Wayne LaPierre Resigns

[Expat]

The NRA was effective for a couple of reasons. Yes part of it was the money they could spread around to the pond scum. But I always felt its biggest strength was the membership. Obviously the numbers are down. The numbers are important. Also of importance is membership dedication to writing/calling their own local Senator/Reps. The last few years they seemed content with just continuing to collect the big checks from the industry folks. They are going to need to do some fence mending with the rank and file.

 

[jamil]

Just more inane banter. Never any real input. I have asked twice already but you never answer a simple question; what attributes are you looking for?

I know, it is easier to throw around lies, misrepresentation, and snark than answer hard questions.

I have answered the question to the extent it the conversation deserves an answer. Your question is a dodge.

I'm using sarcasm to point out the absurd theme you're trying to weave together. That, we must protect and defend our own, that if he's a corrupt leader, he's our corrupt leader. A casual observer would look at this conversation, at the desperation with which you defend WLP, think, dayam. Is WLP a close relative of yours? Why would you make fallacious arguments to defend him so vehemently? And it's obviously that. It's why you don't have many people joining you in defense of the following:

• You whine at the NRA supporters for withholding donations, as if that's your call to make how they support the 2A.
• You blame donors for the weakened state of the NRA, because they want their hard earned money to go to the cause, and not to line the pockets of the leaders.
• So that you don't have to deal with what we do know, you dismissit it by claiming we don't. Welll, yeah, we kinda do know some stuff. Not all the details. But as Bug pointed out, the receipts came out in court, and it's quite reasonable for reasonable poeple to conclude WLP used NRA funds for personal use. What's not reasonable is to sweep it under a rug called, "we don't know" as if we didn't know anything.
• When the "we don't know" shtick didn't work, you tacitly admitted he's corrupt by saying we need a politician. Implicit in that idea is that the money spent on himself and his family is in service of gun rights, as if buying his wife **** with the money we donated to fight for our gun rights, actually helps gun rights.
• Then finally, to defelct the criticism, you claim we want a boy scout which is disingenuous as ****.
• You then demand answers to an irrelevant question you use as a way to dodge criticisms.

I'm not giving in to the dodge. You want an answer? Fine. Make a good, honest, good faith argument to address the above. Stop dodging.

 

[jamil]

@Ingomike, basically if you want a serious answer to your question:

• Stop blaming NRA supporters for not wanting to fund WLP's personal life, beyond his already robust compensation, or make a good faith argument for why it is legitimately our fault.
• Stop sweeping the evidence we do have, under the "we don't know" rug. Admit what we do know and I'll take you more seriously.
• Stop demanding that we adopt your way of thinking, that only a corrupt person who spends our contributions on his personal life, could possibly, effectively, defend our gun rights.

That's what it will take to move the conversation to a good faith footing, where you get to ask questions and legitimately expect a serious answer.

 

[jamil]

Trolling again…

Looks more to me like he's throwing it back atcha.

 

[jamil]

I answered already. Yes. It is the organization that has the power, not the person. There was nothing magical about WLP, and frankly the NRAs lobbying at the Federal level was mediocre at best.

Lately we've seen more action in that direction from other gun rights organizations than we have from the NRA. And that's not the fault of the NRA donors. It's a choice. But, I suppose by implication, that if other gun orgs have been more successful in lobbying for gun rights, their leaders must be more corrupt, skimming more money off the donars, because that's what it takes to be successful.

More excuses. What does billionaires trying to destroy them have to do with their lobbying? You really miss the whole fact that all of the organizations mentioned, like the NRA, derive their power from numbers of their supporters.

If the NRA can't get a leader that cleans house and works to improve the NRAs image, it is going to be doomed.

Yep. The one thing that we all have agreed on is that the NRA needs to be rebuilt. But I suspect Mike would like it to be rebuilt in the WLP model. Because only a leader that skims money off the top for personal use can effectively defend gun rights.

 

[Ingomike]

I answered already. Yes. It is the organization that has the power, not the person. There was nothing magical about WLP, and frankly the NRAs lobbying at the Federal level was mediocre at best.

Got it. Nothing special about Michael Jordan either, he was just the leader of a team that did great things, things never done, but it just happened while he was the leader. This line of thinking is utterly ridiculous. Not sure what it is about INGO that they cannot recognize leadership and accomplishments.

