Well, I thought Lott handled himself well, but LaPierre really frustrated me. If you watched the hearings, you doubtless saw the Democratic congresswoman ask him, "Here's this list of laws. [Don't recall all of them, except that one was "one gun a month".] The NRA opposed all of them. Why?" Wayne then launched into a description of project Exile. She interupted him, and asked the question again. He RETURNED to his description of project Exile. She interupted him again, and asked him to answer the question she'd asked. He said, basically, "You want me to go down the list, one by one, and explain why the NRA opposed those bills?" "Yes" she replied. He was launching back into his project Exile spiel yet again, and time ran out. As did my patience!
Is Wayne really so dense as he appears sometimes? Does he really not understand that, if someone asks you to defend your position, and you refuse to do so, people conclude that your position is indefensible?
Why couldn't he have just said, "Madame, our reason for opposing all those bills was essentially the same, so I'll address "One gun a month": You wouldn't think to tell a citizen that they could only attend church once a month, would you? Or that they could only buy one newspaper a month? Or call your office and express their opinion once a month? No, you wouldn't, because those are civil rights, and we don't ration civil rights in this country. Well, buying a gun is a civil right, too. It's guaranteed by the constitutions of 44 of the fifty states, and by the federal Constitution YOU'VE sworn an oath to uphold. I can go to the records of this very body, and demonstrate that the 14th amendment was adopted to protect the right of YOUR ancestors to own guns, in order that they could defend themselves against the KKK. That's why we opposed those bills, madam; The NRA is a civil rights organization, and those bills violated the right of Americans to keep and bear arms."
