Are we allowed to win this time: new warrior culture in action and government betrayal in the American Rifleman 1975–2023

The paper examines how, in the unsettled cultural period following the Vietnam War, the National Rifle Association (NRA) used “warrior” narratives to reshape relationships between gun owners and the U.S. government. Drawing on Swidler’s concept of unsettled times and Hays’ definition of culture as systems of social relations and meaning, the author argues that the NRA reframed warrior identity from a classic figure who sacrifices for the nation to a “New Warrior” prepared to confront a government perceived as betraying its citizens. The study focuses on the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine (1975–2023) to trace this narrative shift, paying particular attention to the adoption of Native American warrior motifs and antigovernment themes that intensified after events like Ruby Ridge and Waco. The core research question is how the NRA used cultural narratives of government betrayal to justify guns as necessary for defense against the state, while maintaining mainstream appeal. The study’s importance lies in showing how cultural scripts can legitimize changes in civic identity and citizen–state relations, transforming the meaning of gun ownership and warriorhood without explicitly endorsing extremist conspiracies. The paper intentionally focuses on identifying narrative change rather than linking narratives to violence, leaving that to future work.

The study situates itself within sociological and cultural analyses of gun culture, citizenship, and military symbolism. It builds on scholarship exploring gun symbolism and empowerment (Mencken & Froese), NRA narrative strategies and identity construction (Swidler; Hays; Cohen; Finnegan/Finley), self-defense culture and citizen-protectors (Carlson; Yamane et al.), and civil religion/martial republicanism versus ascriptive republicanism (Gorski; Churchill; Filindra; Segal). It references work on post-Vietnam cultural shifts and the New Warrior paradigm (Gibson), critiques of American exceptionalism and military sacrifice (Appy; Huebner; Lembke), and the militia/patriot movements (Aho; Crothers; Levitas; Zeskind). The review highlights the NRA’s historical role as quasi-governmental partner mid-20th century, the 1977 internal shift, and the 1990s milieu shaped by Waco, Ruby Ridge, and federal gun control laws. It notes scholarship on advertising’s role in gun culture (Mak; Yamane et al.; Barnhart & Huff; Huff et al.) and the appropriation of Native American imagery in American identity formation (Deloria; Dunbar-Ortiz), framing how the NRA could launder antigovernment meanings through venerating Native American warriors and elite military figures.

Data source: Nearly every issue of the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine from 1975 to 2023, with 19 issues missing (9 pre-1990, 10 post-1990). Most issues are 100–120 pages; election-year issues are ~20% longer. Issues from 2008 onward were obtained via library archives/vendors; earlier issues were purchased or scanned and digitized. Optical character recognition (OCR) was used; when OCR was unclear, texts were read and transcribed manually. Search and inclusion: The study focuses explicitly on occurrences of the term “warrior,” excluding related but broader terms such as “patriot” or “soldier” to avoid conceptual conflation. Both editorial content and advertisements were included given the intertwined roles of NRA media and the gun industry in shaping culture. Analytic approach: A grounded approach combined with network-oriented methods identified and contextualized explicit references to “warrior.” The author read covers and relevant sections of each issue, collecting instances and associated contexts. This yielded 637 instances, of which 353 were advertisements. Codes were developed for categories of warriors and associated causes (e.g., military/veteran warriors, Native American warriors, weapons/product branding, commemoratives). Codes were not mutually exclusive; a single item could be multiply coded (e.g., a commemorative rifle honoring a Native American warrior). Figures referenced (Fig. 1, Fig. 2) summarize code families and military-era subcategories. The analysis then interpreted how these categories map to classic versus New Warrior narratives and how they reframe citizen–government relations.

