Calguns.net

Calguns.net (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/index.php)
-   California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/forumdisplay.php?f=71)
-   -   Why NRA failed with national address, per Alan Gura (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=676497)

mag360 01-11-2013 12:49 PM

Why NRA failed with national address, per Alan Gura
 
Alan really breaks it down. They blew their chance to make gun rights a civil rights issue after listening to Alan in this video.

Which makes me wonder, why can't the NRA figure this **** out.

http://youtu.be/P9rsVL-M5Jw

(adding, I'm still a member and still urge people to be members)

BUT WHAT THE HECK NRA, New messenger and knowledge of how pop culture reacts to scary things is needed.

navycorpsman 01-11-2013 1:01 PM

Dude the NRA has just begun the fight, they have been fighting for gun rights for 100 years I am sure they know what they are doing

NoJoke 01-11-2013 1:14 PM

Why doesn't the NRA HIRE Mr. Gura?

Love the ending. God bless Mr. Gura.

dandechino 01-11-2013 1:27 PM

:gura:

NytWolf 01-11-2013 1:37 PM

Oh please ...

As the often restated statement goes, "hindsight is 20/20". That's all Alan Gura is doing, giving hindsight. The truth is, and we all know this, the NRA is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. You can't have expected the NRA to come out and say anything that the anti's are going to accept during the emotional time after the CT shooting.

SwissFluCase 01-11-2013 1:44 PM

The NRA leadership has done well for a very long time, and has been very effective since the Cincinnati revolt. I am not convinced that their leadership is prepared to operate effectively in a post Heller world.

This does not mean that we should abandon the NRA, but rather we should change the leadership to reflect today's challenges and opportunities.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

scrubb 01-11-2013 1:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NytWolf (Post 10181383)
Oh please ...

As the often restated statement goes, "hindsight is 20/20". That's all Alan Gura is doing, giving hindsight. The truth is, and we all know this, the NRA is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. You can't have expected the NRA to come out and say anything that the anti's are going to accept during the emotional time after the CT shooting.

So true. Bunch of friggin' whining arm chair quarterbacks on here sometimes i swear. Biatch, biatch, biatch.....

Without the NRA we would probably be all shooting singleshots or worse yet, slingshots. So many Calgunners are such whiners and forget what was done for them 5 mins ago...depressing on here sometimes...i want to believe, but ugh....

Ok, whining can proceed now....

sholling 01-11-2013 1:59 PM

Gura is absolutely right that the attack on video games and movies was stupid and little more than an "old guy" response. He's also right that the better approach would have been a rousing flag waving a civil rights and personal freedom speech. Where I partly disagree with Gura is that we need to empower teachers by allowing them to carry a concealed weapon.

GutPunch 01-11-2013 2:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NytWolf (Post 10181383)
Oh please ...

As the often restated statement goes, "hindsight is 20/20". That's all Alan Gura is doing, giving hindsight. The truth is, and we all know this, the NRA is damned if they do, and damned if they don't. You can't have expected the NRA to come out and say anything that the anti's are going to accept during the emotional time after the CT shooting.

This. It is far too late to start demanding major changes. We'd end up doing more harm than good. It could cost us everything we hold dear.

mag360 01-11-2013 2:21 PM

Gura is absolutely correct in that trying to attack violent video games is seen by the anti gun crowd as "look, over there, someone else doing bad things".

Alan didnt give in at all and say "we need to ban assault weapons and magazines".

You can have a firm position, and not give one inch without acting like Wayne did.

It's almost as if the media knew wayne would do that, so they gave him this HUGE stage (EVERY single network I switched to that morning had his address) to let him come off like a loon on.

Californio 01-11-2013 2:23 PM

Go Alan.

Kestryll 01-11-2013 2:23 PM

Bull-Puckey!
I've played video games for a few decades now and I'll tell you for a FACT as each new generation of game comes out they are more violent, more graphic, the game play rewards more and more amoral actions and the people who say it has no influence are full of crap up to their brown eyes.

