Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

m4a1mustang wrote:

Kreutz wrote:heres the release:

http://home.nra.org/#

I have to say I dislike the NRA but I think they handled this one well.

It was on target and to the point and didn't offer any concessions as I was afraid they would.

I understood what they were saying, but only because I'm pro-gun. They knew this time around they had the whole country watching. I feel like they missed a chance to professionally debunk gun control.

The tone was somewhat hostile, and some of the headlines I'm seeing reflect that. "NRA goes on offensive as Americans mourn shooting."

At a moment when they could have done something to take some air out of the gun control balloon I feel like they might have just added to it.

I agree. LaPierre came off like Clint talking to an empty chair. If you already agree with him it was good but to all the people in the middle and those on the fence, he came of us as detached from reality--more guns will save us and that is exactly the way it is being portrayed by the MSM. Perception IS everything.

What the NRA needs to understand is that they need to win over the middle. Most Americans don't think that more guns and fortress-like schools are the answer. Logic be damned.

Secondly, attacking the media you need to win over the middle is not going to help.

This Shield program is a lame attempt and has zero chance of succeeding. Does anyone really think that parents and left leaning school administrators are going to allow armed strangers to watch over their kids? Oh, they are vetted by those crazy extremists at the NRA, that makes me feel better.

This is a PR nightmare and just made things worse. They would've been better of feigning cooperation and then just stalled on any real restrictions until emotions have subsided a bit. LaPierre just fired up the opposition and probably lost a few pro-gun Dems in the process.

AtomicPunk wrote: LaPierre just fired up the opposition....

This right here really sums it up for me. That's exactly what happened and is the last thing we need right now.

Personally I thought it was idiotic and a waste of time. They played right into the hands of the haters.

Compared to what I was expecting, pretty good.

We NEED as NRA MEMBERS to REPLACE the current leadership, and board with more aggressive people.

I would love a write in campaign for Philip Van Cleave as Executive VP of the NRA. Wayne's been in for over 20+ years... he's too soft in my opinion.

Honestly you guys think he fired up the opposition??? They couldn't have gotten any more fired up than they already were. Ok maybe they didn't come out swinging like alot of us would have liked but they did not "fire up" anyone that ws being done daily for the past few days. It wouldn't have mattered what they said they would have been portrayed poorly by the media. This is not the end of the debate and the NRA and GOA will have lots of opportunities to lay out the case for the 2nd Amendment. This fight is just getting started, don't go all weak knee'd just yet.

The NRA is in a no win situation, I think the media was expecting the NRA to roll over and while it started somber Wayne went on the offensive.
I can't say I disagree with a lot of what he said but I think the delivery didn't help the cause. He made a good point of armed guards in banks and high end stores but nothing in schools. However I'm on the fence with having someone in my kids school with a gun. I just don't want my kids to have to be in that environment.

He did bring up the mental health and violent video games which the MSM doesn't want to admit.

The problem this has become a PR issue and the anti-gun crowd is winning, I think this is the perfect storm. You have an administration who would have loved to push gun control, the MSM has been pushing gun control and what seems like a lot of mass shootings within a short period of time this will be a tough battle.

There is so much misinformation on "assault rifles" you hear the terms full auto, weapons of war, high capacity 700 rounds per min and people not in the know think this is the case.

Reverenddel wrote:We NEED as NRA MEMBERS to REPLACE the current leadership, and board with more aggressive people.

I would love a write in campaign for Philip Van Cleave as Executive VP of the NRA. Wayne's been in for over 20+ years... he's too soft in my opinion.

I'm with you. I don't really know how to start the ball rolling, but I am ready to support real change that I can believe in.

As for the NRA, it was weak kneed as hell, and as usual. It has not, granted in one day, changed the conversation. The pundits, even the "conservative" one's are all ready to give appeasements and concessions to get "common sense" gun control laws. None of them are feeling the pressure to stand up and it's disappointing when you have the leftist media, the so called "fair and balanced" media and the gun grabbing goons all lap dogs with the podium and the microphone. The NRA gave them a 7 day head start on this, to make it worse.

There needs to be clear coherent and strong defenses made and made often. There needs to be a counter attack in the media. Today's NRA bs was nothing of the sort. Maybe after the Sunday talk shows get involved with this NRA message it will change the direction of the topic...I hope.

I think his approach was spot on. Any attempt to defend the second amendment, or to get into the "guns are bad" argument would have fallen on deaf ears considering all the anti gun bull**** the left wing media have been spewing of late and all we are seeing on TV is funeral after funeral .

