Anyone Else Disappointed in NRA Lack of Eloquence?


PDA






Confederate
February 12, 2013, 02:09 AM
I've always been a supporter of the NRA and the Institute for Legislative Action, but lately, as more and greater backing of gun control is discussed in the media, I've frankly been disappointed by the NRA's lack of eloquence in defending American gun owners. Also, their lack of alacrity in engaging those with anti-gun agendas.

The only one showing any eagerness in engaging these pinheads was Larry Pratt, of the Second Amendment Foundation!

Why can't the NRA get off its butt and hire someone who can represent us with passion and common sense? Very few of our guys brought up the fact that no gun law presently on the books would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, and that no law being proposed would have prevented it, or even slowed it down!

Wayne LaPierre does okay writing books; but his quickness of wits in engaging our enemies leaves a lot to be desired. His exchanges are always quite forgettable. Anyone else notice this? All I'm saying is that we ought to be getting a lot more for our $$$.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone Else Disappointed in NRA Lack of Eloquence?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kiln
February 12, 2013, 04:17 AM
I kind of get the feeling that Wayne is so annoyed with all of the ignorance in the gun control crowd that he's basically just dismissive of the opposition.

While I am also extremely annoyed, I don't underestimate the power of blind emotion without logic. It can and has won over large numbers of people throughout history.

SleazyRider
February 12, 2013, 04:20 AM
I think that business about running an ad featuring the President's kids was an ill-advised action that did not sit well with the general public.

Solo
February 12, 2013, 04:22 AM
I have noticed that many of my friends are fall less receptive to the NRA's rhetoric than to a patient and detailed explanation of the facts.

coloradokevin
February 12, 2013, 04:52 AM
I think this is a good subject for discussion at the moment, and I completely agree with what you're saying. I haven't been at all impressed by their response thus far, with one exception. The interview that David Keene did here in Colorado with the Denver Post was actually pretty decent. Otherwise, the NRA has failed to impress me with their lack of polish on this particular issue.

mljdeckard
February 12, 2013, 05:21 AM
Like who? Gertrude Stein is busy.

alsaqr
February 12, 2013, 07:47 AM
i don't have a problem with La Pierre or the NRA on this issue.

OilyPablo
February 12, 2013, 08:00 AM
Wayne is a terrible front person for 2013. He simply looks very unappealing to the masses and takes way too long to form his thoughts in front of a camera. Putting it another way: he really hasn't been asked one question that is a surprise and should have two-three quips ready each and every time.

Sorry if this offends - I am a large contributor to NRA, but I also give large to GOA and SAF.

beatledog7
February 12, 2013, 08:41 AM
Wayne's not likely to be replaced, so there's little to be gained from wishing. I agree he's not terribly eloquent or quick on the response at times, but maybe that just means he's not relying on memorized sound bites to respond to questions.

We live in a sound bite age, but does that mean we have to give in to it? Are sound bites more important than truth? Wouldn't it be a shame if eloquence before the microphone were what we valued most in a leader?

hso
February 12, 2013, 08:59 AM
We have had a few threads on this in General.

Who would replace LaPierre in the public role and how would you make that happen?

AirForceShooter
February 12, 2013, 09:05 AM
Replace Wayne? :what:

There's one in house at this very moment. Get Cris Cox off the bench.
Wayne's day is over.

For a front person get a 30ish MOM that can put coherent sentences together.

Til that happens my cash goes to SAF and GOA.

Thus far the NRA has been horrible.

AFS

LeonCarr
February 12, 2013, 09:17 AM
IMO lack of polish/gloves coming off is exactly what we need.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Akita1
February 12, 2013, 09:33 AM
We have had a few threads on this in General.

Who would replace LaPierre in the public role and how would you make that happen?
Chris Cox - better suited to modern media. Young, pleasant, articulate, etc. Looking good in front of a camera, communicating clear/concise facts, having defensible positions on issues, making opponents sound like the demagogues they are and telling people what to think (this one's the key) are the earmarks of a successful marketing campaign. If it isn't Chris Cox, it's Ryan Seacrest! (jk)

Don't know enough about NRA inner workings and politics to intelligently suggest how to make it happen - anyone else here know?

BigG
February 12, 2013, 10:04 AM
What about Tom Selleck?

BoilerUP
February 12, 2013, 10:12 AM
Colion Noir.

Sam Cade
February 12, 2013, 10:44 AM
What about Tom Selleck?

Tom Selleck is seventy years old and a working full time actor.

michaelbsc
February 12, 2013, 05:26 PM
Colion Noir.

