Originally Posted by IPSICK
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)?