I think that LaPierre was very good in his rebuttal, but only to a point. I give him good marks for calling CNN a bunch of intentional liars on this issue, which they certainly are.
The worst part, which I give LaPierre credit for bringing up (to the extent he was allowed to speak) that the FL dasshole police officer fired a full-auto gun, not one of the banned semi-autos.
However, LaPierre botched a critical point. He made a big deal about how banned and non-banned weapons fire the same rounds. True, but irrelevant and, possibly, dangerous. Why? First, the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to any particular caliber of ammunition, it guarantees the entire RKBA. By his focus on the ammunition, he detracted from the overall issue, which is that the AWB is illegal according to the Constitution. Second, this is a possibly dangerous position to take because some anti-gun moron is going to say "OK, Wayne, now we're going to ban ANY firearm that fires ANY military caliber EVER adopted by ANY nation." That would shut down Wayne's argument. I don't like the fact that the NRA has emphasized either the caliber issue or the crime issue. The central issue is "Do Americans have the right to keep and bear arms?" The answer is a simple "YES" or "NO." Any mention of crime should only be in passing, as in the following script that I believe LaPierre should have followed:
"Well, Kyra, the whole AWB is illegal - it is in direct violation of the Constitution. The proponents of the bill don't want to discuss this, or their goal of stripping Americans of their right to own firearms. However, even using their irrelevant point that the banned guns were or are used in a large number of crimes, they are dead wrong - just look at the Clinton Justice Department's own report. However, as I said, crime isn't the issue, the right to own firearms is the issue. Kyra, can any of the proponents of this bill explain why Americans of 2003 and the future have, or ought to have, less rights than their parents and grandparents? I say that they can't, and that what they are doing is anti-American and illegal."
FYI, I am a member of the NRA and have been since 1989. I criticize it for being too soft with the anti-gunners on most occasions, and for missing the real issue - our rights. They focus on crime too much, thereby allowing the anti-gunners to control the terms of the debate. If you set the terms of the debate, you win - otherwise, you lose. It is far past time for the largest pro-gun to allow Sarah Brady and Josh Sugarmann to set the terms of this debate.
With that statement, and your criticism of LaPierre for not handling himself perfectly under intense pressure, I think you should run for major office in the NRA. You could then bring your wisdom and talents to a much wider audience. Have you been interviewed on TV often? It's a much different world from that perspective, sitting under hot lights, fielding rapid-fire questions from a hostile interviewer/producer team and knowing every sentence out of your mouth has to be crafted like a sound-bite to take advantage of the very precious few seconds you're given. I personally think LaPierre did a great job under the circumstances, but if you think you can do better, go for it!