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

[wolfwood]

This is the level of respect the NRA gives its members


he doubled down





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.

[Aguila Blanca]

I hope every NRA member who voted for Mr. Lee sees this.

[Eazyeach]

That’s disgusting. What a jerk. I’ve had it with the NRA and the republicans. They had the house , senate, and presidency for two years and couldn’t pass national reciprocity or the hearing protection act.

I am done voting for the lesser of two evils and I will not be renewing my NRA membership.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Here's a transcript of Trump's conversation with Morgan. While he says some decent things, it is pretty clear that Donald is very shallow in his understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Look at the reason for semi rifles - entertainment.

https://factba.se/transcript/donald-...mb-june-4-2019

It will be amusing if sometime in the future, that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have to lead SCOTUS in protecting us from Donald's bans. Would they take action against the leader that put them in place? Could we trust Roberts to overturn a president, since he is fan of presidential power?

Only time will tell.

Tne NRA is in a terrible spot, they hitched their wagon to Trump and that's that. The new president, conjured out of hat, said their first priority is the re-election of Trump.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've deleted some noise and a response to it. We prefer posts that speak to the issue and not one liners that don't.

There is a problem that we may see executive bans and the gun world not knowing how to respond or even wanting to respond for various reasons that may not be in accord with promoting the RKBA.

[5whiskey]

So we were all ecstatic after the 2016, and just a few cautioned to not jump for joy as DJT is as likely to shift with the winds as anyone else on 2A issues. And he was the “surprise” factor. Whelp... Glenn was on to something with “hitching the wagon” comment. I can be capable of voting, and vocally supporting, for a “lesser of the two evils” but I will not fail to call them out if they throw curve balls. This IS a curve ball. We sincerely discussed how the HPA stood a real chance a couple of years ago. Now we’re facing the possibility of them being erased from civilian ownership.

At least Trump didn’t completely roll over on the entire 2A to Morgan, but assault rifles being about entertainment and considering a suppressor ban? Seriously!?!?

Write your Congress critters. I am. Writing the Pres too. Whatever good it’ll do he’s probably too busy posting something dumb on Twitter.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Well, there were lots of indications Trump’s Second Amendment support was shallow. Everyone ignored that in the primaries because they were excited to see someone who was both willing and capable of fighting back instead of prizing decorum above success.

The NRA really didn’t have much of a choice there. If they had endorsed someone at the primary stage, they ran a huge risk of having that blow up in their face. And after the primaries, I’m trying to think of any GOP candidate that would not have gotten the endorsement in a tight race with Hillary and the Heller majority at stake?

Now the NRA is in the tight spot of having to pick a fight with a guy they endorsed who has no real commitment to the Second and likes to fight or just looking the other way. And the NRA can’t really afford to open any more fronts between the internal rifts and Bloomberg/Cuomo.

At this point, all we can do is vote in a more capable board at NRA and make well-reasoned arguments to our representatives at all levels.

[Tom Servo]

At least Trump didn’t completely roll over on the entire 2A to Morgan

I'm disappointed the bar is set so low at this point.

Less than two years ago, I sat in Atlanta and listened to him say:

the eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end.

and,

I will never, ever infringe on the right of the people to bear arms.

Since then, he's done nothing to help improve our laws. He's given the ATF authority to redefine the law so he could get bump stocks banned without going through congress. That alone makes him more dangerous than any President since FDR.

Now this claptrap about silencers. He doesn't even need to go through the legislature. He can just tell the NFA branch to stop processing applications for new stamps, and that will make it look like he's doing something while having a chilling effect on ownership.

And that's just what the gun-control lobby wants.

I warned his supporters about his past statements of support for things like waiting periods and "assault weapons" bans. I warned them about how cozy he was with gun-control advocates. But I guess the Twitter rants and the perky red hats were just too appealing.

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.

We're probably in for more hurt as mass shootings continue. I really hope gun owners learn from this.

