Hey

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/guns-lies-fear/
Guns, Lies, and Fear
Exposing the NRA’s Messaging Playbook
The National Rifle Association uses messaging strategies employed by
dictators and demagogues to advance its gun rights narrative within the
United States.
AUTHORS
• Rukmani Bhatia
Gun Violence, Gun Violence Prevention
•
•
•
•
•
MEDIA CONTACT
Tricia Woodcome
Senior Media Manager
[email protected]
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Peter Gordon
Director, Federal Affairs
[email protected]
Jerry Parshall
Senior Director, Safety and Justice Campaign
[email protected]
DOWNLOAD
• Report PDF (697 KB)
IN THIS ARTICLE
• Introduction and summary
• How the NRA mutated from supporting gun safety to advocating gun
rights
• Leveraging the demagogue’s playbook
• The NRA’s core messaging pillars
• How the NRA spreads and engrains its message
• How the NRA quashes opposition
• Consequences and implications of the NRA’s illiberal messaging
• Conclusion
• About the author
• Acknowledgments
An attendee walks by photographs of National Rifle Association executive
vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre (R), NRA chief lobbyist Chris Cox,
and NRATV commentator Dana Loesch outside the NRA Annual Meeting &
Exhibits at the Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center on May 5, 2018, in
Dallas. (Getty/Justin Sullivan)
Introduction and summary
“Our Second Amendment is freedom’s most valuable, most cherished, most
irreplaceable idea. History proves it. When you ignore the right of good
people to own firearms to protect their freedom, you become the enablers of
future tyrants whose regimes will destroy millions and millions of defenseless
lives.”1
– Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO, National Rifle
Association
The National Rifle Association (NRA), an organization originally established
in 1871 to train hunters and marksmen on gun use and safety, has
transformed into one of the most effective political lobbies in modern
American history. The group advocates for gun rights, resisting any
encroachment on what it deems to be an inalienable right to unhindered,
unregulated gun ownership. To advance its mission, the NRA deploys a
disinformation campaign reliant on fearmongering and the systematic
discreditation of opposition voices in order to secure its position as a
powerful lobbyist for the gun industry. The NRA has masterfully constructed
a narrative based on gun rights propaganda, evoking images of a society
devoid of rule of law and under constant threat of attack from an
unidentified but ever-present enemy.
Due to the insidious nature of this messaging approach, the NRA has
successfully embedded its false narrative throughout much of the country.
By deploying a carefully crafted campaign of misinformation, deception, and
confusion, the NRA has both undermined legitimate arguments for
common-sense gun law reform and made it substantially more difficult for
its emotive, provocative propaganda to be countered with fact and reason.
In this way, the NRA’s tactics are deceitful not only because they falsely
allege to protect American freedoms but also because they mirror
fundamentally un-American sources. The propaganda machine of the NRA is
similar to that of authoritarian and undemocratic political regimes around
the world that deploy disinformation campaigns to secure control over
public discourse in their nations, enabling autocrats to maintain a vice grip
over information and ensure their power is unchecked and unquestioned.
InProgress
Stay updated on our work on the most pressing issues of our time
SIGN UP
The efficacy of the NRA’s deceitful tactics has been destructive. Gun
violence shatters communities across the United States—particularly
communities of color—and ravages the nation’s youth.2
Each day, more
than 95 people die from gun violence.3
This epidemic is a uniquely American
experience, with the United States standing out as an outlier among its
peers with both a disproportionately high percentage of the world’s armed
civilians and a disproportionately high rate of gun-related fatalities.4
Yet
despite the harsh realities of gun violence, as well as a plethora of attempts
to pass legislative solutions to address the issue over several decades, the
NRA has skillfully used its control over the narrative around guns to
influence lawmakers, repeatedly blocking common-sense legislation on
local, state, and federal levels. At the same time, the NRA has churned out a
steady stream of messaging and marketing designed to increase American
ownership of firearms and sell more guns.
This report examines how the NRA successfully both created the identity of
the American law-abiding gun owner and vilified those in government, civil
society, and academia working to reform gun laws to reduce firearm-related
tragedies. It then illustrates the ways in which nondemocratic leaders
construct narratives to secure political power, and how these tactics
compare to the messaging strategy deployed by the NRA. By analyzing the
messaging tactics used by NRA leadership and paid NRATV hosts, this report
shows how the NRA has a specific strategy designed both to control the
debate around guns and to influence legislators and policymakers to prevent
the implementation of common-sense legislation focused on public safety.
This report dissects the NRA’s messaging approach and provides examples
of the group’s rhetoric in order to depict how the organization is mimicking
the tactics of autocrats and demagogues.
As gun violence prevention advocates around the country seek to build on
the recent public momentum demanding stronger gun laws at the state and
federal levels, it is crucial to understand the underpinnings of the NRA’s
messaging strategy in order to develop a compelling counternarrative
capable of challenging the NRA’s messaging campaigns.
Glossary of key terms
Illiberal nation or regime: A nation or regime whose leaders are
democratically elected but who then implement policies that repress the
political rights and civil liberties of their nation, standing in opposition to
liberal democratic principles.5
Authoritarian nation or regime: A nation or regime where power is
concentrated among the leadership.6
Populist leader: A politician who creates two groups within society: an
established, corrupt political elite and a marginalized “common people”
whom the leader seeks to uplift in social standing.7
How the NRA mutated from supporting gun safety to advocating gun rights
The National Rifle Association has existed for almost 150 years. Today, it is
one of the most powerful gun lobbies in the country. However, this modern
manifestation would be unrecognizable to its founders. For the
organization’s first 106 years, its mission was to educate gun owners about
guns, with no reference to the Second Amendment.8
On November 17, 1871, a group of Union army veterans founded the NRA to
train men to be better marksmen. For decades, the group focused on
training gun owners to be better hunters, teaching Boy Scouts how to shoot,
and discussing hunting and conservation efforts.9
The organization’s transformation began in the 1960s following a wave of
gun control laws; for example, the passage of the Gun Control Act in 1968
created a category of people prohibited from legal gun ownership, including
those convicted of violent felonies and domestic abuse.10 With federal laws
beginning to regulate gun ownership, factions within the NRA’s membership
base felt threatened. This perception resulted in an eventual leadership
coup at the 1977 NRA Annual Meeting—often referenced as the “Cincinnati
Revolt”—where a large contingent of gun rights radicals ousted the
leadership, replacing them with individuals keen to advance an agenda that
protected gun ownership rights.11 The change in leadership also marked a
pivotal moment for the organization’s mission, with the group shifting
starkly away from focusing on hunting and gun safety and instead engaging
directly in the political debate around guns.
