Willes lee responds to a question about the NRA and silencers.

Glenn E Meyer said:
BTW, there were no major bans under Obama.
Click to expand...

BHO's efforts at greater regulation on this topic failed. That isn't a lofty recommendation.

Glenn E Meyer said:
It is bizarre not to worry about how the current court would respond to significant Trump bans.
Click to expand...

Who wouldn't worry about that?

It is bizarre to posit, as you have, that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would regard DJT as a father. Noticing that the idea is weird doesn't speak to a loyalty to DJT.
 
Last edited:
edit a new "apology"

Notice how he qualifies how he appreciates every "good" member. Who gets to decide who is a "good" member? I think every NRA member should be treated with respect.
29ymgkm.jpg
 
44 AMP said:
What bothers me is the statement in the OP about the NRA "rolling over" and "let" Trump ban suppressors.
Click to expand...
Technically, that wasn't a statement in the OP (Opening Post), it was a statement made by an NRA member, the response to which by NRA board member Willes Lee is the topic of the OP. IMHO, the validity of that statement by the NRA member isn't of any importance. It's his opinion, and he had a right to express it. The problem, which is what this thread should be discussing, is the extremely derisive and tone deaf response by the NRA board member, Willes Lee.
 
zxcvbob said:
It may be off-topic, but since TFL staff are participating in this thread veer I think I'm safe

IMHO, if Hillary had won the election, right about now there would be breaking news of a major scandal involving the 2016 Republicans and "Russian collusion". With Clinton controlling the Justice Dept, you would see "perp walks" of all the Republican leadership. The party might never recover.

With no opposition, the Democrats could implement all their socialist and gun control wet dreams starting in 2020. The entire country might never recover.
Click to expand...
Mea culpa, I participated in the thread veer. I suggest we call an end to that here and now.

This thread started out being about the response of an NRA board member to the concern expressed by an NRA member. I respectfully submit that we should be discussing that, not the national election. The NRA is in trouble, and this attitude by a board member might be viewed by some (myself, for example) as emblematic of the problem. There's an old saying: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." The attitude displayed by Willes Lee certainly does not strike me as being part of any solution -- whatever the problem is.
 
wolfwood said:
Notice how he qualifies how he appreciates every "good" member. Who gets to decide who is a "good" member? I think every NRA member should be treated with respect.
Click to expand...
Mr. Lee said "My page, my rules." So, for his purposes, he decides who is and who isn't a good member. It would appear that, to him, a "good member" is anyone who agrees with him (or keeps quiet if they disagree), and an "ungood member" is anyone who doesn't agree with Mr. Lee and has the temerity to say so in public.
 
Is this guy serious!?!?!?

I decide what is snark, & I'll mock you for 101-level crap
Click to expand...
I decide what is disrespectful
Click to expand...
I decide what hater notes to keep...
Click to expand...
I decide if you're a bot or troll
Click to expand...

I understand he runs the FB page and can set the rules... but at the same time it's a FB page that appears to be an outlet to directly address the NRA board of directors. His "rules" are not what I would call tasteful decorum for such a venue. Duly noted Baby Col. Lee.
 
FB page that appears to be an outlet to directly address the NRA board of directors.
Click to expand...

I can see where it might seem so, given the position he holds, but, consider its his personal site, and his personal quirks MIGHT NOT be official NRA policy, and possibly even don't represent the way he does his job.

People need to realize that being a rude, snarky person, and possibly offending someone on social media is NOT an automatic condemnation of their ability to do their job.

Example, call me during office hours, and no matter how rude you are (as I perceive it) you get my professional response. Call me at home while I'm eating dinner, or something else important to me, and be snarky, you get ubersnarked back, and maybe hung up on...

I'm not trying to defend this guy, personally, just want to point out that there ought to be a bit more consideration of things before we demand his head for being rude on FACEBOOK... (or anything similar)
 
AB said:
Mr. Lee said "My page, my rules." So, for his purposes, he decides who is and who isn't a good member. It would appear that, to him, a "good member" is anyone who agrees with him (or keeps quiet if they disagree), and an "ungood member" is anyone who doesn't agree with Mr. Lee and has the temerity to say so in public.
Click to expand...

5whiskey said:
I understand he runs the FB page and can set the rules... but at the same time it's a FB page that appears to be an outlet to directly address the NRA board of directors. His "rules" are not what I would call tasteful decorum for such a venue. Duly noted Baby Col. Lee.
Click to expand...

You would hope someone on the board of an important organization would understand that the issue isn't him personally, but not in this case.

It does seem odd to me that grown men communicate in this medium. Why does a question about NRA strategy need to be addressed in mere moments?The short and instant response traps momentary errors in amber (just metaphorically, Glenn). Nearly everyone would seem more reflective if they had to type out a response, put it in an envelope, lick a stamp and drop it into the mail.

Clearly a board member can freelance, but what is the benefit?
 
It does seem odd to me that grown men communicate in this medium. Why does a question about NRA strategy need to be addressed in mere moments?The short and instant response traps momentary errors in amber (just metaphorically, Glenn). Nearly everyone would seem more reflective if they had to type out a response, put it in an envelope, lick a stamp and drop it into the mail.
Click to expand...

In general, I agree. However, here is where I wax on about how Social Media is the way of the world whether we like it or not. Want to run any kind of political campaign these days? Better have twitter followers and a FB page. It doesn't take very long, however, to actually think about any kind of post or response on social media and make an effort to sound adult and polite.