Colion Noir would be awesome. But could you get the NRA to do that is the question. They aren't exactly known for being a progressive party.


LaPierre is very good sitting down at a conference table negotiating with policy wonks. He has a tremendously valuable place. But that isn't in front of a tv camera.

tuj
February 12, 2013, 09:29 PM
You need a Jon Stewart except who is *for* guns.

SleazyRider
February 12, 2013, 09:36 PM
Who would replace LaPierre in the public role and how would you make that happen?
I vote for Hickock45, but make it happen? That is but one bone of contention I have with the NRA: I am a member, but only in the narrowest of terms; that is, I pay my dues but don't feel like my membership extends beyond that of a dues payer. The organization has grown too big, too impersonal to respond to or even care about any of my concerns. I have no voice, not even a small one. It is not a grassroots organization by any means.

Not complaining, but you asked. :)

Confederate
February 12, 2013, 10:12 PM
None of the names I've heard impress me. I don't know that I've heard Cox speak, but part of the problem is Wayne, an older guy in a suit, a short haircut and glasses. He just comes off as a poster child for the so-called "gun lobby." When I worked at the NRA years ago, I was at a meeting with Wayne and a number of others with Neal Knox. The major question facing us was a major letter to the membership, and whether we would emphasize our recent victories or raise the specter of upcoming gun controls that were scary but highly unlikely to pass.

The problem was, if we stressed our impressive and recent victories, members might cut back on their contributions, concluding the worst was behind us; however, if we constantly scared the living daylights out of them, they might feel we were always hitting them up for money and having little to show for it. Don't misunderstand me. It was a legitimate issue, but we were essentially determining how best to manipulate our members to gain a desired response, which was to get money. If we did it too often, it would lose its effectiveness; yet we knew from experience that if we touted our victories, we would not be rewarded with the all powerful American buck!

The point in relating this is that Wayne is great handling administrative issues, but in debates he comes off as a lobbyist. What we need is an attractive "Fox News type" female attorney who knows FBI crime statistics, the difference between our legal system and those in Europe and Japan and the answers to the most asked about questions. In other words, we need maybe a former prosecuting attorney who is, as I said, attractive, sharp and yes, gang, expensive. And she should concentrate primarily on being a debater -- someone who can represent our interests and decimate our detractors. (For example, John Lott knows a great deal about statistics, but he's weak in a debate format.) We used to have some good debaters at the NRA; one of the best was Arizona attorney David Hardy (http://armsandthelaw.com/). He had a dry but cutting wit that was humorous instead of biting. And the boy knew what he was talking about. Still does. But he studies the issue all the time.

But the NRA is primarily interested in its own survival and isn't very interested in efficiency. Even when I was there I saw how they threw around money with corporate credit cards and they weren't what you'd call fiscal conservatives! If they would concentrate on getting one person who was articulate and knew what the hell SHE was talking about, we wouldn't have to depend on slow talking corporate types who really don't know the issue from a civilian perspective.

What d'ya think??

michaelbsc
February 13, 2013, 01:59 AM
In other words, we need maybe a former prosecuting attorney who is, as I said, attractive, sharp and yes, gang, expensive. And she should concentrate primarily on being a debater -- someone who can represent our interests and decimate our detractors.

How about her?

http://youtu.be/xkhc6hwJ7ZA

Jath
February 13, 2013, 02:02 AM
Ted Nugent is doing a good enough job. He represents the NRA too.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Confederate
February 13, 2013, 10:24 PM
Yes, Jeanine Pirro would be excellent. Ted Nugent? He has no legal background, no law enforcement background, plus he's never really studied the issue in enough detail to be an articulate spokesman. For example, when some media moron touts the common argument that a person with a gun is six times more likely to kill or injure themselves or a loved one than to kill an intruder, you have to be able to break the argument down into components. The first part, six times more likely to kill or injure themselves or a loved one includes all suicides (which make up roughly 50% of all fatal shootings); it includes all gun accidents, and a "loved one" actually includes associates like, say, Mad Mikey shooting Flatfoot Freddy over a drug deal gone bad. In most murders, the victim knows their killer, so those would be included as "loved ones."

The second part, than to kill an intruder. This doesn't include all those a gun owner scares off, injures, holds for police or simply deters because he or she is known to be armed. You actually have to kill them to be counted...bodies on the doorstep.

