The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: jaybet on February 05, 2013, 04:48:47 PM
-
I watched Wayne LaPierre the other day on Fox News Sunday. Chris Wallace was trying really hard to trip him up, but...
is anyone else feeling like maybe he's not the best guy to be out front on this? I'm not thinking that his debate skills are that great, and he seems to get flummoxed pretty easily. Granted, the media has made him out to be the anti-christ, but I just don't think he has YET made a good showing in stating our case.
-
I watched the whole thing. Critics were saying LaPierre was "skewered" by Wallace.
I didn't see that, but was not encouraged by the NRA's spokesperson.
Crusader
-
I watched it too and was really quite surprised by Wallaces' badgering questions. He's normally not that nasty to a conservative voice. Is Wayne the go-to guy? After twenty plus years, he should have his talking points in line...
-
Never been a big fan of Wayne, but he can and do it better than I do, so who am I to complain, but you did asked.
And Fox news..... I've all but given up on them too....
-
I watched Wayne LaPierre the other day on Fox News Sunday. Chris Wallace was trying really hard to trip him up, but...
is anyone else feeling like maybe he's not the best guy to be out front on this? I'm not thinking that his debate skills are that great, and he seems to get flummoxed pretty easily. Granted, the media has made him out to be the anti-christ, but I just don't think he has YET made a good showing in stating our case.
Wayne does seem to be letting his emotions get him tripped up lately. They need to leave the emotional stuff to Uncle Ted.
They really need to be rolling David Keene out there like they have been lately. That guy is cool under pressure.
-
It almost feels like blasphemy to say, but I think Wayne needs to be rotated out.
I'm seriously not impressed with his not expressing the kind of concern I need to see about the potential for abuse of "Mental Health" definitions and the NICS check..
Relying on the DSM (4, now) is one hell of a moving target, and shouldn't be the basis for static ideas about what is "normal" and what isn't..
Just my opinion.. That'll be $.02, please..
-
I do believe that Wayne's age is beginning to show. However, look at what he has faced since the seven day mourning period following Sandy Hook. Keep in mind that while Mr. LaPierre has a staff behind him, Wayne is the front man that faces the attack and must sort his responses for each attack.
The only other person I can think of would be Ted Nugent, but just like we wouldn't want Wayne LaPierre in some of the situations Ted faces we don't want Ted in some of the settings we put Wayne in.
Wayne LaPierre is my go to guy for these hearings and many interviews at this time!
-
The following is an email I sent to Fox News.
As a Fox News watcher, I was very disappointed with Chris Wallace's interviews with Mark Kelly and Wayne LaPierre. The tone of the interview changed dramatically when Chris finished with Mark Kelly and started with Wayne LaPierre. Not only was he condescending, but appeared downright aggressive in his manner to Mr. LaPierre. At times, he seemed incredulous that LaPierre could hold any of his opinions on our 2nd Amendment rights. I really don't mind an interviewer holding a guest's feet to the fire on their stance on a particular issue, but in my mind he was clearly "softballing" with Mr. Kelly. This interview was NOT "Fair and Balanced." End Quote.
I agree that LaPierre seems hesitant and stumbling at times. However, he must stay in control of his emotions at all times. That is easier said then done when dealing with hostile legislators or media types.
-
Time for another members rebellion.
Put people like Ted in charge with mission to roll back gun control, not just limit the damage.
-
While I have respect for La Pierre, I no longer feel he is the best man for the job. Why, for the love of God, didn't he mention the fact we had an Assault Weapons Ban for 10 years and it did NOTHING to reduce crime, or make anyone safer? The NRA should be hammering this home in every interview they give. Also, He never mentions how everyday Americans are stripping the gun shops bare of everything semi auto and ammunition related. How do you think these people are all going to vote in the next election, if the Dems keep beating this dead horse? The 1994 elections provided one of the biggest upsets in political history. All of it in response to failed gun control measures taken by the Dems. But again, nothing.
All that comes out is the usual pro gun blather. The NRA needs a brilliant debater like Newt Gingrich. Love or hate the man, I would not want to debate him on guns, or anything else for that matter. Right now Wayne La Pierre is stale bread that the public is getting pretty tired of looking at. And frankly I don't blame them. The NRA needs a transfusion of new, better suited blood. I think Nugent and Gingrich would make a very formidable team for the NRA to have in their corner.
-
Never mind the failure of the previous AWB, how about mentioning that the Supreme court has in the Miller case, ruled such action would violate the 2nd Amendment ?
