May 21
NRA, LaPierre, and Guns Debate
1. Views on the connection between guns and freedom
Its the second amenment right to carry weapons to protect one self
2. NRA's development over time
It startet as a non-political club that turned into a political movement
3. What we learn about Wayne LaPierre.
as the former leader he changed the movement to be political
2. After watching:
1. How would you describe the NRA?
2. What did you find the most interesting in the documentary? What surprised you?
3. What is the definition of the term 'lobbying' (if necessary, look it up) and how does it apply to the NRA?
1. What has caused Wayne LaPierre to write this message? What are the circumstances? Think of more answers than just the most obvious one.
guns
2. What seems to be LaPierre’s intention(s) with the text? Why? What role does the title play here? Why?
He blames the people not the weapons
3. What role does LaPierre have in the NRA? What does he know about the topic at hand? Based on this, does he have a naturally weak or strong ethos in the eyes of his receivers? Why?
He is an important figur that represents the movement
4. What does LaPierre do in his message that further strengthens his ethos? Find three examples from the text and comment on how this affects his credibility.
5. Find examples in the text in which LaPierre appeals to either his receivers’ emotions, their common sense, or their trust in him and the NRA. Does he use the modes of appeal an equal amount? Why/why not? Link your thought to his intention.
6. Who are LaPierre’s receivers? Does he have a primary as well as a secondary receiver in mind? What do they know about the topic? How do they already think or feel about it? How does LaPierre try to either confirm or change this?
7. Discuss whether LaPierre’s language is successfully aimed at his intended receivers and how well it reflects his overall intention with the text. Give reasons to support your answer.
Det var det jeg lige nåde
Closed