So arguments like the above are absurd. The truth is, the FBI (nor anyone else) knows how many people save themselves or others because they had a loaded gun handy. And speaking of being loaded, approximately 70% of all suicides and shootings include the use of alcohol and/or drugs, maybe higher. So if we ban anything, shouldn't it be alcohol and drugs? Oh, wait, we tried banning the former and the latter already are banned.

How's banning drugs worked out?

There is no winning in gun control because compromise always means giving up rights in exchange for not giving proponents everything they want. In other words, we always lose something and the other side always gains something. I don't know of any "compromise" that would include trashing the Gun Control Act of 1968 in exchange for a 2-week waiting period and background check. Nope. It's we keep the GCA 68 and we have the 2-week waiting period and the background check. What do we get in the compromise? We get a 2-week waiting period instead of a 4-week waiting period and your doctor can't ask you if you have any guns at home. We always lose something, like I said, and they always gain. They may not gain everything they wanted, but next time maybe.

I'd love to have someone like Meagyn Kelly of Fox News. She's gorgeous, articulate, and brilliant. Since there's only been one perfect person who's ever lived on this world, she gets her hair color out of a box; otherwise, she'd be pretty close to being perfect. My wife overlooks my crush on Meagyn Kelly if I overlook her crush on Shep Smith.

Jath
February 13, 2013, 11:34 PM
I don't think you've listened to Ted speak that often before. He's extremely articulate.

A chick as the nra speaker might be good as long as she's hot smart and witty.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Kiln
February 15, 2013, 03:59 PM
I think that business about running an ad featuring the President's kids was an ill-advised action that did not sit well with the general public.
Yet nobody thought it was bad that the president herded kids on stage to push his gun control agenda in a Stalin like manner.

OilyPablo
February 15, 2013, 04:45 PM
Yet nobody thought it was bad that the president herded kids on stage to push his gun control agenda in a Stalin like manner.

Exactly.

michaelbsc
February 15, 2013, 05:18 PM
Yet nobody thought it was bad that the president herded kids on stage to push his gun control agenda in a Stalin like manner.

Don't forget Hitler did the same thing. Only the gun control had already been passed in Germany by then. He was herding kids up to support other oppressive programs.

Seems that "do it for the children" needs to become an alarm bell.

friendofthewild
July 29, 2013, 12:04 AM
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe. Wayne is not a very good speaker. The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America. There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.

Yo Mama
July 29, 2013, 10:23 AM
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe. Wayne is not a very good speaker. The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America. There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.

Ok, wow. Where to start?

You didn't join the NRA because they are in with the gun makers, which if they didn't would be run out of business by legislation, and you wouldn't be able to ever buy another gun again? Doesn't make sense to me.

How has the NRA shown a terrible image to middle America?

And where are all the gun kooks, I only know regular plain gun owners, but would love to know where all the kooks are at?

The NRA is the largest lobbying group keeping our rights in place fighting against a power that has no lack of money, and they keep winning for us. Maybe the NRA isn't some evil corporation, but IT'S US! The NRA is made up of members, who vote for the people we choose to represent us.

Sam1911
July 29, 2013, 11:07 AM
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby
It has too much with the ... ? What did you just say? Are you talking about the NSSF (http://www.nssf.org/)? They're a great group as well, but not the same thing as the NRA. The NRA represents the U.S. citizen, while NSSF represents the shooting industry.

...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe.Ok, what do you mean by that, exactly though?

There are a lot of us here in the shooting crowd who say there's a very unappealing element to the "sportsman" crowd who refuse to get off their butts to support gun rights and the shooting sports, believing that if they just play nice with the anti-gun folks that they'll be allowed to keep their duck gun and deer rifle.

I prefer to see no separate "crowds" but rather all of us under one tent working together. What say you?

Wayne is not a very good speaker. He has his ups and downs. He's got a very multi-faceted job and appealing personally to the public at large is only part of it. However, a great many of us are looking forward to seeing Chirs Cox and other more ... personable? ... folks take an increasing role in the public view.

The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America.
Sometimes the fight requires a hard line to be drawn. Sometimes a more gentle approach can be taken. In politics, rarely are things said -- or things said the way they're said -- for completely transparent or simple reasons.

There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.LOL! Uh, you might have just stepped into a hornet's nest of them here! :D Might want to think about clarifying what's a "gun-kook" in your humble opinion.

kwguy
July 29, 2013, 02:03 PM
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe. Wayne is not a very good speaker. The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America. There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.

My goodness...I don't even know what the point of that was. The only 'lobby' I'm aware of that the NRA speaks for is the 'pro 2A, gun owner' lobby.

I'm not sure what this 'terrible image' is that has been shown to America, maybe just hurting feelings with fact and reality?