[zukiphile]

Virtually any conversation with Morgan is bound to be shallow, and many suspect that DJT's positions on any number of issues is insubstantial, including an off the cuff response that he will "seriously look at" taking an action in response to questions from Piers Morgan. Where a politician tells someone he will "take a serious look at" something, I hear a refusal to take any action of any kind.

Similarly insubstantial or shallow is a board member of an important civil rights organization conducting public relations via whatever that format is. If the man's first reaction to a question is to deflect, that's a problem. I find that medium a problem more generally.

Where a fellow like DJT has a foundation in the issue that seems modest, making the case for suppressors without indulging an emotional need to make oneself a political enemy is important.

It may be upsetting to some that the NRA would seek to re-elect a president who has nominated better justices than has his predecessor. Someone is going to be the next president. Unless a candidate that is both plausible and better on the right has been identified, that complaint doesn't appear to be primarily about the RTKB.

[Nathan]

“lesser of the two evils”

As soon as we start thinking like this, we lose our leverage. We lost our leverage in the last election. The Republicans know they cannot beat the gimme-dats without the NRA, but does the NRA know they can run their own guys and win?

I don’t think the LaPierre led NRA understands they can win without the republicans. Actually, they could blow the election away with a fully pro-2A more centrist candidate!

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Nathan

I don’t think the LaPierre led NRA understands they can win without the republicans.

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?

In the Senate, dems have opposed judicial nominees who see the text of the Constitutional as central to its interpretation. Heitkamp was held out as a 2d Am. candidate, but voted for Gorsuch only grudgingly, then voted against Kavanaugh, and she was the democrat outlier on the issue.

States are different matters with their own features.

At least nationally, we have a two party system. As someone noted in the last couple of years, if confronted with two doors and first reads "Maybe a Man-Eating Tiger" and the second reads "Definitely a Man-Eating Tiger", the second door isn't the better survival strategy.

That doesn't mean one can't be frustrated. This isn't the first special interest (non-pejoratively, a specific interest rather than general or broad) that only works effectively within one party because the other party is a committed opponent on an issue. If you were an abolitionist, you might not have been entirely satisfied with Lincoln, but that wouldn't make appeals to Jefferson Davis more productive.

[5whiskey]

As someone noted in the last couple of years, if confronted with two doors and first reads "Maybe a Man-Eating Tiger" and the second reads "Definitely a Man-Eating Tiger", the second door isn't the better survival strategy.

Perfectly explains the rationality of voting for "the lesser evil." But wait! There's the third party! In that case there are three doors... 1 "maybe a man-eating tiger," 1 "definitely a man-eating tiger," and 1 "definitely a paper tiger that is apt to ensure the release of a real man-eating tiger on the public."

I'm disappointed the bar is set so low at this point.

Tom it's not really set that low, at least not with me. Much more anti-2A antics from DJT and I'll vocally choose the paper tiger door next election.

I warned his supporters about his past statements of support for things like waiting periods and "assault weapons" bans. I warned them about how cozy he was with gun-control advocates. But I guess the Twitter rants and the perky red hats were just too appealing.

You and a couple of others were some of those whom I referred to as warning us about DJT. I remember a few trying to temper general gun owner's enthusiasm after 2016 with a warning that DJT was untested, unpredictable, and his convictions and principles likely has a foundation looser than beach sand. Turns out those voices were right. What's worse is when the "team players" defend their chosen politician through thick and thin, no matter what they do or say. I have no problems jumping ship if the captain starts steering too far off course, and we're very near that.

[5whiskey]

I still cede, OTOH, that the alternative in 2016 would likely have been much more detrimental to gun rights. So there's that.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 5whisky

You and a couple of others were some of those whom I referred to as warning us about DJT. I remember a few trying to temper general gun owner's enthusiasm after 2016 with a warning that DJT was untested, unpredictable, and his convictions and principles likely has a foundation looser than beach sand. Turns out those voices were right.

It's great that we were right, but that doesn't get us very far.

None of these events are happening in a vacuum, and the dems are in the midst of a presidential primary that drags them well off center. That is an environment in which grassroots pressure to refrain from a ban might be unusually well received.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The mantra that Hillary would have been worse is an interesting what-if. She might have been blocked on any action by the GOP Congress and Senate. An executive order, might have been fought legislatively with vigor. The GOP now has a hard time critiquing their leader.