Considering how many lawyers are living off our donations you would think at least one of them would have brought this up.
-
I am under the assumption that we are debating the spokesman and not the message.
Wayne LaPierre is the spokesman I am discussing and supporting for the delivery.
If you want to speak message we need to go to the entire top of the office staff (LaPierre, Cox, etal, and the board).
-
I am under the assumption that we are debating the spokesman and not the message.
Wayne LaPierre is the spokesman I am discussing and supporting for the delivery.
If you want to speak message we need to go to the entire top of the office staff (LaPierre, Cox, etal, and the board).
Considering the way the population has been voting with their wallets, maybe that is what is needed .
Replace the current crop of "negotiators" with an entire board of "take no prisoners" aggressors who will work at restoration instead of defense of what's left.
-
The NRA went through something very similar in 1976 when Harlon Carter took over. The then NRA brass were accused of being infiltrated by anti gunners. The result was the biggest turnaround in NRA history. They were most all sent packing in favor of Harlon Carter's hard line approach. It worked then, and I don't see why it wouldn't work now. Carter was considered by many to be the "Nikita Kruschev" of NRA Presidents.
-
The NRA went through something very similar in 1976 when Harlon Carter took over. The then NRA brass were accused of being infiltrated by anti gunners. The result was the biggest turnaround in NRA history. They were most all sent packing in favor of Harlon Carter's hard line approach. It worked then, and I don't see why it wouldn't work now. Carter was considered by many to be the "Nikita Kruschev" of NRA Presidents.
If we are going to bury the anti's we need to quit screwing around smoothing the grade and get back to digging the hole for them.
-
If we are going to bury the anti's we need to quit screwing around smoothing the grade and get back to digging the hole for them.
From what I have seen LaPierre is capable of that if the Board is ready for that. My problem is that many of the bios for board members are vague concerning their stance and resolution. How do we vote with the limited info we are presented?
All of that aside, it is time we start writing to the National Rifle Association with the same "take no prisoners" attitude we are using on our elected officials.
Another question: Where are all of the other organizations? I am hearing very little from either the media or groups outside of the NRA and Twin Cities Gun Owners & Carry Forum.
-
While I have respect for La Pierre, I no longer feel he is the best man for the job. Why, for the love of God, didn't he mention the fact we had an Assault Weapons Ban for 10 years and it did NOTHING to reduce crime, or make anyone safer? The NRA should be hammering this home in every interview they give. Also, He never mentions how everyday Americans are stripping the gun shops bare of everything semi auto and ammunition related. How do you think these people are all going to vote in the next election, if the Dems keep beating this dead horse? The 1994 elections provided one of the biggest upsets in political history. All of it in response to failed gun control measures taken by the Dems. But again, nothing.
All that comes out is the usual pro gun blather. The NRA needs a brilliant debater like Newt Gingrich. Love or hate the man, I would not want to debate him on guns, or anything else for that matter. Right now Wayne La Pierre is stale bread that the public is getting pretty tired of looking at. And frankly I don't blame them. The NRA needs a transfusion of new, better suited blood. I think Nugent and Gingrich would make a very formidable team for the NRA to have in their corner.
I agree, Bill. Was thinking that we need someone with Newt's skill who is a strong activist for the 2A. Never rattled and always has the counter that seems to undoubtedly pierce the core of the opponents argument.
Uncle Ted has the energy and the outlook, Newt has the debating skill.
-
From what I have seen LaPierre is capable of that if the Board is ready for that. My problem is that many of the bios for board members are vague concerning their stance and resolution. How do we vote with the limited info we are presented?
All of that aside, it is time we start writing to the National Rifle Association with the same "take no prisoners" attitude we are using on our elected officials.
Another question: Where are all of the other organizations? I am hearing very little from either the media or groups outside of the NRA and Twin Cities Gun Owners & Carry Forum.
The other groups, SAF, GOA, JPFO, CCRKBA, all joined that umbrella group , as to what they are doing below the radar while NRA draws fire, I do not know.
But we need to remember that it has been these groups not the NRA, that has been fighting in the courtromms while NRA fights in Congress.
-
I'm not trying to kick the one lobbying group we have that can actually move the ball down the field here..
I really do think that we need to rotate LaPierre out. Chris Cox too, or whoever it is who decides who gets the blessing in political races. The ILA offered to endorse Reid as recently as 2010. I get the dance, but supporting Reid, in the role of Senate leader is no different than endorsing Schumer.. How do they not get that??
They swim in that cesspool up there, and it does stick to them after a while. It would anybody, eventually..
