After the Sandy Hook slaughter, the NRA waited a week before making a comment. Wayne LaPierre’s post-Newtown press conference was an unmitigated disaster. Not only did the NRA Veep allow protesters to go unchallenged—standing at the podium like a deer caught in the headlights—LaPierre launched into an entirely counter-productive tirade against violent video games. In short, the NRA waited too long, leading to their over-thinking the response. And now, after the spree killing at the Washington Navy Yard…nothing. Once again, the NRA is “letting the dust settle” before weighing in on the news story. Wrong answer. The NRA needs to step forward on these tragedies immediately. They should offer a general statement initially, then add specific statements as law enforcement verifies information. For example, the Yard was a gun-free zone. The NRA should be hammering that point NOW, before the news cycle moves on. Same with Starbucks’ semi-semi ban on concealed carry. Am I wrong?
While I agree in theory, reality is a bit more complicated. The NRA can’t afford the same “rush-to-judgement” responses created by the gun-grabbing progressives because the press with never give them a pass. And yes, I know they already don’t give them a pass, but at least the NRA tries to wait for some concrete facts on the case before issuing and opinion unlike the head-nodding press and their anti-gun marionettes.
No, not theory, real world. With our fast food society, he who is first, is heard by the most. Many have already moved on. Going with what they heard in the first 24-48 hours. The NRA has no idea how to handle the news cycle and influencing public opinion.
Twice today working, I had people comment on the “assault weapon” the shooter bought after a background check. We all know how accurate that is.
And with your example, how is the NRA going to counter the disinformation when they are not the ones investigating and they are not on scene? What, if anything, could have been said with authority in the minutes after this story broke or even after the AR15 narrative was brought forth? While I understand the PR battle that you are talking about, the reason why the “assault weapon” part is still being reiterated is because of the quiet “corrections” by the media and because their narrative wouldn’t be fulfilled by plastering pictures of Remington 870’s all over the screens on our various electronic devices (although “police-style shotgun” is something you should expect from now on). If the NRA had come out and said anything factually incorrect (like the media does all the time), the lead stories would now read, “NRA blames (insert foot in mouth), officials say it’s too early to speculate” since their “assault weapon” narrative is gone. If the NRA was to come out like MAIG and MSNBC et al, they would be playing into the other sides hands by making themselves look worse than by not saying anything.
Well said, NYC2AZ.
Do we really want the NRA chasing after every single story trying to defend our Right? Soon it’ll look like we are trying to defend the actions of lunatics, which is not at all what the NRA is about. That said, after every shooting we are blasted with blatant and rampant misinformation combined with unsubstantiated speculation from the media and then Feinstein, like clockwork, rears her sweating filth above the mire to bang her agenda through…. The NRA waits for the facts to be presented and retorts accordingly, though it is unfortunate it falls on deaf ears. Look, a vast majority of Americans are idiots and this is substantiated by our elected officials (GOP & DNC alike), we are doomed to fight this battle ad infinitum.
1) Yes, it is.
2) It will never.
The more we tug and fight about the non-ban in Starbucks, the more likely Starbucks will create a true ban. We have to let it go. Sharron Watts thinks she won the battle on this one with the request from Starbucks to not be armed. Big deal. She’ll crow a lot and we’ll all throw up in our mouths a bit. So we swallow it and move forward, fighting tooth and nail on state legislatures. Sure, we need publicity wins as well, and we are getting them, but we aren’t going to win them all.
The NRA however, is a problem. They seem noticeably quiet not just after the shooting in DC but for the past couple of months… Makes me wonder what those guys are up to.
They are too busy counting their fat paychecks. What did I read the LePierre makes a year??? Seems in was in the neighborhood of $565K. Base salary. Before other benefits.
POTUS makes $600K, but has to pay for his food. (What a waste) Of course, he takes 500 support staff, including 6 doctors, and 200 secret service agents to the G20 Summit. Seems I read that Putin took around 40. Hmmmmmmm
I’ve never been sure why the pro-gun side had to try the play the MOM side’s game by involving Starbucks in a debate they clearly want no part of.
