The NRA Response

[Webleymkv]

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree because what you thought was a show of force by LaPierre looked like belligerence to me and probably tens of thousands of other people. You're wrong about public opinion too. If they forget or get bored then it will be difficult to whip them up into an emotional frenzy and have them counter-calling and emailing the same Politicians that the NRA will be threatening behind the scenes.

Emotion is the tool of the other side. The people who will continue to write their congressmen and senators are those like us who pay attention and are interested in the facts. The only reason that gun control is even registering in the public consciousness right now is because the media was able to whip people into an emotional frenzy by parading dead children across the TV screen. While distasteful, such sensationalism does succeed in getting people's attention. Watching pundits debate talking points and sound bytes is boring to most people and, if it goes on long enough, they'll stop watching.

The Political stage is not what it was 2 years ago and the Republican party is fighting for it's identity and existence. It's very difficult to judge what they will do because they have had an awful lot of horrible PR, non-stop for quite some time now.

The Republicans are in no worse position now than they were when the Virginia Tech shooting happened in 2007. Back then, they had an unpopular Republican President who had promised to re-instate the AWB if it reached his desk and was, for all intents and purposes, a lame duck. Also, the Democrats controlled both houses of congress at the time and would do so for another three years and we did not yet have the Heller or McDonald rulings. The primary difference between then and now was that because the Virginia Tech victims were adults rather than children, the media wasn't able to create the emotional frenzy than they have this time. The sooner we can get them to stop parading the victims across the TV, the poorer the chances for new gun control become.

My idea of conciliatory is much different from what most people think and I also said repeated to APPEAR CONCILIATORY. Give the general public the warm and fuzzies towards the NRA, then in talks with politicians paint them as over-reaching and make that the reason for pulling or retracting the original conciliatory offer on the grounds of the Politicians being unwilling to compromise to come up with a reasonable solution to OUR combined problem.

Again, anything short of a show of force and resolve on the part of the NRA will be characterized as weakness and evidence of guilt. The other side has shown no interest in being conciliatory and if we try to play it safe out of fear that we might offend someone, we will wind up letting the other side dominate the conversation. Look, you have to get past this notion that the other side is composed entirely of well-intentioned, albeit misguided, people who just want to fix the problem, they're not.

This is politics at its dirtiest: taking advantage of the murder of children to push a political agenda. Short of simply giving up and conceding defeat, there is nothing LaPierre could have said that wouldn't have been criticized by the media. Here is the choice he was faced with: either stick to the principles and offer a solution other than gun control to which the media wil cry "the NRA is being belligerent, they won't even consider gun control" or try to be conciliatory and compromise or say nothing at all in which case the media would howl "see, see, they've got blood on their hands and they know it!" While neither option is ideal, at least with the first you don't allow the other side to dominate the conversation.

LaPierre came off looking horrible and he is the one that is shifting the subject away from mental health and away from armed officers in schools and is instead shifting the conversation to "NRA/LaPierre being unreasonable, unfeeling, heartless, "Gun Nuts," who only care about one thing."

Actually, I saw Gregory as the one trying to do that. Gregory wanted to dismiss the idea of armed security using "well there was a cop at Columbine" as an excuse while ignoring that police procedures were very different then than they are now. When LaPierre pointed out the differences in police procedures, Gregory quickly dismissed him and changed the subject. What you don't seem to be grasping here is that LaPierre is characterized as a "gun nut" because that's what the media wants to characterize him as. They don't want to talk about mental health care reform or school security because those aren't parts of the agenda, but gun control is.

As for the thing about David Greggory, I've seen him be consistently tough on everyone who goes on his show. He's good at what he does, whether I agree with him or not is besides the point. Anyone who goes on a news-talk-show is crazy if he believes that the reporter is his friend or buddy. If Wayne wasn't prepared, which he obviously wasn't, then he should have sent an underling who doesn't count as whatever he says means nothing.

As I said before, being a tough interviewer and being a hostile interviewer are not necessarily the same thing. For example, if Gregory had been tough, yet impartial, he might have asked a question like this: "How would you respond to critics that say armed school security is not a workable solution because there was an armed police officer on campus who failed to stop the Columbine shooting?" That's a tough question, but by simply asking it and then allowing LaPierre to respond and explain his position, Gregory could have remained impartial. Instead, Gregory chose to cut LaPierre off, talk over him, and change the subject before LaPierre had a chance to fully explain his position. You say that LaPierre wasn't prepared, but I say that he was as prepared as he could have been. LaPierre had all of his facts straight and was able to counter all of Gregory's arguments when given the chance to do so. The problem was, Gregory wasn't interested in hearing what LaPierre had to say once he realized that LaPierre wasn't going to be goaded into a "gotcha" moment.