Following that meeting, the NRA became an organization focused almost
exclusively on political issues related to gun rights. Under the guise of
protecting civil liberties, the group cultivated a political reputation
advocating for the protection of gun rights across federal, state, and local
laws.
As the organization was establishing itself as a lobbying operation, it began
to develop a stronger connection with the multibillion-dollar gun industry.
According to analysis conducted by the Violence Policy Center, the NRA
enjoys strong financial ties with the firearms industry, receiving millions of
dollars in contributions from industry conglomerates such as the Freedom
Group, Bushmaster, and Smith & Wesson.12 Furthermore, as revealed by
Mother Jones’ investigative reporting, the NRA’s “Golden Ring of Freedom”
membership status, marking donors who contribute at least $1 million to
the group, has numerous executives from firearms manufacturers.13 The
NRA also creates programming and messaging that is sponsored by specific
firearms manufacturers.
For example, the NRA developed specific programs sponsored by different
gun industry entities, including the creation in 2012 of the Smith & Wesson-
sponsored NRA Women’s Network,14 which purportedly provides women
gun owners a resource on gun use.15 The linkages between the gun industry
and the NRA’s messaging are particularly visible when it comes to semiautomatic assault weapons.16 The NRA staunchly advocates that these
weapons of war continue to be unregulated and readily available on the
civilian market, despite evidence that assault weapons increase the lethality
of public mass shootings.17
In order to advance a political agenda and establish itself within the debate
around gun rights, the NRA deploys an aggressive messaging strategy similar
to the approaches dictators use to consolidate and secure power. At its
core, the messaging strategy of the newly politicized NRA embeds the idea
that the Second Amendment is the lynchpin for all other freedoms; the
NRA’s messaging bedrock rests on the claim that the right to own a firearm
is the freedom that protects all other freedoms.18 This basic concept has
become the gun rights organization’s rallying cry; stripped of all nuance, the
anchor of the NRA’s narrative is the idea that the group represents
“freedom,” making any opposition easily labeled as “anti-freedom.”
NRA surrogate and actor Charlton Heston often used his prominent platform
to echo this message. In 1997, after being selected to serve as the NRA’s
First Vice President,19 the longtime gun rights supporter delivered a speech
at the National Press Club, stating:
I simply cannot stand by and watch a right guaranteed by the Constitution of
the United States come apart under attack from those who either can’t
understand it, don’t like the sound of it, or find themselves too
philosophically squeamish to see why it remains the first among equals:
Because it is the right we turn to when all else fails. That’s why the Second
Amendment is America’s first freedom.20
Heston’s words have become one of the NRA’s most prolific slogans to
ground its lobbying efforts in protecting American freedoms, and the
sentiment of his remarks is routinely parroted by NRA leadership. Chris Cox,
chief lobbyist for the organization, stated at the 2018 NRA annual
convention, “Together, we’re the most bare-knuckled defenders of
individual freedom in American history.”21 In an NRATV ad campaign, NRA
President Wayne LaPierre claimed, “The only truly free people who have
ever walked this earth have been armed people capable of defending
themselves and their families.”22 Meanwhile, the infamous sign-off line, “I’m
the National Rifle Association of America and I’m freedom’s safest place,” is
used by the group to end various testimonials and video advocacy
campaigns, insinuating that the group is fighting to protect fundamental
freedoms.23 This message is, of course, tainted by the fact that the gun
rights lobby’s mission runs counter to public safety and advocacy efforts
focused on reducing the high levels of gun violence that affect communities
across the nation on a daily basis.
Leveraging the demagogue’s playbook
“Every day of every year, innocent, good, defenseless people are beaten,
bloodied, robbed, raped, and murdered … When a criminal attacks,
politicians aren’t there to protect you. Their laws can’t protect you. And the
media’s lies can’t protect you, either. You’re on your own. But you know
what can protect you when no one else can, when no one else will? The
ironclad, absolute safeguard of the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms.”24
– Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO, National Rifle
Association
The manipulation of fear and identity politics to develop a convincing
narrative that can be shared widely across a population of people is not
unique to the NRA. Indeed, it is a core strategy used by autocrats and
aspiring dictators to secure power and influence. Demagogues consolidate
power by exploiting fear, a primal human instinct, rather than using facts or
logical arguments to secure their political standing.
Historically, the approach used by these strongmen includes a common set
of tactics:
• Construct a political identity that also serves as a demagogue’s target
audience
• Craft a political narrative illustrating the existential crises that threaten
the defined identity group
• Control the narrative, undermining critical media outlets
• Vilify, discredit, and malign any opposition voice
Construct a political identity
Establishing a target group within the nation is vital for a political narrative
to be constructed based on fear of impending doom. A specific group needs
to be manipulated into believing itself to be a marginalized population,
neglected by the existing power structures and facing demise or attack.
In recent years, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey has attempted to
build a new Turkish identity that brings together his conservative religious
base and the broader conservative nationalist constituency.25 By targeting
both these factions, Erdoğan seeks to create a more unified, dominant rightwing alliance on which he can rely to advance his political agenda and
overwhelm any opposition to his power.
Similarly, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has capitalized on the idea of a
“Hungarian citizen,” playing up fears about how the European Union and the
migrant crisis would affect Hungary. Orbán’s persistence in establishing a
threatened Hungarian identity is evident in his public speeches, including
one recently delivered in 2018 in which he declared, “We must state that we
do not want to be diverse and do not want to be mixed: we do not want our
own colour, traditions, and national culture to be mixed with those of
others.”26 Through this xenophobic rhetoric, a marginalized Hungarian
identity has emerged in a nation that is largely homogenous.27
Craft a political narrative of crisis
Once an identity group is created, the next piece of the puzzle is to make
that group fearful for its existence. By creating a narrative that outlines a
pending threat to the group, the illiberal leader is able to manipulate that
group and gain political power.