What I believe social media has done is take away polite society. Growing up I was taught that you didn't necessarily blurt out everything that pops in your mind. You first run those thoughts through a filter of sort, think to yourself "is this in the overall best interest," and then form a reasoned response if you decide that saying something is necessary. I would hope that a retired LtCol in the military would have learned some of this along the way. Sure, the military teaches superiors to be blunt with subordinates. But an NRA Board Member is not a superior... he's a representative. He best learn that lesson. I find some things, such as the frequent use of "haters," to be juvenile in big boy adult conversations. Not what I would expect from a retired Field Grade Officer or an NRA Board Member.
 
5whiskey said:
In general, I agree. However, here is where I wax on about how Social Media is the way of the world whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...

I'm conscious that my gripe sounds like an old man's complaint about change and that social media are present and real. That doesn't mean that everyone needs it or should use it. I don't carry a cellular telephone. When people ask for a cell number and I say I don't have one, I routinely get a disbelieving stare in response. Yet, I believe it improves the quality of communication I do have with people.

It isn't hard to imagine an orientation for new board members in which someone says "Here is our media consultant. He is going to brief you on how to handle media, and refrain from doing damage to your own reputation and ours".
 
Last edited:
I don't carry a cellular telephone.
Click to expand...

I envy you sir. I frequently want to throw mine out of a car window.

I believe it improves the quality of communication I do have with people.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct.

It isn't hard to imagine an orientation for new board members in which someone says "Here is our media consultant. He is going to brief you on how to handle media, and refrain from doing damage to your own reputation and ours".
Click to expand...

Not hard to imagine at all. Despite the fact that I have been a fairly large supporter and defender of the NRA, mostly as I believe they typically do "the greater good," I think they have enough issues to deal with without board members further complicating matters.

Instead of "your snark doesn't deserve a reply. Try again." It would be a simple matter to say that "I don't really appreciate that you believe that we will roll over, however the board is discussing our response at this time. I can affirm that we oppose any further restrictions on suppressors."
 
Seems like the NRA’s function lately is to act as a liaison for the gun control crowd... just to soften the blows, so to speak. Same can be said for political leaders that are supposed to be on our side.
 
What specifically do you have in mind that the NRA can win without repubs?

The exec is going to be a repub or a dem. Which plausible dem is better on the issue?
Click to expand...

This is the kind of thinking that causes failure. When we give up on the idea of multi-party government, we give up on representative government.

30% of us population at mínimum are gun owners. If the nra can deliver our vote with a relatively normal, not extreme, candidate, I feel they could deliver a lot of that 30%. Then, being normal could appeal to some Democrats, Independents and whatever is called Republican now!

That is a SOLID win!
 
Nathan said:
What specifically do you have in mind that the NRA can win without repubs?

The exec is going to be a repub or a dem. Which plausible dem is better on the issue?
Click to expand...
This is the kind of thinking that causes failure.
Click to expand...

The kind of thinking that asks you what you mean causes failure? What are the odds that a political movement would have no questions at all posed to it?

Nathan said:
When we give up on the idea of multi-party government, we give up on representative government.
Click to expand...

We have multi-party government with our two party system.

Nathan said:
30% of us population at mínimum are gun owners.
Click to expand...

I agree. Note that being a gun owner doesn't transform a person into a defender of the right described in the 2d Am. any more than having a book transforms a person into a free speech advocate.

Nathan said:
If the nra can deliver our vote with a relatively normal, not extreme, candidate, I feel they could deliver a lot of that 30%. Then, being normal could appeal to some Democrats, Independents and whatever is called Republican now!

That is a SOLID win!
Click to expand...

The current alignment existed before DJT's presidency. I don't see any real harm in jokes at the expense of public figures, but reference with names like an "orange candidate" or "President Entertainment" were once prohibited here as invective ("Posting invectives will not be tolerated.").

If you can't even describe a plausible path to NRA victory without members of the party that won the last election for the presidency and senate majority, and you can't name a likely candidate from the other party, it seems unlikely that you have something realistic in mind that could be executed. That 30%, even if you got every last one of them, may not do the trick if none of the other 70% have a reason to join them.
 
Last edited:
44 AMP said:
I can see where it might seem so, given the position he holds, but, consider its his personal site, and his personal quirks MIGHT NOT be official NRA policy, and possibly even don't represent the way he does his job.
Click to expand...
My late wife had a Facebook page. She used her name -- nothing else. My daughter has a Facebook page. She uses her name -- nothing else. If he wants to have a personal Facebook page, it should be personal -- "Willes Lee."

The problem is, the name of the Facebook page is "Willes Lee NRA Board of Directors." That isn't (IMHO) a proper name for a "personal" Facebook page. To me, that just screams out "This is the page to contact me about NRA business."
 
My late wife had a Facebook page. She used her name -- nothing else. My daughter has a Facebook page. She uses her name -- nothing else. If he wants to have a personal Facebook page, it should be personal -- "Willes Lee."

The problem is, the name of the Facebook page is "Willes Lee NRA Board of Directors." That isn't (IMHO) a proper name for a "personal" Facebook page. To me, that just screams out "This is the page to contact me about NRA business."
Click to expand...

That’s exactly how I saw it. I would be much less put off if the page vanity name was just Willes Lee. It’s not. By sheer virtue of the name of his FB page it’s not as simple as chalking it up to being his personal page. It gives the appearance of an official nra connection. And he looks tone deaf and too eager to copy language used by the president that even many of his supporters don’t ... well... support coming from a president.
 
Tom Servo wrote:
I'd like to think someone could primary against him in 2020, but the Democratic party has gone more extreme than they've ever been on the issue, so we're stuck with the only-so-slightly lesser evil on the issue.
Click to expand...

You honestly think the likes of Hillary Clinton is a "only-so-slightly lesser evil" than Donald Trump? Imagine if you will two years of her in the White House, and the damage she could do to the second amendment. Much more than a ban on bump stocks, I guaranty you. Have gun owners already forgotten 1994?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top