Plenty of other reasons not to want her. However, Obama did nothing on gun control legislatively. Trump is a loose cannon.

It will be ironic, as I said elsewhere, if we have to hope that Kavanugh and Gorsuch lead a SCOTUS effort to save us from Donald. Would they vote against their father figure?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

The mantra that Hillary would have been worse is an interesting what-if. She might have been blocked on any action by the GOP Congress and Senate. An executive order, might have been fought legislatively with vigor. The GOP now has a hard time critiquing their leader.

If Hillary had won the presidency, it's unlikely that there would have been a GOP Congress and Senate.

[zxcvbob]

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.

That's what was at stake. The 2016 election wasn't about guns (we didn't necessarily know that at the time) guns were just part of it. DJT may not have been a good bet, but he was the best bet we had and I think the right one.

[44 AMP]

What bothers me is the statement in the OP about the NRA "rolling over" and "let" Trump ban suppressors.

Since when does the NRA control the Chief Executive?? Simply put, we (be it the NRA or the entire voting public) don't "let" the President do anything.

All we do, all we can do, is give our opinions on proposed actions, and threaten to not re-elect, if our wishes aren't followed.

We don't LET politicians do anything, they do those things on their own.

I am done voting for the lesser of two evils and I will not be renewing my NRA membership.

I can understand not wanting to vote for the lesser of two evils, but realistically, in our system, where else are you going to go?

As to not renewing your membership, why? Because you aren't happy with certain people or policies in the NRA? Or, because the NRA has "failed" by not doing "enough" to stop gun control?

Are you aware that, by LAW, no part of your membership dues gets spent on political action?

It's your money, and your choice, and if you want to take your ball (wallet) and go home, no one will stop you. Just be aware that doing that helps the people who want to ban guns.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

The mantra that Hillary would have been worse is an interesting what-if. She might have been blocked on any action by the GOP Congress and Senate. An executive order, might have been fought legislatively with vigor. The GOP now has a hard time critiquing their leader.

Given Roberts' public feud with DJT, repub reactions to Peter Navarro generally and tariffs specifically, and McConnell's brush back of DJT's ideas about how the Senate should function, the anxiety that repubs don't have a functioning critical capacity seems misplaced.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

Plenty of other reasons not to want her. However, Obama did nothing on gun control legislatively. Trump is a loose cannon.

BHO did plenty on gun control legislatively. As President, he announced support of UBCs, and his AG had something to do with shenanigans with FFLs in the southwest. That his efforts in support of legislation couldn't overcome a repub legislature should suggest to no one that he was a benign influence on 2d Am. issues. Prior to 2009, his positions included support of the 1994 AWB, and he voted against the PLCAA.

HRC also supported UBCs and opposed the PLCAA.

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

It will be ironic, as I said elsewhere, if we have to hope that Kavanugh and Gorsuch lead a SCOTUS effort to save us from Donald. Would they vote against their father figure?

How does a bizarre theory that US Sup. Ct. justices regard as a father the President who nominates them relate to the topic: the NRA and how it should treat members and a potentially useful but inadequately committed President?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I really don't want to redo the election but the margin for Trump was based on small numbers in several states that Clinton screwed up in. A slight change and she should could have won but not having a veto proof senate majority.

BTW, there were no major bans under Obama. Holder's screw up didn't take one item away from citizens.

It is bizarre not to worry about how the current court would respond to significant Trump bans. SCOTUS was a major reason for vote for Trump on gun rights issues. So it is an interesting scenario to worry about it.

It's ok to be loyal to Trump, if that floats your boat.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

BTW, there were no major bans under Obama.

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

Originally Posted by Glenn E Meyer

It is bizarre not to worry about how the current court would respond to significant Trump bans.

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.

[wolfwood]

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

What bothers me is the statement in the OP about the NRA "rolling over" and "let" Trump ban suppressors.

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

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.

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by wolfwood

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.

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.