LaPierre is failing us and is stoking the fires of the news cycle. I personally don't believe in conspiracy theories so I firmly believe that for the most part, once the public looses interest the media will too.

It was the media, not the public, that created the emotional frenzy. When the media is trying to parade the victims across the screen and putting the anti-gun pundits all over the TV withing hours of the incident before the facts are even known, you cannot tell me that they don't have an agenda. It's not as though there isn't other, equally important news that could be reported on, yet they keep harping on this.

As for "throwing them a bone," the "bone" I suggested is something basically out of fantasy and something so absurd that it's dangerous to the operator of the weapon himself. 400 Round magazines are probably out there and being made by some hobbyist niche company, they are cartoonish and nobody with any sense is going to buy one. This makes it the perfect "bone" to throw because it shows that the NRA understands that there is a problem and that they are attempting to help solve the problem instead of posturing and attempting to throw the Fist Amendment under the bus.

The problem is, now matter how impractical or ridiculous a 400 round magazine may be, throwing them that bone is basically an admission that guns are part of the problem, they aren't. Rather than try to appease the unappeasable gun banners by throwing some of our own under the bus, we need to redirect the conversation to mental health and school security as LaPierre is trying to do.

LaPierre said that, in essence, anything is worth trying. At this point Greggory asked him does that include any kind of gun controll and LaPierre said "No."

I think what he should have said is "Perhaps; though I don't know what that would be but I'd be glad to listen to the board that the President put together and listen to their ideas."

That would be non committal while at the same time appearing to be a person who can be reasoned with.

LaPierre tried to point out that an AWB has already been tried and that it didn't work, but Gregory continually cut him off and didn't let him finish. Like I said, the problem wasn't that LaPierre wasn't prepared, it was that Gregory didn't want to hear what he had to say.

[12GaugeShuggoth]

Wow, I just finished watching the interview, and I'm shocked to see people throwing LaPierre under the bus from this. Granted there are some things they've done in the past that I'm not 100% on, but good heavens, David Gregory was about as biased as you can get. It was dreadfully clear right from the beginning how ugly that interview was going to be. The only thing that he wanted to hear was "ban guns, all guns are bad, guns kill people, people who own guns are bad....mmmmmkay?" He looked quite happy with himself as well, what a tool.

Frankly I applaud Lapierre for not reaching across the table and punching him. Nobody can look reasonable when they're having to rush to finish each sentence in order to keep from being interrupted. Just my .02 cents.

[MLeake]

Webleymkv makes many good points.

I suspect the primary proponents for "compromise" are too young to remember when guns were not reflexively demonized in the media. Compromise does not work - the main reasons being that, as noted, the other side gives up nothing (and has an ultimate goal of a total ban) and, in my opinion, the more important one:

"Compromising" on gun control due to recent incidents would be tantamount to our side saying, yes, it is guns that are the problem. Each concession we might make would only serve to strengthen the certainty of the other side that they are in the right.

So, whether I like LaPierre as a public speaker (or not), I am certainly not going to bash him or the NRA at this time. If I thought he could do or say something more effective, I would submit the idea to LaPierre.

dspieler, No1der, Uncle Billy et al are only providing ammo for the antis. If they don't think antis check these forums, they are very wrong.

[gaseousclay]

As I said before, being a tough interviewer and being a hostile interviewer are not necessarily the same thing. For example, if Gregory had been tough, yet impartial, he might have asked a question like this: "How would you respond to critics that say armed school security is not a workable solution because there was an armed police officer on campus who failed to stop the Columbine shooting?" That's a tough question, but by simply asking it and then allowing LaPierre to respond and explain his position, Gregory could have remained impartial. Instead, Gregory chose to cut LaPierre off, talk over him, and change the subject before LaPierre had a chance to fully explain his position. You say that LaPierre wasn't prepared, but I say that he was as prepared as he could have been.

actually, David Gregory cuts everyone off, so I don't think you're painting an accurate picture of the interview. LaPierre clearly ducked several questions. Gregory had to re-ask him questions because he failed to answer them, so no, I don't think LaPierre was as prepared as he could've been. He was prepared to answer the NRA's own talking points and not much else imo.

[MLeake]

gaseousclay, you are part of et al.

