NRA Hits Back at NY Daily News, 'Godless Left'

[OLDNEWBIE]

I'd be surprised if this Ad would scare a pro-gun Atheist into Voting one way or another but...

This calculated ad might swing a God fearing/loving, pro-gun, Union or Minority Voter away from the Party of the Progressive anti-gun Left.
A Party that feels it has these Voters so locked in, that it can applaud a News Cover that insults their Religion, judgement and intelligence without Political repercussions.

 

[etrain16]

It really would have been better if the NY Daily News had not drug the God discussion into this to begin with. Should the NRA respond? That's debatable. It is a gun related issue in this case, and I do think the NY Daily was trying to point a finger at people who cling to their 'religion and their guns'. I think it was a cheap shot, but I don't expect anything different from them. I think they needed someone to slap them upside their arrogant heads, but, upon reflection, I'm not certain if the NRA is the right one to do it.

As for PP, I don't agree with his position, because I don't think this is the beginning of the end for the NRA, but I support his right to his opinion, just as I support the rights of others here who may not have religious beliefs to see it differently.

I don't want to see the NRA or any other pro-gun organization get divided along religious lines. Let's stick with pro-gun groups defending the 1st and the 2nd.

PP put up a video on this - view it if you like. I think he does make a point about the NRA staying out of the religion topic - it's just not what they do. Stick to guns. In this sense, I do agree with him.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Perhaps Atheists need their own Gun Rights Org. and the NRA could come out of the closet on being pro-Religious??? That's a joke, they are just trying to call out the arrogant MSM.

LOL I'm glad I'm a wishy washy Agnostic! No strong feelings either way except when someone's being bullied or horribly discriminated over their Religion or lack of.

And a little subtle profiling when called for ain't discrimination IMO.

 

[freestoneangler]

She scares me... in a good way.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

It looks like I am a prophet of sorts. Maybe I should be a tax free church. If anyone cares to read the comments on the NRA's YouTube page and website you will see the massive backlash has already started. Heck, my own video I made on the subject is getting about an 85% agreement rate on a channel that skews heavily right wing.

 

[U8395279]

Good grief...has the NRA not alienated enough people with the political opinions so they now have to alienate even more by taking a stance on religion and attacking one side as being "godless?" That is the kind of claim groups like ISIS uses to demonize it's enemies. We are witnessing the end of the NRA.

My goodness gracious! Did you even bother to watch this video???? Where on earth in it does LaPierre make any reference at all to God? Please cite the time point in the video where the subject of God comes up. The only reference to "Godless" in the article was written by NewsMax reporter Sandy Fitzgerald, who has no affiliation at all with the NRA. LaPierre never brings up the subject.

This is the woman that you should be criticizing, not the NRA:




It is amazing at times PlayboyPenguin, to see just how hypersensitive you are on the subject of God.

Your statement here reminds me of your rant earlier this year about religion being brought up at the anti-gun control protests in Salem, saying that you refused to participate in them, because of that. Yet, at the very next protest, people who did actually attend said that there were never any prayers made, nor attempts made to being God into the discussion.

You seem to be looking for God under every rock.

.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

My goodness gracious! Did you even bother to watch this video???? Where on earth in it does LaPierre make any reference at all to God?

You might want to actually watch the video and read the comments before you speak any further.

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Still like it!

Now they should do a " I am the Godless Right and I'm the NRA too!" vid.

Show a hot atheist chick in front of a Church. I guess she'd be wearing a T-shirt with a fish symbol with Darwin written in it to ID her as Atheist.

She can talk about her values being close with the Religious Right except for belief in God.

"What luck", she'd say. "Our Founding Father's had a faith that heavily influenced the making of this Great Country".

"Why is the Godless left so intent on erasing that fact?" "Are they so unhappy with the Constitution because of how faith influenced it's creation or because of the freedoms it guarantees?"

"God given Rights?" "That just means to an independent thinking Atheist that no Man gives you basic Rights." "Like the right to defend yourself."


I'm sure there's plenty of Godless Left that support the NRA and promote the 2ndA but face it, they do tend to vote in the Politicians that want to take away gun rights.

I for one thank "Goodness" for what's left of the Religious Right that helps protects the 2nd A at voting time.

 

[U8395279]

You might want to actually watch the video and read the comments before you speak any further.

I did watch the video and heard no reference about God.