The industry responds to what the market wants and as kids grow up 'stabbing the hooker to death so I don't have to pay her', and getting bonus points for it, they start looking for something 'edgier' because stabbing the hooker is just the norm.

The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was the most shocking, grotesque and graphically violent movie in history at the time of it's release. Now with all the slasher/torture/mutilation flicks kids are seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre can be shown on public TV uncut!

How much do Super Bowl commercials cost?
Do you really think that people will pay tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars for 15-30 seconds of air time if it didn't affect and influence people?

How many of the lying hypocrites telling us that their movies, TV shows or songs don't affect anyone have gone on to tell us as they win some award how proud they are that their art and talent has influenced so many people?

The NRA didn't 'fail' and Wayne LaPierre didn't misspeak, he told the truth and even gun owners have hobby horses they are willing to blind themselves over.

mag360 01-11-2013 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scrubb (Post 10181517)
So true. Bunch of friggin' whining arm chair quarterbacks on here sometimes i swear. Biatch, biatch, biatch.....

Without the NRA we would probably be all shooting singleshots or worse yet, slingshots. So many Calgunners are such whiners and forget what was done for them 5 mins ago...depressing on here sometimes...i want to believe, but ugh....

Ok, whining can proceed now....

Nobody is saying the NRA hasn't been successful. Just that in this instance they did a piss poor job of advancing our cause. We don't reach pop culture by saying "its the video games making people go crazy", we reach them by saying coming across with real valid constitutional principles.

Californio 01-11-2013 2:31 PM

Oh God,

Its the Conservatives vs Libertarians - again.

SuperSet 01-11-2013 2:33 PM

Yeah, the conference was badly handled and exposed the deficiencies of the public face of the NRA.
Having said that, it's more important to be an NRA member now than ever. The stakes couldn't be higher, which is one of the reasons why folks are offering critiques for the NRA.

NytWolf 01-11-2013 2:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mag360 (Post 10181815)
Nobody is saying the NRA hasn't been successful. Just that in this instance they did a piss poor job of advancing our cause. We don't reach pop culture by saying "its the video games making people go crazy", we reach them by saying coming across with real valid constitutional principles.

And you expect the anti's to eat that right up, right? Seriously ... what did you think the NRA can come out and say that would be deemed correct by the anti's? The anti's will condemn the NRA for not what they say, whether wrong or right, but just for being the NRA.

Whether or not they did a poor job defending the 2A, the fact is, they did something. Do you think the press even listened or cared to listen to what the NRA had to say, let alone the fact that they already said they would not be entertaining questions?

IPSICK 01-11-2013 2:39 PM

Listen to him very closely.

He is criticizing how out of touch the NRA seems and how archaic they appear to a popular audience.

Hindsight 20/20 sure but the NRA gave themselves ample time to have a more thoughtful response like the one Gura gave in this video.

We need more polished speakers like Gura to represent us in the public eye. Although I still respect the NRA as leaders in our fight, their leaders seem to present a very polarizing picture at times. Could it have hurt them to have a woman speaking for them if not Gura? It would have softened the picture of the NRA as a bunch of old men fighting from a seemingly out of touch and OLD perspective.

bwiese 01-11-2013 2:40 PM

It's a mixed bag.

  • Gura is, as usual, right from a civil rights issue (w/accompanying free speech matters - in fact, Leland
    Yee's 'evil games bill' was overturned on those grounds). Consistence of civil rights across the board
    helps all rights - and it helps gunrights falls into that pool of 'must be tolerated' in judicial mindset.
    .
  • Wayne didn't get that wise counsel from staff preparation, perhaps (likely) due to generational issues.
    It would be interesting to see what a top-notch professional external marketing consultant would have
    offered, given they're 'outside' and not in a proverbial 'echo chamber'.

    One looming issue is the 'graying' of NRA membermship. We need to recruit far younger - and this doesn't
    mean just getting nonrenewed gunshow membership.