This approach was masterfully deployed by Orbán, who built a political
platform centered on the “Hungarian” identity to propel his populist rise to
power. He seized on moments of conflict and war in Hungarian history to
evoke sentiments of “the glorious Hungarian nation,” crystalizing the
identity of the Hungarian people and claiming that they are under direct
assault from both the large numbers of migrants seeking asylum from
conflicts in the Middle East and the European leaders in Brussels who would
allow Hungary to be overrun by migrants.28 In Orbán’s own words:
We shall not allow it [Brussels] to force upon us the bitter fruit of its
cosmopolitan immigration policy. We shall not import to Hungary crime,
terrorism, homophobia, and synagogue-burning anti-Semitism. There shall
be no urban districts beyond the reach of the law, there shall be no mass
disorder or immigrant riots here, and there shall be no gangs hunting down
our women and daughters.29
Control the narrative
To perpetuate the fears embedded in the narrative, leaders of the political
party—along with designated surrogates from different parts of society,
including civil society, media, and academia—are used to emphasize the
threats facing the chosen populace.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime has built effective and expansive
systems that enable the Kremlin to control and manipulate narratives
throughout the nation.30 Putin’s constructed paradigm claiming that the
survival of the Russian state is at odds with liberal democracy justifies his
vice grip over the media and information. Within the nation, there is limited
independent Russian reporting that is free from the influence of either
Kremlin officials or Russian oligarchs beholden to Putin’s regime.31
Moreover, academic research and teachings that deviate from Kremlinapproved narratives have come under bureaucratic attack. In 2018, for
example, the European University at St. Petersburg, a private liberal arts
college, had its teaching license revoked and was temporarily shuttered by
Putin under the guise of failing to meet bizarre bureaucratic requirements.32
In the Philippines, in an effort to control the narrative around his
controversial “war on drugs” and quash criticism of his regime, Rodrigo
Duterte attempts to control the narrative by undermining the media’s
legitimacy, referring to the press as liars, spies, and distrustful members of
society.33 His targeted attacks on press freedom are part of a strategy that
seeks to erode people’s confidence in the media’s reliability, resulting in
critical reporting being discredited or deemed unreliable. Recently, Duterte
has focused his efforts on silencing Maria Ressa, co-founder and CEO of
Rappler, a prominent news outlet that conducts thorough investigative
reporting that often criticizes Duterte’s administration.34 By transforming
the media into an unreliable source of information, Duterte seeks to
establish his rhetoric around the drug war as the only true narrative.
In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s regime engaged in suppressing press freedom by
either systematically shuttering independent news outlets or having Orbán’s
allies seize control of outlets via hostile takeovers—such as in the case of
Népszabadság, the nation’s largest independent daily news outlet.35
Népszabadság had a reputation for conducting quality investigative
reporting on scandals involving members of Fidesz, Orbán’s party, which
many thought to be the reason the outlet was abruptly suspended in 2016
before being sold to an Orbán ally.36 This crackdown on press freedom is a
necessary part of Orbán’s strategy to continue perpetuating the antiimmigrant, xenophobic political narrative that swung voters to support his
illiberal party.37
Vilify, discredit, and malign the opposition
Once the political narrative is clearly defined and an “us vs. them” dynamic
is established, it becomes easier to sideline, discredit, or malign critics of the
regime. Criticism is viewed as a form of treachery and a threat to the
survival of the core identity the leader is claiming to protect.
The situation in the Philippines again provides an example. Duterte’s
unending “war on drugs” has resulted in the extrajudicial murder of
thousands, with death estimates ranging from 12,000 to 20,000.38 His harsh
approach has been largely condemned by civil society and government
leaders around the world, including Philippine Senator Leila de Lima, who
often used her position in the Senate to voice opposition to Duterte.39 In
February 2017, Senator de Lima was arrested on charges of drug trafficking;
however, human rights organizations have denounced her arrest and
charges as transparent efforts by Duterte to use his political power to
silence a prominent voice of dissent.40
In Turkey, the attempted coup in 2016 provided Erdoğan with an
opportunity to intensify his crackdown on political and civil rights and cast
all opposition to his rule as a betrayal of the nation—as defined by his own
conception of Turkish identity.41 Erdoğan created a list of perpetrators and
co-conspirators that extended far beyond those involved in the putsch itself,
using the crisis to mark political enemies as traitors and enemies of the
state.42 By targeting critical members of the media, academics, and civil
society activists, as well as members of the military and government civil
service deemed to be disloyal to his regime, Erdoğan purged the state and
body politic of dissent.43 The state-sanctioned purges and widespread
arrests have left him with total control of state institutions and the media in
Turkey, virtually ending democratic politics in a nation once poised to join
the European Union.44
In Hungary, Orbán’s regime has challenged dissent or opposition to its
xenophobic, anti-immigrant rhetoric by vilifying George Soros,45
a
philanthropist and democracy advocate, claiming he is allied with European
bureaucrats who seek to require Hungary to accept migrants who will
destroy the country.46 The government even passed a law making it illegal to
assist documenting migrants in any way—a measure dubbed the “Stop
Soros” law.47 Orbán’s attacks seek to demonize Soros and undermine his
advocacy efforts while also systematically removing links that Soros, a
Hungarian American, has to the nation. Orbán’s regime has forced the
beleaguered Budapest office of the Open Society Foundations—which is
funded by Soros and focuses on human rights and democracy advocacy—to
relocate to Berlin due to the repressive environment in Hungary.48 Similarly,
the embattled Central European University, also funded by Soros, is
relocating to Vienna after Orbán’s relentless efforts to shutter the revered
academic institution.49 Orbán’s continued attacks on Soros allow the
populist leader to undermine a key opposition voice and continue to
perpetuate the fear-based narrative that enabled him to secure power in
the first place.
Consequences of the playbook
Collectively, these tactics are regularly implemented in illiberal nations
whose leadership is focused on stifling debate, with the extreme methods
resulting in crackdowns on political rights and civil liberties in order to
suppress a nation into submission. This technique of controlling information
around key policies has been successfully used by authoritarians and
populists throughout the world.
While the NRA is certainly not seeking complete control over a political
system, a comparison to the messaging tactics of autocrats is still instructive,
as the group is seeking to retain and maintain political power in order to
challenge a growing movement to strengthen gun laws. The NRA’s political
power rests on its ability to embed a narrative about gun ownership into the
American populace and key voting demographics. Therefore, the gun rights
organization has needed to build a narrative capable of countering the
realities of gun violence and the overwhelming evidence that weak gun laws
are causing a public health crisis in the United States. To do so, the NRA
chooses to draw from the demagogue’s playbook and deploy a campaign
based on fear and disinformation to retain power, regardless of the human
cost.