We could have just quietly enjoyed the fact that no policy was in place. Now that we have help turn a spotlight on them, they will have to asses anew, and will likely come down on the other side.
It seems like the pro-guners wanted to support/thank Starbucks in much the same vain as we DON”T support CTD anymore, but the former has nothing to do with guns, and the latter was a gun retailer – there is a difference. CTD was involved/did involve itself in the debate. Starbuck’s did not. At least it didn’t until we and the Mom’s involved them involuntarily.
We have shit where we eat (or drink in this case). We need to keep these battles on the correct
battlefields.
If the GOA can do it, the NRA can do it…
The NRA is best off saying nothing.Their position is like an innocent man being probed by Law Enforcement looking for an arrest-you can’t be hanged by your words if you don’t say anything.
Don’t give the antis any ammo.Hammering back with facts about the case is irrelevant when the enemy owns the airwaves.
You’re right, don’t give the anti’s and the liberal press added legitimacy by responding to every inuendo, false conclusion and lie they throw out for public consumption.
The NRA may not be perfect, but they are doing their best in an overwhelmingly hostile environment both politically and in the media. Resources are not endless (send them more $) and there are battles to fight in many states, not just at the Federal level.
I think their measured responses to the anti’s when the time and circumstances are appropriate is good strategy. They should not act like the anti’s; that would be poor style and lead to the NRA being marginalized
Roscoe’s point is spot on. A lot of the “news” on the corporate media outlets is really PR that originates from a wide variety of players. Studies I’ve seen indicate that as much as 50 to 75% of it is spin, excuse me, “media relations,” much of whose content is recycled practically verbatim from the “sources.” And some of that “media management” involves trying to elicit reaction from “the enemy.”
http://www.crikey.com.au/spinning-the-media/ (for example)
http://www.propublica.org/article/pr-industry-fills-vacuum-left-by-shrinking-newsrooms
http://www.prdaily.com/mediarelations/Articles/15142.aspx
Many US journalism degree programs have been absorbed by “marketing communications” or advertising/mass comm programs. News per se? It’s in an ever-shrinking limbo, and I sense that the clock is ticking on how long citizen journalists will be allowed to use say Google to gather and disseminate facts on certain topics. Already search engines are being designed to close down certain hits.
NRA is a legal and policy advocacy organization. While they have a PR branch, and a well funded one, they are there to respond when it makes sense to do so. Not to try to walk across the heads of the mob each time it waves bloody shirts and froths at the mouth about Law Enforcement Style Automatic Bolt Action Rifles With Things That Stick Up.
Should I mention that PR Daily reported on the Starbucks matter today?
http://www.prdaily.com/mediarelations/Articles/15256.aspx
I agree with all of this.
Unfortunately, you’re wrong. In the public’s eye, “taking the fifth” = GUILTY.
Wrong, When you allow them to still your voice, you just gave away your freedom. Stand up, SPEAK UP, and NEVER BACK DOWN.
I disagree.
Trying to play a whack-a-mole PR game with our current media is the equivalent to arguing in a youtube comments thread, except much more expensive, and potentially more destructive.
I think your advice is good, but its applicable to us as individuals, not to the NRA.
Why not issue a short, truth-filled statement, and then STFU. Pick your fights, so to speak.
And Wayne, please retire. It’s like having Mr. Magoo for a spokesman.
Actually, I’m fine with the NRA staying on mute for an extended period of time. They’re the bogeyman to most of the media and a large segment of the public. When the NRA talks, it does not help our cause one bit. Let them do what they do best and work behind the scenes with politicians. Let other pro-gun people who are not affiliated with the NRA do the talking with the media and with the public. They tend to do a very good job, and people seem to actually listen to them. For example, I saw a very respectful interview of Ken Blanchard on CNN yesterday. Let people like him do the talking.
So, you recommend “Mute Until Its Moot”?
Yep, especially if it is LaPierre who would be doing the talking. Too many people foam at the mouth when he appears for it to do any good. Plenty of others who can advance our cause by speaking publicly about gun rights.