If Coburn is a member, I think he would be a good prospect to bring into leadership. I think he's on his way out next time around.
Selleck might not be bad.. Maybe..
Newt would be great at it, but will the "baggage" that the press hangs around his neck weigh him down? I don't know..
We need to be speaking from a position of strength, and doing the Sunday Show thing doesn't really project that.
"Air Wars" need to be happening at the level of vulnerable Reps and Senators, beating the drums of political accountability to the people who elected them, and so on..
Working with the NSSF to put on workshops for the public to get a "First Shots" thing to a broader audience, getting rid of the boogie man that the press claims lives in the barrel (or "clip") of every evil black firearm..
Working the State Capitols.. PSAs on local media.
We need to beat these guys to death with the bloody end of it, down here where regular people live, and at the state level Dems (and GOP) too.
Rant...
I don't know.. I just think it's time to rotate our stock a little more than we have lately..
-
The ILA offered to endorse Reid as recently as 2010. I get the dance, but supporting Reid, in the role of Senate leader is no different than endorsing Schumer.. How do they not get that??
Don't be too quick to jump on the NRA for the Reid endorsement. When it became evident the 2010 Harry Reid / Sharon Angle race was becoming too close to call, because Angle kept sticking her foot in her mouth regarding Hispanics, the NRA made a deal with Harry Reid. He was willing to "be bought" by the NRA because he thought he needed them to defeat Angle at the time. He was probably right. The race was very close.
No one knows for sure what type of deal was made. Neither the NRA or Reid discussed it much. The NRA membership was crying loudly about it. But if you think about it, all of it made sense. Having a Democratic Senate Majority Leader somewhat "in your pocket", made a lot more sense than backing a losing conservative. It all panned out. Reid won, Angle was sent packing.
Before Sandy Hook, Reid was quoted as saying when asked, if the subject of gun control would come up this past session, he said "there was no time for it". He was then asked about it when the Senate reconvened in the new year. He said, "Fat chance." The fact of the matter is Reid doesn't want to deal with gun control anymore than the NRA does. Gun legislation has been very toxic for the Democrats. If another Assault Weapons Ban were to pass, Reid knows he would lose his powerful job as Senate Majority Leader in the 2014 mid term elections. I doubt he will even allow it to come up for a vote unless he , (and the NRA), are assured it won't pass.
The NRA getting into bed with Reid is a classic example of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer. Sometimes, as this proves, it pays to, "make a deal with the devil".
-
Don't be too quick to jump on the NRA for the Reid endorsement. When it became evident the 2010 Harry Reid / Sharon Angle race was becoming too close to call, because Angle kept sticking her foot in her mouth regarding Hispanics, the NRA made a deal with Harry Reid. He was willing to "be bought" by the NRA because he thought he needed them to defeat Angle at the time. He was probably right. The race was very close.
No one knows for sure what type of deal was made. Neither the NRA or Reid discussed it much. The NRA membership was crying loudly about it. But if you think about it, all of it made sense. Having a Democratic Senate Majority Leader somewhat "in your pocket", made a lot more sense than backing a losing conservative. It all panned out. Reid won, Angle was sent packing.
Before Sandy Hook, Reid was quoted as saying when asked, if the subject of gun control would come up this past session, he said "there was no time for it". He was then asked about it when the Senate reconvened in the new year. He said, "Fat chance." The fact of the matter is Reid doesn't want to deal with gun control anymore than the NRA does. Gun legislation has been very toxic for the Democrats. If another Assault Weapons Ban were to pass, Reid knows he would lose his powerful job as Senate Majority Leader in the 2014 mid term elections. I doubt he will even allow it to come up for a vote unless he , (and the NRA), are assured it won't pass.
The NRA getting into bed with Reid is a classic example of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer. Sometimes, as this proves, it pays to, "make a deal with the devil".
Bill makes a very good point.
Reid has been able to keep a budget from being passed for 4 years. Anything he doesn't like never makes the floor.
He has already said DiFi's AWB will not get his support, he is in a position to make sure the Senate never see's a gun control bill.
The question is did he get paid enough ?
Sure buying political action is wrong, but we are not working with a system that is right, we are working with a system that is.
-
.....he is in a position to make sure the Senate never see's a gun control bill. The question is did he get paid enough ? Sure buying political action is wrong, but we are not working with a system that is right, we are working with a system that is.
While I doubt any actual cash was exchanged, to a politician the NRA's support can in fact be worth more. Especially in a case like Reid was involved in this past 2010 election. The facts starring him in the face were these:
1.) Nevada is very pro gun.