More excuses. What does billionaires trying to destroy them have to do with their lobbying? You really miss the whole fact that all of the organizations mentioned, like the NRA, derive their power from numbers of their supporters.

If you have to even ask “what does billionaires trying to destroy them have to do with their lobbying” means you do not understand what is going on. You act like the members power is omnipotent, it is not, it must be channeled, channeled by a leader. BOD’s do not execute the game plan.

Isn’t it interesting that all the highly successful companies have strong leaders?

If the NRA can't get a leader that cleans house and works to improve the NRAs image, it is going to be doomed.

The NRA needs a janitor to clean it up to improve its image with the likes of you and your ilk, not with the politicians that the NRA lobbies, not with the politicians they fear the NRA. (As long as there is nothing blowing back on them.)

 

[Ingomike]

So what do we want in a new leader? @KLB wants “a leader that cleans house and works to improve the NRAs image”. Others have called for transparency. What is it that you want to see? Can you see that information at GOA? NEA? AFL/CIO? Planned Parenthood, or AARP?

I have stated what I think and that is the organization needs a connected political leader to lead the fight to protect the 2A. A leader to inspire the funding needed to battle the billionaires that personally are trying to take away our gun rights.

I wish I knew who to suggest to lead the organization, do any of you have anyone in particular that you believe would be effective?

 

[Ingomike]

• You whine at the NRA supporters for withholding donations, as if that's your call to make how they support the 2A.

They are directly responsible for the financial condition of the organization through the starve it to save it tactic. I just called them out for the consequences of their stated plan and we can see how it has worked out.

• You blame donors for the weakened state of the NRA, because they want their hard earned money to go to the cause, and not to line the pockets of the leaders.

No, because they wrongly believe that cutting off funding was the way to change the organization to how they wanted it to be but that just played right into the hand of the NYAG and weakened the organization to where she could do what she wanted. Mark my words, it will never have the same level of power it once had...

• So that you don't have to deal with what we do know, you dismissit it by claiming we don't. Welll, yeah, we kinda do know some stuff. Not all the details. But as Bug pointed out, the receipts came out in court, and it's quite reasonable for reasonable poeple to conclude WLP used NRA funds for personal use. What's not reasonable is to sweep it under a rug called, "we don't know" as if we didn't know anything.

Apparently the industry organizations didn’t have a problem as evidenced by their continued funding. You are welcome to believe you know it all as you always do, but I don’t and after years of studying politics I believe more has gone on than we know, and will ever know. Can’t believe that such a belief is that far out there when we are discussing swamp creatures.

• When the "we don't know" shtick didn't work, you tacitly admitted he's corrupt by saying we need a politician. Implicit in that idea is that the money spent on himself and his family is in service of gun rights, as if buying his wife **** with the money we donated to fight for our gun rights, actually helps gun rights.

We always knew something happened and money or favors were involved. I doubt we would ever know about events like this in most organizations as the money level over the number of years is not that great IF the organization was on the left.

• Then finally, to defelct the criticism, you claim we want a boy scout which is disingenuous as ****.

So what do you want in the new leader? Why do you want those characteristics?

• You then demand answers to an irrelevant question you use as a way to dodge criticisms.

Asking folks what they want in a new NRA leader is irrelevant?

Why do you even care you are not a life member if I remember correctly…

 

[jamil]

So what do we want in a new leader?

Nah. I think there is some unfinished business before we can move on with that conversation. I don't think it's an honest conversation when we have this **** going on.

The NRA needs a janitor to clean it up to improve its image with the likes of you and your ilk

I'd rather talk about what will make the NRA better. How can an honest conversation about that happen, when you think the donors who will not tolerate abusing positions of power by the NRA leaders, are "ilk"?

 

[jamil]

They are directly responsible for the financial condition of the organization through the starve it to save it tactic. I just called them out for the consequences of their stated plan and we can see how it has worked out.

WLP and *his* ilk are directly responsible for donors withholding their hard earned money. He didn't need to buy his wife **** with our money. I was not gonna give the NRA a ***damn dime until that nonsense is stopped. You called out honest people for holding their leaders accountable, and you used disparaging terms. That's not how to win over people.

No, because they wrongly believe that cutting off funding was the way to change the organization to how they wanted it to be but that just played right into the hand of the NYAG and weakened the organization to where she could do what she wanted. Mark my words, it will never have the same level of power it once had...