The NRA needs to step forward on these tragedies immediately.
No, it shouldn’t. Unlike the MSM that can jump to conclusions and shoot itself in the johnson (witness the New York News front page blaming the shootings on an AR when no such rifle was used), the NRA needs to hold fire until it actually knows what’s what. Any goof by the NRA would be an absolute killer — so to speak.
The NRA doesn’t get a mulligan. There’s no retractions, no “Text Amended” for them. They need to take the time to get it right. To quote The Godfather: Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men.
Agreed. The NRA need not say a thing. The nut killed, not a gun. They have nothing to do with mass shootings or other shootings. If anyone should step forward for a statement, it should be Obama for keeping in place the gun free zone that clinton enacted. Clinton should get whipped too.
The gun free zone people should step up, they make mass shootings possible.
Exactly. The NRA has no more business making comments about this than the families of Sandy Hook victims do (which is to say none at all). Their business is defending gun rights in court and law making. Shooting their mouth off directly to a news outlet should never be acceptable, and one reason I’m not a member.
You make a fair point, but if it were Colion Noir instead of WLP fronting the NRA, I’d be a lot less worried about them being able to step up to the mic and get it right the first time.
I think I have officially started to hang out on this site waaay too much. First, I agree with you. Second, in reading your comment and agreeing with you the first thing I thought of was Eric Cartman’s classic line:
It’s not okay, defeating the Chinese won’t mean anything, if we do it by going around shooting people in the [johnson]!
This type of thing has been jumping into my head more and more…..I think I need a TTAG break…..
Thank you! I have plenty of beefs with the NRA (including the OFWG WASP tenor of their magazines) but for the love of god, fair or not, if they misspeak at all they’ll get hounded to hell and back and they know it. So they have to be careful and not misspeak. You don’t avoid mistakes by blaring off half cocked.
But they never say ANYTHING for DAYS. Doing that is like just letting the anti-gun forces walk up and down the country unopposed by what many citizens view as the face of gun rights. They at least need to make a general “This is a horrific tragedy and our hearts go out to the families of those killed” type of statement.
They at least need to make a general “This is a horrific tragedy and our hearts go out to the families of those killed” type of statement.
Why? Just because a gun was used? I read about a trailer fire the other day that wiped out a family. Should the NRA issue a statement about that, too?
Yes, because the NRA is associated with GUNZ in the public’s mind (or facsimile thereof). What’s so wrong with that?
The NRA will not talk about the big pink elephant in the room in fear of being labeled as racist. Talking about drug violence and/or black on black crime is like the Third Rail.
There’s this charismatic young black attorney who’s been doing pro-2A videos for a while. Just an idea, but maybe HE could take on those issues directly as NRA spokesman? (*cough*ColionNoir*cough*)
Well, we now have a trend: psychotic symptoms, ineffective SSRI drug treatment, and FPS video game obsession. 3 for 3.
So where are NAMI, the pharmaceutical industry, and the video game industry? [crickets]
If not now, when?
Mentally ill guy passes Fed/mil background check, takes a Fudd shotgun into a gun-prohibited building on a gun-prohibited campus in a gun-prohibited city.
The fact that NRA didn’t jump into this like an MMA fighter in the last round of a world title match is fscking ridiculous. We should be beating the stuffing out of the civilian disarmament complex right about now.
Well, maybe the NRA should wait until the blood dries. Let MAIG do the blood dancing.
Agree 100%. We always look down on anit-gunners for jumping right in before the blood washes away, but doing nothing to stop them just means that they are the only ones the public is listening to right now.
It is a good example of “gun free” idiocy. While I dont know much about the Naval yard is it safe to say a significant percentage of the people on site have had some military experience? Wouldnt that serve to satisfy the constant “training!” demands made by so many anti-gun people? So why not permit these “trained” people the ability to defend themselves.
I would like to see Wayne LaPierre gone from the NRA. I have recently watched and read some statements made by him in the past. I think we would be better off with out him. Let’s see someone else speaking for the NRA.