The NRA’s core messaging pillars
Just like a demagogue, the National Rifle Association chooses to direct its
messaging efforts toward one simple constructed identity: the “American
patriot,” a law-abiding citizen who loves the United States and the freedoms
enshrined in the U.S. Constitution—chief among them the right to bear
arms.50
In keeping with the demagogue’s playbook, the American patriot is
constantly threatened by two different but related enemies. One existential
crisis is represented by the security threats constantly facing the American
patriot. In the NRA’s crafted narrative, law-abiding citizens are preyed upon
by lawless criminals who seek to commit acts of violence; a subcategory of
lawless criminals are undocumented migrants or, to use the NRA’s label,
“illegal immigrants,” who are undermining the safety and security of
Americans throughout the nation.51 Following the NRA’s logic, the only way
law-abiding citizens can address these constant threats and keep themselves
and their families safe is by possessing a firearm—a right enshrined in the
Second Amendment. In the words of NRA President Oliver North, “The
Second Amendment is the purest metaphor for freedom because if you are
not free to defend yourself and your loved ones, then you are really not free
at all.”52
This ostensible need to possess a firearm for self-preservation is connected
to another existential crisis the NRA has constructed: The NRA has
consistently undercut advocates for gun violence prevention and commonsense legislation in order to maintain power over the narrative. To achieve
this goal, the NRA has turned its political opposition into an anti-American
enemy poised to seize guns and suppress freedoms through its anti-gun
agenda. Wayne LaPierre verbalized this message at the 2018 NRA annual
convention, stating, “The leadership of the National Democratic Party is the
most anti-Second Amendment bunch of socialists in United States’ history.
They’ll aim to seize your firearms, destroy your NRA, and entirely obliterate
our great Second Amendment.”53
By routinely associating gun violence prevention advocacy with
disarmament—even going so far as to label Democratic members of
Congress “disarmocrats”54 and the 2020 Democratic presidential primary the
“disarmament primary”55—the NRA has insidiously developed an “us vs.
them” dynamic, pitting the NRA’s constructed gun-owning American patriot
against those who want to pass common-sense reforms. The NRA depicts
the conflict of ideas as an existential battle between the two groups in an
NRA-constructed zero-sum game, in a manner similar to how Erdoğan
brands political opponents in Turkey as existential threats, routinely labeling
them as enemies and terrorists.56 At the 2019 Conservative Political Action
Conference (CPAC), Oliver North made clear this absolute fight for gun
ownership: “Our opponents call themselves gun control advocates. They are
not. They ought to call themselves what they really are: the vanguard of the
disarm America movement. … They want to disarm you. No 2nd
Amendment, no individual freedom, no civilian ownership of firearms
period.”57
The NRA generically vilifies people who represent and advocate for liberal
and progressive gun policies, labeling them the “violent Left.”58 It exploits
and expands the political divisions between the law-abiding gun owner and
the political left in an effort to discredit the work that is being done by gun
violence prevention advocates, similar to how Duterte attempted to
undermine Senator De Lima’s credibility—and, subsequently, her
investigation into his drug war—by making crass comments about her
personal life.59 NRATV program host Grant Stinchfield recently deployed this
divisive tactic by claiming that law-abiding citizens were essentially at war
with progressives, stating:
The threats from many on the Left are turning to violence and intimidation.
All of this tears at the heart of a nation because we aren’t just divided
anymore, we are in an all-out fight, a brawl. While we try to fight fair with
truth on our side, the Left uses a win-at-all-costs mentality. It means they no
longer play fair. That is the greatest threat to our nation.60
The demonization of “the Left” in this manner tarnishes the work of
members of Congress, civil society advocates, members of the traditional
media, and academics who seek to advance common-sense gun legislation.
Moreover, it likens these individuals to other perceived dangers facing the
American patriot, such as “criminals” and “illegal immigrants.”61 As a result,
the NRA never has to engage in the actual debate over policy around gun
violence prevention, nor does it have to provide evidence and facts to
support its opposition. Instead, the gun rights group can claim that freedom
and fundamental American rights are again under attack from an antiAmerican faction of the “violent Left,” thereby deflecting from real policy
debate and shifting the focus to a narrative it has skillfully constructed.
How the NRA spreads and engrains its message
Implementing this messaging strategy is effective both for political leaders
seeking to retain power—such as Putin, who has held control over Russia’s
political system for two decades—and for the National Rifle Association,
which seeks to hold political clout over lawmakers in the United States. The
group uses both the Second Amendment and the constitutional right to bear
arms as justifications for its lobbying and advocacy efforts around gun
legislation.62 It has infiltrated legislatures and offices in Congress with
substantial effect. The NRA has had astounding success at using its
messaging to support advocacy for legislation that expands gun rights while
endangering public safety. For example, NRA board member and lobbyist
Marion Hammer wields substantial influence within Florida and is known to
have authored the state’s “stand your ground” law.63 And within Congress,
the NRA’s influence is pronounced, with some members parroting NRA
talking points in hearings about gun violence.64
The NRA’s narrative is accessible through its various media outlets, including
Twitter, Facebook, and its own media channel. The gun rights group
launched NRA News in 2004; the main programming was “Cam & Co,” a TV
show hosted by Cam Edwards that discussed gun-related news throughout
the United States.65 In 2016, NRA News transformed into NRATV, a 24-hour
network with programming on gun rights as well as greater discussions of
state and national politics in the United States.66
NRATV perpetuates the myths about gun legislation that sit at the core of
the NRA’s messaging. By using hyperbolic language and extreme examples
that are often disconnected from the realities of gun violence, it maintains
that guns are needed for self-defense and that legislation only burdens lawabiding citizens. Prominent NRATV host Grant Stinchfield has linked gun
violence prevention advocacy to the Islamic State and the Iranian regime,
stating: “You got ISIS wanting us disarmed, you got the ayatollah of Iran
wanting us disarmed. Last time I checked, both are enemies of the U.S. that
do not want us with an ability to fight back. And the Liberals think that’s a
good idea.”67 Stinchfield is likening those who seek common-sense gun
legislation to violent actors who have publicly stated they seek to attack the
United States. This not only serves to “other” those working on commonsense gun legislation but also underscores the NRA’s crafted narrative that
anyone who opposes its gun rights agenda stands in opposition to the
freedoms granted to those living in the United States.
