NRA Launches “Stand and Fight” Campaign

The NRA booth at SHOT Show has a rotating thingy above their heads that pronounces the beginning of their “Stand and Fight” campaign that aims to combat the gun control lobby and the increasing pressure from Democrats to “do something” in the wake of Sandy Hook. The above video was passed directly to us by the NRA as the opening shots of that campaign.


  1. avatar In Memphis says:

    Very nice but unless they can get it beyond the internet (lets say on prime time television) its just preaching to the choir.

    Dont get me wrong, Im glad to see some action being taken but the places this needs to be seen are on the other side

    1. avatar Brian says:

      They played the video on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning and the called it “pronography” and “grossest things I’ve ever seen in my life”. I’m happy that they played it, but when it gets played on the other side they will only do it so that it can be followed by ridiculing commentary

      you can see their reaction here

  2. avatar In Dayton says:

    “Stand and Defend” would be a great marketing campaign.

    “Stand and Fight” will only serve to alienate the people on fence on 2nd Amendment issues. This is another example at just poorly the NRA does in representing gun owners to the wider public. It’s as if they lack the understanding that you do need to have great marketing vision in sharing your ideas & defending your rights.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      I agree, fight is antagonistic, especially to a bunch of people already scared to death of us because we have guns.

      1. avatar AlphaGeek says:

        Good. That’s the effect we want.

        This is not about polite debate. This is about a very large, very angry bear woken from its nap by a gang of jackholes wielding sticks, and what happens next.

        If the jackholes back off immediately, things might turn out ok. If not, it’s gonna get ugly — if not now, then in 22 months we will find out how many legislators failed to outrun the bear, ie get primaried out or lose to the opposition. .

    2. avatar matt says:

      Why not fight for your rights? If youre defending, your simply trying not to lose ground, if youre fighting then youre trying to regain ground youve previously lost.

      1. avatar Ash says:

        It turned into a fight when New York got lost.

    3. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      Bullshit. We are under attack. The time for gentle words has passed. It is time to fight.

    4. avatar Bob says:

      Agree. I think the NRA does these kinds of stupid things like this and like advocating police in every school (instead of the obvious volunteer staff concealed) so that they only fix part of the problem. They don’t want to be too effective.

      If the NRA is effective in fixing the problems they purport to fix, they’ll lose revenue and Wayne LaPierre may have to sacrifice some of his $900,000 salary.

  3. avatar BobtheGrape says:

    Yeah, InMemphis, I agree. However, I think that this is just a fluff piece by the NRA, just making it look good to keep the membership think that they are doing something. They are doing $omething, attempting to keep the members happy and keep the membership fee$ coming in. I am very skeptical/cynical about many of these orgainizations.

  4. avatar Wiebelhaus says:

    Wow man, they didn’t pull any punches on that one.

  5. avatar DentalPrepper says:

    Criticize him all you want, but it is President Obama. Not Mr. Obama. The NRA should show respect for the presidency if not for the man.

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      And what respect is Obummer showing this country? I am not just talking about attacking the second amendment.

      Respect is earned not given and he hasnt earned a damn thing. We do need to keep level headed, yes but they have been fighting dirty from day one. Dirty since they said, “today is not the day to talk gun control.”

      You can respect him if you want, your a better person than me then and I am a strong believer in respect

    2. avatar SCS says:

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Whew that was [email protected] funny. Respect a “man” that disrespects the country and the Constitution. Not a chance in hell.

    3. avatar gloomhound says:

      Like Hell….We have no kings in this country he works for us and is no better then the man that does the hard work picking up my garbage.

      Any respect that we need show is to the Constitution not an office held by just another common citizen.

    4. avatar Casey T says:

      There is no chance in hell that I’m going to respect that person. I signed four years of my life away to serve in the Marine Corps and swore an oath to protect the Constitution, which he is destroying.

    5. avatar AlphaGeek says:

      It’s perfectly acceptable etiquette to refer to him as Mr Obama. I don’t see the problem here — and for the avoidance of doubt, I voted for him both times.

    6. avatar Bob says:

      Wow, dude you just made me throw up in my mouth.

      1. avatar Buuurr says:

        …and my ass.