- Narrative shift: The American Rifleman’s “warrior” references evolve from classic, nation-serving warriors to New Warrior figures shaped by betrayal narratives and antigovernment skepticism, aligning with post-Vietnam unsettled culture. - Military/veteran warriors: 202 instances coded as military/veteran warriors. Subcoding by era shows Vietnam (n=34) and Iraq/Afghanistan (n=13). WWII-era “warriors” are rarely referenced (fewer than four, largely tied to weapons commemoratives such as Patton tribute firearms). The first explicit use of American soldiers as “warriors” appears in 1987 (Roberts 1987). During the GWOT era, “warrior” references predominantly highlight elite units (e.g., SEALs, Special Forces), reinforcing a New Warrior ethos of autonomy and rule-bending prowess. - Wounded warriors and reintegration: Iraq/Afghanistan veterans are often framed as “wounded warriors,” with narratives emphasizing identity restoration through proximity to weapons (e.g., “being around guns helps the transition”). This sustains warrior status symbolically and revalidates access to arms as a marker of full citizenship. - Productization of “warrior”: Roughly one-third of “warrior” references are advertisements for guns/gear/books (n=174/637), including items branded “Warrior,” “Desert Warrior,” or linked to elite units (e.g., Kimber pistols). Commemorative weapons link classic sacrifice to ownership, especially for Vietnam (e.g., 21 of 28 Vietnam warrior references tied to commemoratives), cementing memory, identity, and consumerism. - Native American warriors: Early portrayals (1970s–1980s) reflect primitivist frames; by the early 1990s, Native American warriors are reframed as noble defenders—protectors of family and land against oppressive government. Advertisements (e.g., commemorative rifles/plates) present the Sioux or other figures as harmonized with nature and justified in taking up arms. This appropriative shift legitimizes antigovernment defense narratives by invoking historically documented government betrayal of Native peoples, laundering insurgent meanings without overt conspiracy rhetoric. - Antigovernment subtext: Following Waco and Ruby Ridge, the NRA navigates backlash (e.g., over “jack-booted thugs”) by embedding antigovernment implications in warrior motifs, elite-operator imagery, and Native American narratives instead of explicit conspiratorial claims. The Good Guy with a Gun metanarrative is extended: the New Warrior acts when the government is absent, inept, or betraying. - Cultural reframing: Warrior identity is repurposed from collective, nation-serving sacrifice to individualized preparedness and potential resistance to the state, transforming the cultural meaning of gun ownership into a citizenship claim grounded in vigilance and justified self-defense/insurrectionist undertones.

The findings show that the NRA, via American Rifleman, repurposed warrior narratives to address an unsettled cultural landscape after Vietnam. By linking classic civic-religious reverence for soldierly sacrifice to New Warrior tropes—elite operators, lone heroes, and Native American defenders—the NRA repositioned the gun-owning citizen as a legitimate heir to the warrior’s mantle. This reframing answers the research question by illustrating how betrayal narratives allow guns to be cast as necessary defenses against a potentially corrupt state while maintaining public legitimacy. The strategy works in three ways: (1) preserving classic warrior honor and national defense symbolism; (2) shifting meaning toward skepticism of and preparedness against government failure or malfeasance; and (3) appropriating Native American warrior narratives to validate defensive violence against government, thereby bridging mainstream patriotism with antigovernment sentiment. In doing so, the NRA helped recode citizenship from obligations like military service to weaponized vigilance, aligning self-defense culture and Second Amendment advocacy with a moral lineage of sacrifice and protection. This reframing contributes to broader sociocultural shifts in how Americans understand state authority, legitimate violence, and the role of armed citizens.

The paper demonstrates a multi-decade narrative transformation in the American Rifleman (1975–2023), showing how the NRA used warrior motifs to recast gun ownership and citizen–state relations. By integrating classic narratives of national service with New Warrior themes and Native American defender imagery, the NRA sustained support for the troops while normalizing a stance that anticipates government betrayal and legitimizes armed self-defense. The organization navigated the 1990s political risks of overt militancy by embedding antigovernment cues in culturally resonant warrior stories—elite operators, commemoratives, and Native American tributes—thus mainstreaming insurgent meanings without explicit conspiracy. The study contributes to theories of cultural change by tracing how contested terms like “warrior” carry shifting systems of meaning and social relations during unsettled times. Future research should empirically examine how these narratives appear in gun owners’ self-descriptions and practices, assess their diffusion across other NRA and industry media, and investigate potential links between narrative adoption and behavioral outcomes, while carefully distinguishing cultural discourse from causation in violent events.

- Scope of linkage: The study does not claim causal links between NRA/industry narratives and violent actions; connecting cultural discourse to specific incidents would exceed the evidence provided. - Term focus: Analysis is restricted to explicit occurrences of “warrior,” excluding related terms (e.g., patriot, soldier), which may omit relevant content but avoids conceptual dilution. - Data/processing constraints: Nineteen issues are missing; OCR and manual transcription may introduce minor inaccuracies. Ads and editorial content are analyzed together due to their intertwined roles, but disentangling NRA messaging from industry marketing remains challenging. - Conceptual boundaries: While the findings suggest normalization of insurrectionist-leaning interpretations, the paper does not evaluate legal/constitutional claims; it analyzes cultural meaning-making. The study also focuses primarily on military-related warrior narratives, not the full breadth of warrior uses across NRA media. - Generalizability: Results pertain to American Rifleman readers and time-bound U.S. contexts; broader applicability requires comparative media and cross-organizational analyses.