In addition to discussing the perceived challenges facing gun owners,
NRATV’s coverage has expanded beyond just discussing gun rights. In 2017,
Wayne LaPierre’s speech at CPAC focused more on the need to support
newly elected President Donald Trump than protecting gun rights, matching
the programming’s expanding focus on other policy debates within the
United States—such as immigration and women’s rights.68 For example,
commentator Dana Loesch recently used her platform as the host of
“Relentless” to criticize efforts to increase gender and racial diversity on
children’s TV program “Thomas the Tank Engine,” depicting the animated
characters in Ku Klux Klan hoods.69 The NRA’s expansion into policy
discussions outside its traditional bailiwick aligns with the populist
tendencies of the current executive branch leadership under President
Trump, thus attempting to further the political division between law-abiding
gun owners and anyone aligned with the liberal or progressive political
spectrum.70 By expanding its coverage to include partisan issues such as
immigration policy, access to health care, and free speech, the NRA is
widening the political chasm between law-abiding gun owners and their
supposed progressive enemies, creating fewer policy issues upon which the
two constructed identities can agree, deepening the “us vs. them” dynamic.
Yet even with these tangents into other polarizing political issues, the core
message of the NRA continues to be about protecting the freedoms and
rights of the law-abiding American—a message that makes it easy for
discussions to be spun back into the gun rights debate.
Exploiting xenophobia on issues of border security
The issue of security along the U.S.-Mexico border is a prime example of the
NRA’s messaging tactics. President Trump campaigned on the proposal of
installing a wall along the U.S. southern border to ebb the tide of people
seeking asylum in the United States. The discussion surrounding this issue is
not directly linked to firearms or the gun lobby, yet it has still dominated
NRATV programming since President Trump’s election.71 Considering the
demagogic approach the NRA uses to craft its narrative, the incorporation of
immigration policy in its messaging makes sense.
The issue of immigration at the border presents an existential crisis for the
so-called American patriot—a crisis narrative that is perpetuated by the
president and his own staff, who have spread blatant falsehoods about the
border and the scale of the problem of migrants seeking asylum in the
United States.72 NRATV pundits seized on this political debate, reporting on
the alleged border crisis as if it were a threat to all Americans.73 For
example, in March 2019, Grant Stinchfield hosted Maria Espinoza, director
of The Remembrance Project, to discuss migration at the border. Espinoza
delivered a condemnation of undocumented immigrants that evoked the
NRA’s rhetoric around immigration that questions the character of
undocumented immigrants, equating them with criminals.74
NRATV programming also often hosts so-called angel families, whose loved
ones were killed by undocumented immigrants, to link the threat presented
by the NRA to law-abiding American patriots.75 Mary Mendoza, whose son
was killed in a 2014 car crash with an undocumented immigrant driver, was
interviewed by Stinchfield to share her story and thoughts on the
congressional debate around border wall funding. Mendoza criticized
politicians for ignoring the perceived violence associated with increased
numbers of migrants entering the United States, at one point claiming,
“We’re set to see over a million people come over our border this year. This
is an invasion. This is a national emergency.”76 Stinchfield did not fact-check
her statements, nor did he counter with the overwhelming evidence
showing that migration across the southern border does not increase crime
in the United States.
The goal of this interview was not to describe the actual problem but rather
to depict an imminent threat to the American people. This tactic continues
to perpetuate a sense of insecurity that aligns with the NRA’s core message
that people need guns to protect themselves.77 For example, after University
of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts was tragically murdered by an
undocumented immigrant in summer 2018, her death became an NRA
rallying cry not just for Trump’s border security policies but also for more
people to be armed. Yet these efforts neglected the fact that this incident
was a tragic outlier and that cities with increased migrant populations do
not see changes in crime rates.78 Just like autocrats stir up fears among the
populace and present themselves as the only political voice focused on
protecting from that threat—something Orbán has done successfully for
years in Hungary79—the NRA is fomenting fear of violent immigrants to
advance its political agenda: ensuring that people feel the need to buy
firearms for their self-preservation.
The narrative spun by NRATV is devoid of facts, focusing instead on
sustaining the myth of gun ownership being necessary for self-defense in an
increasingly dangerous United States. In this way, the NRA’s disinformation
campaign mimics the rhetoric and approach of populist Hungary, as Orbán,
too, often claims that accepting migrants would result in heightened levels
of violence and crime.80 Perhaps most disturbingly, the NRA seems aware of
these similarities, as multiple reports on NRATV have equated the U.S.
situation with Hungary.81 Chuck Holton, a prominent correspondent for
NRATV, will often discuss the issue of migration within the United States and
compare it to the rise of people fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe.
Holton has claimed previously that the asylum seekers’ arrival in Europe
resulted in increased levels of crime and that the asylum seekers took “great
advantage of the generous welfare policies and the more liberal social
mores in countries like Germany, France, and the U.K.”82 The goal of these
comparisons is to make people in the United States fearful of migrants
crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, but it deliberately ignores the distinctions
between the two cases. Unlike the demographics of asylum seekers entering
Europe, the majority of migrants seeking asylum in the United States are
women and children fleeing violence.83 Moreover, evidence shows that U.S.
communities with immigrants do not see increases in crime.84
Manipulating gender stereotypes
The NRA also projects images of vulnerable women and children under
attack in order to propel its message of fear to the American populace. The
gendered nature of the NRA’s approach manifests in two main ways:
hypermasculinity and women’s vulnerability.
The image of the American patriot is largely linked to the concept of
hypermasculinity. In the NRA’s narrative, firearms represent the only tools
that will protect a person and their family from harm. The subtext of this
narrative is related to imbalanced gender dynamics that frame men as
protectors of their vulnerable families, thereby implying that to be a
masculine man, one must also be a gun owner; otherwise, one is forsaking
his duty as a man to his family.85 It is worth noting, however, that the NRA’s
narrative about the “good guy with a gun” stopping “the bad guy with a
gun” is patently false.86 Armed civilians have rarely been successful in
engaging with and stopping an active shooter. The FBI reviewed 250 active
shooting incidents in the United States from 2000 through 2017.87 In only
seven cases was the shooter stopped by a civilian with a valid firearms
permit; unarmed bystanders were more effective at intervening and
stopping active shootings. Regardless of the evidence, the NRA continues to
peddle this flawed rhetoric because it feeds into the fear-based narrative
central to the NRA’s message. It implies that the world is full of bad people
and the only way to defend yourself is through owning a firearm.
