Is Dana Loesch The Right Rep for the NRA? Question of the Day

NRA TV

“We’ve had enough of the lies, the sanctimony, the arrogance, the hatred, the pettiness, the fake news,” NRA commentator Dana Loesch pronounces with minimally restrained contempt. “We’re done with your agenda to undermine voters’ will and individual liberty in America . . .

So to every lying member of the media; to every Hollywood phony; to the role model athletes who use their free speech to alter and undermine what our flag represents; to the politicians who would rather let America burn than lose one ounce of their personal power; to the late night hosts who think their opinions are the only opinions that matter; to the Joy Ann Reids, the “Morning Joes,” the Meekas; to those who stain honest reporting with partisanship; to those who bring bias and propaganda to CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times…

Your time is running out. The clock starts now.

I know: Ms. Loesch isn’t advocating violence in her [metaphorical] broadside against anti-gun progressives and their mainstream media enablers. She’s simply promising that her new NRA TV series will pull the [rhetorical] rug from under the antis. It’s hype and chutzpah.

But you can understand why the video’s setting antis’ hair on fire. The video’s deeply confrontational message and “we’re taking no prisoners” ‘tude has a whiff of armed insurrection to it, reinforced by the South’s Gonna Rise Again! soundtrack layered underneath the Ozark native’s polemic.

The new public face of the NRA knows exactly what she’s doing here. Ms. Loesch revels in her F-you persona (although she missed an opportunity to middle-finger an unruly mob of gun control advocates at the CNN Town Hall “debate” on guns). As do tens of thousands of NRA members.

But is Dana Loesch the right woman at the right time for the NRA? The logical inheritor of Charlton Heston’s “cold dead hands” legacy?

comments

  1. avatar Blackjack says:

    Yes.

    1. avatar Flinch says:

      No.

      Hard no!

      Hell no!

      Her demographic is the small percent of NRA member who OD on testosterone and see the world through very dark glasses.

      The rest of us just want to throw up when we see her.

      1. avatar Tony says:

        Speak for yourself. I have absolutely no problem with anything she says and does. I think she does an awesome job representing gun owners and driving the gun owners Point home.
        We’re not trying to convert anti-gunners into Second Amendment supporters because that will never happen, so we’re not looking for someone that the left will like and listen to. These are not people who can be accommodated, reasons with, or compromise with. The only thing that we can do with these people is to defeat them. If the left doesn’t like her, it means she’s probably doing a pretty good job.

        1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Ditto. Don’t speak for me Flinch. “The rest of us” my azz.

        2. avatar Mark Lee says:

          An inevitable Affirmation to Dana Loesch.

        3. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

          Flinch flapping his lips, sitting on the couch, stuffing his face with pizza and drooling over the OSCAR AWARDS.

      2. avatar Jackass Jim says:

        Look up “flinch” in your Funk and Wagnall’s.

        It is an appropriate alias for a lily-livered snowflake cowering from anything harsher than a warm puppy swaddled in Thorazine pablum.

      3. avatar GunDoc says:

        Flinch (and all the other low-functioning, triggered RINOS here):

        Yes. She is. Though she is far too polite.

        Being polite is not what you do with your enemies.

        Civility is for diplomats.

        When a fight has been started, you fight back.

        Again, you limp-wrist, Ned Flanders wannabes that have your delicate little Nancyboy sensibilities ruffled by “too much testosterone” need to move to Sweden. Or just melt away into trembling little piles of innefectual, sniveling, apologetic Numale BS. You do not speak for us. We neither want you or need you, and you are slowing us down.

        Again, she is as good as can be hoped for now, until someone comes along that will speak the words that everyone with half a brain knows should be spoken of the Anti-Human Rights shills: ENEMIES. EXISTENTIAL THREATS. SEDITIOUS AGITPROPPERS.

      4. avatar Cleophus says:

        Hell yes! I think she represents the sentiments of the vast majority of gun owners. I think it’s a shame, however, that she is stuck representing such a fudd sheltering, sell out organization as the nra, (small case intentional). The nra and it’s “compromise at every possible opportunity” stance is the reason we have the majority of the onerous gun control we have today. The 1934 National Firearms Act? Yep, nra. 1968 Gun Control Act?, nra again. Brady background check? That’s right, nra. If you really want to fight gun control, put your money and your time into an organization that has NEVER COMPROMISED one of your gun rights, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA. The only thing the nra is interested in preserving is it’s own existence.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          Let’s try to connect with the real-world we live in today.

          The NRA of today is essentially a different organization from the one that preceded it. The line of demarcation is the revolution in 1977 at Cincinnati. The NFA’34 and the GCA’68 are both ancient history. It makes no sense to raise this history; it is a waste of time and attention. The Democrat Party is not the same institution as it was in the mid-19’th century. AT&T is not the same corporation as was the AT&T before the divestiture of the Bell subsidiaries.

          The foregoing argument is NOT to say that the NRA is precisely what we need for the contemporary battle to defend the 2A. Today’s NRA might be better/worse than the pre-Cinncinati NRA. Whether it is too-soft/”about right”/too-strident today is an independent evaluation.

          Let’s entertain the argument that it’s too-soft. Suppose it was far more strident. There are a lot of “Fudds” who are NRA members. If the NRA came-off as far more strident it would risk loosing membership of these NRA members; and with this loss would be a loss of a lot of the clout NRA has on Capital Hill. NRA has “inherited” a reputation that it represents main-stream gun-owners; the backbone of the electorate. This gives it credibility on Capital Hill that NAGR (for example) couldn’t achieve (even if NAGR were to accumulate the same membership numbers as NRA.)

          Now, let’s entertain the possibility that it’s too strident. Well, relatively speaking, we know that’s just NOT the case. NAGR and GOA are decidedly MORE strident; and, they haven’t achieved the gravitas that NRA has (even if it’s only an unearned legacy). A really important task is to appeal to the uncommitted voter. If NRA were as strident as are NAGR or GOA would it attract an audience from uncommitted voters?

          I question whether NRA took the “right” tactic when choosing: NICS over a 5-day waiting period when debating the Brady Bill; or, advocating an ATF “study” about “regulating” bump-fire vs. insisting that only Congress could legislate this point. How would the gun-control environment be today IF NRA argued AGAINST “instant” background checks? We might have spent the past 25 years debating whether the “cooling-off” period should be 5 or 2 or 7 days. We might have seen some local police departments willing to do a background check during the cooling-off period and blocking gun sales based on late library books. We might have had a database of prohibited-persons that police and prosecutors would use to enforce felon-in-posession on top of a cooling-off period. There is no way to know how the gun-controllers might have fought us in the past 25 years had NRA not proposed NICS.