I don't really know what constitutes a 'gun kook'? A criminal? Or just someone really into their hobby?

tuj
July 29, 2013, 02:21 PM
I don't really know what constitutes a 'gun kook'?

Let's be honest, we know there are 'gun kooks' out there, just like there are kooks in every hobby. I hear them talk at my gun club all the time about various conspiracy theories and how Obama is akin to Hitler and is a secret Muslim, etc, etc. Really the worst of the 'right wing'. I know you guys know what I'm talking about, these are the guys who bury spare AR15's in the woods in water-proof tubes because they actually think that the government is coming to take their guns by force.

I joined the NRA because I shoot bullseye and wanted to be classified. I joined the TSRA because I wanted to shoot bullseye in the state match. I don't support a lot of what the NRA does today; I would much rather support USA Shooting and other organizations that actively promote sport and target shooting.

The NRA used to be about safety and responsible gun ownership. Then there was the '77 convention and ever since then the NRA has been on a downhill slide, IMHO. Obviously others will disagree.

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the 2A, and I recognize that the NRA is basically trying to defend it, but I disagree with both their tactics and their incessant phone-calls for money.

(For example, the NRA did not want DC v. Heller to make it to the SCOTUS; they wanted their own case to be tried in front of the SCOTUS because they didn't think the lawyer representing Heller could win.)

gopguy
July 29, 2013, 02:44 PM
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe. Wayne is not a very good speaker. The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America. There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.

Me thinks the poster mistakenly thinks he is on daily kos or the huffington post...


The NRA is millions of American citizens, I thank God daily for those brave souls who carry that load. I wish all American gun owners would stand up and do the same.

mcdonl
July 29, 2013, 02:46 PM
Me thinks the poster mistakenly thinks he is on daily kos or the huffington post...

I agree... every one of his posts are poiticaly charged.

kwguy
July 29, 2013, 02:50 PM
Let's be honest, we know there are 'gun kooks' out there, just like there are kooks in every hobby. I hear them talk at my gun club all the time about various conspiracy theories and how Obama is akin to Hitler and is a secret Muslim, etc, etc. Really the worst of the 'right wing'. I know you guys know what I'm talking about, these are the guys who bury spare AR15's in the woods in water-proof tubes because they actually think that the government is coming to take their guns by force.

So a 'gun kook' or a 'gun nut' is a 'conspiracy theorist'. Well, that seems to be a little unfair to the real gun 'enthusiasts' out there, of which you seem to be one. My point is that people like to use the label 'gun kook' or 'gun nut' and slather it with some politically silly left/right nonsense, but a 'biker nut' or 'car nut' get's no such 'treatment'.

There is nothing wrong with being a 'kook' or 'nut' about your hobby, if that's what firearms are to you, but it's wrong to ascribe negative stereotypes to that.

tomrkba
July 29, 2013, 02:53 PM
LaPierre needs to not speak in the MSM. He needs to do what he's good at behind the scenes. Let Colion Noir and others deliver the public message.

jack44
July 29, 2013, 02:53 PM
I am a NRA member that's because the range I belong to before made me join!. I use to send money but now NOTHING!

kwguy
July 29, 2013, 02:56 PM
He needs to do what he's good at behind the scenes. Let Colion Noir and others do it.

It seems that they agree with you. LaPierre is good at the behind the scenes stuff, and getting Colion Noir on was a good move.

mdauben
July 29, 2013, 03:10 PM
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby
This is one of the common pro-control crowd's talking points. That the NRA is not representing gun owners, but rather gun makers. I have yet to see any evidence that this is truth. In addition to supporting firearms safety and the shooting sports, the NRA supprots the 2A and lobbies against restrictions on sale and ownerships of firearms. Sure, that benefits the gun industry, but it benefits the gun owners, too.

...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe.
And what does this even mean? What dark, unappealing side? The "shooter crowd" is made up predominatly of people who want to use guns for hunting, recreation, and self defence. What is "dark and unappealing" about any of these activities? Its a media lie that the "gun crowd" is somehow made up of sociopathic fanatics who don't care about crime or violence as long as they can keep their dangerous, bloodthirsty toys. :rolleyes:

The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America.
Again, what does this even mean? I might agree that the NRA might do better in chosing their front man in terms of popular public appeal if that's your complaint. If you mean they need to appear more "concilliatory" on issues of new gun legislation to appeal to middle america, you are simply wrong. The gun control movement will never be satisfied by any "compromise" short of total disarmament of the civilian population. Every new attempt at gun control legistaltion must be fought tooth and nail, the issue allows no compromise.

