Originally Posted by NytWolf
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.