The NRA Response

And instead of focusing on means to improve the message, some of you simply attack LaPierre, air dirty laundry, and speak of appeasement as a primary approach.

You are welcome to your opinions. I have to question either your motives, or your tactics.

Meanwhile, No1der, people may not like to talk about conspiracies, but that does not mean they don't exist.

See, Fast and Furious; see MSNBC factually and thematically alter Zimmerman's 911 call; see Bloomberg's MAIG assistants try to entrap dealers in other cities and states, attempting to violate federal laws in furtherance of a sting for which they have no jurisdiction.

See the lack of repercussions for the perpetrators of those three items. Now tell me how illogical it is to see anti-gun conspiracies at work.
 
Last edited:
And instead of focusing on means to improve the message, some of you simply attack LaPierre, air dirty laundry, and speak of appeasement as a primary approach.

You are welcome to your opinions. I have to question either your motives, or your tactics.

Meanwhile, No1der, people may not like to talk about conspiracies, but that does not mean they don't exist.

See, Fast and Furious; see MSNBC factually and thematically alter Zimmerman's 911 call; see Bloomberg's MAIG assistants try to entrap dealers in other cities and states, attempting to violate federal laws in furtherance of a sting for which they have no jurisdiction.

See the lack of repercussions for the perpetrators of those three items. Now tell me how illogical it is to see anti-gun conspiracies at work.
Click to expand...

@MLEAK
Fine, but telling people who already don't accept conspiracy theories, while they are in a heightened emotional state, about all the "Conspiracies" against LaPierre and the NRA and the Gun Owners of America; is not a well thought out plan of action. It makes them think 2 words "Gun Nut."

I wouldn't be mentioning a lot of this stuff if I didn't think it would possibly make a difference. I don't know everyone on this board and maybe someone here has LaPierre's ear and can bend it long enough to give him some important information about how he's coming across in the media, even to members of his own organization.

Edit: By mentioning what things make him appear "cooky" on TV I am helping him by saying what it is he should likely avoid doing. So it is a form of help that I am providing.
 
Personally, I take issue with the 100 round ammo drums...that's rediculous.

I'm perfectly ok with the 30 round mag's.
Click to expand...
Hopefully that was written tongue-in-cheek, because I just can't take it seriously. I have several 40s. Where do you draw the line?

100 rd mags are ridiculously expensive, that's about as ridiculous as they get. Their price leaves them in few hands, also, so we know how much good that will do to ban them. I'm quite certain none have been found at the scene of a mass-shooting.

A hi-cap mag ban will leave us with 10s and under. Period.

As far as compromise? Nothing. I'm all done compromising.
 
From top to bottom he came off looking really really bad.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm sorry to say that our society has diminished to not wanting to listen to straight forwards truths unless these truths are so sugar coated and watered down that the meaning of the truths can be lost, misconstrued and manipulated to the point they are not recognizable.
If we don't believe this, the only thing we have to do is listen to the likes of Feinstein, Schumer or many of the other politicians discussing gun laws as well as other events happening in our country. These people, along with the anti-gun populace, along with the anti-gun media, are so hell bent on their own anti-gun agenda that the focus of stopping these mass shootings and the safety of our children is starting to take back seat to their anti gun movement. This was even shown in Obama's speech as there was much more time spent talking about gun control then any other means of stopping these tragedies put together.

Back to Mr. LaPierre...

...Mr. LaPierre, you should have not been so straightforward about the fact that gun control is not the solution to the problem at hand. You should not have used the same age old arguments about gun control because today, the anti's are saying the same things they have said for the last forty years, that is...gun control is the answer to all our gun related problems...but you Mr. Lapierre, should have known better to simply say in a nutshell, that...'gun control is not the answer to this problem'. You should have really watered it down for those that cannot stand the simple plain truth.
Shame on you Mr. LaPierre :rolleyes:
 
MLeake said:
And instead of focusing on means to improve the message, some of you simply attack LaPierre, air dirty laundry, and speak of appeasement as a primary approach.