    7. avatar Aharon says:

      Obummer’s policies and those of people like him are responsible for bringing harm to many people foreign and domestic. He is moving to develop the MAU (North American Union), destroy what little remains of the Bill of Rights, and to turn America into a police-nanny NWO state. His policies are also throwing more debt onto the fires and making it worse. He has not earned respect. Obummer has earned scorn.

    8. He is the President, and that means that he, and his kids, are potentially targets for nutcases, which is why his kids get the armed secret service. That’s as it should be, and the NRA should be ashamed of itself for pretending otherwise.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        I guess the kids at Sandy Hook weren’t the target of a nutcase,Holzman? We don’t have royal elites in this country, at least we’re not supposed to. The poorest kid from the roughest neighberhood in America is just as important as barry’s kids.

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        Ok, granted there is a higher probability that someone would go after his kids than mine. That doesn’t mean my kids aren’t important enough to be protected. Failed argument anyway, since nobody is saying that Obama’s kids shouldn’t be protected too.

      3. avatar Doug says:

        It’s really cute of you to point out that they may be more likely to be targeted for violence but that’s wholly irrelevant. Once that violence is attempted, how probable the attack may or may not have been prior to the actual attack doesn’t matter. When someone’s loosing rounds at you or your children, do you care whether the attack was more or less likely to happen? A civilian being attacked is no different than the president being attacked when the rubber meets the road, no matter what the ‘risk’ was beforehand.

        And just like the president should be able to defend himself with guns, so should civilians be able to defend themselves with guns. I completely reject the idea that if your risk of attack is greater than X probability that it’s ok for you to arm yourself, but if it’s lower than X probability then it’s not ok for you to arm yourself.

        It is NOT your place or anyone else’s to decide what an acceptable level of risk is before one arms one’s self. Each individual has to weigh that risk on their own.

      4. avatar SCS says:


    9. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      Either is a correct form of address.

    10. avatar Mark says:

      Sorry, he’s no president of mine.

      1. avatar duke nukem says:

        yea righy… unless your from canada or other country he IS your president

  6. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    I thought it said rotating finger. Guess my old eyes aren’t what they used to be, Randy

  7. avatar ChuckN says:


  8. avatar Steve says:

    I like it. Hard hitting and makes a point that any low information voter can understand. Obama is not going to fight by the Marquis of Queensberry rules so we need to go on offense. But I agree that they need to get these ads on TV.

    1. avatar 16V says:


  9. avatar My name is Bob says:

    I like the SAF version of, “you first.” THEY should leas by example and give up THEIR 24/7 security and armed guards and only THEN talk about us giving up our guns (fat chance!)

  10. avatar ak74 says:

    Lets make this about firearms and not bring in other political garbage like taxes. You will turn off people in the middle seeing it as an attack from the right. Where it should be pointing out an attack on their rights.

  11. avatar Dracon1201 says:

    This needs to get on tv. It won’t matter if they don’t.

  12. avatar InBox485 says:

    Soooo sick of NRA’s bloated crap. They are incompetent, and about as in touch with gun owners as Obama. Every significant victory in gun rights have come from members of the newly formed Firearms Policy Coalition. More notably, most of those victories involved NRA fighting against them, then finally slapping their name on at the last second for the PR credit. I’m only a member due to a range I belong to, but I’ll be asking them to accept SAF/CCRKBA/CGF/FPC memberships instead since they are the ones that use membership dues for things other than fundraisers and backing the gun grabbers that happen to be republican.

    1. avatar Bob says:

      They need to be partially incompetent. If they are effective, their fundraising ability will be hampered. People react to incentives (or lack thereof). The NRA’s incentives are not 100% in line with our interests.

      1. avatar InBox485 says:

        I just guess I’m hoping this is a turning point. Kinda like after 94, but this time for real where people just wash their hands of the NRA. They are willful retards and backstabbers. We need them about as much as Alex Jones and James Yeager. They exist only to divert useful energy and finances into their pockets. To me at this point, the difference between NRA and the Brandy Bunch is that the Brandy Bunch is more honest, more consistent, and at less of a fascist sellout. I’m getting more fed up with the NRA’s sh!t by the day.