Bashing the NRA right now only helps the antis. If you have constructive advice, and don't wish to harm our side, why not send it directly to NRA, SAF, etc?

Unless, of course, you want to provide ammo for BCAV, huffpo, et al?

[leadchucker]

LaPierre did his best in a clearly hostile situation. No journalist there approaches this subject with an open mind.

[Tinner666]

Anybody ever hear of Ann Coulter? Me neither.
Like LaPierre, she said we need more firearms too. How do like that?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/19/we...ool-shootings/

[Webleymkv]

Anybody ever hear of Ann Coulter Me neither.

I've heard of her. She a fairly well-known, and very outspoken, conservative pundit who appears on Fox News, usually on Hannity, semi-regularly.

[RangerHAAF]

I think everybody on this board knows there's a big fight coming soon. The anti-gunners in NY, MA and CA are coming again for our guns again like they did in 94' and it's gonna be up to those of us who really believe in the 2nd Amendment to stop them cold in their tracks and to remind them that we take this fight seriously. Afterall there are a lot of Dems in office today who weren't around in 94, it was a generation ago.

[JWT]

Coulter has very good ideas and is extremely smart. But, she comes across as crass and very hard. Her presentation manner turns people off even though her points are valid. I think LaPierre has some of the same issues and although his message was the correct one, his delivery and manner counteracted what he said.

There was another NRA spokesman on one of the morning shows today (didn't get his name) that was extremely articulate and did a very good job of outlining and defending the NRA position. Need to see more of him.

[BigJim5945]

Compromise does not work - the main reasons being that, as noted, the other side gives up nothing (and has an ultimate goal of a total ban)

I don't understand this argument, and it keeps getting bandied around. Most gun control advocates who've commented publicly have said they aren't looking to ban all firearms, that tools for hunting and hand guns for self-protection are legal and justified. For a group of people who are uncomfortable at the thought of guns, that must seem like giving up a lot.

Since we live in the western industrialized country with the easiest access to the biggest variety of firearms in the world, this idea that gun control advocates have had it their way and haven't given ground on anything seems, to me, false.

[MLeake]

BigJim, the AWB had a sunset provision. It lapsed because voting to extend it would have been political suicide for Blue Dog democrats - it was not ended as a compromise.

Overturned bans in DC and Chicago were the results of court decisions, not political compromise.

Shall Issue laws have been the results of grass roots campaigns, and majorities at the polls - not political compromise.

Please feel free to point out any recent easements on restrictions that have resulted from compromise. I do not think you will be able to.

[MLeake]

Also, BigJim, look up Diane Feinstein's quote about what she would have done to gun ownership, across the US, if she could have gained the votes.

Then, check out George Soros (major campaign and advertising financier) and David Axelrod, and see what they have to say about guns.

Then look at NYC arrests of people who were either protected under LEOSA or FOPA while traveling through, and see if you can find any public apologies from Bloomberg.

After you do that, tell me my take on the goals of the anti movement is wrong.

These people fall into two groups, by and large -

The first is the ostrich crowd. If they don't believe they might need a gun, bad things will never happen. Therefore, they need to believe that you and I do not need guns, either.

The second are the intelligentsia and plutocrats. They may own guns and have carry permits, but they are more intellectually enlightened or politically empowered than you and me, and they don't want the cretins or peasants to be armed. It could make it harder for them to tell us how to live.

[bumnote]

Simply, it's not a compromise if one side has nothing to exchange or give up for another side giving up something. It's called appeasement, granting concessions to an enemy to maintain peace.
I'm not in anyway shape or form a panic driven individual, but honestly I do believe this is an attempt at a gun grab. A horrible tragedy is being used purely for political gain under the disguise of public safety. A partisan commission has been formed to recommend steps to take. They have less than 20 days...and it's a holiday season. What kind of meaningful and useless guidelines are going to come from something so hastily formed in a country as board as ours with a bureaucracy so big? The outcome has been predetermined by one branch of the federal government.
Anything meaningful and useful would be undertaken by a bipartisan group, bringing together both sides for a discussion, that would last longer than 2 1/2 weeks...and all topics would be on the table. Not just guns. Trying to curb violent crime by only addressing guns and one type in particular, and ignoring the larger picture and root causes is, in my mind, a witch-hunt.

[MLeake]

Rome beat the Gauls via several methods. Most of us are aware of "divide and conquer." Some of us may not be aware of the Romans' uses of religion and wine...

Basically, the Romans made the Gauls dependent on them for the wine trade, after giving them a taste. They eroded the belief systems of the Gauls, by slowly imposing their own.

