NRA Fires Dana Loesch, Closes NRATV

Boondock Saint said:

I tried of Noir's stuff pretty quickly, but also agree that it was generally rational and well presented. It's the attorney in him, I suppose.

Click to expand...

I enjoy Noir's presentation, for both style and content. It must be the policy analyst in me, matching with his legal approach to our rights. And, along the same lines, I enjoyed Billy Johnson's commentaries. However, I haven't seen anything new from him lately. To me, Dana Loesch seemed to be barely in control of her anger. To most appropriately represent the entire 2A community, I firmly believe the NRA needs to project more diversity in their spokespeople-- women, minorities, LBTQ.... Since WLP seemed to put himself into the position of speaking for the NRA, he makes it seem like that's the entirety of the organization...5 million OFWGs.

JoeR

erwos said:

The NRA needs more dudes like him, not less. If the organization gave a shit about minorities carrying and living through the experience, maybe they'd actually support it instead of looking at it as part of the system discriminating against them. Yes, this is going to sometimes mean criticizing the actions of cops who shoot black men who have carry licenses. Sorry, but that's the price to pay.

Click to expand...

Then the NRA will have less people like me.

Regardless of color, religion, or sex, when someone has a gun drawn on you, wether that's a Cop, or Joe Blow, you don't make a move unless you have plans to kill the person who has the gun drawn on you or have a death wish.

That's just common sense, regardless of how people want to spin it to fit a narrative.

JoeRinMD said:

To most appropriately represent the entire 2A community, I firmly believe the NRA needs to project more diversity in their spokespeople-- women, minorities, LBTQ.... Since WLP seemed to put himself into the position of speaking for the NRA, he makes it seem like that's the entirety of the organization...5 million OFWGs.

JoeR

Click to expand...

Rather than waste time and precious money catering to demographics that time and time again have shown a complete and utter disregard for the Constitution in their voting patterns (pic related), the NRA would be better off circling the wagons and doing everything they can to cultivate the next generation of true believers.

There are plenty of young milennial and gen Z men who have become rabid 2A advocates, but plenty of them stay away from the NRA because of its reputation as a bunch of out-of-touch boomers spewing the sorts of lame platitudes you usually see on WND or in some Dinesh D'Souza piece. If the NRA had the balls to pivot directly to young milennial and gen Z gun owners (who just happen to skew white and male) and the internet right that they have formented, they could have a real monster of an organization on their hands. Most of us younger gun owners are among the most rabid 2A advocates that the shooting community has ever seen.

The NRA was negligent for not standing up for Castile, he had a legal CCW permit and disclosed that he was carrying. The officer overreacted.

At some point NRA will have to decide whether it will stick up for the rights of legal CCW holders, or remain cozy with law enforcement. Bear in mind that in MD, when we are shall issue, suddenly almost every state trooper will be given the latitude to have the same unreasonable fear and harass CCW holders. They already kinda do by discouraging open carry, although the W&C permit clearly allows it. See also: arbitrary W&C restrictions.

In the past (like the 80s and 90s) the NRA needed to be cozy with law enforcement to assure people relaxing gun laws would not impact crime. The usefulness of that relationship has long since passed. Law enforcement is anti-gun in the places most in need of shall-issue, and the conflict between membership growth, shall-issue, and law enforcement will only increase from now on.

I think some in the NRA are hoping to thread the needle, but I think that it will simply be interpreted as more bungling like in the Castile case.

Good. Fck the NRA right now. They aren't for our rights and haven't been for a decade+. I can't believe anyone who still supports them as a 2a org has two cells in their brain to rub together.

For those who say **** the NRA, keep in mind there is no other organization with the membership to fill the gap. The vacuum will be filled by Bloomberg funded anti-gun groups. Who by the way have been inciting the infighting in the Trace and NYT. The strident hardline groups like the GOA do not file good amicus briefs, dont elect politicians, and largely chase windmills. They don't have the numbers. People who think otherwise are living in a little bubble. People who help dismantle the NRA, or boycott them, are as bad or worse than Demanding Moms.

You can have tiny tent of people who agree 100%, but dont get things done, or a big tent of people who only agree 65%, but have the numbers to move the ball forward. Given that we dont even have reciprocity or Constitutional Carry in South Carolina of all places (kinda ridiculous I cant get a NR permit), moving the ball forward even among Republicans is harder than people seem to think. We would not have shall issue in so many states without the NRA.

As I posted in another thread:

The Liberal hyenas smell blood and will gang up to tear the wounded NRA to shreds.

Let's all help them with this.

.