2.) Nevada's housing market and job market are at or near the bottom of the nationwide list.
3.) Democrats are known for high taxes, of which Nevada has some of the lowest, along with a non existent state income tax.
All of that played against Reid. Sharon Angle should have walked into office. Her screwing up by losing the Hispanic vote, along with the NRA backing Reid, was what put him marginally over the top in a real nail biter of an election. Reid is full aware of all of this, and knows if he were to allow most any type of restrictive gun legislation to pass, he would be out the door much like Tom Foley was in 1994.
Remember, the Senate Majority Leader is God when it comes to which bills will be voted on, and which ones won't. He also has the political clout to be very persuasive when it comes to strong arming which way a Senator votes on given legislation. This can be accomplished by dealing out chairmanships to various powerful committees. As much as it pains me to say it, Reid could be a valuable ally to the NRA, along with it's 4.5 million members. At least for now.
-
Don't be too quick to jump on the NRA for the Reid endorsement. When it became evident the 2010 Harry Reid / Sharon Angle race was becoming too close to call, because Angle kept sticking her foot in her mouth regarding Hispanics, the NRA made a deal with Harry Reid. He was willing to "be bought" by the NRA because he thought he needed them to defeat Angle at the time. He was probably right. The race was very close.
No one knows for sure what type of deal was made. Neither the NRA or Reid discussed it much. The NRA membership was crying loudly about it. But if you think about it, all of it made sense. Having a Democratic Senate Majority Leader somewhat "in your pocket", made a lot more sense than backing a losing conservative. It all panned out. Reid won, Angle was sent packing.
Before Sandy Hook, Reid was quoted as saying when asked, if the subject of gun control would come up this past session, he said "there was no time for it". He was then asked about it when the Senate reconvened in the new year. He said, "Fat chance." The fact of the matter is Reid doesn't want to deal with gun control anymore than the NRA does. Gun legislation has been very toxic for the Democrats. If another Assault Weapons Ban were to pass, Reid knows he would lose his powerful job as Senate Majority Leader in the 2014 mid term elections. I doubt he will even allow it to come up for a vote unless he , (and the NRA), are assured it won't pass.
The NRA getting into bed with Reid is a classic example of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer. Sometimes, as this proves, it pays to, "make a deal with the devil".
+1
-
I know...
As much as I can for never having been there, I know they swim in a rather large cesspool.
I "get" pragmatism, I just don't like it much..
-
The NRA getting into bed with Reid is a classic example of keeping your friends close, and your enemies closer. Sometimes, as this proves, it pays to, "make a deal with the devil".
This is very true. In 2010 I was quite upset with some of the ratings the NRA gave to people I knew were huge leftists. I even sent the NRA a letter voicing my concern. Now (especially after the seeing what it will take to win a real war) I realize that they cannot survive without being a single issue group. They have to support politicians that I may not support in order to keep winning. Yes, even Harry Reid. I hate that I just typed that and will now go wash my hands.
That being said, they need some work on the public face of the NRA. I don't know if it is Wayne, the board members, or what it is, but we need more strength in the public arena. Bho is using his campaign to get public support. The NRA needs to mechanize a similar campaign.
You can see the results in the last election. Its not about ideas anymore (unfortunately) its about bombarding the public to get them on your side in strategic areas. I realize there is a more difficult sell with something like this. Conservatives are used to using logic and history - not emotion. Liberals use emotion. The "we need to save the children" argument is too easy in today's P.C. world. We need to find our "easy" argument and get on the offense and off the defense.
Andy
-
Mooner your right about the NRA needing a new face and some that will get the attention of the American people. I'm all in favor of, What for it.
Jessie Duff
Yes our own little Jessie Duff. Watching her on the News programs lately I believe she has the ability to sway both men and women in our direction. I know my wife is very impressed as I am, on the way she spoke and how she got her point across. Just the girl next door that the NRA needs.
-
It is becoming more apparent every day, the far left Dems are getting quite desperate in trying to pass any gun legislation at all. Hussein is now trying to, "take the issue directly to the American people". That will work about as well as trying to sell a turd as a Tootsie Roll. As will using idiots like Tony Bennett and Chris Rock as spokespeople for their cause.
Who do the Dems think are stripping the gun shop shelves bare? It isn't Syrian stowaways from a cruise ship. Mainstream America, including a lot of Democrats, have gone from being marginally pro gun, to all but becoming hoarders of anything that goes bang. This isn't about "preppers". Just because the MSM and the far left refuse to talk about it, doesn't mean they aren't seeing it loud and clear. I'm willing to bet Democratic politicians are walking away from Feinstein as if she cut a beer fart at a Washington cocktail party.