Through its narrative, the NRA will also target women in an effort to
encourage them to purchase firearms. The gun rights group uses the image
of women in two intertwined, problematic ways. First, the NRA portrays
women as vulnerable and susceptible to violence, again building on the
fearmongering trope that is central to its messaging.88 The gun rights group
will also claim that gun ownership is a means of empowerment for women,
giving them agency over their life and body.
In order to push the specific message that women are uniquely vulnerable,
the NRA imagines a world in which women face constant attacks and threats
from unknown entities that can only be addressed through gun ownership.89
The organization will often highlight the experiences of individual women
who are survivors of violence or harassment, using their stories as proof that
all women need to be armed to defend against violent offenders.90
To advance the idea that guns are a means for women to feel empowered,
the NRA has created programs for women gun owners. For example,
“Armed & Fabulous” focuses on glorifying women and guns, linking the
featured women to a female iteration of the law-abiding patriot—a women
who is self-reliant and able to defend herself and her family because she
carries guns.91 The NRA also runs a women’s leadership forum to cultivate
young women aspiring to become Second Amendment activists.92
Dana Loesch, perhaps the most vocal NRA personality on this subject, has
repeatedly pushed the idea of women needing firearms for self-defense and
autonomy.93 In an NRA campaign ad, Loesch delivered the following
problematic statement:
Here’s a message to every rapist, domestic abuser, violent criminal thug,
and every other monster who preys upon women. Maybe you’ve heard the
stories about millions of us flocking to gun stores and gun ranges for the first
time, the second time, and the 100th time. Here’s what that means for
despicable cowards like you: Your life expectancy just got shorter because
there’s a very good chance your next target will be armed, trained, and
ready to exercise her right to choose her life over yours. This is what real
empowerment looks like.94
This rhetoric—along with the rest of the NRA’s messaging around women
and guns—is merely designed to stir up emotions and fear rather than
address the problem of violence against women within the United States.
The realities of women and violence are much more nuanced than the NRA’s
crafted message. While there is some anecdotal evidence of successful cases
of women using guns in self-defense, academic research finds that defensive
gun use is relatively rare. Prolific gun ownership is, however, associated with
increased harm to women.95 Analysis of National Crime Victimization
surveys from 2007 through 2011 conducted by David Hemenway and Sara
Solnick not only found that a firearm is rarely used in self-defense but also
found that during the years reviewed, there were no reports of guns being
used in self-defense in incidents of sexual assault.96 Furthermore, research
shows that firearms are used to intimidate and victimize intimate partners
rather than defend against violent attacks.97 In the United States, 4.5 million
women have been threatened by an intimate partner with a firearm.98
Moreover, evidence shows that in cases of domestic violence, a firearm’s
presence increases the risk that the woman will die by 500 percent.99 In light
of this evidence, the goal of the NRA’s messaging becomes clear: It is only
focused on advancing the idea of fear, vulnerability, and the need to buy a
gun to feel safe.
How the NRA quashes opposition
A critical part of maintaining a narrative based on misinformation is
undermining critics who challenge the lies upon which the messaging is
based. Typically, this effort requires either undermining the facts used by
opponents, redirecting the debate through “whataboutism,” or vilifying the
opponents, making their opinions invalid since they seek to betray the lawabiding gun owner. For example, illiberal leaders, such as Duterte in the
Philippines, will often openly mock their opposition,100 while more
established authoritarians such as Putin will silence critical voices through
threats of violence and assassinations.101 Similarly, the National Rifle
Association deploys a multifaceted strategy to undercut criticism and gun
violence prevention advocacy.
Perpetuating myths and undermining facts
The NRA has a select set of allied researchers who produce academic articles
purporting to provide evidence that supports the organization’s extremely
lax approach to gun policy. One of the most prominent researchers often
interviewed by NRATV is John Lott Jr.102 Gun enthusiasts often tout his 1998
book More Guns, Less Crime, which argues that states that passed concealed
carry laws saw decreases in crime rates—an argument that fits neatly within
the NRA’s narrative that more guns result in less crime.103 However, Lott’s
flagship publication has been widely debunked: In 2002, Ian Ayres of Yale
Law School and John Donohue of Stanford Law School published a report
discrediting Lott’s work. They found that, since 1997, in 14 jurisdictions that
passed concealed carry laws, there was an increase in every category of
crime studied by Lott, thereby undermining the core of Lott’s argument.104
David Hemenway at Harvard University went further than Ayres and
Donohue, finding that the model used by Lott was academically unsound
and deeply flawed, as miniscule changes to the inputs dramatically changed
the results.105 In response to growing academic criticism, Lott chose to
create a fake persona to defend his research, rather than produce credible
studies.106 Further degrading his reputation as a reliable and ethical
academic, Lott lied about producing a peer-reviewed article and has
continued to manufacture or manipulate statistics to fit his—and the gun
industry’s—desired narrative around guns.107
Despite Lott’s poor reputation, the NRA continues to provide him a platform
to share his faulty research and malign the work of reliable academics
whose findings deviate from the NRA’s message.108 For example, Dana
Loesch hosted Lott, who she claimed “is never wrong,”109 to challenge a
Boston University School of Public Health study that linked presence of a
gun in the home to youth suicide. Lott attempted to undercut the study by
stating, “I don’t take the study seriously. I think what’s going on here is they
have poorly done studies and if they keep putting them out again and again
… they’ll just convince people over time that they’ll be afraid to have guns in
the home.”110 The irony of Lott’s criticism is that he employs the very
approach he is attacking—but in Lott’s case, his work is routinely found to
be flawed by credible academics. On Loesch’s program, Lott has also
challenged studies that Loesch deems to be “anti-gun”; he claims they are
“misleading and biased.”111 The NRA and its supporters frequently employ
this technique: lambast academic studies for being part of the “Left’s antigun agenda”112 in an attempt to negate evidence that indicates that more
guns make communities less safe.
Further compounding the challenges around academic research on gun
violence legislation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is
unable to conduct any independent, nonpartisan research on the subject.
The NRA strongly supported the passage of the Dickey Amendment, which
restricted the CDC from using any funding “to advocate or promote gun
control.”113 The amendment effectively chilled gun violence research,
creating a vacuum. As a result, of the top 30 causes of death in the United
States, gun violence is the least researched and second least funded, with
many critical research questions left unanswered.114
Whataboutism
Another tactic masterfully used by the NRA to avoid acknowledging clear
contradictions within its rhetoric is the practice of “whataboutism,” by
which it will raise tangential facts or issues to direct the discussion away
from the issue at hand. The approach—a favorite tactic of Putin’s
regime115—is often used by the NRA and its surrogates when covering issues
of gun violence prevention in order to misdirect the debate, essentially
requiring people to engage in different topics than the core issue at hand.