Really? Under his leadership the NRA has nearly doubled it’s membership, increased educational programs, and raise how much money – we’ll skip over all the CCW victories since 1990.
Do you think there might be a reason why Chris Cox is back? Why Cox is doing more interviews lately? How old is Wayne?
Wayne is the absolute worst spokesperson for a group like the NRA. His very appearance and presence plays perfectly into the image of the stodgy old white guy, “funded by gun manufacturers” that NRA detractors always talk about.
Get some young guys in the PR seats.
No offense to any of you older folk here, but your generation gave up the 2A fight a long time ago, and handed the reigns of the NRA over to the fudds and cowboy shooters. Us younger shooters – this is our fight now. If the NRA isn’t going to fight for us, they need to go away and hand the reigns over to another group that will.
You really need to learn your history.
can you elaborate?
What the hell does Wayne LaPierre’s skin color have to do with the topic?
I don’t care what LaPierre’s color is, but come on and admit it. He looks exactly like a cartoon caricature of what Liberals tend to think the NRA really is: a corporate lobbying group, versus what it actually is (or should be); a civil rights group.
“No offense to any of you older folk here, but your generation gave up the 2A fight a long time ago, and handed the reigns of the NRA over to the fudds and cowboy shooters.”
No offense taken. I’ve heard this same speech every 10 years or so since the 1960s. Rinse and repeat…
I agree. NRA needs a rapid response team. As the facts present themselves they should digest them and be ready for a response. In this case first point out the the Navy Yard like Fort Hood is a Gun Free Zone. Second he had a history of gun violence and mental illness Namely, he was never prosecuted in the 2004 Seattle incident. Because of that he was never treated and his crime was never recorded. His was given a security clearance in spite of his history. If the NRA doesn’t respond the lame stream media will control the narrative as they say in spin zone circles.
“NRA needs a rapid response team.”
Now THERE’S an idea! And have them stalk the Interwebs. Shoot off a short “truth pill” on Facebook and/or Twitter and then wait for the reaction. Guerrilla journalism at its finest. Nobody but the likes of MAIG and MDA watches MSM anymore anyway.
To all the critics of the NRA’s way of doing things I say:
1. They’re not perfect but they’re typically really good.
2. If you’d like to see a change, get involved with the NRA and work to change its approach. It happened before when there was a change to get more politically involved.
3. If you’re not a member, join. Otherwise who cares what your critizisms are, you haven’t paid your dues. The NRA’s strength is not necessarily from its acts, it comes from its membership that is mobilized to communicate their disdane at the appropriate moments. Strength in numbers, strength in a righteous cause…
NRA should wait till Obama is impeached
Give Colion Noir and Larry Correia a pallet of Red Bull and a microphone set to 11.
There ya go. Or Dom Raso. Really, anyone who’s a member and not some crusty old white guy that’s going to put his foot in his mouth and show that he doesn’t realize what century he live in.
Again with the racism. WTF?
Go with what works. It’s called “Marketing to your Audience.”
Only if they get a spokesman that doesn’t suck like La Pierre.
+1. Might be a really good guy. Might be a really good leader inside the NRA- I don’t know. I don’t think he’s the greatest at speaking, they need to find somebody else to do the press conferences. Why in the world do they not use Tom Selleck to do PSA’s and things of that nature? He’s on the board of directors. Think of the influence he could have over some of the “I’m not so sure about guns” public. Half of the Mothers Against Guns would swoon, rush out and buy pink handguns.
Tom Selleck? Not relevant since the 80s. Nobody under 30 probably even knows who he is.
And this makes him a poorer choice than Wayne LaPierre…how?
Besides, Selleck currently has a successful TV show on the air right now and still has name (and mustache) recognition…and he’s articulate.
You are correct in that when you compare him to LaPierre, he’s leaps and bounds ahead in likeability and credibility, even if you don’t know who he is to begin with.
Maybe Selleck doesn’t want to do promos for the NRA. He’s not a politician, he’s an actor. He has a TV show and a career that he likes. Frankly, given that he’s known as an NRA guy and Hollywood is a commie cabal, I’m surprised that he can get a job. I can’t imagine him wanting to be the front man for the NRA at this time in his life.
