全球智库信息集成服务系统

“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.

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.

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 semi-automatic 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.

“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 right-wing 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 Kremlin-approved 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 anti-immigrant, 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.

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 common-sense 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”