    Recruiting from the 20-40 age group is esp. harder when you start blaming 'violent' video games many
    perfectly fine people have grown up with: I'd bet 70% of EBR buyers in CA have played Call of Duty, etc.
    - and they're gonna say "Que?" to leadership of an org telling them they're doing 'bad things'.
    .
  • From pure political practicality: it occupied airtime/discussion time and displaced attacks on guns. It gave
    something for politicians to substitute into argument frameworks instead of having to purely 'justify' guns.

    I already notice House members talking about this and these sentiments being echoed by ordinary non-gun
    folks in newspaper comment forums around the country.

    This alone may be useful in spite of the above items. It may have secured the House some.

Wolverine 01-11-2013 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NytWolf (Post 10181908)
And you expect the anti's to eat that right up, right? Seriously ... what did you think the NRA can come out and say that would be deemed correct by the anti's? The anti's will condemn the NRA for not what they say, whether wrong or right, but just for being the NRA.

Whether or not they did a poor job defending the 2A, the fact is, they did something. Did you not hear the press's questions even after the NRA speech? From the nature of the questions, do you think they even listened or cared to listen to what the NRA had to say, let alone the fact that they already said they would not be entertaining questions?

Yep, nothing the NRA said or could say would have changed anything. Even keeping quiet out of respect for the souls lost and the grieving left behind was met with the headline "NRA Silent - where's the NRA on this? - why haven't we heard from the NRA?". Even the proposal to provide armed security at schools, something that uber liberals have long advocated and in many cases actually do (see LAUSD police) was met with derision. Simply because it was the NRA making it and that proposal didn't fit with the gun control agenda.

Obama's task force led by Biden is an even bigger joke. After 100's of years considering and implementing regulations aiming at reducing violence, suddenly a task force meets for a week or two, takes a couple of days of testimony and ouila! suddenly the solution is discovered and ready for implementation (starting next Tuesday).

And I agree with Kes above. People don't think all of this carnage up on their own, the more examples one sees in the external world the more likely that scenario will pop into your mind. Look at Holmes "I am the Joker" and it is clear he intended to emulate the character and took actions that the character is portrayed as taking.

IPSICK 01-11-2013 2:58 PM

Are many here saying that the NRA can't be criticized by our side, even constructively?

NoJoke 01-11-2013 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Californio (Post 10181871)
Oh God,

Its the Conservatives vs Libertarians - again.

WHAT? It's 2016 already? Elections? We lost again because we keep dividing the vote?

M. D. Van Norman 01-11-2013 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sholling (Post 10181585)
Where I partly disagree with Gura is that we need to empower teachers by allowing them to carry a concealed weapon.

I didn’t hear Mr. Gura reject this idea. I heard him disapprove of turning schools into fortified camps. I share that opinion and want to maintain our free and open society as much as possible.

That means accepting certain risks—risks that can be partially mitigated by a functional civil right to bear arms.

aklover_91 01-11-2013 3:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kestryll (Post 10181794)
Bull-Puckey!
I've played video games for a few decades now and I'll tell you for a FACT as each new generation of game comes out they are more violent, more graphic, the game play rewards more and more amoral actions and the people who say it has no influence are full of crap up to their brown eyes.

The industry responds to what the market wants and as kids grow up 'stabbing the hooker to death so I don't have to pay her', and getting bonus points for it, they start looking for something 'edgier' because stabbing the hooker is just the norm.

The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was the most shocking, grotesque and graphically violent movie in history at the time of it's release. Now with all the slasher/torture/mutilation flicks kids are seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre can be shown on public TV uncut!

How much do Super Bowl commercials cost?
Do you really think that people will pay tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars for 15-30 seconds of air time if it didn't affect and influence people?

How many of the lying hypocrites telling us that their movies, TV shows or songs don't affect anyone have gone on to tell us as they win some award how proud they are that their art and talent has influenced so many people?

