Anyone Else Disappointed in NRA Lack of Eloquence?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Confederate

Confederate

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2005
Messages
3,402
Location
Arlington, VA
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 $$$.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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
 
hso said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
BoilerUP said:
Colion Noir.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
hso said:
Who would replace LaPierre in the public role and how would you make that happen?
Click to expand...
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. :)
 
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. 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??
 
Ted Nugent is doing a good enough job. He represents the NRA too.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
 
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.
 
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
 
SleazyRider said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yet nobody thought it was bad that the president herded kids on stage to push his gun control agenda in a Stalin like manner.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
NRA-ILA letter... reprehensible!
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
Dave Workman
D
A
  • Locked
Nra myths (you're not going to like this)
Replies
11
Views
1K
Standing Wolf
S
M
  • Locked
NRA--not protecting our rights?? Yeah, right.
Replies
1
Views
397
Bartholomew Roberts
B
D
  • Locked
NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
rick_reno
R
D
  • Locked
NRA challenges soft money law with radio show
Replies
0
Views
458
Desertdog
D
Back
Top