I'm expecting Hussein to toss it into his speech tonight. Along with a lot of other nothing. Saying crap like, "As a people there is nothing we cannot accomplish!" What he fails to grasp is what the people have in mind to accomplish is the exact opposite of what he has on his agenda.
-
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/19/17371231-congress-assault-weapons-ban-nixed-from-bill?lite
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_CONTROL_CONGRESS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-03-19-13-51-09
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month,
“After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has decided that a proposed assault weapons ban won't be part of a gun control bill the Senate plans to debate next month, the sponsor of the ban said Tuesday, a decision that means the ban stands little chance of survival.
This more or less proves there was fruit to be picked from the Harry Reid / NRA deal that was struck back before the 2010 mid term elections. Who would have thought?
-
I suspect Harry dumped the Assault Weapon Ban not because of any good will towards the 2A, but rather because he thought running with it would make the water too hot too soon and too many frogs would jump out.
-
From what I have seen LaPierre is capable of that if the Board is ready for that. My problem is that many of the bios for board members are vague concerning their stance and resolution. How do we vote with the limited info we are presented?
All of that aside, it is time we start writing to the National Rifle Association with the same "take no prisoners" attitude we are using on our elected officials.
Another question: Where are all of the other organizations? I am hearing very little from either the media or groups outside of the NRA and Twin Cities Gun Owners & Carry Forum.
Do you recall some legislation a few years ago that the NRA supported that would have effectively eliminated all other grass root gun rights organizations? There are groups out there working behind the scenes and the NRA seems to become pretty effective at taking ALL the credit. So much so that the SAF asked the courts to keep the NRA away from a case because they felt the NRA was trying to undermine the case.
-
Do you recall some legislation a few years ago that the NRA supported that would have effectively eliminated all other grass root gun rights organizations? There are groups out there working behind the scenes and the NRA seems to become pretty effective at taking ALL the credit. So much so that the SAF asked the courts to keep the NRA away from a case because they felt the NRA was trying to undermine the case.
While there is nothing "wrong" with other gun lobbying groups, such as GOA, and others, none of them possesses the political clout and muscle the NRA does, and most all of them never will. Mention all of them to Senators and Congressmen on Capitol Hill and they'll all tell you the NRA is who they respect, or in some cases fear, above all others.
That is not to say the NRA hasn't made some poor decisions or alliances in the past. But in this case it proves how the political partnership they struck up with Harry Reid has paid off. No lobbying group, gun or otherwise, is going to have a perfect track record when it comes to performance. But the NRA is head and shoulders above the rest. By not joining the NRA in favor of some other lesser powerful gun rights groups, gun owners are essentially "splitting the vote" much like Republicans did when they voted for Ross Perot in the 1992 elections. Or more recently all of the Ron Paul loons did by wasting their vote on him instead of Romney.
I don't agree with all the NRA does. But until another gun rights group comes along that packs more political muscle than they do, I'll keep sending them my money. This is a perfect reason as to why. This is yet another one we would have lost without the NRA.
-
+1
I disagree with the anti's that this is all about the NRA, because the NRA is you and me and nearly five million others who pay the bills to protect 100's of millions.
-
+1
I disagree with the anti's that this is all about the NRA, because the NRA is you and me and nearly five million others who pay the bills to protect 100's of millions.
Let them keep thinking it's all about "the NRA" in the halls of Congress.
Meanwhile GOA, SAF JFPO etc are working below the radar in the courts.
-
Let them keep thinking it's all about "the NRA" in the halls of Congress.
Meanwhile GOA, SAF JFPO etc are working below the radar in the courts.
Once again +1, but we still need to remind the anti's that these are not faceless groups. They are organizations made up of millions of legal gun owners.
-
Once again +1, but we still need to remind the anti's that these are not faceless groups. They are organizations made up of millions of legal gun owners.
They know it. The problem these anti gun liberals have is admitting it. People, not the NRA, stripped the gun racks bare across this country, and stood in mile long lines to get into gun shows. The liberals saw this as well or better than we did. The politicians reacted by protecting their jobs, dropping the AWB as well as other restrictive gun controls. The liberals who support them reacted by ignoring it, and blaming the NRA. Those like Andrew Cuomo who pushed restrictive AWB's of their own, have seen a sharp drop in approval ratings. They'll see worse when they face reelection.