TexasCHLforum.com

Lots of good stuff there, Charles. We likely agree on more than we disagree.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We have perennial NRA bashers here on the forum and their tactics are so transparent. They spin, twist, quote out of context, or flat out lie about the NRA. I see this starting with the new, critically important National School Shield effort. I'm a very experienced civil trial attorney with a very good win/loss record and I know how easy it is to spin the truth by quoting something out of context, or leaving out critical statements, when one is not subject to grueling cross-examination. One of my favorite trial tactics is to catch someone doing that, then show the jury the entire document. It destroys the credibility of those who would deceive with half-truths and they rarely recover in the jury's eyes. The NRA doesn't want to merely avoid further gun laws, though that is obviously a goal. We also want to do something that truly will make schools safer so no parent has to go through the unimaginable grief and despair the Sandy Hook parents are suffering now.

I hope that you understand that I'm not one of those bashers. I certainly understand that the NRA's primary mission is defence of our 2nd Amendment rights - it's just that those rights don't exist in a vacuum and I would prefer that any defence of them was sensitive to the broader context.

Mass shootings, while unimaginably tragic are also uncommon. The problem of high-impact, low-probability events is a textbook example of humanity's flawed thinking on risk-analysis. Hysteria is rarely a wise response to hysteria and the NRA's position - throwing the First Amendment under a bus, proposing a bureaucratic "program" (led by a man from Homeland Security, the dictionary definition of waste and excess, for goodness sake) seems like a hysterical over-reaction. The problem, if problem there is, is that so-called "Gun Free Zones" present an attractive nuisance to deranged individuals. Eliminating that nuisance, by removing the prohibition on regular, law abiding folks possessing the means of defence in such areas (as hinted at by Greg Abbot) would seem to be a more proportionate and rational response.

In a Christian spirit, I'd like to say that I truly appreciate the efforts of Charles and those like him.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If I've said anything that offends anyone tonight, then I sincerely apologize. I'm tired, I'm frustrated, and I'm tired of fighting for people when some of them seem more inclined to put a knife in the NRA's back than engage the enemy.

That said, the above troubles me. Most of those who we disagree with are our fellow Americans, putting forth sincerely held, if misguided, beliefs. These people are our neighbours, our friends, our family. They are not enemy combatants and our mission is not to destroy them. Rather, it is to win them over and lead them towards enlightenment.

I find the jingoistic fervour around the NRA to be deeply troubling. The NRA is nothing more than a tool, employed by us to achieve our goals. Should its edge become blunt, then we would dress it. Should it break, then we would replace it. It is not and should never be, an object of veneration.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Read the excepts I posted above; you're deliberately taking it out of context. He made the statement right after he pointed out the money that we spend protecting things we value. If you really can't understand why this was done, then I certainly can't help you.

From the minute the press conference was over, the NRA phones and email was swamped with people calling to praise the NRA for its plan. We are adding new Members at the rate of 8,000 per day. Don't try to tell me you know what all the Members in the Panhandle like or don't like.

I'm not spinning anything, but you'll find the guy who is by looking in the mirror.

A call upon Congress to appropriate funds is a call upon Congress to appropriate funds. You may wish that he hadn't said it, but he did.

I suspect that we are in private agreement about the preferred response - Greg Abbott is to be applauded for his suggestion of rolling out Harrold ISD's plan state wide, but sadly that's not what Mr. La Pierre proposed.

I certainly don't know the minds of everybody in the Panhandle and do not claim to. But there's an old Jewish proverb: "If six people say that you're sick, lie down." What I'm seeing in local discussions round here is many more than six people saying that the NRA is sick.

I'm sure that y'all are very happy about adding 8000 members a day, with all that money. I'd be happy if you'd stop focussing on being a self-perpetuating part of the Beltway establishment and get back to the first principles that regular folks like me fund you for.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Also, it's clear that Wayne knows Congress won't provide the necessary funding, so it is very much a grass roots efforts. Again, read his comments.

Charles. Mr La Pierre explicitly called upon Congress to "appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school in this nation." You can't spin that out of existence.

You're a board member of the NRA. I'm just one of the poor schmucks who funds it. It's understandable that you would favour the current direction that the organisation is taking and I'm not here to argue with you about that, directly.

I'm here to tell you that, up here in the Panhandle, the sentiment among firearms enthusiasts is overwhelmingly one of disgust at this morning's performance. We are the people who pay the wages of those folks in DC. We'd like to be listened to.

steveincowtown wrote:I may need to watch the speech again, but it didn't seem to me that he was suggesting a Federal level program to secure schools.

He clearly called for "Congress to appropriate funds". That makes it Federal and the rest follows inevitably.

I fear that the NRA has become captured by Beltway Bandits and has made a tactical decision to pander to the big government mob – “Leave the guns alone and we’ll give you another bureaucratic empire – it’s what you really want anyway.”

The Annoyed Man wrote:What won't be forgotten, and which people will repeat and remember over the long haul is that quote: "The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

This is true and was a very fine thing for Mr. La Pierre to say. I am just saddened by the rest of the beltway "give a guy a bureaucracy and who cares about the cost" games that he played today.

I'm afraid that I must disagree with the general round of back slapping. This may make me unpopular, but I can live with that.

I found many of the statements made this morning to be troubling, to say the least. It would appear that the NRA is proposing another TSA, despite the fact that we, in Texas, have proven that there is no need for yet another bureaucratic machine, given that ordinary folks are quite capable of responding to such situations.

Frankly, if the only way that Mr. Pierre can think of to defend gun rights is expanding bureaucracy and putting the country further into unsustainable debt, then we need to fire him and hire somebody who is less useless.