          Similarly, we don’t know how “bump-fire” will turn-out. IF NRA is able to confine bump-fire regulation to this particular device it might prove to be the best outcome possible by killing regulation of “trigger-jobs”.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          You preach at the Triple Rock?

        3. avatar Red in CO says:

          So, Mark, you favor appeasement. Every single time we’ve had a bit of our rights negotiated away, it’s has happened with the consent of groups like the NRA, on the basis that, “we give up 1% of our rights to lee the other 99”. And you’re still spouting the same bullshit. These last 10 years, and especially the last 5, the tide has turned in our favor BY A HUGE MARGIN. And it DIDNT HAPPEN BECAUSE OF APPEASEMENT. It happened because people finally said enough is enough, said a loud NO to ANY proposed new rules, no matter how small, and fought against the existing ones. So fuck you, traitor. You appeasement types are the same as the “I own guns and support the 2A BUT-“ crowd. GTFO; you’re not welcome among our ranks

        4. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

          Do not confuse appeasement and compromise. Appeasement lacks the ability to ensure or force the other side to fulfill their promise. (See Neville Chamberlain vs Adolf Hitler) Compromise is different. We might lose bump stocks, and the only thing I’m pissed at is that we won’t get anything in return. Immediately post Vegas the NRA and the GOP had a small window where it could have combined the SHARE act with a bump stock ban and passed it in a single bill. That is compromise.

          Without the NRA utilizing a tactical withdrawal and ceding some ground to the Dems, especially in the early 90’s when the Dems might have been able to pass anything, we might be left right now with some very bad and very draconian laws as a result.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Is it not possible that appeasement is reached through compromise?

          For instance:
          anti-gunners – we want to confiscate all legal guns
          pro-gunner – we do not want that

          anti-gunners – it is non-negotiable
          pro-gunner – let’s compromise; confiscate guns one category at a time, over ten years.

          anti-gunners – finally you surrender to common sense gun control

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “especially in the early 90’s when the Dems might have been able to pass anything,”

          I was there, very active, and this is not true. What government almost did, republicans and democrats, was start a violent confrontation with large portions of the American public. The reason government backed off was that it could read the time.

          The republicans have been in charge for a while. Why haven’t major steps been take by government to actually obey the Constitution and not just throw crumbs of government privilege? Because government, republicans and democrats, and the NRA have no intention of actually allowing the full restoration of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms. That’s why!

          Everyone believing that the full exercise of the RKBA will be restored through this piecemeal bullshit are naive or delusional. It is highly unlikely to ever happen incrementally but certainly never going to happen in my lifetime.

      5. avatar neiowa says:

        Does the mean lady scare you Flinch? Perhaps you could but a pair?

      6. avatar RoddH says:

        I ha e no issue with Dana representing me. She has something most spokes people today don’t have, balls.

      7. avatar Kenneth G Maiden says:

        No big fan of the entrenched NRA leadership. However, I have not one problem with Dana Loesch and her messaging.

      8. avatar Sgt Bill says:

        She is appealing to my eyes (conservative women are usually better looking than ugly lib women with hairy legs and armpits)
        She is appealing to my ears (too many conservatives in the past have been limp wristed pansy’s)

    2. avatar Gutshot says:

      Yes indeed!

    3. avatar Rick says:

      Let’s face it, its not the words, its the decolletage. Her words are pure NRATV talking head, no better or worse than the rest, she’s totally generic. But BOOBS…

    4. avatar Topher in Texas says:

      She’s a paid spokesperson, her message is the NRA’s message. You’d be a fool to think they’d let her put anything in a media format that the NRA leadership didn’t vet and approve first.

    5. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      “Ozark, native’s polemic” . . .? Really, Robert? Sorry but your east-coaster’s I’m Not From Here roots are showing. Given the deep cultural differences between There and Here I guess it’s hard to not occasionally feel a certain alienation. But, speaking from the standpoint of a thoroughly washed-in-the-blood red-neck, I applaud Ms. Loesch’s kick-ass attitude. Maybe we didn’t watch the same CNN dog-and-pony show, but I thought she acquitted herself quite well. Standing alone against such a clearly hostile audience, not many people could have shown her kind of composure. So what if her comments set the gun-controllers’ hair on fire? I realize that you live in Austin with it’s bad air, but surely you aren’t thinking that making nice with gun-controllers will win you anything but their contempt? This is something Dana clearly understands.

  2. avatar hillbillyjew says:

    Lol. Chutzpah…

  3. avatar Noah says:

    No she is not. She is preaching to the converted, which is a monumental waste of time and resources, and only seeks to deepen the divide between us and the anti’s. While I understand the desire to wave the middle finger at them, at the end of the day that doesn’t further the pro-gun agenda in any way, shape or form. We need someone who the anti’s see themselves in, who is able to listen and educate. Someone with the patience to understand that lots of Anti’s are that way by virtue of their parents and the opinions that were ingrained on them at a young age.

    We need gun missionaries if that makes any sense at all.

    1. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

      “patience to understand that lots of Anti’s are that way by virtue of their parents…etc”

      Hell to the NO! We were patient. We were accommodating. We bent over and they shoved it. NO MORE. You seem to have forgotten the communist creed, “what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable” and the accompanying “Talk, talk, fight, fight.” Those days are over. PERIOD. I do not ever concede any points to anyone where my rights are concerned. I don’t care about the anti’s rights to “feel safe”.

      It’s a god damned dangerous world out here. You can be a sheep if you choose. I will be the sheepdog.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        You can be the sheep dog, I’m going to be the honey badger in the bushes laughing his ass off. I have no obligation to defend people too pathetic to defend themselves.

        1. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Just interested Serge…would you go honey badger for a bunch of defenseless kids in the middle of a school shooting? Like Parkview and Sandy Hook?

        2. avatar troutbum5 says:

          Honey badger don’t give a sh**.

        3. avatar Gutshot says:

          Well said, well said. I agree.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          @When Bullets Collide
          Not my circus, not my monkeys.

      2. avatar Joe Brown says:

        Except the NRA concedes ALL THE TIME. That has become their main strategy, surrender our rights one “inconsequential” piece at a time (machine guns, imports, bump stocks, etc) in the hopes that it will appease the gun grabbers and slow down what they have come to believe is the inevitable loss of our 2A rights. The NRA has accomplished more gun control than any anti-gun group could ever dream of.

        1. avatar MICHAEL A CROGNALE says:

          and with Dana as our spokesperson, Benefactor member here, we have signaled that this days are over. Which is precisely what I meant in my post.

