NRA Hits Back at MAIG “Gun Owner” Ad. Finally.

“Is it possible he’s an actor?” Well, yes. Yes it is. And the NRA’s latest effort to punch back twice as hard at the opening salvo in MAIG’s $12 million ad blitz is out…more than three weeks after the gun-grabbing group’s ad first ran. You remember. That’s the one that prompted a few questions as to that, er, real gun owner’s bona fides. Not to mention his gun-handling skillz. But in Internet time, cracking back almost a month down the road is akin to starting to starting a Vietnamese hearts and minds campaign in about 1983. Nice effort. Just too little, way too late.

23 Responses to NRA Hits Back at MAIG “Gun Owner” Ad. Finally.

  1. avatarSoccerchainsaw says:

    Is it possible he’s an actor? Of course.

    Is it possible the director couldn’t resist painting “their” gun guy as an idiot because, well, he’s a “gun guy”?

  2. Excellent counter attack by the NRA.

    I am glad they did not let this slide.

  3. avatarDavis Thompson says:

    I work in the film and TV biz. There’s no way that guy is not an actor. You know a gun guy when you meet one (or see a video of one.) This is not a gun guy. Good ad. Now too bad we don’t have 12 mil in our advertising budget.

  4. avatarWilliam Burke says:

    “Is it possible he’s an actor?”

    Gee… YA THINK? Why is the NRA so consistently a day late and a dollar short? Members deserve a LOT more than the NRA delivers… as usual.

    The NRA reminds me of an aging football coach who doesn’t want to adapt his strategy to changes in the way the game is played. Failure is inevitably the result of refusal to change and grow with the game.

    This is a good ad, BUT WHAT TOOK THEM SO GD LONG?

    • avatarMax says:

      Agreed. This 45 second “rebuttal” could have been put together and on the air in less than 24 hours. By now we should know his name, DOB, acting credits and weather or not he is really a gun owner (not!).

      • avatarJoke & Dagger says:

        Why does the NRA have to respond to every anti-firearm thing within 24 hours? Whose rule is that?

  5. avatarLuke Ellerbrock says:

    THIS is what they fire back with? Ay Dios mio!

  6. avatarwatchmenlewis says:

    lol

  7. avatarRambeast says:

    Wasting money preaching to the choir. The NRA needs to get with the program, or make way for an organization who will.

  8. avatarChuckN says:

    Late though it may be, this does show that the NRA is starting
    to actively counter some of the craziness that is MAIG and the
    anti-rights movement.

  9. avatarBilly Wardlaw says:

    The NRA is no more immune to the frailties of having a large bureaucracy than the government is – Slow to act, clumsy in execution.

  10. avatarAlex says:

    Ugh. Typical wishy-washy liberals at the NRA. Took ‘em so long because they’re lazy and value collectivism over individual responsibility.

  11. avatarRab says:

    Weak and meaningless response

  12. avatarWR2A says:

    Possible terrorist attack on Patriot’s Day. Bombs. Death. Boston Marathon.

    http://wr2a.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/patriots-day-bombing-in-boston/

    Time to reevaluate.

  13. avatarDan says:

    Wow. Did Bloomberg also do the NRA response video because that was just plain weak! With all the money they have this is the best they can do? Why don’t they run a piece that shows the documented criminal records of many of these mayors he has as spokespeople and then ask the question “Why are we letting criminals and lawyers decide the gun rights of the average American?” If they asked that question maybe we would get some where. What they released makes the NRA look weak.

  14. avatarPantera Vazquez says:

    A day late and a dollar short. What is needed is displaying and sharing the accounts of successful defensive gun uses. America as a nation needs to see the positive side of firearms. I find it difficult to believe in a nation such as ours, the NRA would have difficulty in what essentially should be a simple project.

  15. avatarMy Name Is Bob says:

    Too little, too late. Everything said in this video was said on the interwebs within 24 hrs. C’mon NRA get with the program and respond to this crap in 48 hours or less. It’s not that hard!

  16. avatarAzimuth says:

    What can I say? That hit with the blunt impact of say…a starters pistol.
    Refuting a piece of MAIG propaganda? Reduced to arguing over style points? This is how they’re spending our membership fees? Nuanced graphics from a digital arts software program? At least the MAIG ad had a real living person. It doesn’t matter if he was an actor or not, the image was a man and his gun, and so it personalized the message, unlike the NRA, who it seems, could only afford a person to do the anonymous voice-over that one would normally find with a radio spot. This is absolutely the poorest use/waste of a visual medium that one could do. Don’t ever replay your opponents propaganda in your commercial.
    It’s bad enough that we find ourselves on the defensive for the 2A, but this makes us look like we’re only interested in nit-picking the pointless errors of anti-2A agitprop, while ignoring the first principles that are under attack. Sorry folks, the person(s) responsible for this lazy effort should be unemployed. Is this the N.R.A.’s idea for getting the “defend the 2A” message out, to sign this guy/actor to some NRA safety courses? Out of a degree of caution, I won’t be forwarding this pathetic rebuttal ad to my anti-2A friends. They might seriously injure themselves from convulsing with laughter. We, on the other hand, should be extremely angry and out looking for some NRA scalps.

    Did anyone notice that the only person to even mention the 2nd amendment….was the actor?

  17. avatarBLAMMO says:

    West Virginia?!! C’mon!! With that dentition?

    Okay, I apologize to all W. Virginians in present company. It was too easy and I couldn’t resist.

Leave a Reply

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