Recently, NRATV personalities have deployed this technique to argue
against common-sense legislation introduced in the 116th Congress to
implement a universal background check system for firearm sales. The bill
would close existing loopholes in the background check process, which
currently only requires licensed gun dealers to run a background check on
buyers before selling them a firearm. By requiring private sales of firearms—
including online sales and sales made at gun shows—to require a
background check on all buyers to ensure that they are legally allowed to
obtain a firearm before completing the sale, the legislation would prevent
prohibited people from exploiting gaps in the existing system to obtain a
firearm.116
However, instead of engaging in policy discussion, the NRA chose to pivot
the debate using lies and tangents. On his show, NRATV host Grant
Stinchfield stated that this bill would make it harder for people to get
firearms, arguing that it would “put law-abiding citizens in prison” and that
“even though federal gun registries are illegal, this bill is the first step in
creating one.”117 Stinchfield also made the following misleading statement
to divert the debate around universal background checks:
This background check bill is a vendetta against gun owners and Trump
supporters, turning patriots into criminals, stripping us of the right to
transfer our gun, possibly holding that gun hostage at a gun store if that gun
isn’t registered for who knows how long. That government overreach to
block us from exercising our constitutional right is a clear and present
danger. It is a threat to our republic disguised as gun safety, two words
which are a tip off to mean unconstitutional.118
Stinchfield’s claims are false. Nothing in the bill would criminalize lawabiding citizens, and the bill contains explicit language barring the creation
of a gun registry.119 Moreover, the expansion of background checks does not
limit one’s ability to legally possess a firearm or to purchase a firearm; the
bill only ensures that all people purchasing a firearm are first determined to
be legally able to own a lethal weapon. Stinchfield further muddied the
debate by claiming that “the criminals, we know for a fact, will never abide
to these background checks,” effectively suggesting that gun laws do not
work because criminals, by nature, do not obey laws.120 This rhetoric has
been repeated by NRATV pundits, who claim that criminals will not submit
to background checks and, therefore, the bill would only punish law-abiding
citizens.121 This misdirection in conversation is deeply problematic, as it
ignores the reality that this law would greatly limit the ability of prohibited
individuals to easily obtain firearms to commit crimes.122 Laws exist to set
standards and norms within a civilized society with good governance
practices; the argument that people break laws is not a reason to reduce
legislation. Yet this is one of the NRA’s primary arguments against gun
legislation.
Stinchfield’s and others’ vocal opposition does not present a
counterargument to universal background checks. It is simply a distraction
from the policy debate intended to stoke the fear of losing guns and
freedom upon which the NRA’s narrative is based.
Vilification of opposition
Much like demagogues and autocrats demonize their opposition, the NRA
attacks advocates of gun violence prevention in order to justify its political
agenda. In this vein, the group and its surrogates have repeatedly painted
the opposition as traitors who seek to strip the law-abiding gun owner and
American patriot of their fundamental freedoms. This tactic serves as an
umbrella to vilify the media, government officials, and civil society members
who advocate for legislation that would reduce gun violence.
NRA pundits often criticize the media—which they refer to as the “legacy
liberal media”—for perpetuating what they deem a “gun-grabbing”
narrative. The focus on painting traditional media as a self-aggrandizing
disinformation machine is a common theme across NRA media platforms.123
Dana Loesch accused the media of enjoying gun violence tragedies as a
means to increase ratings, claiming that “many in legacy media love mass
shootings. You guys love it. I’m not saying you love the tragedy but I’m
saying you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to many in
the legacy media.”124 The NRA has repeatedly stated that the media
increases panic and misinformation around shootings, arguing that the press
coverage makes gun violence appear more prominent than it is.125
Furthermore, NRA surrogates often imply that the media is deliberately
withholding information from the public about gun violence.126 Much like
Putin’s and Duterte’s attempts to erode public trust in the media, the
ultimate goal of the NRA and its surrogates’ efforts is to make media
sanctioned by themselves appear to be the only reliable source of
information.
Members of Congress advancing gun violence prevention legislation face
regular attacks from the NRA.127 The NRA portrays these officials as gungrabbing traitors who seek to make Americans more vulnerable to attack.
For example, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. Dianne Feinstein (DCA), and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) are constantly attacked by NRATV
personalities. The strikes against these elected officials are not based in
policy or fact; instead, the NRA’s rhetoric is apocalyptic, using its public
platforms to portray those who oppose the group’s political agenda as
enemies of the American people. This tactic bears strong resemblance to
those used by Turkish President Erdoğan, who uses his office and control
over the state broadcaster to paint anyone who disagrees with Turkey’s
official narrative as a traitor seeking to undermine the state.
Speaker Pelosi’s leadership has been targeted repeatedly, particularly given
her strong stance on not funding a border wall. The NRA attempts to vilify
the speaker by making her appear elitist and out of touch with the struggles
of average Americans—willing to abuse her power in order to fulfill her
personal agendas, including those that would allegedly limit the rights of
gun owners.128
NRATV personalities depict Sen. Feinstein as someone who is morally
opposed to the Second Amendment and American freedoms.129 Her
repeated leadership on legislation to ban assault weapons has made her a
common target of the NRA. She has been dubbed “the queen of gun
control”130 on NRATV, with some NRATV personalities maintaining that
“assault weapons” do not exist, making Feinstein’s proposed legislation a
slippery slope toward a universal gun ban.131 Stinchfield used his show to
discuss Sen. Feinstein’s introduction of the 2019 Assault Weapons Ban,
stating that by introducing a bill that would likely not advance in the Senate
nor be signed into law by the president, the senator was “spitting in the eye
of hardworking, patriotic Americans.”132
The visibility of Sen. Murphy’s gun violence prevention advocacy efforts
increased following the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were murdered by
a shooter with an assault rifle. The NRA directly links Murphy’s efforts to
pass common-sense gun violence legislation to disarmament, which, it
claims, will make American families less safe. In response to a speech
delivered by Sen. Murphy in which he discussed the realities of gun violence
as part of a call to encourage his fellow lawmakers to pass common-sense
legislation, Stinchfield stated, “Chris Murphy and his band of loons in the
U.S. Senate and the Democratically controlled House of Representatives
want to disarm me. That could cost me and my family our lives.”133
Stinchfield presents Sen. Murphy as an enemy of gun owners, whose efforts
are only focused on complete disarmament, making it impossible for
someone to support both the senator’s call for legislation and also the right
to own a gun.