You are welcome to your opinions. I have to question either your motives, or your tactics.
Click to expand...
Instead of bickering amongst ourselves, we should be reaching outside of our own zones of comfort (pro-gun forums) and doing our best to spread the truth that "gun violence" is not the issue. The issue is "school security," and any so-called solution that focuses entirely on eliminating one of the major tools that can help solve the problem is counter-productive.

And limiting people to 10-round magazines will not deter bombers. We need to remind (or inform) people that the worst school massacre in U.S. history was carried out with bombs, not guns. (Bath Township, MI, 1927.) At Columbine, the guns were NOT the primary weapons. The guns were the back-up plan. The primary weapons were bombs.

10-round magazine limits didn't bother Timothy McVeigh, either.

Let's all do our best to redirect the PUBLIC discussion onto the topic.
 
Of course,it would also be best if at least a few of the school staff,regardless of position,principle,custodian,teachers,were trained,carried communication devices,and at least had a weapon in a lockbox in their work area.
Think about it.That is what I want for my grandkids.
Click to expand...

Some of them already are trained (there are many teachers who shoot, and even Carry-everywhere but school) and our school already has walkie-talkies for use by teachers, intercoms in every room ...... the only thing that needs to be changed is the state law against CCW on School grounds..... and it would cost little or nothing. Where is the downside?
 
You don't have to believe me, just look at the headlines that his combined two television appearances have garnered in the conservative press. Don't even look at the main-stream press, just the Conservative. Except for the most pandering papers and outlets, it's been pretty clearly stated by almost everyone that LaPierre came off looking as "Out of touch" and using worn out NRA truisms from the past.
Click to expand...

The thing about truisms is that they are true even if they are not stylish and modern. While self evident they bear repeating at apt moments when people are emotionally riled. The media has been trying to beat the populace into a an emotional frenzy because the have failed with their illogical arguments on gun control. All they have left is raw emotionalism.

Do not count on Republican politicians to save gun rights either. Many will sell out gun rights in a minute if they think they can do it and get reelected. They did it in New Jersey. Lots of other places too.
 
As others have said, the NRA is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. But, if all the 800-lb. gorilla does is huddle in the corner drinking its wine & muttering platitudes, then it's not very useful. In fact, the NRA is becoming the NAACP of gun rights...dedicated more to preserving itself than the right it supposedly protects.

In this fight, I'll put my support behind the 90-lb. Rottweilers like the SAF and the state 2A organizations...they're actually attacking and winning the fights...
 
As others have said, the NRA is the 800-lb. gorilla in the room. But, if all the 800-lb. gorilla does is huddle in the corner drinking its wine & muttering platitudes, then it's not very useful. In fact, the NRA is becoming the NAACP of gun rights...dedicated more to preserving itself than the right it supposedly protects.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I am very much in agreement with you. It seems to me that there was a line that the NRA crossed sometime in the past where the industry of being the NRA became more important than the 2A. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how it's starting to sound. Not to mention I keep getting more and more "info packets" which all ask me for more and more and more.

I give to the NRA and I'm a member of the NRA and for my money I am NOT impressed by Wayne LaPierre and his dog and pony show. It's old, it's tired and nobody wants to see it. Worse, it turns many people off to any message that may be coming from the NRA or gun owner or even pro-Second Amendment proponents.

For those of you who disagree with me and can't understand why I feel this way? I've already stated my case and laid it out in many very long posts in this thread and I can't retype page after page after page of things I've already said numerous times.

For my money, LaPierre messed up big time.
 
Last edited:
Shortwave has nailed the crux of what I believe*
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. Seriously, this idea that you have to fall in lockstep with what the NRA is saying and promoting is ludicrous. They represent a facet of American gun owners, not all of them.

At some point, they've transitioned from a group that is promoting an ideal via lobbyism to a lobbyist group that is promoting an ideal. It's a big paradigm shift
 
@ No1der: You right on target with your continuing comments. LaPierre is out of touch with his message as presented. It did more to stir up the hornets nest than anything else.
 