Did something slip by me? What is the timepoint in the video where he talks about God?? I watched the video and could not find anything.

And that still does not explain your utter intolerance for people of faith.

.

 

[U8395279]

Ah, I see the source of my confusion now. Somehow when I clicked on the link to the Newsmax story that was in the first post in this thread, I navigated from there to a video of Wayne LaPierre speaking. And he made no references at all to God in his video. I did not click on this link that goes directly to this video of this young woman speaking.

Don't know how I managed to end up on the wrong video, but I did. And that is why I could not understand why you became so upset.

Although I still do not understand your hostility towards religion.

 

[U8395279]

Now that I was able to view the correct video, I can properly comment about this subject.

This is all a tempest in a teapot, in my opinion. The woman speaking in the video is a blogger and columnist. While she contributes to NRA News, she is not an NRA employee, nor a spokesperson either. She does not speak for the organization. She is just an independent commentator. This video is party of the Commentary section of the website.

Newspapers of all kinds feature independent columnists as part of their news. Just because they publish them, does not necessarily mean that they agree with them, or support their positions. I've read many columnist articles in the Register Guard newspaper that I know for a fact go directly against positions that the Editors of the newspaper hold. But that is one of the reasons for news organizations to invite independent commentators to their publication: to give more diverse viewpoints.

To claim that her commentary here is somehow any official statement by the NRA, or that they even necessarily agree with her viewpoints, is thus ludicrous in my opinion.

And if no one else noticed, at the beginning of every one of these commentaries on the NRA News website, this notice is displayed at the very beginning of the video:

"The opinions expressed in the following video do not necessarily reflect the views of other individuals or organizations."

As Shakespeare said, this is "Much Ado About Nothing".

 

[U8395279]

I am not getting a "hostility towards religion" so much as I am getting a "keep religion out of politics". I think it is BS. Just like I think this BS. Football Coach Who Was Suspended After Refusing to Stop Praying on the Field Is Fighting Back in a Big Way

Well, but there is also an amendment called the 1st Amendment. Are you saying that this columnist should be censored, and not allowed to be published anywhere on the web? Simply because she talks about religion?

How is that not singling out people of faith and discriminating against them?

This woman gave her own personal opinions, nothing more. I have no problem in letting her speak her mind.
.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Well, but there is also an amendment called the 1st Amendment. Are you saying that this columnist should be censored, and not allowed to be published anywhere on the web? Simply because she talks about religion?

How is that not singling out people of faith and discriminating against them?

This woman gave her own personal opinions, nothing more. I have no problem in letting her speak her mind.
.

The first amendment does not prevent your employer from telling you that you cannot do or say something. The 1st amendment protects you from the government stopping you from speaking.

 

[U8395279]

The first amendment does not prevent your employer from telling you that you cannot do or say something. The 1st amendment protects you from the government stopping you from speaking.

I was not referring to an individual's rights under the 1st Amendment. I was referring to the protection that the 1st Amendment gives to the Press.

NRA News is a news service. They should have the freedom to bring in columnists and let them speak their own mind. Every other newspaper in our country can do that. So why not NRA News?

 

[U8395279]

No, I am saying screwing with that coach is BS and I am saying the NRA shouldn't not be in the religion business it only serves to potentially alienate non-Christians and they can't afford to.

Well, but you are basing your argument on a false premise here. This woman is not an NRA employee. She is not a spokesperson. She was not speaking for the NRA. As I pointed out in my earlier post, there is even a disclaimer at the start of the video.

Any news publication should have the ability to bring in independent commentators.

Why should NRA News be treated differently than other news publications?

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

I was not referring to an individual's rights under the 1st Amendment. I was referring to the protection that the 1st Amendment gives to the Press.

NRA News is a news service. They should have the freedom to bring in columnists and let them speak their own mind. Every other newspaper in our country can do that. So why not NRA News?

She is a paid spokesman appearing in a video paid for, produced, and promoted by the NRA. Trying to pretend they did not approve of (and create) the message would be dishonest. They are NOT a news service. They are a political organization that takes money from paying members to represent them.

 

[Certaindeaf]

It looks like I am a prophet of sorts. Maybe I should be a tax free church. If anyone cares to read the comments on the NRA's YouTube page and website you will see the massive backlash has already started. Heck, my own video I made on the subject is getting about an 85% agreement rate on a channel that skews heavily right wing.