Bull ****. WLP and his ilk are a cancer. Any remaining WLP sycophants should be removed. The NY AG did the NRA and it's membership a favor by exposing what he was doing. They didn't get what they wanted, which was to dissolve the NRA. All they got was WLP ended up resigning, and he has to pay back $5 million of what he stole. Your idea that we have to have a weasle leading the NRA is delusional. I don't mind a politican running it. I mind the **********er being foolish (suggesting the order to make bumpstocks a machine gun) and I mind him taking NRA money for personal use.

Gun owners WANT a strong NRA. The NRA's strenght is not corrupt leaders. It's savvy leaders wielding the strength of its membership in the political arena.

Apparently the industry organizations didn’t have a problem as evidenced by their continued funding. You are welcome to believe you know it all as you always do, but I don’t and after years of studying politics I believe more has gone on than we know, and will ever know. Can’t believe that such a belief is that far out there when we are discussing swamp creatures.

How is this not indicative that you think YOU know it all? You keep accusing everyone of not knowing what time it is, as if you do exclusively. I'm not wired to be a sycophant. I ain't going along with that nonsense.

We always knew something happened and money or favors were involved. I doubt we would ever know about events like this in most organizations as the money level over the number of years is not that great IF the organization was on the left.

This isn't about money or favors for schmoozing big donors or politicians. This was spending NRA money on personal enrichment. The reciepts came out in court, which as noted prior, WLP did not dispute. How is buying his wife **** on the NRA dime pursuant to enhancing gun rights?

So what do you want in the new leader? Why do you want those characteristics?

Not that I haven't said as much about what I want. You haven't earned the right to a direct answer. I'll say what I don't want is someone who takes my hard earned money to enrich the lifestyle for him and his family. He was already compensated plenty. He didn't need to take my money and spend it doing things that have nothing to do with the cause.

Asking folks what they want in a new NRA leader is irrelevant?

It's not irrelevant if we're having an honest conversation. You start acting like we're having an honest conversation and we'll have one.

Why do you even care you are not a life member if I remember correctly…

Not that it's any of your business, but I've been a member. Now that WLP is gone, I'll be a member again. I'm doing a 5 year membership. We'll see what happens during that time. If the NRA puts its house in order, it'll be a year by year membership after that.

 

[Ingomike]

Nah. I think there is some unfinished business before we can move on with that conversation. I don't think it's an honest conversation when we have this **** going on.

What would you rather call someone “that cleans house and works to improve the NRAs image”?

I'd rather talk about what will make the NRA better. How can an honest conversation about that happen, when you think the donors who will not tolerate abusing positions of power by the NRA leaders, are "ilk"?

A synonym for type upsets your ilk?

 

[Ingomike]

And let’s talk proportion, which is a big part of my thinking on this topic. How much rat hair should the FDA allow in cereal?

“Just like insect fragments, rodent hairs are commonly allowed in spices: allspice, paprika, cinnamon, curry powder and marjoram can all contain a little rodent hair here and there.

Ground sage has the highest allowable level of rodent hair, with up to nine hairs allowed in every 10 grams of the spice. For comparison, ground marjoram may have up to eight hairs per 10 grams, paprika may have up to 11 hairs per 25 grams, and ground capsicum may have up to six hairs per 25 grams. Allspice and nutmeg are allowed up to just one hair per 10 grams.

Rodent hair is also allowed in peanut butter, popcorn, apple butter, chocolate, cocoa powder, corn meal and macaroni.”

Why do they allow that? Because 0 is not an option. Same with the low level crap the NRA is accused of in my book. Even if one takes the sensationalistic numbers of the DA, which I peg at under $5 million misspent, not embezzled, a totally different issue, against even just five years of revenue reported at around $300 million a year or $1.5 billion it is not even a tenth of a percentage in a world where 2%-3% corporate waste and mispending is about the norm.

 

[jamil]

What would you rather call someone “that cleans house and works to improve the NRAs image”?

I'd call that a good start. The NRA needs its house cleaned. It needs to improve its image. It needs at least those two things if it is to become powerful again. And again, remember from where its power is derived. It's the membership. It's the leadership that turns the millions of members into a cohesive unit to uphold the principles of the 2nd Amendment, as well as to be an association for responsible firearm uses.

A synonym for type upsets you ilk?

