camera zooms out to reveal a long line, as the person who has just completed the background check walks toward the booths.

        VOICE OVER or ON SCREEN TEXT: “Background checks. They’re just a common sense measure to close the voting fraud loophole, without violating anybody’s rights. Only politicians who depend on fraudulent votes oppose them.”

        ( see my other ad idea here )

    • avataranonymous says:

      The only thing missing is that image of David Gregory holding an AR-15 magazine.

      The District of Columbia has gone on the record as stating that prosecuting Mr. Gregory

      “would not promote public safety…nor serve the best interests of the people”.

      The public needs to be reminded of this repeatedly.

      No magazine ban should be allowed to pass as long as David Gregory remains a free man.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      Agreed.

    • avatarRydak says:

      Chris Cox should be the front man. Wayne was good for many years, but Chris is polished and speaks well. Has a bit of a tood as well and I like that.

  6. avatarPete says:

    I love it that they are showing the double standard between eltist and middle class. I am a life member but continue to give! If you dont belong to the nra start carrying your weight and join! Thanks!

  7. avatarLance says:

    Awesome good ad. True in all fairness Obama should have the Secret Service use 10rds only in there guns too. LOL

    • avatarCliff says:

      BTW, in the history of this country, has the Secret Service in defense of the POTUS ever fired there weapons? I admit I do not know. If they have fired their weapons, did any of them ever fire more than 7 or 10 rounds? If not, why do they need those high capacity assault magazine clips?

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        They don’t. The only person I ever knew well in the protection division (not uniformed division) was expert with a 1911, a subgun, and shotgun. He had to draw weapons, but not fire them, as far as I know. He ran the four-presidents security for Anwar Sadat’s funeral, and has run Cape Kennedy security since the late 80′s. They’re good guys in the security-guy sense. The big guns are in the SUV’s, and if they ever use them, you’ll know. Almost all the pres. security work is man-handling, since there is too much risk shooting within a crowd of people. Nut-cases are regularly pulled out.

    • avatarTotenglocke says:

      The Secret Service should not exist. The president’s life is NOT more important than the lives of any other American. He can either carry his own gun or call 911 like anyone else.

      • avatarRopingdown says:

        Tot, you’ve gotta be kidding. It ain’t that his life is more important. It’s that transitions are very expensive. Think, Obama gets toasted. Biden comes in. Wouldn’t you want Obama to survive? Laugh. Same with George W. Bush’s VP.

        • avatarTotenglocke says:

          It’s that transitions are very expensive.

          Only because supporters of big government like you make it so. All the president does is sign off on laws – everything else is done by Congress. He’s a pretty useless figurehead and easily replaced.

        • avatarRopingdown says:

          I’m not a supporter of big government. What makes you think otherwise? Curious. I especially am not a supporter of arrogant government and the felonization of everyday life.

    • avatarLarry says:

      The Secret Service should only use 10 rd mags in WHAT guns? They’re not hunting, what do they need guns for? Isn’t that Osama’s attitude? Or is that only for those not as important as he thinks he is?

  8. avatarMatt Anthony says:

    I love it. PLEASE run these in California just so we can listen to the media and brain dead politicos squirm.

  9. avatarLongBeach says:

    The points made by the ad are completely realistic, the only people impacted by this ban would be those of us who aren’t the problem. However, and despite agreeing that this ad is spot on, mentioning Obama alienates whatever percentage of gun owners support him. I understand that he really has moved onto the anti-gun side of this, but you have to remember that there are undoubtedly many people who voted for him but also own guns. To those people, anyone saying anything other than agreeing with the great BHO is immediately dismissed as a nut, and if they were on the fence about guns they’re probably nut jumping onto our side after seeing this. The NRA would benefit from shifting their appearance as a conservative, ‘Murrican club for OFWG’s to an organization who is blind to color, creed, economic status, and sexual orientation. As is stands now, they’re appeal seems severely limited to anyone who isn’t white, old, and conservative. I’m well aware that there are probably a few members who don’t fit that description, but that number needs to grow in order for the NRA to be seen as something other than a clubhouse for old white men who want to cling to the idea of the Olde America. They do a great deal of work to promote our interests in self defense, sport shooting/hunting, etc but they need to reach out to the newer generation of gun owners who are, judging by the cross-section of cultures I see at the range and gun stores, most certainly not ‘good ol’ boys’.

    • avatar16V says:

      That was my only critique as well.

      I’m no Obama fan, but the “Obama’s America” angle does nothing to bring anyone over – it just preaches to the choir. Leave that part out.