So exactly what is he doing for the NRA, then? Just drawing a paycheck?
Selleck is just an example. The NRA needs a better public face, that’s all I’m saying. The NRA is completely failing at PR.
Here’s the start to a general statement for the NRA from now on….
“No matter how well intentioned, laws don’t prevent crime. The events that unfolded recently makes this clearly self-evident.
You might ask, what then is the purpose of laws? Well, proper laws give us in writing a clear description of actions that are harmful and the punishments to be prescribed for committing those actions. The purpose for this is to ensure that fair and equal justice is applied when someone does wrong.
Gun control doesn’t follow that model, it promises to prevent crime, but we know that to be false. The reality is that gun control laws serve only to disenfranchise innocent peaceful people from their rights, and to make them prove that they are innocent.
This is antithetical to the American way, where we are innocent until proven guilty, where our government is supposed to protect us from those who would strip our rights from us.”
I like that.
I like that too. For this particular incident, I would add the following:
Gun control advocates and politicians alike are using this tragedy as a springboard for asking Congress to revisit the question of background checks under the failed Manchin-Toomey bill, but this push leaves us befuddled. Broader background checks as called for in that bill would not have prevented Mr. Alexis from purchasing a shotgun, as the fact is he passed a NCIS background check submitted by the licensed firearms dealer from whom he purchased it. And no matter what the press is saying, nothing that has been revealed to date disqualified him from possessing firearms under applicable federal law, a fact that would not change under the Manchin-Toomey bill. Nor would passage of Diane Feinstein’s proposed assault weapon ban have changed anything, as that bill did not, nor do we believe ever could constitutionally have, propose banning shotguns.
I like the first two sentences. Throw the rest away; nobody’s listening.
Sadly I must agree. Never muddle a good scandal with facts, they say. Nobody cares about the facts.
Have you ever mentioned something like the first two sentences to a liberal? They flip out about how you’re saying we shouldn’t have any laws. While they’ll pretend not to listen to the second paragraph, it’s necessary to have in order to shut them up.
From the antigun’s perspective, if the NRA trots out right away and says anything, its throwing blood in teh water. Period.
A measured response is the right response, the only thing the NRA spokespeople should say at a time like this is akin to expressing facts trump passion.
At that point we don’t care at all about the anti-gunners. We’re trying to persuade the rest of the US that we’re not baby-killing armed psychopaths.
Why didn’t you issue a statement? Or myself or my neighbor? Because we were not involved and take no responsibility for the actions of this psychopath. Ask me for a statement on the record and I will prepare one. To step forward uninvited and uninformed puts you in Sharpton and Bloomberg’s category: Sticking your nose into something you are not prepared to handle.
To date, this was an isolated shooting within a gun-free zone. It was not an NRA member with delusions of fighting the government. Therefore, the NRA has no horse in this race. Yet.
Give it 24 hours.
Why should the NRA say anything? In what way can it, it’s members, or gun owners in general be held accountable for the actions of Alexis?
I don’t think there is any evidence that he picked the target because it was a gun free zone. He picked the target because he had a mental illness, and he had little chance of getting killed regardless of what target he picked.
Generally speaking, though, whenever a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy during a spree killing, the good guy is almost always off-duty police or retired military. The fact is that the only way to deal with unexpected violence is training and experience. Just having a bunch of random armed yokels would not have helped this situation, and might have made it much worse.
The reason individuals should be armed is to protect themselves, not to protect society at large. The NRA has wisely decided not to roll out tired arguments that they always end up losing.
Instead, the NRA should point the focus where it belongs: Mental illness is an obvious problem in America, and is criminally underfunded. In the city where I live, there have been two separate cases in the last five years where mentally ill children have killed their parents AFTER being seen by a mental health professional.
If our society had a decent sense of priorities, we would be willing to spend the money on evidence-based treatment for mental illness. Instead, we have chosen to spend the vast majority of Federal Tax dollars on various subsidies for millionaires and billionaires, and on pointless arguments over gun control.