Given the need for money over at the NRA, they were selling life memberships for $500 each last year. I decided to get one for my wife and one for my son (who's now 10). I've never liked Wayne LaPierre, but he is 69 years old. I think the chances that he'll be around 20 years from now are what they are for anyone his age. I think the odds, however, of the NRA surviving him and this mess are a sure thing. If they are in trouble financially, that in my mind is even more reason to support them.

That is why I took them up on the offer I received in the mail yesterday to upgrade my wife and my son to Endowment life memberships for $300 each. They even get duffel bags to go with it. I sent them $250 so I could have a duffel bag to match theirs.

I do support SAF and GOA in addition, but I am standing with the NRA as I would with other long-term investments that I make.

So you're saying Dana Loesch has a lot of free time right now?

Okay, I'll swim against the tide - I like Dana Loesch. She's female, attractive, has a family, a career, and the Left hates her for herself and her pro-gun views. I think it's a big mistake for the NRA to let her go.

28Shooter said:

Okay, I'll swim against the tide - I like Dana Loesch. She's female, attractive, has a family, a career, and the Left hates her for herself and her pro-gun views. I think it's a big mistake for the NRA to let her go.

Click to expand...

It's a fine-tuning thing. Did you need Loesch to convince YOU that the 2A is important? Of course not. She always struck me as kind of tone-deaf:

1) When she was talking to US, the righteous anger and religiosity was a cranky and off-putting version of preaching to the choir. What I wasn't hearing was enough constructive advice on how to bring antis into the fold, or otherwise help with the divisive cultural problems that have made the Bloomberg agenda more powerful than it otherwise would be.

2) When she was talking to the outside world (with its media-fueled ignorance about and fear of guns and gun owners), she came across as an angry scold full of rage. Essentially, she was confirming every single negative stereotype that the left uses to grow the ranks of gun-grabbing politicians and voters. Essentially a long-running self-inflicted wound on the PR front.

It's not about her passion. That's genuine and powerful. But she frequently exposes it in a counterproductive way, given the environment we're now in. That's not me saying we should coddle, emotionally capitulate, or otherwise cave to the Moms types. But we need to be clear that Dana's approach is in no way constructed to improve the wider population's understanding and embrace of the 2A. Her approach essentially shut down those opportunities as soon as she opened her mouth, and then it was a vicious circle, because the lefty media and anti types treated her as if she was a loon, and she was then always playing defense - and did THAT in a way that just confirmed the cartoon version of her they were propagating.

So she needs to step back, and repackage her considerable talents and (when she allows it to show) charisma, and think about how to put it to work in a way that isn't a gift to our opponents.

Also, I dont think NRA is "letting her go." NRA is canceling NRAtv whose viewership was pitiful.

Its irrelevant how good (or bad) Loesch was if no one was watching. She did get a lot of negative media attention, but so did Trump. There is a school of thought in marketing that negative attention is much better than none. Its hard for me to believe that there will ever be positive media attention related to self defense.

I've reread this entire thread again and I'm hearing a lot of the same tone that I hear when people talk about how we need to work to keep our gun rights here in Maryland which has gotten us nowhere. Regarding the media, does anyone really think we ever get a fair shake out of the Fourth Estate? If so, watch the spin on the Capital Gazette coverage today.

erwos said:

Yes, this is going to sometimes mean criticizing the actions of cops who shoot black men who have carry licenses. Sorry, but that's the price to pay.

Click to expand...

you mean castille? I have no regard for people who blame the NRA over that. it is not the NRA job to immediately comment either way that complex event where Castile was NOT legally possessing and not legally carrying that firearm. he had a "carry licence" that he invalidated his legal status by lying on his 4473 and by being high and possessing dope.

it was a shame he was killed. The cop may ave been legally wrong, and certainly professionally unfit. But to make that about the NRA having to figure all that out and comment was wrong in the very first place.

By the way do you have any evidence at all that at cops shoot legally carrying black men more than legally carrying white men?


The problem with NRA TV is it was never had a communication strategy or purpose. if it had it woulds have stuck to firearms safety, firearms sport and competition, home self defense practice and examples, carry self defense practice, explanations and news on legislative developments, and instruction and motivation to members on how to lobby their officials for the Second Amendments. Why would the total dysfunction of people like Loesch, the generally divisive content and poor messaging even be noticed when the purpose of NRA tv was none of those things, but as a slush fund?

28Shooter said:

I've reread this entire thread again and I'm hearing a lot of the same tone that I hear when people talk about how we need to work to keep our gun rights here in Maryland which has gotten us nowhere.

Click to expand...

Considering billions are being spent by the other side and almost half the DNC wants an Australian style system, I wonder what you mean by "gotten us nowhere?" If you think it is bad what do you think will happen when there is no effective opposition? You know that saying "it is always darkest before the dawn"? That is a bogus saying. In fact it is always darkest before it goes completely pitch black.