The singular concern the left will focus on in promoting an AWB IS the school shooting. He presented a solution that immediately addresses that concern more effectively than any ban would. He also pledged the NRA will fund the necessary training. There will be plenty of time in the future debates to defend 2A rights and to rebut the left's demonization of so called assault weapons. But in the immediate term he has put a solution on the table which directly addresses school safety. Yes it will be expensive (I've seen a figure of 4 billion a year on a national level) but it's a drop in the bucket when compared to the hundreds of billions the .gov wastes every year on studies on this or that invertebrate's sex life, woefully wasteful green energy projects, and a myriad of other expenditures/studies which accrue little or no direct benefit to the America taxpayer.

Hopefully the house will propose a bill to adopt his recommendations ASAP. I think this is a brilliant move and puts the onus on the left to accept or reject. If they reject increased school safety it puts a spotlight on their real agenda which is disarming the populace not securing our schools.

I can't believe people are calling for a more aggressive response. It may feel good to fight back but we are the minority. Aggressively fighting back will only get the NRA labeled as extremists with no credibility and our rights will be steamrolled over in a tyranny of the majority.

Remember NRA membership is like 1.3% of America and maybe 10% of gun owners ( By comparison, the AARP has 10x the number of members) so the MSM can and does make a strong argument that the group doesn't really represent most gun owners. Pretty easy to dismiss them with those numbers and an "extremist" ideology.

I have been saying for the past few years that LaPierre has to go. He has become way too partisan and is costing the group credibility with pro-gun Democrats. He has gotten far too comfortable (and rich) from the group's coffers and surrounded himself with right wing ideologues He showed this week that he has lost touch with reality.

All that said,, now is not the time to make changes as it will only show us as divided. We have to rally around the group now. They are our only hope but they need to do a better job at PR and winning over the middle.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Very interesting reactions. Diverse too, but most seem to feel the NRA wasn't aggressive enough.

May I suggest maybe thats a good thing? The NRA is the most visibile gun rights group in the nation, but its probably best if state/local groups like the VCDL and their other state equivalents go on the offensive while the NRA plays defense on the national stage?

This is not going to be a war fought in the national media (we'd lose anyway, be thankful), but fought in alot of state capitols and Congressman offices.

Many state capitols happen to be "red' and don't need to be "converted", just reinforced. I really think groups like the myriad citizens defense leagues have the local connections and history to serve gun owners best on this one. SAF specializes in the courts another (the?) key area.

I've been following this carefully and alot of gun owners arent taking this one lying down, I'm starting to feel optimistic we won't see another AWB, something I felt that was a certainty a week ago.

Spot on Kreutz. They should put us in charge of the NRA

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I would like to see in that conference a long list of people who are still alive today because they had a gun. Interviews with old people attacked by all kind of thugs.
Who will then say that they should have died? Play the 911 call with the woman which shot the intruder while on phone and police gave her the ok.
They have money. They should hire a manipulation company, like dems do. Make movies and ads that will make you cry, fear and run to closest shop to buy the biggest bad-ass gun ever created.

kelu wrote:I would like to see in that conference a long list of people who are still alive today because they had a gun. Interviews with old people attacked by all kind of thugs.
Who will then say that they should have died? Play the 911 call with the woman which shot the intruder while on phone and police gave her the ok.
They have money. They should hire a manipulation company, like dems do. Make movies and ads that will make you cry, fear and run to closest shop to buy the biggest bad-ass gun ever created.

+1

Spot off Kreutz. I believe at the last NRA convention i attended there is over 75 board of director's at the NRA Wayne is just the face and mouth piece of the NRA. Children died and there nothing good that come from the NRA or any other 2nd Amend. group fighting the anti's at this time. Public opinion is againist us, We are losing support in the Senate (Our Mark Warner) and this was before the NRA speech. We need to bide our time and wait. After the children are buried and people start thinking and not letting their emotions cloud there judgement, would be much better time to start stopping the antin gun crowd.

One typical thing came from the antis reaction..Their concern if they have to pay for it...these hyprocrites put a price on the security of their kids but in order to pay it they say Oh No! not me....let the government do it... THat evil NRA and guns are the bad guys here and we want that stuff banned ,, My question to them is ,"what about the next time one of these physco bastards that has been allowed to roam the streets goes off the damn deep end and has a Mommy don;t love me moment and kills a couple dozen more people ,,,WHat then you liberal leaning anti gun jackasses,,,, Call friggin 911 and pray??? I persoanlly support the NRA ;s postion of armed security in the schools ,,,Don;t gotta be uniformed cops but something can de done,,.,Cut a few expense accounts in the budget and there it gets paid for too..;

Despite the fallacies in this story, the shooter taking advantage of our current laws, this is among the messages that should be presented in the context that we, too, have children that we want protected from evildoers:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... t/1773473/.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]