And of course, they divided and conquered, typically by sending peaceful emissaries to assist and advise in interclan hostilities.

Now, look at the antis...

They don't want to ban your gun, just that guy down the street's.

They don't want your deer rifle - though most will throw fits if hunting ever gets positive coverage - so you should not fear them.

They have no problem with your thoughtful position, but boy that NRA sure is full of nutjobs, isn't it?

Meanwhile, their take is sold in the media as the common sense, reasonable position.

Say hello to the new, would-be Caesar, people. The antis wish to take up the purple.

And realize some of the peaceful emissaries may now be sporting TFL screen names. (Some sure act that way.)

[Alabama Shooter]

I don't understand this argument, and it keeps getting bandied around. Most gun control advocates who've commented publicly have said they aren't looking to ban all firearms, that tools for hunting and hand guns for self-protection are legal and justified. For a group of people who are uncomfortable at the thought of guns, that must seem like giving up a lot.

Since we live in the western industrialized country with the easiest access to the biggest variety of firearms in the world, this idea that gun control advocates have had it their way and haven't given ground on anything seems, to me, false.

Most gun control advocates speak out of both sides of their mouth. They may say they are uncomfortable around guns until they get caught with theirs.

You are right on the second point. In much of the US gun control has not had a serious detrimental effect on legal ownership, yet.

[rickyrick]

I am sure people in suburbia are far away from the bad side of town and they feel safe, but in small communities with small police forces, the bad side of town can be two houses down.

Criminals have learned to operate out of small towns across America with little or no law enforcement.

Some schools may be an hour away from the nearest officer, and longer wait times for a swat team.

[gaseousclay]

gaseousclay, you are part of et al.

Bashing the NRA right now only helps the antis. If you have constructive advice, and don't wish to harm our side, why not send it directly to NRA, SAF, etc?

Unless, of course, you want to provide ammo for BCAV, huffpo, et al?

so when my views and opinions don't align with yours or LaPierre's i'm part of the problem? my opinions are just as valid as everyone else who didn't like what LaPierre had to say, and since he's the Pied Piper for the NRA his comments speak volumes about where their organization is headed. drawing a line in the sand and even refusing to address non-gun owners in this country is probably doing more harm than good.

[HiBC]

On protecting our children in schools:We had a Greatest Generation that returned from WW2.Today,we have another group who have served with honor and courage and have experienced armed conflict.
As they return,they have a hard time finding jobs.With some screening,training,among these veterans,men and women,you will find the ideal to keep our schools safe.

And forget the uniformed guard at the door.Watch any hollywood raid movie,from "The Professionals" western through modern Special Ops movies,the sentinel guards get taken out.I say movies for a reason.

You let these veterans wear civilian clothes,carry concealed,and assist the principle.They watch a bank of video monitors,sometimes,and can see the whole campus.

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.

While I oppose "big brother" in general ,on our school campuses I support audio and video monitoring.

With all those linked to I-pad,I-pod,,the security officers and responding police can have a good idea of what is going on anywhere on the campus,even as they walk around or pursue.

This link will take you to a statement from Darrel Scott.His daughter was murdered at Columbine.
http://www.nrawinningteam.com/scotttext.html

[No1der]

so when my views and opinions don't align with yours or LaPierre's i'm part of the problem? my opinions are just as valid as everyone else who didn't like what LaPierre had to say, and since he's the Pied Piper for the NRA his comments speak volumes about where their organization is headed. drawing a line in the sand and even refusing to address non-gun owners in this country is probably doing more harm than good.

I 100% support this message. Also I too think that LaPierre collectively "screwed the pooch" with his two appearances.

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.

One thing that he did, that I hadn't already mentioned, is that he goes down a laundry list of "conspiracies against the 2A" without being asked about it. In this day and age the last thing you want to do is talk about conspiracies against you, what you stand for and the 2A.

If you don't believe me then go among a group of average people and mention your favorite conspiracy theory to them and watch their eyes roll and their minds close.

Wayne did NOT serve us well by talking about conspiracies. That just one other thing that I hadn't talked about already. From top to bottom he came off looking really really bad.

[MLeake]

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.

[No1der]

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.

@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.

[Stevie-Ray]

Personally, I take issue with the 100 round ammo drums...that's rediculous.

I'm perfectly ok with the 30 round mag's.

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.

[shortwave]

From top to bottom he came off looking really really bad.

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

[MLeake]

And shortwave has nailed it.