So, how stupid must the NRA think we are?


PDA






Boats
January 24, 2006, 02:11 PM
I received a fund raising call from the NRA last night.

Some guy with a southern accent, (not that there is anything wrong with that) is on the horn going on about UN gun control efforts, George Soros, and Rebecca Peters, blah, blah, blah. I interrupt him.

“Do you know how a treaty gets ratified?” I ask.

Silence.

I give a mini lecture, “The President signs it and the Senate ratifies it. No way, no how is Bush going to sign off on small arms controls that abrogate the Second, let alone would the Senate ratify it. Good night.”

I have long been of the opinion that the NRA is more interested in easy self-promotion than it is in a serious battle to restore full American gun rights. This entire “anti-UN antis” program just underscores the way that they always identify the easiest way to appear to be doing something without actually doing much of anything.

Ambassador John Bolton, by himself, is doing everything the NRA could be doing at the UN. Why on earth isn’t the NRA finishing the job at home before chasing off irrelevant antis from abroad?

There are 1989 restrictions that need lifting. There is 1986 legislation that needs repealing. There is the 1968 GCA that needs serious gutting. There are states messing with the design of guns, to the detriment of buyers nationwide, in need of being stopped in their tracks. Trick is that those goals are hard and bashing ineffectual international antis is easy.

I am through with the NRA until they gain some serious domestic focus. One lawsuit pre-emption bill isn’t enough payback for my years of prior financial support.

The NRA should find some stones or just disband.

If you enjoyed reading about "So, how stupid must the NRA think we are?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
1 old 0311
January 24, 2006, 02:16 PM
Now wait just a minute...............Look at what they did for the people of New Orleans when the Police took their guns...........0.00:evil: :evil: :evil:

Kevin

LAR-15
January 24, 2006, 02:19 PM
Irrelevant antis abroad?

:uhoh:

You mean ones that are alligned with the VPC and Brady Campaign?

:eek:

Old Dog
January 24, 2006, 02:21 PM
Heh, I just went through the same cycle. Using the UN "threat" and this other stuff to try and get money out of us ... when the real threat to RKBA is our own country's politicians -- and our own dang media --, is swiftly turning me off of the NRA bandwagon.

Zundfolge
January 24, 2006, 02:22 PM
I give a mini lecture, “The President signs it and the Senate ratifies it. No way, no how is Bush going to sign off on small arms controls that abrogate the Second, let alone would the Senate ratify it. Good night.”

So what about president Hillary? Think she'll give a rat's behind about national sovereignty?

What about if the GOP loses the Senate (or worse, we get even more RINOs there)?

Kim
January 24, 2006, 02:28 PM
I disagree. While I admit the NRA raises maoney like any other special interest group with hollering the sky is falling I think the International Law pushers are a threat. I think you do not fully realize how an idea grows in that group of people. This is not going to go away. It is just now the tip of the point and just now a very few even know about it. The UN has MANY NGO's that are anti-gun and would very well push a ban on ALL civilian ownership of firearms. The NRA is a recent player in the NGO game and is a should I say an Army of One. These groups have great power, passion and are not going to quit. There is a whole lot of Liberal Lawyers who just practice "international Law".Our USSC is using IL and the opinion of the changing world norms in interpreting OUR Constitution. There are alot of believers in being "citizens of the world" and are working toward the end of the Nation State. Al Gore was really pi33ed at the Bush Adm stance taken at the UN regarding small arms. I have lived long enough to see danger at it's birth. This idea is now in adolescent stage.

Alex45ACP
January 24, 2006, 02:31 PM
The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.

Tequila_Sauer
January 24, 2006, 02:34 PM
+1 to Kim

The NRA is much like a home defense pistol. Better to have 'em and not need 'em, than need 'em and not have 'em. And I feel the pain about the fund raising calls, they are indeed annoying. I just donate when I feel there's an important issue on the horizon and give them an assertive "No" when I don't want to donate.

Fly320s
January 24, 2006, 02:39 PM
Boats,

If you believe that the UN, et. al., won't be a threat in the future, then maybe you should ask yourself that question.

There are more anti-gun people and organizations on this planet than there are pro-gun. Luckily for us, we have the NRA to help us retain our rights. But the NRA isn't solely a political action organization. Even if every country and person on the planet decides to become pro-gun, the NRA still has it's programs of education and safety to run. The NRA will always be with us.

ravensword227
January 24, 2006, 02:42 PM
The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.
+ 1

They thrive on conflict. Remember the 86' GCA?

buzz_knox
January 24, 2006, 02:44 PM
+ 1

They thrive on conflict. Remember the 86' GCA?