  13. avatar PatAnderson says:

    It’s nice, but we need more than that right now in this fight. Stand and fight against the gun grabbers!

  14. avatar g says:

    Video is link is down for me, but I also don’t think “fight” is a very strategic choice.

    Yes, we all have a great “fighting spirit” when it comes to our 2A rights, but choosing the word “defend” has much better connotations and can’t be used against gun owners like the word “fight” can be used. (I can see the media headlines now “NRA Starting to Pick a FIGHT for Assault Weapons”)

    The war for our 2A rights is a multi-front battle that includes PR – the way we project our struggle will determine whether or not we’re better able to get our message across.

    1. avatar ChuckN says:

      I disagree. Until conservatives start actively buying
      media outlets or are more proactive in reporting
      MSM bias, we won’t win the PR battle. The MSM
      not only refuses to acknowledge fact but will
      make up their own a la Piers Morgan. Anything
      pro 2nd Amendment groups say or do is instantly
      demonized and all those participating are likened
      to extremists.

      We can still use facts but we can also call a spade a
      spade. Ben Shapiro did a masterful job on Piers
      Morgan’s show, openly confronting the hypocrisy
      and disingenuous reporting. We don’t have to sit
      down and listen patiently to the other side waiting
      our turn. Not when the MSM and antis are so
      easily disproven.

  15. avatar Aharon says:

    I think they should remove the bit about Obama wanting the rich to pay their share of taxes. That issue has nothing to do with security and actually gives Obummer a pat on the back. Lately, the Washington elite, to include Obummer, have been voicing positive support for police in schools since politically it is an action to help increase the police-security state. I think this video should have focused on local communities taking action to recruit (to include teachers) volunteers for school defense and doing away with the gun-free-zone rules. If elites nationwide start voicing loud support for police in schools and pass laws to pay for it with taxpayer money then this video has a very short-term life. Lastly, ‘Stand and Fight’ should be called ‘Stand and Defend’.

  16. avatar Coyote Gray says:

    250,000 new members since the shooting. I am somewhere in there. Minimum, $25 for a 1 year membership. Presumably, at LEAST 6.25 million dollars in new revenue since late December. And this is the best we can do?

    At the very least, this needs to be 1 of a series of both educational, and smartly developed counter arguments to a number of erroneous gun misconceptions and beliefs.

    And quite frankly, with a bevy of new, tyrannical legislative proposals right on our door step, the armed guards piece should have been paired with another vignette emphasizing the fight for 2A.

    I just joined the Firearms Policy Coalition, and will send money post haste.

    1. avatar Aharon says:

      I too have thought about the huge size of the NRA’s budget $300 million and for the money they could be doing things better. The vid looks like it was made in-house with the internal politics doing the creative stuff.

      1. avatar Coyote Gray says:

        I have seen a number of videos that were smarter, better produced, and offered a much more clever and pointed (albeit, often longer) message from You Tube Mavens, made out of pocket. Many shared right here on TTAG.

        This confirms it for me. The NRA is a dinosaur and isn’t poised to lead the sort of campaign that needs to be waged in the media. The NRA has the members, and hopefully the pull in the legislature; I hope that is enough.

  17. avatar ensitu says:

    Wayne LA Piere:
    I’ve been in WA DC for 35 YEARS!

    Just like dem polioticitions

  18. avatar Chris says:

    went to the website

    Sweet another e-mail news letter that will show ’em! …………

  19. It’s a bit aggressive. It doesn’t provied any context of how the NRA suggested its shield program to put armed guards in schools and how the idea was shunned by Obama. It simply comes off as an attack and I think it will be more fuel for the antis than it will be for us. They will use it to further their argument that the NRA is on the right fringe and filled with gun nuts.

    I just think they could have come up with something better. They should use something that appeals to emotion. Use the line that Tennessee sheriff used in the video posted on TTAG yesterday, if your loved one calls and says there is someone coming into their house, or they are a teacher and they hear shots down the hall, would you rather them have a cell phone or a gun?

    1. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

      Agreed. The NRA is tone-deaf. The fence sitters who are now jumping on the gun control side in this debate are upper middle class moms. This ad does absolutely to persuade them.

Write a Comment

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

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email