The NRA didn't 'fail' and Wayne LaPierre didn't misspeak, he told the truth and even gun owners have hobby horses they are willing to blind themselves over.

Kes, with respect, if we don't want them to play the scape goat knee jerk blame game, we can't either.

To my knowledge, there has yet to be a study that's cited any real kind of correlation between violent games or movies and more aggressive behavior in people.

It hasn't been my personal experience, either.

As a slightly off topic aside, "Killing a hooker so you don't have to pay her AND YOU GET BONUS POINTS" demonstrates a pretty clear disconnect in understanding from how modern games even work compared to older ones.

NytWolf 01-11-2013 3:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IPSICK (Post 10181950)
Listen to him very closely.

He is criticizing how out of touch the NRA seems and how archaic they appear to a popular audience.


Hindsight 20/20 sure but the NRA gave themselves ample time to have a more thoughtful response like the one Gura gave in this video.

We need more polished speakers like Gura to represent us in the public eye. Although I still respect the NRA as leaders in our fight, their leaders seem to present a very polarizing picture at times. Could it have hurt them to have a woman speaking for them if not Gura? It would have softened the picture of the NRA as a bunch of old men fighting from a seemingly out of touch and OLD perspective.

You are forgetting one thing ... the anti's are not as logical as you would like them to be. They are driven by fear, not by logic. They are driven by what the media tells them, not by common sense.

Theoretically speaking, if you had replaced Wayne La Pierre's speech with Alan Gura's speech or something that he would have come up with, do you think the gun control agenda people would be swayed?

Let's put this into perspective. Just for argument's sakes, let's put the gun control agenda at -10 (minus 10) on a number scale and put the NRA on +10 (plus 10). An equal compromise on both sides would bring the entire gun control argument to a 0 (zero). Now, knowing the pro gun control people is unlikely to budge, so their position stays at -10 (minus 10). Now to the million dollar question. Did La Pierre's speech move the NRA's position to any less than the +10 (plus 10) that they started? If Alan Gura had spoke in place of La Pierre, do you think the NRA's position would move to any less than +10 (plus 10)?

Extra411 01-11-2013 3:14 PM

Blaming video games is ignorant and completely out of touch.

Quote:

The industry responds to what the market wants and as kids grow up 'stabbing the hooker to death so I don't have to pay her', and getting bonus points for it, they start looking for something 'edgier' because stabbing the hooker is just the norm.
If that's what you got out of GTA, you're playing it wrong. GTA doesn't even have a mission objective of "killing hookers". And "bonus points" for it? Are you just regurgitating anti-gaming rhetoric without checking any facts? Because there are no "bonus points"; the game doesn't even have a "points" scoring system. As all gun owners know, it's important to stick to facts, and I hope you realize how closely you are mimicking anti-gun groups in your approach to video games.

The player can do a lot of things in GTA because the game has a somewhat free-roaming structure. Does the fact that when given freedom in a game, the player can choose to do bad things surprise you? Hell, kids shouldn't even be playing GTA because the game is rated M. Why is the game's existence a problem for you, when it should be apparent that parents shouldn't let kids play those games in the first place? Or do you still subscribe to the mentality that "games are for kids" when the adult demography is incredibly huge?

This new form of "blame the entertainment" rhetoric is getting REALLY old. Why am I even defending the First Amendment on a 2A forum?

kantstudien 01-11-2013 3:16 PM

Time to invoke the Japanese idiom of "Shō ga nai"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikata_ga_nai

What's done is done. Unless someone plans on building a time machine, we need to move on and deal with it.

rkt88edmo 01-11-2013 3:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kestryll (Post 10181794)
Bull-Puckey!
I've played video games for a few decades now and I'll tell you for a FACT as each new generation of game comes out they are more violent, more graphic, the game play rewards more and more amoral actions and the people who say it has no influence are full of crap up to their brown eyes.

The industry responds to what the market wants and as kids grow up 'stabbing the hooker to death so I don't have to pay her', and getting bonus points for it, they start looking for something 'edgier' because stabbing the hooker is just the norm.