IMO most of the "terrible image" of the NRA is due to the lies and slander of the gun control movement, and the politicians and media representatives that support them.

There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.
Again, you seem to be basing your opinions and actions on the lies and distortions of the popular media. All the gun owners I know are just normal everyday people; office workers, truck drivers, professionals, retirees and other regular people. They are not mass murderers waiting to go on a rampage.

Potatohead
July 29, 2013, 03:17 PM
The problem was, if we stressed our impressive and recent victories, members might cut back on their contributions, concluding the worst was behind us; however, if we constantly scared the living daylights out of them, they might feel we were always hitting them up for money and having little to show for it. Don't misunderstand me. It was a legitimate issue, but we were essentially determining how best to manipulate our members to gain a desired response, which was to get money. If we did it too often, it would lose its effectiveness; yet we knew from experience that if we touted our victories, we would not be rewarded with the all powerful American buck!

This is just kind of the way it works here in America. You been here long?

tuj
July 29, 2013, 03:36 PM
So a 'gun kook' or a 'gun nut' is a 'conspiracy theorist'. Well, that seems to be a little unfair to the real gun 'enthusiasts' out there, of which you seem to be one. My point is that people like to use the label 'gun kook' or 'gun nut' and slather it with some politically silly left/right nonsense, but a 'biker nut' or 'car nut' get's no such 'treatment'.

The dictionary defines 'kook' as: "A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy."

I am not talking about enthusiasts, of which there are so-called 'nuts' in every hobby. For example, my uncle probably owns more guns than 99% of people on this forum (seriously, he has an *extensive* collection). But his views on gun ownership are rather pedestrian. Therefore I would not label him a kook, despite the fact that he owns more guns than there are days in a year.

To me, a "gun-nut" or more accurately a "gun-kook" is someone who is in constant paranoia that the government is going to come knocking on their door to take away their guns or holds other non-mainstream, non-provable opinions. We have to be honest with ourselves and realize that such a proposition is unrealistic at best. There would be way too many 'last stands' and policemen killed in such an operation, not to mention how many guns would be hidden, etc.

I would consider myself an enthusiast and given my desire to gain lots of knowledge about marksmanship and firearms, you might even call me a gun nut, in the nice way. But a kook I am not. But when I listen to some of the guys at my gun club, who are also enthusiasts, talk about how 9/11 was an inside job or stuff like that, well, that just screams 'kook'. Funny thing is, most of them are very nice guys if you can avoid talking about those issues.

BigG
July 29, 2013, 03:50 PM
I'm glad I'm a life member of the NRA, myself. ;)

Yo Mama
July 29, 2013, 04:45 PM
(For example, the NRA did not want DC v. Heller to make it to the SCOTUS; they wanted their own case to be tried in front of the SCOTUS because they didn't think the lawyer representing Heller could win.)

IMO it was a lousy case, and the result was we have "reasonable restrictions".

DeepSouth
July 29, 2013, 04:45 PM
Well at least these anti NRA threads have gotten a Lille less common in the last couple of months. But I'm still sick of them.

texashunter
July 29, 2013, 05:25 PM
Patron Life member here. While I don't agree with everything that goes on, we all, gun owners and gun "kooks", need to be thankful that the NRA is there for us. I suspect that there are some sheeple amongst us.

gopguy
July 29, 2013, 05:48 PM
Endowment member here and proud of it.

OilyPablo
July 29, 2013, 08:25 PM
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe. Wayne is not a very good speaker. The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America. There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.

Listen to the press and the left much?

I think everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but what you write is just wrong. NRA doesn't lobby for the gun makers (this is a common rant from the anti's). Not even sure why the whole new sentence after that "very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd". What does THAT even mean??? Are we talking like 50% or 10% or some percentage of shooters are just crazy idiots who could go off at any time? What exactly do you mean?

Wayne sucks as a spokesman. But you have ZERO say in that because guess what? You aren't a member!

Again with the image and gun kook stuff. What do you mean???

hso
July 29, 2013, 09:33 PM
it has too much with the gun maker lobby

Thats incorrect, but often repeated. The National Shooting Sports Federation is the manufacturer's lobby. NRA is a member driven organization dealing with social/political/hunting/sport/recreation issues. They receive material support from industry elements, but they aren't a "gun maker lobby". That meme was started by antis as an attempt to convince the public that the NRA (and the NRA-ILA) are controlled by commercial special interests similar to the cigarette companies.

