To All,
I was channel surfing today and I caught the last 10 minutes of Terry Gross on Fresh Air interviewing Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center.
Link: Assault-Style Weapons In The Civilian Market : NPR
The ENTIRE BLOODY INTERVIEW was antigun. I respect this. The antigunners have a right to air their opinions and be heard as much as those of us who disagree. That is not my issue.
My issue is what Terry said at the end of the interview. They had invited the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Freedom Group to speak on this topic and ALL declined!
I get the Freedom Group. They are simply investors who want to make to make money. They have a product to market and that is it. This I understand.
However for the NRA to not participate is a de facto capitulation allowing the antigun group to control the entire dialog! Terry's program was probably going to slant antigun, but to just give away 37 minutes of free, unchallenged airtime to Tom Diaz is what frustrates me about the NRA.
The NRA should be accepting every invitation to talk, speak, challenge and debunk antigun propaganda.
Yes, fight in the courtrooms. Yes, fight in the legislatures. Yes, fight on the campaign trail. BUT ALSO FIGHT in the media. Fight in the news.
Having a speaker on Fresh Air could have turned 37 minutes of anitgun propaganda into 20 minutes of propaganda, and possibly undermined that.
What does it serve the protection of our liberty to remain silent when liberty is challenged?
There are millions of gun owners who remain silent for a variety of reasons. While I may disagree with this I understand it. The NRA is PAID to get into the fight and debunk myths, promote gun ownership and rights. This is their job.
Ok, rank over.
Now, would someone please explain to me the logic of this inaction??? I am asking a serious question. It just seems to me by remaining silent the NRA and others allow our opponents to control and focus the discussion in the critical time that it is forming. Without challenge the antigun movement has a better chance of gaining momentum in the public eye.
And in my eye this is a baaadddd thing!
What gives? What am I missing?
Regards,
Doug
I was channel surfing today and I caught the last 10 minutes of Terry Gross on Fresh Air interviewing Tom Diaz of the Violence Policy Center.
Link: Assault-Style Weapons In The Civilian Market : NPR
The ENTIRE BLOODY INTERVIEW was antigun. I respect this. The antigunners have a right to air their opinions and be heard as much as those of us who disagree. That is not my issue.
My issue is what Terry said at the end of the interview. They had invited the NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Freedom Group to speak on this topic and ALL declined!
I get the Freedom Group. They are simply investors who want to make to make money. They have a product to market and that is it. This I understand.
However for the NRA to not participate is a de facto capitulation allowing the antigun group to control the entire dialog! Terry's program was probably going to slant antigun, but to just give away 37 minutes of free, unchallenged airtime to Tom Diaz is what frustrates me about the NRA.
The NRA should be accepting every invitation to talk, speak, challenge and debunk antigun propaganda.
Yes, fight in the courtrooms. Yes, fight in the legislatures. Yes, fight on the campaign trail. BUT ALSO FIGHT in the media. Fight in the news.
Having a speaker on Fresh Air could have turned 37 minutes of anitgun propaganda into 20 minutes of propaganda, and possibly undermined that.
What does it serve the protection of our liberty to remain silent when liberty is challenged?
There are millions of gun owners who remain silent for a variety of reasons. While I may disagree with this I understand it. The NRA is PAID to get into the fight and debunk myths, promote gun ownership and rights. This is their job.
Ok, rank over.
Now, would someone please explain to me the logic of this inaction??? I am asking a serious question. It just seems to me by remaining silent the NRA and others allow our opponents to control and focus the discussion in the critical time that it is forming. Without challenge the antigun movement has a better chance of gaining momentum in the public eye.
And in my eye this is a baaadddd thing!
What gives? What am I missing?
Regards,
Doug