CNN RETRACTS ATTACK ON ASSAULT WEAPONS

FYI, I am a member of the NRA and have been since 1989. I criticize it for being too soft with the anti-gunners on most occasions, and for missing the real issue - our rights.

With that statement, and your criticism of LaPierre for not handling himself perfectly under intense pressure, I think you should run for major office in the NRA. You could then bring your wisdom and talents to a much wider audience. Have you been interviewed on TV often? It's a much different world from that perspective, sitting under hot lights, fielding rapid-fire questions from a hostile interviewer/producer team and knowing every sentence out of your mouth has to be crafted like a sound-bite to take advantage of the very precious few seconds you're given. I personally think LaPierre did a great job under the circumstances, but if you think you can do better, go for it!

Bernard, if you think that Wayne LaPierre just went into the CNN studio and shot from the hip in that interview, you are wrong. He was very well prepared and, in general, did a good job. He DID nail CNN for lying their anti-gun rearends off, which was very effective in disarming that network's critcism.

My criticism of the NRA is limited to policy decisions made long before individual interviews/debates. In fact, those policy decisions guide the preparations for such interviews and debates. My main point in criticizing the NRA in this instance (and most others, as well) is that they are allowing the anti-gunners to control the terms of the debate. I'm not so worried about one particular interview or soundbite, but about the overall tone of the NRA's arguments over a long period of time. My problem with policy is that, so far, it appears that the NRA has conceded much of the rhetorical and policy ground to the enemy. Being on the defensive never wins any ballgames, it only delays defeat - and it is high time that the NRA, as the 800-pound guerrilla of the gun-rights movement, put Sarah Brady and company on the defensive. Make THEM justify a massive deprivation of basic rights - make them look like slave-traders or the KKK, if possible.

As for me running for NRA office, or going on TV: Does the lack of running for political office, or of having had a political debate prevent you, me or anyone else from criticizing our politicians? If not (and I think that this is the correct answer), then the same applies to the NRA and its leadership/spokesmen. THEY chose to run for office or appear on TV, for better or worse - and worse includes accepting criticism from members. Don't make ad hominem arguments. Either I am right or wrong, on the merits. I never said that I could do better than LaPierre, only that I wish he had responded differently. I don't retract that thought, and challenge you to answer me substantively. In other words (and here I will frame the debate, just to show you how important it is to do so), is it the best policy for the NRA to play defense with our RKBA and to answer questions only in terms that the likes of Sarah Brady have defined, or not? THAT is the important question, not whether I have run for NRA office or whether I have had a debate with some anti-gun bimbo on CNN.

You and I are, undoubtedly, on the same side in the pro-gun vs. anti-gun debate. We only appear to differ on tactics. Please be wary of the problems associated with group-think (i.e. the NRA is always right) - as George Patton said, "When everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.