...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe.

Yep We have fewer of them here than many other internet sites and if you just payed attention to Youtube you'd get the impression that shooters overall were irresponsible and unsafe (of course there wouldn't be much interest in boreing shooters properly enjoying the sport, would there?). Of course you know from your personal experience that most people you've been to the range with aren't any different from the average person. Still the extremes are the most apparent in any group and color the impression that people get.

Wayne is not a very good speaker.

I'd have to disagree that he isn't a "very good speaker". He isn't great and he isn't the most personable person out there, but just the standpoint of being able to speak clearly and to do so under pressure he functions and does better than most of us. OTOH, I'd like to see the NRA have other spokespersons that are easier to warm to.

The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America.

I don't know what you're basing that on. The overall media treatment of the NRA has been to demonize them, but the organization hasn't done much to provide any image to middle America. If you have examples where the NRA has done this I'd be interested, but if it is just some other source trash talking them I have to wonder how we're supposed to judge people and organizations if we only take their detractors words into account.

There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.

I'm not sure what you mean by gun-kooks, but I tend to either try to educate people who aren't safe or skilled as long as it is safe for me to do so. If, OTOH, you're talking about people that aren't safe and who don't represent our community well, I try to avoid them as well, but we do have to try to counter the injury they do to our image by being good examples to others.

friendofthewild
July 29, 2013, 09:40 PM
here is an example...do you think that 'man card' bushmaster marketing was in good taste...it portrays the shooter as an immature pumped up commando-type...and when the school shooting happened they removed it..why?...they can choose their marketing but such nonsense paints shooters as having a lust for violence..the public sees this and thinks are these guys gun crazy...frankly heston could have done better than lift a musket in the air and say from my cold dead hands...not the right kind of idea to give..more like a challenge to promote anarchy...if the gun crowd is going to thrive we need to be strong in our belief but still rational and civil...let the antis act kooky and they will appear so...we dont need that...you know?..take the HIGH ROAD?

Tcruse
July 29, 2013, 09:46 PM
I think that a "highly emotional" argument is not a winning approach. This gun debate is one that will last for many years, we need to stay on the side of reason and logic. NRA is not going to be very effective if they try to "out shout" the gun grabbers. They need to work wisely with the people that can make a difference. They need to win new converts at the gun ranges and training classes.

friendofthewild
July 29, 2013, 09:59 PM
not advocating a more gentle but rather a more rational, civil approach...

there are more gun nuts than wants to be admitted to...

there too many wannabe soldiers in gun stores..what can be done..perhaps nothing

here is a trend i see and hear too often in hunter groups. this is switching topics a little.
when the wolf issue in the rockies got hot a year or so ago, some hunters made themselves prominent in the fight and produced videos that were in the least too much like propaganda...one would get on a radio interview and call non hunters who venture in the wild lands, leeches and hitchikers, then too many hunters get on blogs and can only say kill all the wolves, shoot shovel and shut up, smoke a pack a day, etc. some hunters would denounce such comments but they seem to be very few. they make hunters look like a special interest group which they are, but also like elitists that are entitled to americas wildlife because they hunt. some serious policing is needed or the hunters and shooters image will tarnish.

hso
July 29, 2013, 10:08 PM
There is tons of stupid marketing out there that all of us can point to as examples, but that doesn't mean that an entire industry is stupid or that everyone interested in their products are. Just picking the example of Bushmaster's "man card" add and ignoring the scores of other ads that represent us well isn't a balanced argument, but none of that has anything to do with the NRA and their public image.

Trent
July 29, 2013, 11:20 PM
Hi, my name is Trent, and I'm a Gun Kook.

http://i.imgur.com/WIgZCl.jpg

Trent
July 29, 2013, 11:38 PM
Aside from collecting odd military Curios and Relics (which I'm federally licensed to do), being an Internet wise-guy, and posing for goofy pictures, I also teach.

http://i.imgur.com/MJ7KQLJ.jpg

(Also have Range Safety Officer and recently added pistol instructor.)

One of the really great things about the NRA - not to be confused with the "NRA-ILA" - is the NRA is a first and foremost, a training organization. It was created to train people. And over a hundred years later, the primary mission is to train people.

Important not to lose sight of that. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is an another important facet, but not the only one. (There are other gun lobbying / legal organizations I like more, namely this one http://gunowners.org/ and this one http://www.saf.org/).

My point is, don't judge a book by it's cover.

You might see the picture I posted above, and say "that guy is a nutball."

You might see the NRA advertisements and (not being educated about their mission) think "The NRA is only a gun lobbying organization."