BigJim, I don't say the NRA is always right, or always most effective. For litigation purposes, I prefer to provide donations to SAF.

I do say that the NRA has political clout, and that we should use that. Bashing the NRA and LaPierre can undermine that clout, and we do not need to help our enemies in that fashion.

Offering a better way to word a thing, or suggesting the NRA should hire a more polished speaker - that's fine.

Going on rants about saliva, or how the NRA should offer to give up freedoms out of the starting gate in the name of compromise - those are just plain stupid.

If you want to improve a team, you don't do it by bashing your teammates in the press. You might do it by confronting teammates at the clubhouse.

TFL is populated by many on our team, but it is not only populated by those on our team, so anti-NRA diatribes here are effectively akin to bashing one's own team in the media.

Using internal NRA channels to convey criticisms would be more akin to keeping it in the clubhouse.
 
While this discussion is interesting and ive put in a few times myself, it honestly accomplishes nothing. Pro gun folks are all that are likely to see it.
The only thing that will ultimately help anything about this is to write and email your congressmen and women, voicing your opinion on more gun control, hopefully clearly stating that any more regulation is not acceptable.
Congressmen want one thing more than anything else. Reelection. If the voters that put them in are writing them about a particular issue they pay attention. In the end that is the only way to effect how your reps in government vote on issues.
 
As an NRA member, I was horrified by LaPierre's speech. Full of self-victimization, navel-gazing, and blaming others.

He blamed "American Psycho" for goodness sakes. That movie came out a year before 9/11. And attacking video games alienated a lot of sympathetic young people whose interests in firearms were stoked through war fighting video games.

He may be a good administrator, but the NRA desperately needs a young, dynamic, relatable face in these dark days.
 
The problem with the video game attack as a diversion, is that the same methodologies that demonstrate that the AWB did nothing also demonstrate that video games are not causal.

One has to be intellectually honest in the debate. If video games push folks over the edge then the easy access to guns would do so too - based on the same theories of aggressive priming.

Those theories are suspect as Wayne should know.

The defense could have been done better, I'm afraid.
 
Glenn, I agree, both on the video game issue and that the presentation could be better.

However, I do not think we are well-served by NRA bashing. I think we are much better served by pointing out the pro-gun things LaPierre should have said, than by providing arguments for the antis to use.

There is a major difference.
 
The problem with the video game attack as a diversion, is that the same methodologies that demonstrate that the AWB did nothing also demonstrate that video games are not causal.

One has to be intellectually honest in the debate. If video games push folks over the edge then the easy access to guns would do so too - based on the same theories of aggressive priming.

Those theories are suspect as Wayne should know.

The defense could have been done better, I'm afraid.
Click to expand...

I find LaPierre's accusations against the Video Game industry to be exactly the same type of accusations as are lobbied against the 2A. Interesting how we don't mind sacrificing bits of the 1st Amendment but refuse to even consider touching the Second Amendment.

Either they are both candidates for the chopping block or neither are candidates for more regulation.

Even more interestingly, if one is to press the case. The Video Game industry at least has something that resembles self regulation while the 2A folks refuse to accept doing even that much.

So lets get off the 1st Amendment or lets offer up bits of the 2A also.
 
No1der, ever notice how the media recoil from any perceived threat against the 1st Amendment? (Unless, of course, it's something favored, such as hate speech or hate crime legislation.)

In other words, you don't need to get too worked up over the video game thing, though I get that you are into violent games. (I have quite a bit of Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, etc time myself). The media most likely will not buy into condemnation of games, nor of ultra-violent movies.

That does make me go hmmmm... I know several antis who are big fans of slasher (Freddy, Michael, Jason) and sadism (The Strangers, Saw) flicks.

They don't see the hypocrisy in the anti side.

For what it's worth, I agree it was not a good argument for the NRA to make. That does not make the NRA useless.

Again, your complaint would be better made to the NRA, possibly coupled with some suggestions for arguments they should make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top