        2. avatar Cleophus says:

          Michael A. Crognale:

          ARE YOU KIDDING? The “talk tough, then compromise” n r a JUST sold gun owners out big time on bump stocks! They could have just kept their mouth’s shut, BUT NOOOO! They had to publicly beg the b a t f e, (small case intentional), to see what they could do to ban these terrrrrrrible devices. You’re living in a dream world if you think the n r a is out for anyone but themselves and their million dollar salaries.

        3. avatar CueBaller says:

          They had to publicly beg the b a t f e, (small case intentional), to see what they could do to ban these terrrrrrrible devices.

          No, they asked that the ATF review their rules/regulations concerning bump stocks, because they DIDN’T want them to be legislatively banned. But since the ATF still basically said, “Uh, yeah… they’re just stocks… not machine guns,” NOW legislators across the country are doing everything they can to ban them by statute.

          Not what the NRA wanted or asked for.

    2. avatar CalGunsMD says:

      Preaching to the converted is too often dismissed. It shouldn’t be. It’s extremely valuable. The converted benefit from this in the following ways:
      – it bolsters their morale
      – it serves as a central rallying and organizing point
      – it articulates what they feel but can’t articulate themselves
      – it informs and educates them
      – it presents organized rhetoric and concisely worded arguments the converted can use

      1. avatar Uh-huh says:

        +10 x’s 100 = + 1,000

      2. avatar Joe Brown says:

        Except when the converted are the shrinking minority. The NRA’s strategy in this ad campaign is to attack the far left 5% to bolster support with the far right (in the european sense) 5% while alienating the middle 90%… The NRA should be about GUN rights, not about the Republican party platform. Let the political groups deal with socialism and what not, our largest gun rights group should stick to the 2nd Amendment.

        1. avatar How_Terrible says:

          This, so much this.

        2. avatar WARFAB says:

          Considering the NRA has gained about 500,000 members in the past month, I’m not sure the 90% figure is accurate.

        3. avatar When Bullets Collide says:

          Wrong. The middle is not paying attention.

        4. avatar Eric Lawrence says:

          No quite right… Think about this.

          Liberals, especially millennials and gen-Y ers, are shirking the starting of a family and are increasingly not having children. However, conservatives rate family and children as goals to achieve still. Liberals are increasingly confining themselves to states and cities that represent the minority in geography. Bolstering support among your constituents is important to ensure you continue to have a fundraising base. You need to tell the kids that are raised by gun owning families that they cannot assume all is taken care of and induce them to become more active in defending their rights.

      3. avatar Ret1SG says:

        Well said Sir! And a big yes to Dana! I am sick and tired of the “give a little” and they take/ try to take the proverbial mile! Give them the finger and fight back!

    3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      ‘…and only seeks to deepen the divide between us and the anti’s.’

      So, one side insists on burning the Constitution (after they wipe their ass with it) and won’t budge, and the other side seeks to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects. Personally, I just can’t see any middle ground here. The only way to narrow that divide is to give them what they want, make the USA the UK. One side needs to lose and the other needs to win.

      1. avatar Treedodger says:

        ^ This exactly……..there is no converting or convincing anti’s of anything, ever….period.

        Oh, and I think she is great!

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        The gun issue is deeply polarized; as are most other political issues today.

        One thing we have to be clear on. The strident Antis are NOT our audience. They aren’t budging; at least not in the foreseeable future.

        Our audience is primarily those who aren’t already committed. They are open to being persuaded by either side. We have two secondary audiences: those that are leaning gun-control; and, those who are leaning gun-rights.

        I think that there is ONE powerful message for those who aren’t already committed; and, those who are leaning gun-control. That ONE issue is that gun-control is FUTILE. If you are in one of these two camps (uncommitted, leaning for control) what message would be impactful? “You are pissing into the wind my friend!” Yes, the desirability of gun-control crosses your mind; but if change can never happen then it’s better to thing about something else.

        Keep hammering away on the difficulty of: amending the Constitution; persuading courts to continue defying the Constitution; fighting with the gun-owners for every Senator and every Representative; locking-up all the violent criminals and keeping them locked-up; identifying all the crazies and keeping them institutionalized; stopping smuggling; stopping clandestine manufacturing; stopping gun thefts from safes, homes and cars; . . . Given all these impediments, might as well work on something that might be possible, how about peace in the Middle East?

        The other secondary audience, those who favor gun-rights (but who aren’t strident), need to be energized. They need to be reminded that the Antis will only be satisfied when they strangle the gun-culture to the point it has reached in England. They really ARE coming for your shotgun, your .22; why? Because even the most “sporting” of guns is good enough to commit suicide with; to knock-over a 7/11. Even if the tiger eats you last, it WILL eat you. That will be the end of the gun culture for your grandchildren.

        If we can mobilize those who favor gun-rights so that they too will vote their conscience then we present a check-mate on the Antis. We tell all the favoring-control voters that we will CRUSH the WHOLE Progressive agenda. Unless a candidate – from dog-catcher to President – is committed to gun-rights the gun-owners will vote-him-DOWN. Remember, we REALLY ARE 1-issue-voters.

        If you are a true Progressive, but only mildly pro-control, are you really willing to stake your Progressive agenda on a losing proposition?

    4. avatar Gman says:

      We need gun missionaries if that makes any sense at all.
      I don’t think we do. I spent countless hours yesterday blogging against a gent who firmly believed the Bill of Rights conveys us rights, SCOTUS says so, that all rights are limited and can be taken away. There was no changing his mind, period. No amount of logic worked. These people live in a fantasy world. To them it’s all about feelings and they are incapable of processing logic and the real world.

      1. avatar Noah says:

        Let’s be realistic, people are online to perpetuate their point of view and defend their ideas of what is or is not correct. Very rarely do people engage in online discourse for the sake of learning or evolving. Changing peoples minds doesn’t happen in a chat room, it happens at the range. It happens when meeting victims whose lives were changed because they weren’t able to defend themselves. It happens when they see that gun owners, collectors and competitors are actually just like them.

        So many uninformed people view gun owners as the Neo Nazi’s from Charlottesville as opposed to the guy sitting next to them at the movies or mowing his lawn next door.

        Dana and her vitriol perpetuates that perception. While that might make lots of people happy and increase donations to the NRA, it is not bringing anyone around to they way of the gun.

    5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Noah,

      “We need someone who the anti’s see themselves in, who is able to listen and educate.”

      As I understand it, that approach is almost totally ineffective. Listening and educating does not affect gun-grabbers. The only method that sometimes affects them is first hand experience with intense FEAR. In other words they need to be the helpless victim of a violent crime before they finally see that being helpless is extremely undesirable.

      I wish I were wrong. If you have credible sources that say otherwise, I am all eyes and ears.