The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre was the most shocking, grotesque and graphically violent movie in history at the time of it's release. Now with all the slasher/torture/mutilation flicks kids are seeing Texas Chainsaw Massacre can be shown on public TV uncut!

How much do Super Bowl commercials cost?
Do you really think that people will pay tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars for 15-30 seconds of air time if it didn't affect and influence people?

How many of the lying hypocrites telling us that their movies, TV shows or songs don't affect anyone have gone on to tell us as they win some award how proud they are that their art and talent has influenced so many people?

The NRA didn't 'fail' and Wayne LaPierre didn't misspeak, he told the truth and even gun owners have hobby horses they are willing to blind themselves over.

No way man. There are millions of players logging hundreds of millions of playing hours. If there was a substantial cause and effect relationship it would be pretty clear. Video game players aren't more violent.

Most schools are already far too prisonlike in nature. Anything that pushes them farther down that path wont help (not that all forms of armed presence would do that)

Arisaka 01-11-2013 3:16 PM

I think that we are doing a pretty good job of not letting the NRA go "gray". I'm 32, girlfriend is 26, many of the members here are in about the same age group as me, am I correct? We are youngish, play COD, and own guns..... and support the NRA.

mosinnagantm9130 01-11-2013 3:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kestryll (Post 10181794)
Bull-Puckey!
I've played video games for a few decades now and I'll tell you for a FACT as each new generation of game comes out they are more violent, more graphic, the game play rewards more and more amoral actions and the people who say it has no influence are full of crap up to their brown eyes.

The industry responds to what the market wants and as kids grow up 'stabbing the hooker to death so I don't have to pay her', and getting bonus points for it, they start looking for something 'edgier' because stabbing the hooker is just the norm.

I have to disagree. Games haven't gotten "more violent", there have been violent games around since the 80s. Many of those were worse than anything out today (custer's revenge and chiller come to mind). "More graphic", I'll give you that one, but that's only because the graphics themselves have gotten better, not because there weren't graphic games in the 80s. The two I referenced are worse, even with their bad 80s graphics, than pretty much anything you'll see today.

I'm guessing you are referencing GTA with the hooker comment, that game is rated "M" and children shouldn't be playing it anyway. It's up to their parents to ensure that they don't.

strlen 01-11-2013 3:30 PM

First, I acknowledge Kestryl's disgust at violence in current games, as well as graphic torture pornography that we call movies. I don't play first person shooter games (although I appreciate the software engineering work that has went into them) for many reasons, their graphic nature a core one. I'd argue it isn't the stylized torture in Saw (never watched it, never will), but the "necessary evil" torture in 24 and movies like Taken that is most pernicious to society. I fell physically ill after watching the Taken torture scene: the real result would not have been a pin-point location but a tall yarn telling Neeson something that he wanted to hear, but that wasn't quite true (or even verifiable at all).

However, there are many legitimate reasons to display a torture scene in a movie: Pan's Labyrinth and even Reservoir Dogs have done this in a way that creates anti-torture opinions (people quoting Nice Guy Eddie during debates about this issue was actually useful: "if you beat this ***** long enough, he'll tell you about the start of the Chicago fire"). Perhaps movie makers can agree that if a movie has a scene where torture yields useful information, it should be at least identified as such, so that parents could prevent their children's exposure to this morality if they so choose. Likewise, again, I can find plenty of justified examples of Violent Games as useful free speech -- in other words, I can make a moral (and not just a constitutional) case for both. It's up to the parents to inform themselves and decide (based on their child's development, mental health, academic performance, etc...) what games they should be allowed to play (I'll probably be "that dad" as my answer would be: any game you program yourself).