You mean the '68 GCA, that the hunters and sportsmen of the country allowed to get passed? Wasn't that one of the key points in getting the NRA in the lobbying business?

El Tejon
January 24, 2006, 02:53 PM
1968 Safe Streets Act provided the impetus to the "1977 Cincinnati Reforms" of the NRA with the formation of the NRA-ILA and the man that worked so diligently to save the RKBA--Harlon Carter (a great man).:)

But for Harlon Carter the NRA would have moved to Colorado Springs and removed itself from politics and we would be shooting spitwads and dice.

Boats, while I'm 100% with you on the things that need to be accomplished at home, the UN treaty is a serious threat. If the UN Treaty is ratified then domestic politics are of little concern.:uhoh:

hillbilly
January 24, 2006, 03:10 PM
Uh, the NRA didn't get involved with lobbying until the 1970s.

In fact, I was leafing through a library's collection of American Rifleman magazines, and came across the article that announced the brand new NRA lobbying effort.

It was 1970 exactly, I think.

But you can't hang the 1968 GCA on the NRA because the NRA wasn't in the politics business at that time.

The 1968 GCA was one of the reasons the NRA got into the politics business.

hillbilly

markdaniel
January 24, 2006, 03:17 PM
Well the 2nd isnt the only thing the UN is a threat to.We need to get them out of the US.

bakert
January 24, 2006, 03:24 PM
I disagree with the NRA on certain issues and don't like the fund raising calls, but I still think it's the best organization for all gun owners whether you're a hunter, target shooter or just like to own and fondle them!! Nuff Said!!:scrutiny:

Boats
January 24, 2006, 03:31 PM
I do not deny that the international antis are a threat in the future. As of now, they are neutralized. The Bush Administration, via Ambassador Bolton, has stated unequivocally that no small arms treaty that errodes either US national security perogatives, or our tradition of constitutionally guaranteed civilian firearms ownership, is going to see the light of day.

So, when is the earliest IANSA and the Dems hook up for a real fight on the topic? January 2009, if/when the Hildebeast or some like minded jackass becomes president, and then, only if the Senate is turned hardcore jackass as well because the filibuster is a two edged weapon.

Therefore, the thrust of my point is that these internationalist blissninnies can only be turned into a current and compelling threat via artifice. Yet, while we have an allegedly friendly Congress and a President who seemingly won't veto anything, the NRA satisifes itself with the Lawful Commerce in Firearms legislation and the sunsetting of the AWB and moves on. Ignoring the home front while we have the upper hand is a total waste of the opportunity to make progress.

El Tejon
January 24, 2006, 03:33 PM
Question of timing then?

Boats
January 24, 2006, 03:40 PM
Well, if I saw any evidence of the NRA moving and shaking legislation to restore our rights previously lost on their watch, I wouldn't be so chagrined that they were expending effort taking swipes at international goofs who present no credible threat at this moment.

But Wayne gets to buy new suits, jet over to London and wear horns for the Euroninnies doesn't he? That is much more glamorous than twisting the dagger at home in pitched political trench fighting, isn't it?

Igloodude
January 24, 2006, 03:46 PM
I've asked myself the same question, Boats - almost verbatim, too.

Though, this is probably a good crowd to get an answer to the following question too: has the US signed/ratified any treaty in the last century or so that has conflicted with any provision of the US Constitution?

I can't think of any myself, but goodness knows that doesn't rule anything out.

taliv
January 24, 2006, 04:33 PM
there should be a whole forum here devoted to sledgehammer

Northslope Nimrod
January 24, 2006, 04:43 PM
I wouldn't brush aside the UN policies so quickly. As of late, the democrats argue more and more that the US should step in line with international opinion, international law and the policies of other countries. They actually cite them for persuasive, approaching on binding, opinion and law.

Yes, for now it will not happen.....but things change. The founding fathers would roll in their grave to see how we have streched the Constitution. Look at the commerce clause. Limited Federal Government......Hah!

John Hicks
January 24, 2006, 04:44 PM
I got the same call.

I signed up b/c I let my membership lapse. While I don't agree with a lot of how the NRA raises money and allows "concessions" in gun laws, remember, the NRA is about a lot more than just lobbying.

