The NRA is perhaps best known for their outlandish support for the Second Amendment. They have a well-documented history of sponsoring over-the-top politicians and media stories with the aim of frightening the public into purchasing firearms. The ad opens with Charlie Daniels, a white-bearded country music singer, addressing the “Ayatollahs of Iran.” Daniels functions as both a hero and a spokesperson, relaying a message and saving the day. This artifact contains mostly images of hardworking, iron-willed Americans overlaid with clips of our military engaged in various conflicts and exercises. These combinations of grizzled patriots and highlights of our strength serve not only to provide a shallow reinforcement of the bombastic American stereotype but also to appeal to right-wing commonplaces. From the mere image of the ad, the NRA’s blatant appeals to the right’s stylistic expression show that Iranian leaders aren’t the only target audience. This ad substantially relies on the kairotic elements in the Republican zeitgeist after six and a half years of the Obama administration. Releasing an ad with such inflammatory accusations of treasonous thinking, the NRA cements the credibility of the speaker and best utilizes the kairotic situation. The National Rifle Association uses the Nuclear Agreement’s public debate to reinforce the values of individualism, personal responsibility, support for the military, and excess patriotism held by the American Right.

By appealing to the shared sentiments among conservatives, the narrator establishes himself as one of their own, taking on the values and fears that most right wingers have with regards to national defense. Daniels and the NRA know the fear in the hearts of the average Republican, and they use this to their advantage. The message oh-so-coincidentally, by promoting the self-protection of the homeland, also subsequently promotes increased gun market activity, directly benefiting the organization relaying this message. Reaching their desire for personal responsibility, the ad, in not so many words, encourages them to ready their stockpiles of weapons, as the federal government can’t protect them if the administration is out to sabotage their well-being above all other things. The NRA doesn’t want to seem too transparent in their capitalization on the issue, so their piece shrouds this apparent conflict-of-interest with images of war and intimidation, lighting the fire in right wingers’ hearts that results in a fervor of anti-Democratic party and pro-gun behavior, be it on social media, in weapons markets, or on public television.

Above all, the NRA’s timing in the political universe capitalizes on the unrest in the U.S. A common myth circulating in right wing spheres was that the Obama administration was intentionally undermining our national security and national identity by “submitting to the will of Iran.” Choosing this moment to cancel out all nuance in the issue effectively cancels out the correct lens with which to view the Deal, but the NRA historically fails on the perspective front (insert other WaPo example). At this point, the administration is putting the finishing touches on the agreement that was implemented in mid-January of 2016. Ironically, the NRA itself sabotages the issue and frames the deal to fail and indirectly urges the populace to prepare for the worst possible consequences, rather than working to better the agreement and improve diplomatic relations. 

By knowing how to analyze the rhetorical situation, the NRA best communicates to its unique audience. 

Speech outline:

Who wants to go to war? Because the NRA certainly does! They’re more than willing to threaten foreign lands with death and destruction in the impossible event that they strike the most powerful nation on Earth.

The National Rifle Association released a video in mid-2016 in the midst of the Iranian Nuclear Deal controversy, which the American Right saw as the Democratic establishment “intentionally” undermining our national security.

This video is a microcosm of the right’s mission to derail the Deal. The narrator, a country music singer, uses commonplaces like typical American uber-patriotism and the widespread gun ownership among his audience to persuade the public to take a position that directly benefits the gun lobby that he is representing by appearing in the video.

By pretending that the former administration was on par with the “ayatollahs” of Iran, we see that this message from the right serves to strike at conservatives’ individualism – they’re all they can rely on.

This is a case study in partisan politics. The singling out of a commonly held value in a particular group erases nuance around the issue, and as the media perpetuates the message verbatim, horse-race politics continues.

We’d best recognize how the warmongers word their messages, how they utilize our ignorance and our fear, or we could passively allow another unnecessary offensive attack to unfold in our name.

Thank you.