      1. avatar Defens says:

        At this point, the strident anti-gunners are so far into fantasy land, that they project their hoplophobia onto the gun owners as well. So be it. I’d like them to be quaking in their boots.

        So far, most of the antis believe that passing a law to ban guns, register owners, or restrict rights in other ways will work out just fine (despite all evidence to the contrary) because we will just go along with it – register ourselves and our guns, turn them in when the call comes, and march peacefully down to the FEMA trains (just joking…). Because, despite their rhetoric, they really do know that the average gun guy is a lawful person. I’d like that to change. I’d like them to freakin’ fear us, and be afraid to keep poking the hornet’s nest. Dana might be a great instrument in infringing on their “right to feelz safe.”

    6. avatar Noah says:

      For the record, I wasn’t suggesting compromise with any sort of Anti 2A groups. My point was that I have never not been able to change the mind of acquaintances who had been previously anti-gun with time, patience, and the ability to listen to their concerns and rebut them with facts, and taking them to the range and showing them that the typical gun owner is just like them.

      The best thing that can ever happen to gun rights is to convert enough people to the way of the gun so that we are the majority. That will NEVER happen if Dana is what people who are on the fence think that’s what is on the other side.

      1. avatar Tony says:

        It does not matter who our spokesperson is, you will never convert an anti Gunner to the way of the gun. Trying to convert one of them is a colossal waste of time.

        1. avatar Noah says:

          That is patently false. I work in the film industry with all of the “Hollywood liberals” and my favorite pastime is to do just that. Every show or feature there is at least one, but usually 3-5. My mission is complete when I help them buy their first gun.

    7. avatar tjlarson2k says:

      The “divide” hit rock bottom with gun free zones, that are still in effect and costing the lives of people by barring them from defending themselves.

      You do realize they are essentially a govt sanctioned murder zone right? And they have yet to be held fully accountable for that outcome now that we are elbow deep in school shootings. /slowclap

      GFZs should have been abolished with the very first instance of crime (or better not implemented to begin with) where people were forced to be at a disadvantage to criminals. Anyone with a three digit IQ and not on the Anti-gun payroll recognizes GFZ as safety theater and has a duty to declare them as dangerously irresponsible.

      1. avatar Char says:

        We need to convince the people with less than 3 digits in their IQ as well.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We need to convince the people with less than 3 digits in their IQ as well.”

          Having removed Demoncrats, Leftists, Statists, Undecideds, Academics, Establishment politicians and the Bureaucracy, Law Enforcement, ACLU, all of Californication….whom do you propose we try to convince?

  4. avatar Swarf says:

    No. She is poison.

    1. avatar Oh noes says:

      Hey, I got’s ta’ Know. Could you elaborate on your statement.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

  5. avatar Some dude says:

    I like @DLoesch, and I especially like that the other side doesn’t like her. You might say, “well, that’s divisive”, but the division is already here, and it isn’t going to go away. Dana is up for a fight, as should we be all.

  6. avatar former water walker says:

    I love Dana. Preach to the converted. Mobilize us. WE VOTE!!!

  7. avatar Joe R. says:

    They [might] deserve her. But she deserves better.

  8. avatar Joe Brown says:

    Who cares, the NRA is broken. Dana Loesch does a good job of rallying the NRA’s shrinking base and further scaring them into opening their wallets for donations to pay for more private plane rides for her bosses, so she’s exactly what they want… She does a terrible job of convincing anyone on the other side and hurts the cause of the 2nd Amendment by alienating the vast majority of potential allies by framing what should be a debate about gun rights into one based solely on the radical right vs the radical left.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… because we can TOTALLY convert the SJWs and their fellow commie degenerates… Do you even listen to yourself? Pretending that the battle lines haven’t been drawn is pants on head retarded.

      1. avatar Joe Brown says:

        You’re talking about maybe 5% of the country… The vast majority of people don’t think in terms of constant politics. They don’t care about the SJW crap or the Trump nonsense. The NRA is trying to rally their 5% by attacking the radical leftist 5% and in the process are alienating 90% of the country.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          If only 5% of the country voted for the DNC and their terrorist pets, we wouldn’t have this mess.

        2. avatar Joe Brown says:

          If only 5% voted for the snake oil salesmen Trump or the corrupt politician Clinton, we wouldn’t be in this mess. But we let the radicals among us drive all of us into “binary choices” that we are then “forced” to make. Also, if the NRA actually acted on this hardline BS they preach, maybe I’d agree with you but you’re falling for their marketing campaign. They talk a big game but behind the scenes compromise and make deals with the same leftists they attack in their ads to slowly take away our rights one bumpstock, or machine gun at a time…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          You would have an argument is the NRA had allowed even a single gun or accessory ban to pass since 1994.

        4. avatar Mack Bolan says:

          Wasting time trying to convert the moderates is a fools game. Unless you like taking more casualties from friendly fire that is, then its a great strategy.

      2. avatar Oh noes says:

        True, Pwrserge (aka Honey Badger) But to play a Dick head’s advocate for a second “what about the middle fence sitters, neither pro or anti Gun?”
        Anyway I blame the hippy baby boomers not teaching their
        snot noesed little shi-, Uh darlings about ourtheir RIGHTS. I’m an early millennial, you can bet your azz I’m teaching my kids the true meaning of American Exceptionalism.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          All 12 of them?

        2. avatar oh noes says:

          @ pwrserge: No!, all 14 of them; 8 are second cousins.
          Smart ass

    2. avatar Tony says:

      ” She does a terrible job of convincing anyone on the other side and hurts the cause of the 2nd Amendment by alienating the vast majority of potential allies….”

      Potential allies? We have no potential allies on the left; no anti Gunner is going to suddenly become a second amendment supporter based on the effectiveness of you’re pro-gun arguments. We don’t need someone who can convince anyone on the other side because the left cannot, and will not be convinced to support the Second Amendment. If you’re looking for a pro-gun person who is going to convince the anti-gunners to join our side, and trying to convince the other side to become Second Amendment supporters, then you are wasting your time and deluding yourself.
      There is no reasoning with these people, there is no compromising with them, and there is no accommodating them. The only thing that we can do is to marginalize, and defeat them.

  9. avatar KTR says:

    Quite frankly, we need a lot more people like her. We need an army of people like her.

    If a person has never SHOT a firearm, they need to just shut up. Even if someone has shot once, that doesn’t make them an expert. They need to be TOLD that. Why are we putting up with this?

    If a person is constantly spewing incorrect information about firearms (or specific firearms) they need to be shut down and corrected – EVERY SINGLE TIME. “Fully automatic assault magazine” – WTF – shut them down.