Ask anyone on the street "What is the NRA?"

They'll say "That place that forces/bribes/cajoles all those senators and representatives to vote down anti-gun legislation" (or some derivative thereof, depending on their political affiliations).

They have no clue that the NRA is a training organization.

Just as they have no clue, based on one picture of me, that I'm a federally licensed collector, or that I designate a LOT of my free time to teaching people young, old, new, and experienced, how to shoot, or how to shoot better.

kwguy
July 29, 2013, 11:45 PM
Trent: Awesome. (and you're such a kook lol)!

OilyPablo
July 30, 2013, 06:45 AM
here is an example...do you think that 'man card' bushmaster marketing was in good taste..

Not at all sure WHAT that has to do with NRA. It has NOTHING to do with the NRA. Again - if you want to properly influence the NRA, then join the NRA!

Listen, I know what you are saying. But the way you write makes it sound like you are allowing the anti-gun nuts to have their way with describing all the innocent gun owners. I for one refuse to allow them this luxury. One of the first things I said to Obama/Biden and the other haters is: You are now calling all gun owners guilty and treating us as such with your labels. The anti-2nd groups seek to divide an conquer. One goal is to make sure the US voting public sees the NRA as a radical nut group. And you seem to be saying this is a good thing! Evidence #1: You haven't joined the NRA!!! (Why? because you say they are gun nuts and kooks, and give a Bushmaster ad as an example). I rest my case.

I suggest you immediately join not only the NRA (then you can help influence them), but also join GOA, CCFTRTKBA, and SAF. I am a member of all these (Life Member of the NRA). Get off your duff and do the right thing.

Davek1977
July 30, 2013, 07:34 AM
I see a lot of rhetoric, and bashing of the NRA, and very few suggestions on how these people plan to fix what they see as being wrong with it. Love them or hate them, there is no other gun organization that comes close to the NRA's influence, and I for one truly appreciate what they have stood for throughout time, including today. I may not agree with every move or every statement, but I don't always agree with anyone ever, including my wife who I made a lifelong commitment to. When the people bashing the NRA form a better alternative that has a wider range of influence, maybe I'll sign on. Until then, I hear a lot of talking, but no real ideas on how to replace it. When you can do more than talk, c'mon back and give us your pitch

As far as the image on hunters being tarnished....To the groups like PETA and such, our very existence is offensive. I don't think a few internet blowhards are going to to change much as far as public opinion goes as far as the rest of the people. Regardless, even if they are doing damage, they have as much right to free speech in their opinions as I do in expressing mine here. Not liking something doesn't mean its necessarily "wrong". Theres plenty of opinions I don't like out there, but I'd fight to my dying breath to defend their right to express them, no matter how offensive I may find them to be. How do you exactly plan on "policing" free speech ? How do you suggest others go about it? When it comes to free speech, I find terms like "policing" it offensive to the core of my being. Are you personally going to "police" who gets to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? What about the 4th? You do realize how people can take talk of someone "policing" aspects of the Constitution to their own liking as pretty offensive, right? That offends me far more than talk of shooting a few wolves.....

X-Rap
July 30, 2013, 09:17 AM
I guess saying that I was a fan of the "Jack Booted Thug" days would be a no?

Bartholomew Roberts
July 30, 2013, 08:45 PM
I guess saying that I was a fan of the "Jack Booted Thug" days would be a no?

Ironically, the originator of that remark was former NRA Board of Directors Rep. John Dingell (D-MI).

Frankly, I've seen enough of "the NRA is so unreasonable" whining followed immediately by unreasonable demands for gun control over the past decades that I assume anyone who makes that statement is either ignorant or malevolent. I've rarely had reason to question that decision.

OilyPablo
July 30, 2013, 09:27 PM
Frankly, I've seen enough of "the NRA is so unreasonable" whining followed immediately by unreasonable demands for gun control over the past decades that I assume anyone who makes that statement is either ignorant or malevolent.

Thank YOU!!

Davek1977
July 31, 2013, 12:55 AM
Frankly, I've seen enough of "the NRA is so unreasonable" whining followed immediately by unreasonable demands for gun control over the past decades that I assume anyone who makes that statement is either ignorant or malevolent. I've rarely had reason to question that decision.

That ultimately sums up my feelings on the issue as well.

blarby
July 31, 2013, 03:46 AM
Eloquent ?

Nugent ?


These two things are not possible in the same space, your argument is invalid.