Here in DC in local government we have total control by the Democrats. I don't surmise they want bans, I know it. Heller was about saying even with a background check even with waiting period, even with training I could not have a five shot revolver in a safe at home.

so what allowed me to have a hadngun and what allowed me to have carry? The federal courts, meaning successful Republican presidential elections, several of which were very close.

in other cases, and we are sightseeing in Virginia fighting tooth and nail for Republican state assembly will make all the difference.

have you ever looked at public support for total handgun bans over the last 40 years? it was running 75% nationally at times. it is people fighting tooth and nail that stopped us from having a handgun ban. The 1970s and 80s federal courts would have allowed it.

There are about a dozen fronts on which to fight for the second amendment depending on the time and place, public attitudes etc.

yes if your state legislature is all blue, if you are in Maryland or NJ or Mass, then visiting your Democrat US rep or state rep might be futile. But looking at any purple districts in your state and giving the Republican MONEY, even just a bit of money may help. You certainly can support national campaigns since the US Congress and Senate can change hands. you can work on presidential campaigns. When th NRA gets it shit together you can work with them and educating people, especially on the fights that can be won.

for very closed door at a time and place (eg Maryland legislature) there are stil plenty of open doors which to work

Just keep in mind it can get WAY worse and it absolutely will if we stop fighting.

NRA TV was a joke, primarily because it was run and marketed poorly, basically preaching to the choir. Dana, Colion, and others were brought in BECAUSE they were already popular and established. They had millions of views on other platforms, were on non-conservative shows and IMO did more than most in reaching people the NRA wouldn't normally reach, but on NRA TV they were just basically left to repeat talking points to an audience of a couple hundred. NRA TV would be much better as a youtube channel, maybe as a producer for other shows etc, not as a stand-alone video library on the NRA's website. In any case less emphasis on their own platform, and more emphasis on supporting a variety of talent to make people think, and normalize gun culture would be a much better use of my dues than a pile of suits and meetings in exotic location for Wayne.

As far as the current condition of the NRA goes, can't say I blame people leaving, can also understand people clinging onto what has been the best organization for 2a defense around. I'm not sure what exactly is going on, obviously the media can't be trusted, but the optics seem that Wayne was somewhere around the line between embezzlement and primodonna with most everyone taking one side of the other. The leadership looks less like our "defenders of freedom" and more like the crookked and corrupt politicians they claim to guard us from, if they actually care about defending our rights, especially with a presidential election coming up, they will step aside and settle this shit fast. IMO no idea if he is right or wrong, but he has to go, and get replaced by a trusted leader, at this point he seems like the fat kid on the paintball range screaming that he is still in the game, while dripping a rainbow of paint.

rascal said:

By the way do you have any evidence at all that at cops shoot legally carrying black men more than legally carrying white men?

Click to expand...

Way to miss my point.

The problem with NRA TV is it was never had a communication strategy or purpose. if it had it woulds have stuck to firearms safety, firearms sport and competition, home self defense practice and examples, carry self defense practice, explanations and news on legislative developments, and instruction and motivation to members on how to lobby their officials for the Second Amendments. Why would the total dysfunction of people like Loesch, the generally divisive content and poor messaging even be noticed when the purpose of NRA tv was none of those things, but as a slush fund?

Click to expand...

This, now this I agree with.

By the way, for those of you defending WLP, realize that there's now credible information that the NRA took a $15m loan from NRA-ILA to solve their cash flow problems, and WLP fired Chris Cox when he asked for it back. I simply don't understand how people can overlook literally robbing the part of the NRA that does the pro-2A legislative work.

hodgepodge said:

So you're saying Dana Loesch has a lot of free time right now?

Click to expand...

I’ve been seeing her in a lot of infomercials whoring everything from beet juice to some other dumb item. Anything for income?

erwos said:

Way to miss my point.

Click to expand...

Friend you had written this:

Yes, this is going to sometimes mean criticizing the actions of cops who shoot black men who have carry licenses. Sorry, but that's the price to pay.

Click to expand...

What was wrong with what I wrote? The castille case was complex. He was neither a legal nor responsible carrier (I am careful here to not use "responsible like the gun crabbers -- but by responsible i mean not both high and in possession of drugs, and therefore illegally carrying -- and he was both).

The NRA was jumped on by the gun grabbers for not pulling a BLM and judging before the facts were in, as if it was race based and racist of the NRA, when there isn't a shred of evidence that this was a factor.

looks like she's selling super beets .Just saw a commercial Dana is the spokes person for super beets.com