I’ve said this before. If we gun owners did not have to waste so much of our time and resources protecting our basic human and civil rights and if the anti gun people did not likewise waste time and resources spinning their wheels on a pipe dream we could together accomplish so much.
If barry was serious about co-operation with both sides of the aisles to run this country the first thing he would do is embrace constitutional carry of small arms.
Draw the line at explosive devices and wmds and let people decide what and where and how they wish to carry.
That show of good faith will never happen. So the wasteful infighting continues.
But Bam is a captive of his system now. How many things promised during his campaigns have seen the light of day?
The NRA has to be much more careful with what it says and when it says it lest they feel the full heat of the media/pop culture machine.
The NRA doesn’t need to say anything about some crazy vet shooting up the Navy Yard with a perfectly PC weapon as far as the antis are concerned. I mean, do they respond to soldiers fragging their officers? Then why this?
From a purely conspiracy theorist perspective, the media is claiming the shooter played FPS games obsessively and liked to open carry his guns at times. Sounds like bait for the LaPierre fish if you ask me, in all my tinfoily glory.
You’re still playing the lady’s game here.
If you jump on everything that happens and wave your arms and defend yourself, tell me how are you different than a man giving his wife the 10 reasons he should be allowed to watch football on Sunday?
You’re a man. go watch football. Say nothing.
You’re a man’s organization (which does, admittedly, include a lot of smart and savvy women.) Accept no accountability. Say nothing.
They are right. Say nothing.
Wait until Feinstein rams another useless law through. They are right. Say nothing.
Turn in your guns. They are right. Say nothing…
You can purposely and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge my point – But you don’t get to misconstrue it and rephrase it.
That was not my point, at all, not at any level.
If you are too stupid to realize what my point is, I apologize. Obviously it’s beyond you.
I’ve said it before and I repeat, The NRA is the dull end of the spear and has been since 1934. I cut up my membership card and mailed it back to them in 1968. I now give my time and money to organizations that actually engage the enemy and win, such as the SAF, GOA, JPFO and AZCDL.
The NRA doesn’t need to make a statement. He wasn’t an NRA member. It should really be that simple.
Damn shame it isn’t that simple in the eyes of more people.
We don’t need to “keep up” with MAIG and MDA or whatever the hell they’re calling themselves this week.
They are lemmings barreling over a cliff and they want to get “the people of the gun” to race them to the edge.
Wayne LaPierre is better off standing stoic like an Indian chief with one tear going down his cheek, than hooting and hollering over who has the moral high ground in a political debate that has little to do with the event that took place.
“They are lemmings barreling over a cliff and they want to get “the people of the gun” to race them to the edge.”
Not exactly but close. They are playing their game and waiting for us to meet them on their playing field.
The best thing we can do is stay above it and just start asking “what about what drugs this kid was on? what is the time line on his mental issues?” and ignore the engagement on “guns”
It won’t stop being “about the guns” until one side or the other stops talking about “the guns”. You think it will be them???
Another pertinent question:
How was he permitted to bring his gun across a gun-free jurisdiction into another gun-free jurisdiction unmolested?
To most people, who do not care to be educated to the truth, the NRA= The Evil Gun Industry Empire. The fact that it has millions of members is not relevant, since it is “in the pocket” of those who would sell guns to children. That is the perception of the general public, and the NRA has to deal with that fact. Even the press beats the drum, referring to the NRA as a “gun industry spokesman.”
Another great reason for them to say nothing.
Unfortunately, many people interpret silence to denote agreement. A pro-civil rights spokesman, 24 hours after the shooting, could have easily made a preliminary statement pointing out the following:
– Sympathy for victims and their families, friends, and colleagues;
– An appreciation for caution against leaping to conclusions (while pointing out the critical errors the anti-gun mob had made);
– That yet another mass shooting had occurred in a gun-free zone in which the majority of victims had been disarmed;
– Yet another mass shooting had been conducted by one who was mentally ill;
– That numerous gun-control laws, in the midst of the city with the most strict gun laws, failed to stop the crime, and none of the additional controls being called for would have stopped it, either; and,
– Further comments will be made after law enforcement has made further progress with their investigation.