No thanks. We all know of the professional/paid left wing attackers whenever any love of country or liberty is involved. The NRA is the 800lb gorilla and if you don't like it, who cares.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Dana Loesch (the woman in the video) is a journalist and writer that started her career with the St Louis Post Dispatch and moved into talk radio sometime later.
She is the author of author of Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.
She's also worked for CNN, The Blaze, KFTK St. Louis, Breitbart.
Best of all, she's been denounced publicly by Piers Morgan on CNN.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if she voluntarily did that video for the NRA after what she's been through in her crusade on behalf of gun owners.

 

[U8395279]

She is a paid spokesman appearing in a video paid for, produced, and promoted by the NRA. Trying to pretend they did not approve of (and create) the message would be dishonest. They are NOT a news service. They are a political organization that takes money from paying members to represent them.

No PlayboyPenguin, just the OPPOSITE is true here. It is entirely dishonest and inappropriate to portray her as being an NRA spokesperson.

This was not posted on the NRA's main web site of NRA.COM. Nor was the video posted on the website of the NRA's political wing: The NRA's Institute of Legislative Action.

This was posted on NRANEWS.COM, which is indeed a news service. Did you even visit the NRANEWS.COM website and take a look at it? It is organized and operated just like any other news publication. There are official news stories on the website, and then there are also these commentaries, which all have disclaimers at the front of them explaining that the speaker is not representing the views of other individuals or organizations. Or did you just click on the link to the video and go directly to it? Did you not notice that the YouTube Channel it is on is also just for NRA News? It is not on the NRA's main YouTube channel.

As I said earlier, it is entirely standard practice for any news organization, no matter who they are owned by, to operate in this manner, and use independent commentators, who are allowed the freedom to speak their mind in their columns. This goes on every day across our country, in countless newspapers and online news services. Are you saying that NRANEWS cannot operate like other news organizations do? That would be most absurd, and most definitely discriminatory on your part.

And have you taken a close look at the NRA news channel on YouTube? They use dozens of different people in their videos. The woman in this video, Dana Loesch, has only done two of these 3 minute videos for them. And you claim that she speaks for the NRA? As I said before, she is not an employee. She is just an independent blogger and commentator. She is not speaking from any sort of NRA prepared script.

Tell us, if the NRA hired you to do a NRA news video commentary for them, and you said something in your video that infuriated and upset people, should people then go around condemning the NRA for what you yourself said?? Especially when there is a clear disclaimer at the beginning of the video, saying that your views don't represent any other individuals or organizations??

This is part of America's tradition of freedom of the press. To allow diverse opinions to be heard. Do you think that newspapers across our country censor the commentators that they hire? No, of course not. Doing that would then destroy all credibility that the person is speaking with an independent voice that is not controlled by the publication. Just because you don't like what this woman said, what gives you the right to say that she should be censured, and not allowed the normal freedoms that we give to commentators in our press?

Now if something like this had been said by an actual NRA spokesperson on their main website, then yes, you would then have a legitimate complaint. But it wasn't, and you thus don't have one.

You have indeed made a mountain out of a mole hill here PlayboyPenguin. Having a free press here in the United States is one of our country's most sacred traditions of freedom. And just because the NRA happens to be the owner of this news website, doesn't make any difference at all.

 

[U8395279]

Dana Loesch (the woman in the video) is a journalist and writer that started her career with the St Louis Post Dispatch and moved into talk radio sometime later.
She is the author of author of Hands Off My Gun: Defeating the Plot to Disarm America.
She's also worked for CNN, The Blaze, KFTK St. Louis, Breitbart.
Best of all, she's been denounced publicly by Piers Morgan on CNN.

It wouldn't surprise me one bit if she voluntarily did that video for the NRA after what she's been through in her crusade on behalf of gun owners.

That is my exact point Jamie. This woman is an entirely INDEPENDENT writer who is speaking her own personal viewpoints. She is no paid stooge of the NRA, or speaking on their behalf. Heck, she has only done two of these 3 minute videos for NRA News. Even if she was paid, she has hardly received any significant amount of money from them for doing just 6 minutes of talking.

And as I have noted, there is a disclaimer at the very beginning of all of these commentaries on the NRA News website. If she was supposed to representing the opinion of the NRA and speaking for them, there would be no such disclaimer at that start.