The NRA Response

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[jimbob86]

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.

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?

[Alabama Shooter]

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.

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.

[seeker_two]

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...

[No1der]

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.

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.

[BigJim5945]

Shortwave has nailed the crux of what I believe*

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

[rickyrick]

Another vote for shortwave

[JWT]

@ 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.

[MLeake]

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.

[Ghost1958]

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.

[Mr. Davis]

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.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

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.

[MLeake]

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.

[No1der]

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.

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.

[MLeake]

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.

[Webleymkv]

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.

While I didn't particularly care for LaPierre's indictment against the video game industry, it should be pointed out that the gun industry isn't really allowed to self-regulate like the motion picture and video game industries because the gun industry already has so many legal regulations imposed upon it. Think about it, you don't have to have a federal license to sell video games, there isn't a list of features that cannot be legally incorporated into a video game, one needs no special license or permit to buy, use, or play a video game, and one needs not pass a background check to buy or possess a video game.

While you do have the ESRB and MPAA ratings systems, those are voluntary within the industry and not mandated by federal law. One could legally sell a M-Rated video game or R-Rated movie to anyone regardless of age, background, or mental status.

Your idea for a rating system for firearms really isn't feasible because they'd all wind up with the same rating: "Warning, this is a deadly weapon. Not suitable for use or possession by children, violent criminals, the mentally unstable, persons using mind-altering chemicals, or persons possessing poor judgement."

Also, as to your assertions that the firearm industry makes no attempt to self-regulate, that is untrue as well. Simply read the owner's manual that comes with any new firearm and you'll find all kinds of warnings about safe usage and storage, warnings about usage with alcohol or drugs, and warnings about keeping the firearm out of the hands of children. Some manufacturers like S&W and Ruger have even been known to engrave warnings right on the firearm itself. The fact of the matter is that firearm manufacturers have done all they can reasonably be expected to do to keep their products from being used negligently or criminally, but they simply cannot prevent everything.

[nate45]

Originally Posted by No1der

the 2A folks refuse to accept

The 2nd Amendment folks and not we 2nd Amendment folks. Interesting phrasing.

[No1der]

The 2nd Amendment folks and not we 2nd Amendment folks. Interesting phrasing.

@nate
I don't think I follow what it is you're trying to say.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by No1der

@nate
I don't think I follow what it is you're trying to say.

If I had to guess, I would guess that he was trying to say that, "U r not 1 of us."

In other words, you referred to "the" 2A folks. If YOU were a 2A folk, you would have written, "We 2A folks ..."

[nate45]

Yes, pardon the implications No1der. You see on TFL (The Firing Line), we give everyone the benefit of the doubt, about their veracity and intentions. We also have a very high standard of decorum, so nothing sould sound overly combative, or accusatory. We also never, ever rally around law breaking, or bad behavior. So when some one, or something is to blame, we call a spade a spade.

If a Law Officer, or anyone else does wrong, we say so. If something were defective and dangerous, we'd say so, etc. And from what I can see, almost to a man, all the long time members and staff, have stated their opposition to any type of new bans, or restrictions. Why do we not favor new restrictions? Its not because many of us are not in the NRA and other national gun organizations. If banning magazines, or types of weapons avalible now would help, we'd be for it. Its not reality though and it won't stop shootings. Then when the shootings don't stop, they'll want more.

Listen, I don't know buddy, maybe I'm just weary from all the letters, e-mails, etc I've been sending the last week or so. So, don't mind me, you guys go back to your debate, I wasn't even in it, till that last little quip about we and the.

Here is an Xmas song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvkzoqQ5Oak

[No1der]

If I had to guess, I would guess that he was trying to say that, "U r not 1 of us."

In other words, you referred to "the" 2A folks. If YOU were a 2A folk, you would have written, "We 2A folks ..."

Well, I also said "The First Amendment folks" instead of "we First Amendment folks" so why would I say "we 2A folks?"

It's pretty apparent from my posts that the 1A is at least as important to me. It would be kind of a clumsy sentence if I said "The first Amendment folks" and followed it up with "we Second Amendment folks." I'm not picking one over the other, I think they are both equally important. What next, is someone going to mention the 4A because I didn't mention them?