    If they are in the media or a politician, put ads up with their quotes with the correct information. We need to point out loudly how IGNORANT these people are.

    We need to point out LOUDLY and CONSTANTLY the failures of the Left in trying to control guns with laws.
    Look at Chicago, NYC, LA as perfect examples of where there is a HUGE amount of anti-gun laws that do absolutely NOTHING. Because criminals DON”T obey laws. That’s why they’re called CRIMINALS.

    Tired of typing. Rant over. 🙂

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      KTR,

      By all means, we should be correcting ignorance as you say.

      I see a much greater danger: gun-grabbers are openly advocating for infringement of our rights. That goes way beyond mere ignorance. Why do we allow such activity?

      If 2000 public celebrities started openly advocating that no one (except for government) can own more than 1/4 acre of land — and their advocacy included government confiscation, fines, and imprisonment for claiming title to more than 1/4 acre of land — should we make it a point to call out there mathematical errors? Or should we be calling for their expulsion from the United States of America?

  10. avatar Bresa Bob says:

    She scared the shit out of me watching her on CNN so yes right person!

  11. avatar anselhazen says:

    Dana’s FU attitude is right where I want my NRA to be.

    Absolutely no compromise and no reaching across the aisle anymore.

    1. avatar Joe Brown says:

      Except while they talk a hard line, they are compromising and negotiating rights behind the scenes…

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        You are right on this. But that is hardly spokeswoman’s fault.

    2. avatar Rick_in_NH says:

      I watched Dana on ABC’s This Week on Feb. 25. Unfortunately I get a “page does not exist” when I click on ABC’s link to past shows. She eviscerated Stephanopoulos pointing out the falsehoods in his questions. It has been a long time since a guest effectively showed the bias and falsehoods at ABC. Go you girl!

  12. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘…and only seeks to deepen the divide between us and the anti’s.’

    So, one side insists on burning the Constitution (after they wipe their ass with it) and won’t budge, and the other side seeks to preserve the freedom the Constitution protects. Personally, I just can’t see any middle ground here. The only way to narrow that divide is to give them what they want, make the USA the UK. One side needs to lose and the other needs to win.

  13. avatar CueBaller says:

    The closer the antis push towards federal level gun control, the closer they push to the reason the 2nd Amendment was put into place in the first place.

    Unless you’re of the type who finds it completely implausible that a 2nd civil war could be fought for the 2nd Amendment, I think her tone is perfect.

  14. avatar Nanashi says:

    If she hasn’t attacked Wayne, Hammer and Cox, she isn’t.

  15. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    I never liked D(umbass)ana since she made that asinine, “heathens,” comment a few years ago in one of her stupid Kimber sponsored ads. Screw her, and screw Kimber.

  16. avatar Bob from Chicago says:

    She comes off as a total psycho. This is one reason I am not a member of the NRA. Fake news = propaganda, and that what she is. Go away.

  17. avatar Scorp says:

    The fact that you’re even posting an article like this calling into question her position has lost me as a reader. Not only is she right for the job, but she’s doing more to advance the agenda for the 2nd amendment than this site does by all the constant in-fighting and negative views you bring into question. At least Dana is politically relevant and involved in the goings on of protecting the 2nd instead of preaching on a niche blog.

  18. avatar The Phad Thai nom nom monster says:

    We need “Just the facts” type person;

    1. avatar Quasimofo says:

      Shapiro is smart and makes good points, but that voice can be hard to listen to sometimes. Kinda like Jordan Peterson.

  19. avatar Mark says:

    Yes, I love Dana. It also doesn’t hurt that she’s eye candy.

  20. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    Yes she is the right person. In case you have read the latest Anti’s gun bill coming out of Washington it would ban pretty much everything. So yes I want the liberal snowflakes to have a melt down.
    This has degraded to an us vs. them and there is not compromise, middle ground.
    I will admit, she needs to sit with Ben Shaprio and sharpen her debating skills, but she holds her own pretty well. If her message scares others, then good, it should. That is part of the main reasons we have the second amendment.

  21. avatar Matty 9 says:

    Let her speak, she’s smokin hot!!!

  22. avatar Kyle says:

    She’s fine. She represents the new message of the NRA. That message is, “this is war”.

    Converting the Anti’s is a fools notion. It can”t be done. All we can do now is make them to realize that we’ve gone as far as we are going to. From now on, they’ll only have non-compliance and start building a whole lotta prisons, and/or civil war.

    How they chose to proceed is their call.

    Dana is fine.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      Agreed, trying to get the left to see this issue logically and honestly will not work. I don’t think it really matters whether we take the “play nice” or “antagonize them” route. The NRA (and other similar organizations), as well as each of us individually, should be making this point very simple for the gun-grabbers to comprehend…1) it isn’t “guns” we’re really trying to protect, it’s the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution, the rule of law, and thus, our right to freedom and liberty…and 2) if you want the guns (and you think you’ve got the support) then go through the proper procedures and amend the Constitution according to Article V…because unless that’s done…you’re NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, going to get us to give up our 2nd Amendment rights, no matter what law you can muster 51% of the population to vote for.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Scott,

        Allow me to offer a tiny correction for you. We should never disarm regardless of whether or not someone repeals the Second Amendment and/or 50%+1 of the population votes for disarmament.

        If there was a U.S. and state constitutional amendment that legalized rape, would we be obligated to let scumbags rape our women? Or would we be obligated to resist? The fact of the matter is that it a lot harder to resist rape (whether literal rape of our bodies or figurative rape of our property or bank accounts) without firearms.

        1. avatar Scott says:

          Yes, I agree with you fully regarding your rape scenario, and I also agree fully that we should never disarm regardless. However, I did not mean to imply that if they change the Constitution that they WILL get our guns, I was trying to emphasize that under no circumstances will they EVER successfully ban guns, even if they pass some BS law by getting a simple majority. My Article V reference was meant only to illustrate exactly how much wind they are pissing into. Thank you for your suggestion/correction, upon rereading my post with that consideration I could see where I wasn’t as clear as I intended to be.

  23. avatar Felixd says:

    Bobby, we all know you have a beef with the NRA but, is it wise to take that up right now? Your complaints are starting to look out of place when the wolf is at the door.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The NRA and Trump have been publicly feeding that wolf. They helped create the current situation.

  24. avatar Gman says:

    IF DL had stood up at that CNN cross burning and told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth then yes. But she did not. Those people needed a serious beat down with truth and no one there was capable of doing that. There is no room for politeness anymore. A hall filled with people who are cheering to lynch all members of the NRA and calling to ban semi-automatic rifles absolutely turned my stomach. You don’t want to know what I would have said and it wouldn’t have been politically correct. But it would have been the truth, the in your face truth.