      People seek confirmation, and even if they think their guy is doing the wrong thing, the anti-Obo statement just sets up a confrontational dynamic. Gets people defensive rather than getting them to re-examine their views on this particular issue.

    • avatarCrazed Java says:

      Problem is that Obama is pushing harder than anyone to ban standard magazines

      • avatar16V says:

        You have a very valid point. But…

        Just imagine you’re an Obama voter. You believed that he was a better choice than the other candidates and pulled the lever. Nobody with any brain at all buys into everything their candidate says or does. Nobody.

        So now we have an issue on the table. The ‘other guys’ are presenting some valid facts but then they attack your choice. Now we get to that situation where sometimes your buddy is an eh-hole. Rather than saying “dude, it’s not cool to do that” the message has become “your buddy is a f-up”.

        This is just business. The other guys are choosing their words and actions very carefully for just that reason. So we need to use the same tools they do, otherwise we aren’t going to win.

        • avatarAccur81 says:

          I can’t imagine being an Obama voter!

          But if the ad is more effective when it is, ah, “less anti-Obama,” then I’m all for it.

          Otherwise, pro-gun voters ought to realize how incredibly Obama has become (well, how much he always was).

        • avatar16V says:

          C’mon man! Use your imagination!

          But all joking aside, that’s the point. We’re all more likely to defend our idiot brother when someone says “Hey, your brother is an effen rtard!” v. when they say, “dude, I need that ketchup bottle, don’t stick it up your butt”.

          We have to stay on point.

    • avatarLarry says:

      I guess I miss the criticism. I have never seen a recruiting ad for the NRA stating that only OFWGs need apply. Everyone has been welcome at every function I have attended, every facility, and when I joined 35 years ago *I* was not an OFWG. Someone needs to be encouraging non-members to join, but not segregated by age, race, creed, or anything else. ALL are invited, should be the perennial message.

  10. avatarRoss says:

    I like it, simple and to the point.

  11. avatarChuckN says:

    If the NRA keeps making charms like this, we may get somewhere.
    It’d be awesome if they could buy some advertizing time on some
    of the antis favorite networks and radio stations. Just think of
    what would happen if this played on NPR.

  12. avatarAir Force TSgt says:

    Wow….did not expect that, a damn good add… Why did this not play during the super bowl ?

  13. avatarNazgul says:

    The advertisement is reductive at best. The points may be valid, but the delivery is based more on tabloid sensationalism rather than facts.

    • avatarBrian says:

      Sadly this is the level of the debate. It would be great to have a honest, long form debate between pro- and anti-, especially because we would win that debate. Unfortunately, instead we have to compete in 30 second sound bites for whose parade of horribles is worse.

    • avatarOddux says:

      Playing to the average attention span.

    • avatarRopingdown says:

      It’s a soundbite world. They ought to use it well, leaving little room for avoidable criticism. The prior NRA add attacking the security for Obama’s daughters at school should have emphasized the schools 11-man security staff which is there even when a presidential daughter isn’t. It’s the elite vs the no-security middle class. Most poor-neighborhood schools do have armed security these days.

  14. avatartron says:

    that got me jazzed up. i hope a lot of people see it.

  15. avataroutwardhound says:

    My only quibble is the use of the term “high capacity.” All I saw were standard capacity magazines.

    • avatarMikeM says:

      But don’t you love how they’ve now branded 1o round magazines as ‘limited capacity’?

    • avatarMamba says:

      The grabbers & the MSM use the term “high capacity”. WE know they are really standard capacity. But Joe Citizen sees those same mags and thinks “high capacity”, so the ad producers chose to limit the confusion factor. Within the time constraints of the ad, I agree with their choice. Get the main point across, educate on the nuances later.

  16. avatardrnick says:

    Did they say BLACK markets? RACIST!?
    I’m sure tingles and everybody else at MSNBC heard the dog whistle. . .

  17. avatarNicknorr says:

    I agree 100% with Longbeach.

    I just only add that we should leave the “us and them” out of the argument, Obama was blamed for the use of the same tactic, and now we are using it.

    We should be very clear, we are not defending a privilege, we are defending a right.

  18. avatarVeritas says:

    Awesome! Schumer, Pelosi and Mooochelle’s heads just exploded!

  19. avatarUrsus Americanus says:

    Thoughtful reflection and nuanced persuasion certainly have their place. But so does a boot in the ass.

    Well done!

  20. avatarBeninMA says:

    It looks like they’ve hired the guy who did Ron Paul’s ads.

    I’m not a fan of class-based rhetoric, but I suppose in this case it’s both true and effective.