[No1der]

@nate, no sweat. I get it and I'm not insulted cause I'm sure that this is equally hard on everyone here. Some maybe even more than others since some of us think Wayne LaPierre isn't making a very strong case on our behalf.

One of the points I'm trying to make is that it's a tad hypocritical of Wayne LaPierre to be attacking my 1A rights in the same fashion that the 2A is being attacked by others. He's either pro Bill of Rights or he isn't and I don't like the way he picks and chooses which rights are "fair game" and which aren't.

[nate45]

I agree, I don't want to end up here, like it is in say England for example, where they jail people, for hurting some ones feelings. Having free speech and a rifle(or at least the right to have one) are what defines a citizen. Subjects aren't allowed either.

[No1der]

I agree, I don't want to end up here, like it is in say England for example, where they jail people, for hurting some ones feelings. Having free speech and a rifle(or at least the right to have one) are what defines a citizen. Subjects aren't allowed either.

Amen to that.

[Al Norris]

There are many things I can find wrong with what the NRA has done/is doing, since Heller, but that is not the point of my writing, today.

Did Wayne LaPierre actually attack the free speech?

At first glance, it would appear so. At first glance, he enraged a large segment of the population that plays games. A segment that we get many of our new shooters from. Truth be known, a segment that makes-up a significant portion of NRA members!

Nor do I believe that Wayne is ignorant of what the Courts have said in regards to "violence" in games, TV and Hollywood.

I also think he had a sound tactic in trying to shift some focus, yes, even blame, upon the Media itself (before you answer, allow me to finish writing).

So I have to ask, why he would start his speech with those in particular?

I really think that the idea was to get the Media so enraged with this opening salvo (of blame), that they would put some small focus into defending their 1st amendment rights.

That right there, would have allowed the NRA to use the very same defenses for the RKBA. As a tactic, it could have worked wonderfully. The problem is that the Media did not respond to the script the way the NRA had figured it would.

This is where a good political analyst and speech writer could have been put to good use. Maybe the NRA was using such, and simply overruled the analysts! I really don't know.

What I do know is that the Media was smarter than the NRA gave them credit for. What started as a good tactic, became a terrific blunder. For the Media saw through the ploy and made little if any mention of this. Instead, they focused on putting more guns in schools and arming all teachers. That was not what was said, but it is what has been reported as being said.

That isn't even close to what Wayne actually said, but it was what came across to the average person watching/listening and then immediately pounded upon by the Media.

There was one other thing that happened in this speech, to those that watched the presser on the MSN (which is where most saw it). They saw a couple of very agitated and abusive protesters get past the NRA security! right at the start of the presser!!

It doesn't take much of a leap to think that while Wayne was talking about how good the NRA is at security training, yet anti-gun/anti-NRA protesters got through that very same security (if all you have done is to read the transcript or watch the presser on the NRA website, this was all edited out)! So how good could their vaunted training really be?

That right there undermined the credibility of anything the NRA (via Wayne LaPierre) had to say.

Even though I understood the message. Even though I agreed with it. Even though it was a lose/lose proposition to begin with, the NRA still had to take the stand they did... Yet, it was a virtual horror show.

That said, I don't agree with what No1der and some others are saying.

In the final analysis, the NRA is the only organization/speaker that has laid out a concrete plan to help thwart these attacks on our schools. Banning guns or setting limits on magazines have no chance of stopping these atrocious acts.

Webleymkv has made some very good points as to what we are up against, what the NRA actually proposed, why the anti-gun groups method won't work and what they are really after.

The NRA, love them or hate them, had to come out swinging as hard as they could. Their "take no prisoners," stance had to be said.

I'll go one further, we either stand behind them, united, or we will surely fall, separately.

One last thought, and I'll get off of my soapbox. Since the tragedy, the NRA has been registering 8000 new members a day. Since LaPierre's presser, that has jumped to 10K a day.

That alone says something about what the common man thinks about all of this. Have you done your part?