NRA Declines Gun Policy Meeting With Obama

[sandnsea]

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!

“Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” said Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of the National Rifle Association.

He named Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has almost no role in gun-related policies, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

“It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people,” Mr. LaPierre said, adding that his group has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data.

Despite his opposition to joining the administration’s table, by his comments in an interview Mr. LaPierre sounded at times like the White House."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/pol...5guns.html

[Ikonoklast]

The NRA has devolved into nothing but pimps for the firearms manufacturers, and the change was so slow that the gun fetishists never even noticed.

It used to represent hunters and shooters, but they are nothing more than a trade organization now.

Used to belong, years ago, before the LaPierre regime.

[There Is No Spoon]

That's considered an official response from the NRA?

What a joke they are. NRA = National Republican Association

[nofurylike]

(NRA) "supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data."

then, why would they hesitate to meet with President Obama?

uh, of course, always, just liars ....

poseurs

sandnsea!!
"I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!"

thank you!!

[SeattleGirl]

“It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people,” Mr. LaPierre said...

Um dude, here's a clue you can buy: Most of us aren't worried about everyday Jane and John Doe's who own guns. We are worried about dangerous people who own guns. See, you can actually talk about both topics, and I promise, President Obama isn't going to take your guns away from you. Unless of course, you're a dangerous person.

[There Is No Spoon]

(03-15-2011 06:38 PM)Punky Wrote:  “It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people,” Mr. LaPierre said...

Um dude, here's a clue you can buy: Most of us aren't worried about everyday Jane and John Doe's who own guns. We are worried about dangerous people who own guns. See, you can actually talk about both topics, and I promise, President Obama isn't going to take your guns away from you. Unless of course, you're a dangerous person.

I didn't stop going to the bar up the street because of drunk angry people, I stopped going because of the drunk angry people who also were hiding a gun in their jacket.

[SeattleGirl]

(03-15-2011 06:41 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 06:38 PM)Punky Wrote:  “It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people,” Mr. LaPierre said...

Um dude, here's a clue you can buy: Most of us aren't worried about everyday Jane and John Doe's who own guns. We are worried about dangerous people who own guns. See, you can actually talk about both topics, and I promise, President Obama isn't going to take your guns away from you. Unless of course, you're a dangerous person.

I didn't stop going to the bar up the street because of drunk angry people, I stopped going because of the drunk angry people who also were hiding a gun in their jacket.

Yep. All of my male siblings and siblings-in-law have guns, and that doesn't bother me in the least. They are responsible gun owners. I have, however, known a few people in my life that I would be terrified of if they had guns!

[There Is No Spoon]

(03-15-2011 06:47 PM)Punky Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 06:41 PM)There Is No Spoon Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 06:38 PM)Punky Wrote:  “It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people,” Mr. LaPierre said...

Um dude, here's a clue you can buy: Most of us aren't worried about everyday Jane and John Doe's who own guns. We are worried about dangerous people who own guns. See, you can actually talk about both topics, and I promise, President Obama isn't going to take your guns away from you. Unless of course, you're a dangerous person.

I didn't stop going to the bar up the street because of drunk angry people, I stopped going because of the drunk angry people who also were hiding a gun in their jacket.

Yep. All of my male siblings and siblings-in-law have guns, and that doesn't bother me in the least. They are responsible gun owners. I have, however, known a few people in my life that I would be terrified of if they had guns!

There was one who was clearly mentally disturbed (& highly paranoid). He always carried a gun in his leather jacket - even if it was 90 degrees out. One day he went home drunk and shot his gun in his trailer. The bullets ripped through other trailers in the park as anybody knows those things don't have thick walls. He's in jail now - I hope he's not getting out any time soon.

[Julie]

What a stinky pantload.

[Still a Democrat]

Earlier, I was critical of PBO for carefully staking out middle ground in a recent Op/Ed instead of being more assertive on this issue. But coupled with this, I think there's at least some sound political strategy here.

After having stated some very mainstream positions, PBO invites the NRA for a talk. They are boxed in, with no good response.

A) Say yes, and PBO looks moderate, bipartisan, and a leader

B) Say no, and make themselves look partisan and inflexible.

They chose B to cater to their base. Well played by PBO's team, politically at least.

[Cha]

(03-15-2011 07:46 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  Earlier, I was critical of PBO for carefully staking out middle ground in a recent Op/Ed instead of being more assertive on this issue. But coupled with this, I think there's at least some sound political strategy here.

After having stated some very mainstream positions, PBO invites the NRA for a talk. They are boxed in, with no good response.

A) Say yes, and PBO looks moderate, bipartisan, and a leader

B) Say no, and make themselves look partisan and inflexible.

They chose B to cater to their base. Well played by PBO's team, politically at least.

Yeah,

[sandnsea]

(03-15-2011 07:46 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  Earlier, I was critical of PBO for carefully staking out middle ground in a recent Op/Ed instead of being more assertive on this issue. But coupled with this, I think there's at least some sound political strategy here.

After having stated some very mainstream positions, PBO invites the NRA for a talk. They are boxed in, with no good response.

A) Say yes, and PBO looks moderate, bipartisan, and a leader

B) Say no, and make themselves look partisan and inflexible.

They chose B to cater to their base. Well played by PBO's team, politically at least.

I think walking into the belly of the beast is pretty assertive. Mentioning anything about guns AT ALL, as pissed and riled up as the right is, is assertive. Challenging the "confiscation" garbage, head on, is assertive. Laying out a frame work based on common values is assertive. A very basic rule in sales is to overcome objections before they're made. He took every argument they use against reform and knocked them down by recognizing common sense where it exists. You can't hardly get in an argument with someone agreeing with you.

Unless you were disingenuous about reform to begin with.

[Cha]

(03-15-2011 11:20 PM)sandnsea Wrote:  

(03-15-2011 07:46 PM)Still a Democrat Wrote:  Earlier, I was critical of PBO for carefully staking out middle ground in a recent Op/Ed instead of being more assertive on this issue. But coupled with this, I think there's at least some sound political strategy here.

After having stated some very mainstream positions, PBO invites the NRA for a talk. They are boxed in, with no good response.

A) Say yes, and PBO looks moderate, bipartisan, and a leader

B) Say no, and make themselves look partisan and inflexible.

They chose B to cater to their base. Well played by PBO's team, politically at least.

I think walking into the belly of the beast is pretty assertive. Mentioning anything about guns AT ALL, as pissed and riled up as the right is, is assertive. Challenging the "confiscation" garbage, head on, is assertive. Laying out a frame work based on common values is assertive. A very basic rule in sales is to overcome objections before they're made. He took every argument they use against reform and knocked them down by recognizing common sense where it exists. You can't hardly get in an argument with someone agreeing with you.

Unless you were disingenuous about reform to begin with.

It looks like it scared the piss outta LaPierre.

[Cha]

(03-15-2011 12:43 AM)sandnsea Wrote:  I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!

“Why should I or the N.R.A. go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States?” said Wayne LaPierre, the longtime chief executive of the National Rifle Association.

He named Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has almost no role in gun-related policies, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

“It shouldn’t be a dialogue about guns; it really should be a dialogue about dangerous people,” Mr. LaPierre said, adding that his group has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data.

Despite his opposition to joining the administration’s table, by his comments in an interview Mr. LaPierre sounded at times like the White House."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/pol...5guns.html

Why does the president of the NRA have to be a big fat liar and a butthead?