Training, shooting ranges, and shooting sports all come to mind. Promoting safe gun usage to a wider audience is very important -- much more so than lobbying efforts and debating UN talking heads.

jh

Winzeler
January 24, 2006, 04:50 PM
The original and subsequent points by boats are, I think, good ones. However, I don't think cut and running from the NRA is the answer. Unfortunately, as with any membership organization, most of its members will be uneducated/ignorant. However, I would suspect that if the NRA got enough articulate complaints from it's membership about its handling of national and international issues it would adapt.

AirForceShooter
January 24, 2006, 04:51 PM
the NRA doesn't lobby.
The ILA does.

AFS

NineseveN
January 24, 2006, 05:00 PM
Uh, the NRA didn't get involved with lobbying until the 1970s.

In fact, I was leafing through a library's collection of American Rifleman magazines, and came across the article that announced the brand new NRA lobbying effort.

It was 1970 exactly, I think.

But you can't hang the 1968 GCA on the NRA because the NRA wasn't in the politics business at that time.

The 1968 GCA was one of the reasons the NRA got into the politics business.

hillbilly

Sorry man, you might want to check on that. Check the American Rifleman from March 1968. The NRA, some firearms manufacturers and others that would later become part of or work with the NRA testified in favor and supported the GCA. This is what started the Harlan Carter (leader of the NRA ILA that was fonded a little fater the GCA) rebellion shortly after that. In Cinncinati in 1977, Carter and Neal Knox (should be a familiar name) criticized the NRA for abandoning the 2A, appeasement and lack of focus on issues at hand. They were branded extremsists. Carter appointed Knox as the new leader of the NRA ILA. Knox worked hard against the appeasement grain of the NRA and those that lusted after beltway access and backdoor deals to smooth their image over to both the public and their mianstream members. Eventually, Knox, still branded an extremist by many of the NRA board, was defeated by Charlton Heston (who fully supported the GCA and is on record as saying so, and I believe he worked with LBJ on this very topic) by 4 votes.

This is going to be another flame thread I am sure, because any time you criticize the NRA, the bile rises. But at least get yourselves straight. Just because there was no ILA does not mean the NRA was not part of the problem. Remebers, and I quote them on this, "We have always supported reasonable gun control".

buzz_knox
January 24, 2006, 05:20 PM
I've asked myself the same question, Boats - almost verbatim, too.

Though, this is probably a good crowd to get an answer to the following question too: has the US signed/ratified any treaty in the last century or so that has conflicted with any provision of the US Constitution?

I can't think of any myself, but goodness knows that doesn't rule anything out.

Yes, it has. At a minimum, the US has become part of the WTO, that enables foreign nations to assert our tariff structure is unfair. This abrogates the Constitutional authority to impose tariffs on foreign commerce.

mordechaianiliewicz
January 24, 2006, 05:22 PM
:banghead: Look, while the u.n. hasn't got the power to tax, they are irrelevant. Give them international taxation, they begin to count.

I do agree that the u.n. is dangerous to american civil liberties, but at home the nra needs to be attacking the '89 assault weapon eddict. And marketing campaigns need to get set up which are serious about getting young people, immigrants, etc. who aren't interested in guns on our side.

The antis plan to take us down piecemeal, but we can take back ground piecemeal. Just a reform of the '89 law, or gca '68 lightening it a little would be great.

As for international, supporting Brasil, supporting former Commbloc warsaw countries which now wish to liberalize gun laws should be a focus, but the primary focus must be at home.

Mad Chemist
January 24, 2006, 05:27 PM
I wish the NRA would organize a concentrated effort to implement nation-wide CHL reciprocity. This would be effective for countering authoritarian state and local HG restrictions.

I'm happy that they've begun more earnest recruitment of female members. We can't implement any significant change if we ignore 50% of the population. Especially when that 50% faces a disproportionately higher risk of criminal assault.

JH

JohnBT
January 24, 2006, 06:05 PM
Join the NRA and VOTE. Heck, join and run for office.

I can't stand whining.

John

flatdog
January 24, 2006, 06:22 PM
It's all the fault of the NRA.That is if George Bush is busy.:banghead:

Bartholomew Roberts
January 24, 2006, 07:11 PM
Now wait just a minute...............Look at what they did for the people of New Orleans when the Police took their guns...........0.00

You mean besides filing the injunction in federal court (even though there was hardly a Louisiana court to file it in) and stop the process as well as currently fighting the state and city to get an accounting of all those guns? :)

The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.

