Thanks for the cited article - it could enlighten some folks about the basic effort that has been ongoing. Anyone who truly believes that the Constitution guarantees a personal right to bear arms, and treasures that right, would do well to understand why, after decades of assaults by those who believe the opposite and who are very determined to prevail, they have not been able to do so.
Several groups and individuals have been important in various aspects of the ongoing battle for this right, and the NRA is only one of the actors. But, it has been - and is - a huge presence in the faces and minds of the opponents centered in DC, and quite a few around the country. Not that the NRA is truly huge in membership or funding, but it helps to have a well-armed giant on your side.
I won't knock the NRA members here who criticize LaPierre and Cox - it is their right and duty as members to voice their views and wishes regarding policy and leadership. I agree that LaPierre does not display much charisma and is not particularly smooth or eloquent with his presentations. I also doubt that, when he was needed and hired for this role, charisma and eloquence were the highest criteria. Maybe it could be time for a change there - it always happens eventually anyway - but I'm thinking it would be difficult to make the case for removal on the basis of poor overall performance results - or for selling out on core values.
Then, too, it might be good for some here to remember that LaPierre does not set NRA policy all by himself, and he alone does not form the positions stated by the NRA. It might also be helpful to remember that he and the NRA are not operating in an environment of somewhat similar mind sets and attitudes as do we here. Political action with controversial issues, particularly on the national scene, is a different animal.