    I still think that 90% of the public doesn’t know that this legislation classifies the most popular defensive handguns as “high capacity.” Sometimes all you have to do is present the facts and educate the public. That’s worked well with the AWB, but I haven’t seen a similar effort on the mag bans. Perhaps they’re worried of a “compromise” that would spare pistols, but only be applied to rifles?

    • avatarDentalPrepper says:

      Since the difference between a pistol and a rifle is the presence of a butt-stock, there would be no way to ban rifle mags that hold >10 rounds but not pistol mags that hold the same. They are the same mags.

      • avatarBeninMA says:

        True, but they could just limit the mag ban to rifle calibers of .223 or greater… not that it would make sense or anything.

        Watching the video again, the major flaw is accepting the “high capacity magazine” terminology. The NRA should be fighting against this. Maybe make an ad with a series of average Americans (including police officers) pointing to their handguns and saying “THIS is what they call a high capacity magazine.” Once people understand that the whole “high capacity” terminology is just newspeak for the most common firearms in the country, it will be game over for a mag ban.

        • avatarAlphaGeek says:

          I’m an outspoken opponent of letting the other side define the terms of the debate. Fact.

          That said, when you need to deliver a punchy message at a specific moment in time (e.g. 13 Feb 2013) then you need to use the language in play at that time. It would be stupid to burn up some of your precious time in front of the viewer redefining terms in ways that seem arbitrary and nitpicky to the unwashed masses. These are people who think “magazine clips” are an actual thing, let’s remember…

        • avatarMamba says:

          “..you need to use the language in play at that time”
          Agreed, as I stated in a reply here elsewhere. Educating takes time & $, both are in short supply at the moment.

  21. avatarkosherbacon says:

    Is this hosted anywhere else? I can’t get the stupid thing to load more than 4 seconds at a time.

  22. avatarBob says:

    Why was it necessary to say “Welcome to Obama’s middle class” at the end like that?

    Isn’t that unnecessarily devisive? I mean, couldn’t that get Obama worshipers to knee-jerk react negatively to the add and ignore any of the rationality of it?

  23. avatarAharon says:

    Big improvement over past NRA public messages! Past NRA info-messages were IMO very much like something the USG would put out in the quality level though of course with an opposite political message. Keep up the good creative messaging improvement NRA you are on the right path.

  24. avatarMichael F. says:

    I hate when these videos play automatically without me clicking play. It’s annoying.

  25. avatarCameron S. says:

    Took the plunge and Joined the NRA today.

    Especially after seeing this ad, I think I made a good decision.

    And it’ll be nice to get a free sticker, magazine subscription and hat. I like me a good read… and a good hat.

  26. avatarEagleScout87 says:

    Now if only these ads would see the light of day on NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS….. otherwise it’s a lot of choir preachin.

  27. avatarDisThunder says:

    As Charlie Daniels would say, That’s how you do it, son.

  28. avatarIndrid Cold says:

    Finally our side is getting it–how to use new media effectively.

  29. avatarchris says:

    I like it!

  30. avatarSkeev says:

    I am not moved by this ad. I would rather have seen an ad that attempts to discuss and plant the mental seed, for those that can swayed, that high cap mags are needed because in many cases a home burglary is often a home invasion and that someone will have to fend of multiple attackers, something that a 7 or 10 round limit won’t allow.

    Instead of only taking a “what’s good for them” approach, show the real world need for the average person to require a 30 round mag.

    Ads like this only make the pro-gun crowd happy, it’s tone is a turn off to those who might listen.

  31. avatarCesare says:

    High capacity my foot. In 1862the Army Ordinance Dept tested Wincheter’s Henry Rifle and found that it was capable of firing 160 rounds in 3 minutes, aka the amount of time the law took to get to the school in Newtown. Those were also 200 gr .44 cal projectiles. It was, is and always will be about Control, period. Molon Labe.

  32. avatarChas says:

    Best.NRA.ad.EVAH.

  33. avatarCade Connelly says:

    After looking over these comments, I agree totally with the ad. Some are saying it is too much of a slap to Obama supporters, but I say they need to be slapped out of whatever fantasy they are living in right now. It would take too long to explain the correct terminology, high capacity magazines to the unintelligent people (no offense meant to those who are reading this, I am referring to those who listen and believe the liberal media, never giving any thought to it whatsoever), so I can understand why they did not do it. 10 or less round magazines are limited capacity (extremely limited), 30 round mags are normal capacity, 50-100 round mags are high capacity. None should be banned. Gun control is one of the biggest piles of BS in our nations history. I want so badly to join the NRA, but I am still too young to (legally) own my own rifle. Hopefully I can get one before they are banned.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.