HexHead
July 31, 2013, 08:04 AM
I'd love to have someone like Meagyn Kelly of Fox News. She's gorgeous, articulate, and brilliant.

And anti-gun.

OilyPablo
July 31, 2013, 08:06 AM
Somehow people think Fox is pro-gun.

Still not disappointed in the NRA.

X-Rap
July 31, 2013, 08:25 AM
I'm also fond of the newer "Stand and Fight" slogan.

Torian
July 31, 2013, 08:42 AM
I've always been a supporter of the NRA and the Institute for Legislative Action, but lately, as more and greater backing of gun control is discussed in the media, I've frankly been disappointed by the NRA's lack of eloquence in defending American gun owners. Also, their lack of alacrity in engaging those with anti-gun agendas.

The only one showing any eagerness in engaging these pinheads was Larry Pratt, of the Second Amendment Foundation!

Why can't the NRA get off its butt and hire someone who can represent us with passion and common sense? Very few of our guys brought up the fact that no gun law presently on the books would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, and that no law being proposed would have prevented it, or even slowed it down!

Wayne LaPierre does okay writing books; but his quickness of wits in engaging our enemies leaves a lot to be desired. His exchanges are always quite forgettable. Anyone else notice this? All I'm saying is that we ought to be getting a lot more for our $$$.
The media is overwhelming antigun and is always looking for an opportunity (verbal misstep) on the part of the NRA.

A lot of public speaking is a two-edged sword for the NRA. It could work just as easily against them as for us. I think they prefer to work behind the scene, exposing politicians, and lobbying for our rights.

X-Rap
July 31, 2013, 05:50 PM
5280 The Denver Magazine did a hit piece on Dudley Brown and RMGO's and how he has ruined the conservatives chances in CO. Brown in turn dislikes the NRA because they are to willing to compromise. I can't believe anyone would seriously take the word of the leftist media on any conservative issue. Do you really think that they want to help us further our agenda so they are giving us these little hints as to how to win over the antis?

ngnrd
July 31, 2013, 07:16 PM
I wish people would quit referring to gun ownership as a "hobby". Exercising our Constitutionally protected rights by participating in firearm related activities is no more a hobby than is participating in religious activities.

plodder
July 31, 2013, 09:41 PM
1. I am satisfied with the value that the NRA provides me.
2. I do feel that I have a voice in the direction of the NRA by voting in annual board of directors' elections and answering surveys and questionnaires that I receive.
3. If and when the NRA or NRA-ILA solicit for contributions (and they will), I am man enough to say NO if I am not in the mood, tapped out, or don't consider the cause of the month to warrant.
4. When considering where I can get the most "Bang for My Buck" (pun intended) in lobbying and persuading my elected representatives of government, I have been convinced that the most effective is also the most criticized and demeaned by our idealogical enemies for a reason.
5. Yes, there are times when I wish Wayne had said something else or responded quicker, but as I've asked before; "if you think the NRA is handicapped by Wayne La Pierre, how do you think our enemies feel when they hear Joe Biden spew their side of the story?"

Tcruse
August 1, 2013, 12:40 AM
I like the recent videos with Natalia Foster. She does a good job and should appeal to the people in the middle. Probably will never get the low information people to think about the issue past what they hear on CBS/ABC/NBC/PBS.

hso
August 1, 2013, 07:01 AM
Ohhhh, I don't think Wayne, or hardly anyone else, is a bad as Biden for public misstatements, but Joe presents publically on TV/Vid better than LaPierre and that "beauty pageant" aspect is important in today's world where appearance is even more important than substance.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 1, 2013, 07:50 AM
And while I certainly agree that we have better speakers than LaPierre, have you heard the other side? They are literally horrible at public speaking and completely tone deaf when it comes to not upsetting their opponents more than they stir up their own base. Look at Heidi Yewman's recent piece de la ignorance for an example. She sits on the Board of the Brady campaign, even with writing and reasoning skills a high school teen could destroy.

Bloomberg is busy reading off the names of the Boston Bombers as "victims of gun violence" and signing the names of dead mayors to his propaganda.

Whatever room for improvement there may be at the NRA, we are extremely fortunate that there is nobody on the other side yet who is even 1/10 as competent as the NRA.

X-Rap
August 1, 2013, 11:01 AM
For those who think the NRA is weak and has lost its usefulness and voice I would direct you to look at what our enemy's say.

http://www.meetthenra.org/about

After reading through a few of the leadership profiles I am as proud as ever to be a Life Member.

If you enjoyed reading about "Anyone Else Disappointed in NRA Lack of Eloquence?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!