This exemplifies why I keep saying you're not being honest in this conversation. You know how you used "ilk". When you say "you and your ilk," everyone understands how you mean that. And now to claim its use was merely a synonym for "type", exposes your unwillingness to have an honest conversation. I mean, we can have an internet argument if you want. Or we can have a serious conversation which means you start acting like you want one.

 

[jamil]

And let’s talk proportion, which is a big part of my thinking on this topic. How much rat hair should the FDA allow in cereal?

“Just like insect fragments, rodent hairs are commonly allowed in spices: allspice, paprika, cinnamon, curry powder and marjoram can all contain a little rodent hair here and there.

Ground sage has the highest allowable level of rodent hair, with up to nine hairs allowed in every 10 grams of the spice. For comparison, ground marjoram may have up to eight hairs per 10 grams, paprika may have up to 11 hairs per 25 grams, and ground capsicum may have up to six hairs per 25 grams. Allspice and nutmeg are allowed up to just one hair per 10 grams.

Rodent hair is also allowed in peanut butter, popcorn, apple butter, chocolate, cocoa powder, corn meal and macaroni.”

Why do they allow that? Because 0 is not an option. Same with the low level crap the NRA is accused of in my book. Even if one takes the sensationalistic numbers of the DA, which I peg at under $5 million misspent, not embezzled, a totally different issue, against even just five years of revenue reported at around $300 million a year or $1.5 billion it is not even a tenth of a percentage in a world where 2%-3% corporate waste and mispending is about the norm.

This is simply crazy. WLP spending $5M of our money isn't the moral equivalent of allowing fragments of rat hair in food. And again you're trying to marginalize it to sweep it under the rug. At least you claim to know something, even if it's wrong.

Organizations do put policies in place that keep its leaders accountable, and visibly above reproach. But I suppose you'd think it ties executives' hands having rules against buying their family **** with NRA funds.

 

[Ingomike]

WLP and *his* ilk are directly responsible for donors withholding their hard earned money. He didn't need to buy his wife **** with our money. I was not gonna give the NRA a ***damn dime until that nonsense is stopped. You called out honest people for holding their leaders accountable, and you used disparaging terms. That's not how to win over people.

To believe that members were duped into burning down their own house by withholding funding, rather than using other means is disparaging? People including you don’t like to hear the truth. Who designated you and your ilk to conclude that not funding the organization was the only way forward?

Gun owners WANT a strong NRA. The NRA's strenght is not corrupt leaders. It's savvy leaders wielding the strength of its membership in the political arena.

And just who is on the short Li’s to be the savvy leader?

How is this not indicative that you think YOU know it all? You keep accusing everyone of not knowing what time it is, as if you do exclusively. I'm not wired to be a sycophant. I ain't going along with that nonsense.

I say I don’t know. It is you that insists that there is only one possible answer and that any other is “nonsense”.

This isn't about money or favors for schmoozing big donors or politicians. This was spending NRA money on personal enrichment. The reciepts came out in court, which as noted prior, WLP did not dispute. How is buying his wife **** on the NRA dime pursuant to enhancing gun rights?

So was the value of Mar-A-Largo proven to be like $18 million by the same DA and court system.

Not that I haven't said as much about what I want. You haven't earned the right to a direct answer. I'll say what I don't want is someone who takes my hard earned money to enrich the lifestyle for him and his family. He was already compensated plenty. He didn't need to take my money and spend it doing things that have nothing to do with the cause.

If you are not up to answering, I get it, it is a tough question because perfection is not out there. I couldn’t care less if you believe I have “earned” anything from you, one of the most arrogant statements ever on INGO.

It's not irrelevant if we're having an honest conversation. You start acting like we're having an honest conversation and we'll have one.

Cannot have an honest conversation with how you act.

Not that it's any of your business, but I've been a member. Now that WLP is gone, I'll be a member again. I'm doing a 5 year membership. We'll see what happens during that time. If the NRA puts its house in order, it'll be a year by year membership after that.

It will never be in order for most of the whiners here. They will continue to do as they have, moving the goal posts and complaining.

 

[Ingomike]

I'd call that a good start. The NRA needs its house cleaned. It needs to improve its image. It needs at least those two things if it is to become powerful again. And again, remember from where its power is derived. It's the membership. It's the leadership that turns the millions of members into a cohesive unit to uphold the principles of the 2nd Amendment, as well as to be an association for responsible firearm uses.

Where were you when reform efforts were underway in the years before 2018?