Civil society is actively engaged in the quest to end gun violence and prevent
more families from being torn apart by preventable tragedies. The NRA has
not missed the opportunity to undermine the efforts of gun violence
prevention advocacy organizations by demonizing them as “disarmament
advocates.”134 These groups are attacked for being mouthpieces for the
coastal elite who are, according to the NRA, fundamentally at odds with the
American patriot.135 The NRA seizes on Michael Bloomberg’s prominence in
the gun violence prevention movement through his affiliation with the
organization Everytown for Gun Safety.136 By linking the movement writ
large to Bloomberg, the NRA minimizes the efforts being made across the
nation at a local level to address this crisis, which is plaguing communities
on a daily basis.137 Furthermore, by linking gun violence prevention advocacy
efforts to a prominent billionaire, the NRA is able to perpetuate arguments
that the movement is disconnected from the average American—akin to the
model used by Orbán to vilify George Soros and his efforts to spread
democracy within Hungary.138
Nor is Soros free from the NRA’s criticism. Personalities on NRATV will
lambast him and Bloomberg for their alleged efforts to undermine American
freedoms. The attacks from the NRA—and from Wayne LaPierre himself—
against Soros mimic those of the populist, illiberal regime in Hungary.139 The
NRA refers to the philanthropist as a “left-wing gun-hater,” and the “field
general championing and funding liberal progressive causes that amount to
an all-out assault on our freedoms.”140
Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America,
is also targeted by the NRA for her work following the tragedy at Sandy
Hook Elementary. Her organization’s partnership with Everytown incited the
NRA to amplify its claims that gun violence prevention advocacy groups are
merely pawns of Bloomberg.141
Consequences and implications of the NRA’s illiberal messaging
Strongman leaders use fearmongering rhetoric as part of an overall agenda
to gain power and retain control over a country. The National Rifle
Association uses these tactics to control the debate around gun violence and
ensure the gun industry continues to be profitable, regardless of the human
toll.
The implications of the NRA’s use of these tactics within the United States
are devastating. By creating confusion around the realities of gun violence
through misleading reporting, inaccurate academic studies, and false data,
the NRA is weakening the public’s ability to properly inform themselves
about the realities of gun violence and common-sense legislation. Public
opinion research indicates that the majority of people in the United States—
across partisan lines—support policies to reduce gun violence, such as
universal background checks for all firearm sales and assault weapons bans,
yet polling data also indicate that a majority of Americans believe gun
ownership increases personal safety.142 Multiple academic studies have
found that gun ownership elevates the risks of homicide, suicide, and
unintentional shootings.143 Americans’ confusion about guns and safety is
indicative of how deeply the NRA’s messaging has penetrated the American
public and how intractable the false narrative can be.
By perpetuating a culture of fear and divisiveness, the gun rights group is
crippling legislators and lawmakers who want to address a public health
crisis that kills more than 35,000 people a year in the United States.144 The
gun lobby has prominent political ties and has historically been able to
advance or block legislation in many states and in Congress. Many members
of Congress not only support or oppose legislation tied to the NRA’s
interests but also will repeat the organization’s talking points in hearings or
on the floors of Congress.145
The NRA and Russia
The implications of the NRA’s use of illicit messaging tactics is problematic
for the health and strength of U.S. democracy, with questions arising
following the 2016 election on the linkage between Russia and the NRA.146
For years, gun violence prevention advocates have raised concerns about
the lack of information around who donates to the organization—which is
notoriously tight-lipped about its funding streams.147 Some links between
the gun rights organization and foreign entities were exposed through the
indictment of Maria Butina in 2018, who pled guilty to conspiring to act as
an unregistered agent of Russia.148 Butina established a relationship with
members of NRA leadership, helping NRA leaders travel to Moscow, as well
as meet with prominent Republican political figures.149 Given Russia’s
desires to destabilize the United States, the connections between Butina,
Russian officials, and NRA leadership are troubling. It brings into question
whether the organization that brands itself as “freedom’s safest place”
could be associated with efforts to destabilize American democratic
principles and norms.150
Conclusion
“Americans all over this country are so sick of the lies and the sanctimonious
hypocrisy that has pushed good citizens in this country to the edge of fear,
fear for the future of their country, fear of an increasingly unstable
society.”151
– Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association Annual Meeting, 2018
While the strategy of the National Rifle Association has been remarkably
effective thus far, the United States has recently experienced a shift around
gun culture. In 2018, following the murder of 14 students and three staff
members at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, by
a shooter armed with an assault rifle, several corporations severed ties with
the gun rights organization.152 Gun violence prevention has become a
priority policy for many people in the United States, with many candidates
campaigning on gun violence prevention legislation during the 2018
midterm elections and winning their seats—including in Virginia’s 10th
congressional district, where the NRA is headquartered.153 Cracks are being
exposed in the group’s façade, and it is not responding well.
The vitriol in the group’s messaging has become so pronounced that it has
caused long-standing members of the organization to question its strategy.
Prominent members such as Marion Hammer, one of the NRA’s most
revered lobbyists, have questioned whether NRATV’s expanded messaging
and inflammatory language are actually necessary to fulfill the group’s
stated goals. Jeff Knox, NRA member and director of The Firearms Coalition,
a prominent grassroots gun rights organization, even noted that the
programming seems to be more focused on providing “red meat for the
hard right” than elevating the Second Amendment.154 The internal debates
on the value of NRATV and whether the organization needs to engage in
fearmongering and demonizing rhetoric expose the truth behind the NRA’s
messaging strategy: The goal is not to protect gun rights but to secure
power.
The NRA has established a narrative that frames the organization as the
protector of freedom while combating the passage of legislation that would
make communities safer from gun violence. Yet the group is not driven by a
desire to protect fundamental freedoms. Much like a nondemocratic leader,
its goal is centered around a desire to secure and sustain political power.
While authoritarian regimes use the demagogue’s playbook to suppress civil
liberties and political rights, the NRA’s playbook protects the gun industry
and allows the epidemic of gun violence to continue ravaging the nation.