And who are “those people” who think silence = agreement?
Are they mainly: Women?
That same crew also believes that acknowledgement = accountable
So. Be silent and let them think you agreeing. or Speak and they think you are taking accountability.
Which is worse?
And who are “those people” who think silence = agreement?
Pretty much everyone but us.
Wrong – again, you miss the point entirely.
Are you stubborn? or stupid?
Acknowlegement of responsibility denotes accountability, but I’m not proposing that the NRA accept responsibility for the shootings, because they are not responsible for them.
As for the NRA being inept at news conferences, that’s why God invented public relations consultants. The NRA should hire one to school Wayne, or other spokesman, on what to say and how to say it. A wise man once pointed out that the best defense is a great offense. Going on the offensive when facts and logic are on your side shouldn’t be that hard. Sure, the media are lined up against us, but all they have are lies and distortions. Only cowards cower from lies and distortions.
Given the number of cheese-eating surrender monkeys here, no wonder the gun grabbers are back at it.
A rifle was not used so it’s not a National Rifle Association matter. /s
I like the NRA as a spectre in the night, scaring the anti gunners with unpredictability. When the NRA does comment it’s predictably bad.
It doesn’t help having Elmer Fudd as a spokesman.
The NRA moves at the speed of newsprint and snail-mail. The Gun-Control weenies work at the speed of internet and email. It is like Roman infantry VS Airborne. Remember that the anti-gun groups have a lot of editors and commentators on speed-dial for their latest soundbytes.
The wait-and-see does result in a patient unemotional response, but it does give the other side the advantage of speed. The NRA (and the local downunder EF group) need to have a standard first response message for any shooting event that happens. And like some local shooting organizations, the NRA and it’s members MUST abandon the mindset of sacrificing some members and their activities so they will be left alone. They don’t understand that once once group has been outlawed, the focus will shift to others.
In the words of Benjamin Franklin: We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
I think the NRA is always too busy drafting up the brochures for the next NRA Wine Club junk mailing to be bothered with actual events that matter.
They should speak now, after the first few days, when the details are known and after the anti-gun (freedom) libtards (democrats) have spewed their lies and stupidity.
Why is it necessary for the NRA to state the obvious? I haven’t heard anything from GOA or NAGR either, but I do not hear anyone attacking them. If you want any of these to respond then you have to tell them you want them to respond or do it yourself. Write your representative. I do.
I’d really like the NRA come forward to push for an end to gun free zones on military bases. Members should be allowed to carry their personal firearms on post. Our bases should be the most heavily armed places in the country, filled with men and women trained in the use of firearms. The time for leaving our soldiers as defenseless sheep should be over after these last 2 shootings.
I know it defies cold logic but I am unsure about this. But I will compromise. Let the bases become the armed camps you desire for a two year period, then tote up the number of on-base shootings/ND’s, and see how the numbers look.
Frankly, I am glad they wait until some facts are known before commenting. It would be bad to come out flailing around and defending AR15s in light of clown comments from Pussy Morgan and Feinstaink. It is also out of courtesy. You will hear for them Friday or Monday.
Yes. Yes you are. Perhaps Waynne was shocked, shocked I say that an organisation representing nealy 5 million dues-paying members wasn’t given the same respect to address an important issue as , I don’t know, the POTUS?
His anti-gaming triade was off target but really a small part of his presentation. I watch it all and found it measured, on target and more effective than Mr Executive-Action’s.
Hey give the NRA a break. They are probably busy sending fundraising letters. They don’t have time to make sensible timely 2a statements. Just like with Sandy Hook, its up to us plebes to speak up, do the rallys, write letters, etc. NRA’s job is to… well… send fundraising letters. And attack video games and stuff.. and… make lame appearances on news channels… and… well… oh, wait, they have their yearly bash too! So…. yeah, take THAT main stream media. (Which is why i send money to GOA.)
Comments are closed.