I thought the NRA statement was good... not great, but good. Offering a proposal (other than a gun ban) to get the discussion going instead of playing defense. I showed this to two moderate non-gun-owning women in my office and they both thought it was reasonable.
Caveat: I did not see the video, I only read the transcript.
I agree with some of the others here that we the gun-owners community need to be prepared to give some ground politically. The SCOTUS has affirmed that the 2nd is an individual right, and recently Judge Posner has found that the 2nd implies a right to self defense. But there is no way the courts are going to declare that a 30 round magazine for an AR or AK is a protected right under the 2nd. So there is no point in all of us trying to argue that banning large magazines is an infringement. I may believe it is so, but it is irrelavent.
We need to be thinking creatively about gun restrictions which would appeal to people who "want to do something", but still preserve our rights.
Two ideas would be:
(1) closing the gun show loop hole. Would it really bother me if I had to make all gun sale transactions through an FFL holder? for me, No. It is a burden, yes, but it does not prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm.
(2) Requireing a background check to buy large magazines. We could propose 16 rounds as the definition of a large magazine. This could be done in the same way as a gun purchase check, or perhaps some agency could issue us permits with a 180 day experiration... I am sure we could come up with something. This would still allow us to buy, own, and use 30 round magazines, but we would have to make the special effort of applying for the permit.
Neither of these would actually make a dent in crime, but that is kind of the point isn't it? Gun restrictions never do, so let's propose something that preserves our rights and our access to the kinds of guns we want, but allows the general public to feel that "something has been done".