  25. avatar Jross says:

    NO!

    We need our own annoying ass teenagers that think they know better!

    1. avatar Gman says:

      I’ve got 3 to start.

  26. avatar paul says:

    Short answer; yes. Long answer Y-E-S. Not one inch…not ever…

  27. avatar Gman says:

    We need someone who

    Commands the room like James Earl Jones
    Refuses to give in like Charlton Heston
    Exudes humility, respect, and strength like John Wayne
    Has impeccable credentials like Neil Gorsuch
    And is respected by both sides like Ronald Reagan

    So, Abraham Lincoln or George Washington?

  28. avatar Sam I Am says:

    It seems NRA has a female James Carville. Dana is representative of the “enough is enough” element in the country. We need that coming from a female. What seems to be missing, is a “standard” woman (kind, gentle, nurturing, caring, sympathetic) quietly explaining that she has had “enough”, and is abandoning her otherwise “standard” self, and putting herself on the side of personal responsibility, disciplining and training her children for adulthood, not extended childhood. A quiet mother who will not be assaulted without massive retaliation. A calm female who says, “I am just like millions of mothers, concerned for the safety of my children, ending my dependence on signs, feelings, and government protection that is merely a theory.”

  29. avatar Gaston's love child says:

    I didn’t mind what she had to say.

  30. avatar Hannibal says:

    No. Like most other NRA spokespeople/figureheads, she’s doing nothing but playing to the audience they already have. Everyone else sees her as nuts (note: everyone else are not people that read TTAG). It does nothing for the people in the middle that are the most important to convince.

    It would be nice to see someone put up there that doesn’t seem like they’re constantly seething. There’s a lot of good arguments to be made against the silly gun control arguments, and self-righteous anger isn’t enough.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      The NRA’s membership is reportedly undergoing record growth. This also happened after Sandy Hook and, in fact, seems to happen each time there’s a new national effort by the gun-control movement. Arguably, the gun-controller’s strident demands are a useful too in the NRA’s membership drives. If the NRA didn’t already have the gun-controllers, it would probably need to go out and hire some.

  31. avatar Ralph says:

    “you can understand why the video’s setting antis’ hair on fire.”

    Judging by all the anti-NRA concern tr0lls showing up here, their hair isn’t the only thing she’s setting on fire.

    If anything, she’s too kind. Go Dana!

  32. avatar WadeJ says:

    NRA membership isn’t low because people don’t care about 2A rights. It is low because the NRA has a history of board members selling out 2A rights so that they can put more money in their pockets. NRA doesn’t gain members by being week on issues and surrendering rights. The NRA could easily be ten times its size if it could remain consistently strong and disciplined in leadership and membership. NRA could have Dana and 10 more spokespeople from all walks of life that are as equally passionate about 2A rights as she is. Then maybe the people of the gun could let go of some of the infighting.

  33. avatar Bernard says:

    Overall, I like Dana Loesch. But we should also have a black, transgender lesbian, Muslim woman, who is a paraplegic as a NRA spokesperson. We should use their own strategy against them. Ha!

  34. avatar Raimius says:

    No. The NRA is the gun owning population’s “mainstream” voice. As such, they need to be seen as nice, reasonable, and sticking to their principles. In other words, it needs to be an organization that the undecided would trust for the truth on the topic. Instead, the NRA is taking a militant Republican stance, diving headfirst into cultural warfare and siding not so much with gun owners but a political party. Rallying the base is important, but the primary organization should be recruiting and a smaller, more extreme one should be doing what the NRA has chosen to do.

  35. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    She is delightfully in your face with the antis. They are typically dishonest, refuse to listen to reason or logic, and only seem to respond to in your face pushback.

  36. avatar Richard Kennedy says:

    If you don’t like what Dana says then you don’t really want to stand up for our rights. What else could you ask for, a mom trying to protect her family….It’s time we stand up and stop cowering because we don’t want people on the left to say mean things to us….It’s time for all gun owners to get some backbone or we are going to lose our rights.

  37. avatar Jack says:

    Right now she is a lightening rod and that’s a good thing. Every time she speaks or tweets she is attacked, not on merit but at the ad homoniem level. In this current culture victimhood = social currency.

    Imagine the nuclear fallout that would occur in firing her? “I’m a woman, I’m a mother, I’m the victim here”
    CNN Headlines: Dana Loesch Spills the beans on the NRA.

    You don’t even need to read the rest of the article, most people won’t anyway.

  38. avatar sound awake says:

    i wont call for her ouster because shes right on the issues but i dont like her because she was pretty anti trump

    AND

    shes just a bit too angry for me and i would suppose a lot of guys as well

    most guys have or have had at some point at least one woman in their life that was angry overbearing and controlling

    like it or not or agree with it or not but the gun world is still largely a mans world

    maybe thats why they picked her

    to get more women on board

    and thats fine i guess

    but the day she starts calling the pistol caliber carbine a good idea is the day i start calling for her ouster

  39. avatar Affe says:

    As a life member I’m beginning to feel about the NRA the way Laura Ingram does about LeBron – shut up, lobby the pols and teach shooting. Stay out of the culture wars with the blenders and the clenched fists. You need the $$ that badly that in the middle of the most pro-2A admin in the last 50 years you need to keep pouring gas on the flames ?

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      If we have do pro 2A Administration, where are the pro 2A results? Can we import not-so sporting semi auto guns again? What about Norinco? Russian 5.45 ammo? Were school and other gun free zones abolished yet? President calling for bans on rifle accessories, really?

      Whoever believes that this is the most pro-2A admin in the last 50 years needs to pay better attention.

  40. avatar Texican says:

    She used to be a liberal before she saw the light. She knows what the liberals are thinking and can shred them instantly while giving fence sitters food for thought. Right person at the right time!

  41. avatar Roy Johnson says:

    Yes.

  42. avatar IAmNotTheHulk says:

    Yes!

  43. avatar BradP says:

    “…and in this thread, the Fudd’s self identify.”
    If it was only “preaching to the converted”. 95% of the gun owning public DOESN’T belong to the only national firearms association.

  44. avatar Joe Friday says:

    Fudds need not apply. Go Dana!

  45. avatar Blkojo says:

    My choice for NRA spokesperson is Colion Noir. For several reasons. Can LaPierre just please move to the background?

    1. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

      Good point….kid rid of Wayne, and split his $4m salary between both Colin and Dana…that would be a much better image (dark skin and female) than crusty old entitled white guy. And I think both are quicker on their feet than Wayne.