Of course this doesn't touch on the point that "violent video games cause violence" is a statement akin to "conceal carry laws will lead to people shooting each other in bars": both make perfect sense to someone unfamiliar with the issue and both are utterly wrong. Facts simply don't agree with either of these sentiments: http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerev...act/myths.html

Practically speaking, I identify far more with Gura than I do with the NRA. However, I think Alan Gura may also be over-estimating how many principled liberals and libertarians there are: his arguments ring strong with the ACLU/EFF crowd (which includes me) that believes in principled individual rights, but disagrees with the proper size and scope of the government (liberals believing in a duty to provide a safety net, libertarians believing in a more minimal scope). However, there are just as many people calling themselves "liberal" or even "libertarian" (because there's no other political label applicable to them) who are more interested in equality aspect of gay-marriage (defending it on those grounds) and reproductive rights (which also have tangible societal benefits, beyond liberty or equality), disagree internally about the scope of the state (but generally based on "greater good" and not "duty to the poor" or "individual right to make choose" arguments) and don't mind the kind of Nanny-state that bans not wearing seat-belts (ACLU actually fought seat-belt laws in the 1999s on a principled stance -- they were some of the first laws that created unambiguously victimless crimes), transfat, sugary soda, and certain drugs. For them, the principled rights rhetoric doesn't mean much: I even know many who enjoy owning and shooting weapons, but just don't think ordinary civilians should own them. I am at a loss as to why that faction is rising in mindshare and how to best counter their arguments that seem to disregards rights of anyone but themselves.

kcbrown 01-11-2013 3:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kestryll (Post 10181794)
Bull-Puckey!
I've played video games for a few decades now and I'll tell you for a FACT as each new generation of game comes out they are more violent, more graphic, the game play rewards more and more amoral actions and the people who say it has no influence are full of crap up to their brown eyes.

That may be the case. Where's your evidence?

Until you have solid evidence supporting your case, assigning blame to anything with the intent of restricting liberty is an inherently anti-liberty approach.

Why do you think we're now having to fight for our most fundamental right? Look in the mirror. It's because there are millions of people out there who are taking the very same approach to guns that you are, here, with respect to video games.


You of all people should understand the value and, yes, the risks, of the liberty of free speech.

You can't pick and choose which rights you support and which ones you don't. They're a package deal, for if you can manage to take away the rights of someone else, they can turn around and take yours away as well, which is exactly what is being attempted at this very moment. Liberty itself is a package deal as well. Either take it or leave it.

Mitch 01-11-2013 3:43 PM

Blaming video games for the acts of a madman makes no more sense than blaming guns.

kcbrown 01-11-2013 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by strlen (Post 10182412)
For them, the principled rights rhetoric doesn't mean much: I even know many who fall into that fold who themselves enjoy owning and shooting weapons, but just don't think ordinary civilians should own them. I am at a loss as to why that faction is rising in mindshare and how to best counter their arguments that seem to disregards rights, period.

The best way to counter their arguments is to make it plain that if they can take away the liberties of others against those others' will, those others can do the same to them. The intersection of the liberties that everyone believes everyone else should have is the null set -- nothing at all. For every single liberty that exists, you can find someone who believes you shouldn't have it.

It needs to be made crystal clear to people that liberty is a two-way street, that what goes around comes around, and that they take away the liberties of others at their own peril.

Finally, protection of liberty is precisely what this country was founded for:

Quote:

Originally Posted by U.S. Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


Ask these people you speak of if they are truly interested in parting ways with the very foundational purpose of the country.

Mitch 01-11-2013 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcbrown (Post 10182562)
It needs to be made crystal clear to people that liberty is a two-way street, that what goes around comes around, and that they take away the liberties of others at their own peril.

Sadly, that doesn't work as well as it should. A decade ago plenty of Second Amendment supporters were happy to cheer on the Administration as it trampled the Fourth and Sixth Amendments.

HKC 01-11-2013 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NytWolf (Post 10182213)
You are forgetting one thing ... the anti's are not as logical as you would like them to be. They are driven by fear, not by logic. They are driven by what the media tells them, not by common sense.