This exemplifies why I keep saying you're not being honest in this conversation. You know how you used "ilk". When you say "you and your ilk," everyone understands how you mean that. And now to claim its use was merely a synonym for "type", exposes your unwillingness to have an honest conversation. I mean, we can have an internet argument if you want. Or we can have a serious conversation which means you start acting like you want one.

Why does “ilk” have your underwear in a bunch? It means “type”. Is saying “you and your type” offensive to you?

 

[BugI02]

I have answered the question to the extent it the conversation deserves an answer. Your question is a dodge.

I'm using sarcasm to point out the absurd theme you're trying to weave together. That, we must protect and defend our own, that if he's a corrupt leader, he's our corrupt leader. A casual observer would look at this conversation, at the desperation with which you defend WLP, think, dayam. Is WLP a close relative of yours? Why would you make fallacious arguments to defend him so vehemently? And it's obviously that. It's why you don't have many people joining you in defense of the following:

• You whine at the NRA supporters for withholding donations, as if that's your call to make how they support the 2A.
• You blame donors for the weakened state of the NRA, because they want their hard earned money to go to the cause, and not to line the pockets of the leaders.
• So that you don't have to deal with what we do know, you dismissit it by claiming we don't. Welll, yeah, we kinda do know some stuff. Not all the details. But as Bug pointed out, the receipts came out in court, and it's quite reasonable for reasonable poeple to conclude WLP used NRA funds for personal use. What's not reasonable is to sweep it under a rug called, "we don't know" as if we didn't know anything.
• When the "we don't know" shtick didn't work, you tacitly admitted he's corrupt by saying we need a politician. Implicit in that idea is that the money spent on himself and his family is in service of gun rights, as if buying his wife **** with the money we donated to fight for our gun rights, actually helps gun rights.
• Then finally, to defelct the criticism, you claim we want a boy scout which is disingenuous as ****.
• You then demand answers to an irrelevant question you use as a way to dodge criticisms.

I'm not giving in to the dodge. You want an answer? Fine. Make a good, honest, good faith argument to address the above. Stop dodging.

To paraphrase Peter Arnett 'It became necessary [for Wayne] to destroy the [NRA] to save it.'

or something

 

[jamil]

To believe that members were duped into burning down their own house by withholding funding, rather than using other means is disparaging?

Not duped. And as I said, the **** who brought the case unwittingly did us a favor. You seem to think WLP IS the NRA. If you do, you're sadly mistaken. The NRA is the members, and now that the trash has been taken out, I suspect membership will go back up.

People including you don’t like to hear the truth. Who designated you and your ilk to conclude that not funding the organization was the only way forward?

Oh really? And you have the truth? Nothing got burned down. It's just that the Church of WLP is no longer a thing.

He gone.

And just who is on the short Li’s to be the savvy leader?

Not WLP.

I say I don’t know. It is you that insists that there is only one possible answer and that any other is “nonsense”.

You seem to say you don't know to the information that's harmful to your belief. On things that are supportive of your belief, you sure claim to know a lot.

So was the value of Mar-A-Largo proven to be like $18 million by the same DA and court system.

That's irrelevant.

If you are not up to answering, I get it, it is a tough question because perfection is not out there. I couldn’t care less if you believe I have “earned” anything from you, one of the most arrogant statements ever on INGO.

It's not a tough question at all. It's that you haven't earned an answer. It doesn't matter what you think of it. It's not actually as arrogant as you think. It's simply stating that it's a disingenuous question, so it doesn't deserve a straightforward answer.

Cannot have an honest conversation with how you act.

You've dodged and weaved all through this conversation. It's not just me either. Lots of people in this thread are quite pleased that WLP is gone. Pretty much for the same reason I am. Now, I hope that the board will not hire another one just like him.

It will never be in order for most of the whiners here. They will continue to do as they have, moving the goal posts and complaining.

For someone who likes to say he doesn't know, you sure act like you know things you possibly couldn't know.

And about moving the goalposts, you've kinda done that three times in this thread.

But talk about whining. You're whining about people exercising their rights in a way you don't approve of. You take care of you. If you want to donate to WLP's suit fund, be my guest. It's your right. But, you don't get to decide how or why I spend my memberships.

 

[Ingomike]

Not duped. And as I said, the **** who brought the case unwittingly did us a favor. You seem to think WLP IS the NRA. If you do, you're sadly mistaken. The NRA is the members, and now that the trash has been taken out, I suspect membership will go back up.