  46. avatar Seizure doc says:

    So let me understand this. She along with Marco Rubio go on a CNN town hall where she is called a murderer, booed, jeered, lectured by that fool of a Sherrif, and we are discussing whether or not HER tone is right for the NRA ?
    The principles of the constitution were once worth fighting for. I don’t recall any of the founding fathers being worried about tone or the “right message”.
    The enemy gave away his position following the Parkland shooting. What will we do about it?

    “Bold decisions give the best promise of success.”

    I expect most readers on this blog will know where that comes from. If Joy Reid is a racist, say so. If Steve Israel is a but kissing careerist, call him that. If CNN misstates facts, call them liars. Is that what the other side does with us ?

  47. avatar J.T. says:

    No. She may be a hit with the farthest right of the NRA membership, but we need to be winning over people people in the middle of the political spectrum and converting them, not preaching to the choir and making the NRA look like an extremist right wing organization. I don’t think the NRA should dump her, but they need to get her to tone it down.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “but we need to be winning over people people in the middle of the political spectrum and converting them, …”

      Too late. I talked already to both of those people. They were like, “Meh. I am passionately neutral on everything; even that.”

      Sorry.

  48. avatar gp says:

    She’s a pitbull. I know that’s offputting to some, but we NEED pitbulls to fight for us.

    1. avatar Eli2016 says:

      Agreed. Those who think we should cower to the likes of Jimmy Kimmel need their head examined. Any person that disgusts Meryl Streep and her buddies is a person I fully support.

  49. avatar BWGRP says:

    Hell yes she is the right person, I happen to like her attitude. Why? Because I am really fucking mad and she represents how I feel. If she sets the liberal hair on fire who cares. I am sick of these liberal bastards with their pussy ass snow flake shit!

  50. avatar Casey says:

    I don’t like her, I don’t enjoy listening to her, and I don’t think she’s particularly talented or uniquely qualified for the position (although being a woman does help negate a certain subset of arguments.)

    That said, I think she speaks the left’s language of yelling louder, being shriller, and angrily outbursting very well, and she’s REALLY good at pissing them off, which I am 100% behind.

    As long as she (and the NRA) stick to the topic of guns, I got no problem with her representing my $35/year.

  51. avatar MarkPA says:

    I think that she is just about perfect.

    Alinski said the left should identify the enemy and personalize it. So, Personalize Ms. Loesch! The NRA could have – and did – make an old-fat-white-guy as the persona to represent the NRA. If we could resurrect Carleton Heston would he be the right choice for today? It’s really hard for the Antis to re-cast a middle-aged mother as an “old-fat-white-guy”; we aren’t making it easy for them. She’s poised, able to hold her own in a CNN “town-hall”. Yes, we need a persona who announces that we won’t back-down; and, a “momma-bear” persona does this in a form that’s difficult to assail.

    The bread-and-butter issue is personal self-defense; it’s hard to get anyone today to try to read Rummel or even recall the Holocaust. So, what persona dow we want for personal self-defense? How about a retired Navy SEAL? Not quite right? We want a persona who can easily be identified as likely to be vulnerable to attack by a larger, heavier, younger male criminal. We could use a grandmother for this persona; or, someone with a physical handicap. A middle-aged woman does this task just as well.

    The American demographic is predominantly white. Ms Loesch is familiar to this audience. Yes, we need to address minorities as well. Colian Noir et al. do a good job of this for Blacks. We could use some Latinos as well. How about some Chinese and Indians (from India)? Nevertheless, these are supporting roles. The primary spokesperson probably needs to be white and middle-class.

  52. avatar Mike H says:

    “The clock starts… now.”

    … and then what? What are you going to do that hasn’t been done? Threats? I agree with every sentiment she floated, but it sounds empty to me. Being a combative 2A supporter plays into the hands of the antis. Noah above said it pretty well when he said we need someone people can identify with. Dana is a really sharp and skillful person, but this message is just noise. Noise that we’ve heard before. It’s the flip side of the polarization coin Everytown and Moms Demand reside on and the rhetoric is worthless. Someone like Colion Noir is more attuned to the role and getting pedestrian-grade people to realize we’re commoners just like them. I might even float someone like Chris Baker or one of the crew from Lucky Gunner.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      ‘“The clock starts… now.”

      … and then what? What are you going to do that hasn’t been done? Threats?’

      It’s an advertisment for her new show March 2018 on NRATV and nothing more. It gets the rubes to send more money to the NRA, vote for some more republicans, and browbeat their friends and strangers on the internet to join the 800lb gorilla in flinging poo INSIDE its cage. It is nothing more than talk in support of government privileges.

      1. avatar Mike H says:

        In that case, the tone makes sense, then, in a confrontational tabloidish cable newsy way. I don’t know what NRATV ratings are like, but that really is an echo chamber. 2A needs converts, though, not a bunch sneering, confrontational gunfolk. Unless she got a show on an actual network all it really does is act as a distribution point for 2A narrative for the small niche audience bothering to watch.

        I know she makes the rounds on shows to act as counterpoint to – pick a network – anti 2A narrative. That’s gutsy, and she handles herself well, but their treatment of her, or any 2A advocate – by a given network as some extreme outlier opinion is a guarantee most times.

  53. avatar fosscad says:

    The problem with the NRA, and by proxy Dana, is that they cater to much to the CPAC crowd. I would like to see the NRA appeal more to all gun owners rather than just the Republican ones. There is a large minority of pro-gun people who do not subscribe to republican politics but do agreed with the NRA on gun rights. Guns should not be a left-right issue. They need to expand the tent.

    1. avatar Y.A. in WA says:

      I agree.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      I agree that 2A rights should not be a left-right issue. Unfortunately one of our 2 main political parties made gun control big part of their program. This party is known to have little tolerance for stepping outside official party lines. ‘Pro gun progressive’ is an oxymoron.
      That makes it really hard not to lean towards the other party, whatever their other politics might be.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The mythical Demoncrat/Liberal gun owner will put 2A well below abortion, open borders, federal control of healthcare, and every other bizarre social issue. Ask them if they would trade gun confiscation for a bundle of legislation that puts everyone of their real political goals on the president’s desk. Even better, ask them if they would trade an absolutist piece of legislation on guns for having everything in their grab bag passed by congress, and signed by the president.

        And no, I do not believe it is possible to be a Demoncrat/Liberal, and simultaneously be a gun owner. Owning a gun is a symbol of self-determination. No leftist believes in self-determination; only government control over everything.

  54. avatar Jay W. says:

    Dana is doing a very good job.

  55. avatar Gabe says:

    Yes Dana is perfect.