Theoretically speaking, if you had replaced Wayne La Pierre's speech with Alan Gura's speech or something that he would have come up with, do you think the gun control agenda people would be swayed?

Let's put this into perspective. Just for argument's sakes, let's put the gun control agenda at -10 (minus 10) on a number scale and put the NRA on +10 (plus 10). An equal compromise on both sides would bring the entire gun control argument to a 0 (zero). Now, knowing the pro gun control people is unlikely to budge, so their position stays at -10 (minus 10). Now to the million dollar question. Did La Pierre's speech move the NRA's position to any less than the +10 (plus 10) that they started? If Alan Gura had spoke in place of La Pierre, do you think the NRA's position would move to any less than +10 (plus 10)?

I don't think that's Gura's point. You're rarely going to change the position of someone whose mind is already made up. An anti is going to be an anti forever. Done deal.

What's most important is to the win the hearts and minds of the neutral parties. People who don't own guns, but still don't necessarily want them taken away. Ultimately, it's those people in the middle who are going to decide the direction this thing is going to go.

aklover_91 01-11-2013 3:54 PM

I've absolutely 'flipped' one or two antis in my time, so don't be too sure about that.

Skidmark 01-11-2013 3:56 PM

Gura sure gets it.

The NRA brass sure don't.

Such a wasted opportunity...

pMcW 01-11-2013 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NytWolf (Post 10182213)
You are forgetting one thing ... the anti's are not as logical as you would like them to be. They are driven by fear, not by logic. They are driven by what the media tells them, not by common sense.

Alan's whole point was that not everyone is either hardcore pro-gun or hardcore anti-gun, and that many people are undecided. (We had better hope he is right about that too!) They might lean toward "accepting restrictions of something exotic and unfamiliar" because they don't perceive that they have a personal stake in gun freedom because they do not own or want to own guns.

Quote:

Theoretically speaking, if you had replaced Wayne La Pierre's speech with Alan Gura's speech or something that he would have come up with, do you think the gun control agenda people would be swayed?
Not DiFi, but maybe some of those folks in the middle.

His point was that there are some people out there that maybe could have been moved, not the hardcore anti-gun crowd, but some folks in the middle. The NRA probably did not successfully reach many of those people, and probably even alienated some... young gamers, for example.

Quote:

Let's put this into perspective. Just for argument's sakes, let's put the gun control agenda at -10 (minus 10) on a number scale and put the NRA on +10 (plus 10). An equal compromise on both sides would bring the entire gun control argument to a 0 (zero). Now, knowing the pro gun control people is unlikely to budge, so their position stays at -10 (minus 10). Now to the million dollar question. Did La Pierre's speech move the NRA's position to any less than the +10 (plus 10) that they started? If Alan Gura had spoke in place of La Pierre, do you think the NRA's position would move to any less than +10 (plus 10)?
I don't really understand the "-10 to 10 scale" that you present here. Do you mean to imply that Alan was suggesting that NRA should have offered compromises on gun restrictions? I didn't hear that at all. I think NRA could improve its messaging while still holding the line against new restrictions!

I too would have liked to hear a more positive message about how "guns are about freedom" and "regular decent folks own and enjoy guns", instead of the suggestion that we all live in a war zone, where the bad guy is always coming with his guns, and especially without the blaming of video games and movies.

Mitch 01-11-2013 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklover_91 (Post 10182628)
I've absolutely 'flipped' one or two antis in my time, so don't be too sure about that.

The guys who say you can't have never actually attempted to engage such people in person. They remain huddled in their comfort zone, shaking their fists at the world.

SanPedroShooter 01-11-2013 4:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwissFluCase (Post 10181447)
The NRA leadership has done well for a very long time, and has been very effective since the Cincinnati revolt. I am not convinced that their leadership is prepared to operate effectively in a post Heller world.

This does not mean that we should abandon the NRA, but rather we should change the leadership to reflect today's challenges and opportunities.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I agree. We need to get away from partisan politics, or at least giving off that appearance.

We need a big ****ing tent.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.