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

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The use of metaphors escapes some.

[5whiskey]

Is this guy serious!?!?!?

I decide what is snark, & I'll mock you for 101-level crap

I decide what is disrespectful

I decide what hater notes to keep...

I decide if you're a bot or troll

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.

[44 AMP]

FB page that appears to be an outlet to directly address the NRA board of directors.

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)

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by AB

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.

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

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.

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?

[5whiskey]

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.

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.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

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.

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".

[5whiskey]

I don't carry a cellular telephone.

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.

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".

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."

[rickyrick]

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.

[Nathan]

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?

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!

[2wheelwander]

More evidence, to me, the NRA is not what it was and why I still have not renewed membership.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nathan

This is the kind of thinking that causes failure.

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?

Originally Posted by Nathan

When we give up on the idea of multi-party government, we give up on representative government.

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

Originally Posted by Nathan

30% of us population at mínimum are gun owners.

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.

Originally Posted by Nathan

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!

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

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.

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."

[5whiskey]

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."

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.

[Mike38]

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.

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?

[punkinhead]

The 1994 ban supported by Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Sr? Yes, I remember that.

[Aguila Blanca]

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?

The 1994 ban supported by Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush Sr? Yes, I remember that.

Unrelated to Willes Lee and his response to the NRA member who commented on his Facebook page.

[zxcvbob]

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."

He wants to have it both ways. He represents the NRA only if you agree with him.

Are there any good directors left that we know of? I kinda think all of them should be fired just to remind the board that they work for us. But I think they've changed the rules so that's impossible; and they don't work for us anymore, we just pay the bills.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Are there any good directors left that we know of? I kinda think all of them should be fired just to remind the board that they work for us. But I think they've changed the rules so that's impossible; and they don't work for us anymore, we just pay the bills.

The by-laws were revised two (I think) years ago. The changes effectively made it impossible for the members to exercise any control over "their" organization.

Jeff Knox wrote about it fairly extensively in his blog at the time.

[KyJim]

Back to the "snarkiness" of the post(s), everyone should get in the habit of writing or typing a snarky or controversial post without sending it. Chill out a few minutes or longer. Then re-read it and maybe have someone you trust also read it. Only then should you post it. I've done this many times and have been glad I didn't go off half-cocked. Having said that, I realize that's not the way the online world normally works, but maybe it should be.

[rickyrick]

KyJim, great advice. I’ve posted stuff that I should have re-read beforehand.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by KyJim

Back to the "snarkiness" of the post(s), everyone should get in the habit of writing or typing a snarky or controversial post without sending it. Chill out a few minutes or longer. Then re-read it and maybe have someone you trust also read it. Only then should you post it. I've done this many times and have been glad I didn't go off half-cocked. Having said that, I realize that's not the way the online world normally works, but maybe it should be.

KyJim, are you referring to Mr. Willes' post, or the NRA member's post to which Willes was responding? Willes characterized the member's post as "snark," but I didn't see it that way at all. I saw it as a sincere statement/question. The snark was Willes's reply.

[Thomas Clarke]

I read at 46 posts in this thread. The OP is I think correctly understood by all. What he represents is what no one tolerates at either work or in our own homes. I call it My House My Rules. I win. You Lose. I would like to think that all of us as Americans recognize that this level exemplified by the OP is not what we are all about. It is why the Second Amendment must be protected at all costs by all of us. The OP is dangerous and a threat to all of us. He is much worse than the Democrats. There can be no compromise on out rights to Keep and Bear Arms. The alternative is not acceptable.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

and they don't work for us anymore, we just pay the bills.

Kind of like the government...

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The by-laws were revised two (I think) years ago. The changes effectively made it impossible for the members to exercise any control over "their" organization.

Jeff Knox wrote about it fairly extensively in his blog at the time.

That is a deal breaker for me.

[Aguila Blanca]

Please don't take my word on it. Read up on it and make your own decision based on more complete information than my fuzzy memory.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/vot...#axzz5qJtc2cAO

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...rules-changes/

https://www.wnd.com/2017/01/dont-be-...-reforms-push/