  56. avatar Chris says:

    I should have known this would have like a million replies based on how she looks. She might be the right one but honestly, the job is a rabbit hole and will eventually get to her. LaPierre makes something like $4m a year and I’ll tell you right now, he’s worth every penny because for every problem related to guns he’s the lightning rod, indiscriminately taking the heat for each of them. He’s been called names even I’ve never heard. So, I wouldn’t suggest Loesch take over his job (and god knows who’s going to replace him) but on a part-time basis yeah, she’s alright.

  57. avatar Hank says:

    Flinch you should probably lose some weight before you’re allowed to express your opinion here.

  58. avatar Frank M says:

    Her authoritarian fascist BS is driving me to leave the NRA. I’ve been a member since I was 13 (I’m an old guy now) and I’ve weathered all of their stupid publicity stunts and scare-mongering because I thought the ends justified for the means for gun right but the “clenched fist of truth” video is really disturbing to me.

    1. avatar Tony says:

      I love that video! We had better start pushing back, and we had better start pushing back now or we are going to find ourselves without any second amendment rights at all. She is just the right kind of push back that we need. We are to push back and resist now or we give up all right to keep and bear arms forever.

    2. avatar Y.A. in WA says:

      Frank M. I completely agree with you. That one video of her really pissed me off.

  59. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Mrs Loesch is doing just fine. I like her standing up for herself and our civil rights. The Left is afraid of her. It seems unfortunately that there are gun owners who are afraid to fight back. They don’t like having to get “dirty” in the fight against this creeping “blackness”.

    The gun people who can’t take the heat of battle, should just turn in your guns to the waiting government collector. This battle will require Rough Men and Rough Women. No boys or girls, they will just get in the way.

  60. avatar Warlocc says:

    I have to agree with the people saying no.

    Extremist vs extremist never solves anything, and speeches like that are just what that is. Radicals threatening radicals.

    Not everything is black and white or red and blue. Spend some time in the middle.

    1. avatar Tony says:

      There is no middle. Moderates are simply people who are afraid to admit that they are Democrats. Another way to put that is, moderates are people who are simply afraid to admit that they are liberals.

    2. avatar Scoutino says:

      Not everything is black and white, true. But fight for our rights IS. Either you are trying to take American’s rights away or you are not.
      Moderation in defending our basic human rights is not a virtue.

  61. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    She is pretty good IMO, although I kinda think she blew it in the one interview on TV with George Stephenapolous points out a study that shows that mass shootings declined during the time of the federal assault weapons ban, then picked up after. She had a golden opportunity to point out that the study was wrong because the weapons used in the mass shootings, the AR-15s, were never banned during the Assault Weapons Ban. But instead she tried to fudge around it.

  62. avatar Y.A. in WA says:

    I can not stand Dana. I’m a NRA member and have been one for multiple decades. I plan to vote some new blood in. I’m also a GOA member. Personally I have had some good talks with anti-gunners recently. One of the best was talking about healthcare and K-12 education. Those two items are easy to argue that we should fund them more. Schools need a higher teacher to student ratio. Teachers should identify kids that potentially may become a school shooter. Then what? We need a healthcare system that can give them the right treatment. Not just some pills and a underfunded mental health system. Change the argument about guns to the people murdering students. I rather investment in a healthy child. Our schools and healthcare have been under funded. The 2nd is ment to allow individuals to protect themselves and the United States. It would be a fucking shame if all we are left with are idiots good at name-calling. Shepeople, Sheppard, Po-tat-o, Po-tat-toe. Snowflakes, Ammosexual. Give it a break! I also believe gun free zones are crap. Concealed carry for teachers might not fly in every school but access to firearms in multiple secured places I think would. Biometric safe in a teachers desk was an idea the anti-gunner thought might be reasonable. I want to argue over what someone means when they say common sense gun laws. That’s where I can make a difference.

  63. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

    As an NRA member, yes she is. Much better than Wayne too.
    And sorry, Trump is not the friend of the working person (not sure who is anymore – his tariffs will save some smelting mill jobs and execs bonuses, and kill many many more downstream jobs) and jury still out as to wether he loves 2A more than $ for his kids…time will tell.

  64. avatar raptor jesus says:

    Absolutely not – she’s doing more harm than good. The antis are seizing on her harsh rhetoric and pushing not just for “sensible solutions” but complete civilian disarmament – I see it in my social media feeds clearly. None of the pro-gun people post her rants because they’re embarassed by her – but many of the antis share her message to show just how insane ALL gun owners are (obviously, since she represents all of us).

    1. avatar Scoutino says:

      So, gun grabbers are calling for complete civilian disarmament, but gun owners are completely crazy because of Dana’s harsh rhetoric.
      Can you hear yourself?

  65. avatar little horn says:

    i think she is doing fine, also looking fine as hell too, I would like to see a little toning down of the violent rhetoric. after all, that is what we mainly accuse the leftist of a lot.

  66. avatar Glenn Beck says:

    Hell no we don’t. First the woman is a complete fraud. She is a former Democrat operative who found out she could make more money tricking morons into believing she’s a conservative. Her husband is a wacko steroid freak who also pretends to be a conservative while taking government handouts for their “business”

    And let’s not get started with her relationship with the wacko Glenn Beck and how they both started the never Trump movement and were willing to let Hillary win. No fan of Trump and his recent antigun bullshit either, but if this leg spreader is such a great spokesman for the nra why was she willing to throw the election and allow Hillary to get in?

    I think we can find better women to represent gun owners, we don’t need a former democrat operative who pretends to be a dude – we get it dana you think you’re tough.

  67. avatar Scoutino says:

    I like what DL says. Sometimes it might be little forceful, but if my NRA keeps pushing hard to protect and restore our rights I don’t complain.
    Not another inch!
    I want my cake back!

  68. avatar Gary Eaton says:

    Dana remains the ideal spokesperson for 2nd Amendment advocacy. Reformed Liberal from Democratic Party origins. Fluent Conservative Constitutionalist with on-point argument and on-screen response encapsulating accurate points of law and corrective statistical response.

  69. If she made the decision to participate in the Fake “CNN Town Hall” then she needs to fade into the background.

    Anyone with an I.Q. over room temperature would know that it would be an unfair, staged event. Dana helped give the CNN Town Hall credibility when it was a farce and an and example of mob rule.

    La Pierre and Chris Cox enable the gun grabbers then they get satisfaction letting their attack dog, Dana, out. Wayne La Pierre and Chris Cox need to grow spines or resign Their slogan used to be “Stand and Fight,” well La Pierre, Cox and the ceremonial board that gives the NRA credibility need to immediately stand up for gun owners’ or resign.

  70. avatar Willette Rubottom says:

    An attention-grabbing dialogue is price comment. I believe that you must write extra on this topic, it won’t be a taboo subject however typically individuals are not sufficient to talk on such topics. To the next. Cheers

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email