Do you think the influence of the organization will be more or less than in 2016 when the NRA was among the first to endorse Trump and lead the charge to elect him over HRC? I say less.

Oh really? And you have the truth? Nothing got burned down. It's just that the Church of WLP is no longer a thing.

He gone.

No I do not know the only way, that is the province of the burn it down ilk…

Not WLP.

You got your way, now what are you going to do to raise it back up to the organization that politicians feared?

You seem to say you don't know to the information that's harmful to your belief. On things that are supportive of your belief, you sure claim to know a lot.

I can see other outcomes, you only see one outcome.

It's not a tough question at all. It's that you haven't earned an answer. It doesn't matter what you think of it. It's not actually as arrogant as you think. It's simply stating that it's a disingenuous question, so it doesn't deserve a straightforward answer.

I couldn’t care less what you think on this as you and your ilk have proven to be one trick ponies.

You've dodged and weaved all through this conversation. It's not just me either. Lots of people in this thread are quite pleased that WLP is gone. Pretty much for the same reason I am. Now, I hope that the board will not hire another one just like him.

This is hysterically funny. I was discussing on INGO how to reform the NRA when you and your ilk were nowhere to be found. And yes, I would take a seasoned WLP again because he was the leader that made the NRA the feared juggernaut it was.

For someone who likes to say he doesn't know, you sure act like you know things you possibly couldn't know.

I raised possibilities as to why things were as they were.

And about moving the goalposts, you've kinda done that three times in this thread.

But talk about whining. You're whining about people exercising their rights in a way you don't approve of. You take care of you.

I have never wavered in my support of the NRA, though I believe reform was needed. It is ridiculous to think burning it down was the only course of action, but so many bought into that line of thinking.

If you want to donate to WLP's suit fund, be my guest. It's your right. But, you don't get to decide how or why I spend my memberships.

I would give to the suit fund if the organization was feared by those trying to usurp 2A rights. What is interesting is that the tough 2A cannot have their choice questioned, most of whom likely do not know a single lobbyist of any kind personally…

 

[jamil]

Do you think the influence of the organization will be more or less than in 2016 when the NRA was among the first to endorse Trump and lead the charge to elect him over HRC? I say less.

Is that what this is about? Do you think that what the NRA becomes now might be an org that doesn't kiss Trump's ass? Is that what you're afraid of?

I think it might take a couple years, but in terms of a pro gun organization, especially their ILA wing, I think they will become powerful. I have no interest in whether they'll kiss Trump's ass. I just want them to be a strong defender of gun rights, among their other missions.

No I do not know the only way, that is the province of the burn it down ilk…

Nothing got burned down but WLP. He gone.

You got your way, now what are you going to do to raise it back up to the organization that politicians feared?

I can see other outcomes, you only see one outcome.

this doesn't address the point.

I couldn’t care less what you think on this as you and your ilk have proven to be one trick ponies.

Another comment that doesn't mean anything.

This is hysterically funny. I was discussing on INGO how to reform the NRA when you and your ilk were nowhere to be found. And yes, I would take a seasoned WLP again because he was the leader that made the NRA the feared juggernaut it was.

No. You were too busy dodging and weaving. A real conversation almost started about improvements, but then you had to whine about ilk and ****. BTW. He gone.

I raised possibilities as to why things were as they were.

Not anything realistic.

I have never wavered in my support of the NRA, though I believe reform was needed. It is ridiculous to think burning it down was the only course of action, but so many bought into that line of thinking.

No one burned the NRA down. WLP got burned down. Not by me. Not by other gun rights advocates. WLP got caught. Got fried. Got gone. Now. I guess if you think the NRA *is* WLP, maybe you have half a point. The NRA is its members and supporters.

I would give to the suit fund if the organization was feared by those trying to usurp 2A rights.

You still have this deluded idea that the NRA can't be as strong without WLP. Is he like your uncle or something? I've never seen anyone irrationally defend someone like you've defended WLP.

What is interesting is that the tough 2A cannot have their choice questioned, most of whom likely do not know a single lobbyist of any kind personally…

I don't know what this even means. You'll have to translate it to English. Who is the "tough 2A"? Why can't they have their choice questioned? Who is saying they can't? Or they can? Why does one have to know a lobbyist personally?