Of all the silly reasons to bash the NRA, that one has to be the silliest. The NRA is prohibited by charter from using its membership funds for lobbying. So the NRA gathers around $90-120 million a year ($30 x 3-4M members) to run shooting ranges, safety programs, etc.

By contrast the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVC exist only on whatever donations people wish to give over and above their membership fees. According to Neal Knox, the best fundraising year for these groups was 1995 when they pulled in $35.4 million (http://www.urban-armory.com/nealknox010199.htm) - a fraction of what the NRA proper pulls down.

For that matter look at any number of pro-choice organizations formed to legalize abortion in the 1970s. Did they disappear or lose membership after Roe v. Wade? Did they suffer a sudden membership drop even after conservative nominees stated they considered Roe settled law?

Anti-gun people won't suddenly vanish if we win a Second Amendment battle. In fact, the NRA will be more important than ever if the Supreme Court were to adopt the individual rights decision in Emerson; because then we have a big debate about what are "reasonable restrictions".

rock jock
January 24, 2006, 07:14 PM
The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.By that logic, one might say that half the members of THR don't want the 2nd protected either; otherwise, they wouldn't have anything to complain aobut.

ArmedBear
January 24, 2006, 07:16 PM
The NRA is the only organization with a real track record at the national level.

If you don't like the NRA, get involved and work on influencing the NRA. Ditching the NRA is the same as supporting the Brady Campaign.

The political world is not black and white. You have to recognize where there is power, and where you are just pissing into the wind.

Winning isn't everything; it's the ONLY thing.

taliv
January 24, 2006, 07:26 PM
The NRA is prohibited by charter from using its membership funds for lobbying.

perhaps, but that's potentially misleading, or their literature is. the request i got in the mail says:

I know your membership doesn't expire for quite some time yet.

However, if the NRA is to meet the challenges of the year ahead, defeat gun and ammo bans, enact our anti-crime program, and pay for our NRA media programs to readch gun-owning voters this year, we need your help right now

I hope you'll take a moment today to renew your NRA membership....

and for doing that, i'm guaranteed an NRA travel mug.

Cosmoline
January 24, 2006, 07:34 PM
I give a mini lecture, “The President signs it and the Senate ratifies it. No way, no how is Bush going to sign off on small arms controls that abrogate the Second, let alone would the Senate ratify it. Good night.”

By my calendar, GW is only in office for two more years. You want the NRA to stop fighting the UN efforts in the mean time?

Maxwell
January 24, 2006, 07:38 PM
By that logic, one might say that half the members of THR don't want the 2nd protected either; otherwise, they wouldn't have anything to complain aobut.

Both are partially true.

I for one learned the NRA to be a "gun sports" lobby, not a 2a defender.
I suppose because their the biggest they are our best hope, but thats not saying much. The NRA will still be around to collect money when the only firearms left are for target shooting.

The right to own firearms is there below freedom of speach as an essential right and duty of Americans. Its not something that should be questionable or easily blocked by states and outside organisations.
These fights should be easy. I believe that the NRA would be able to mop up in lawsuits like the ACLU and other organisations.

When theres a war on and we've got all the rights and all the guns, the front line should be over there on enemy turf and not here in our laps.
We should be debaiting things like weather criminals can own guns or if full-autos can be sold over the counter, not weather buying my target pistol from the wrong vendor is a violation of state law.

To re-use the same example with the first amendment; we should be discussing things like if we can cuss in public, not weather I have the right to apply for the right to apply for a license from the govenor and chief of police to open my mouth in the first place.


To me that makes the NRA very suspect.
Yes we're holding our own in many respects, but the war is not moving as robustly as it should.

Boats
January 24, 2006, 08:24 PM
Cosmoline said:
By my calendar, GW is only in office for two more years. You want the NRA to stop fighting the UN efforts in the mean time?

Why not? Bolton's got our backs right now. How difficult and expensive could it be for the NRA to monitor and track the bloviating of international antis who have to come to NYC or set up a well publicized international conference to even attempt something. Is it like Bolton or someone else sympathetic to our cause is going to keep us all in the dark, that the NRA needs this effort TO COMBAT THEIR DESIRES TO TAKE AWAY EVEN YOUR HUNTING RIFLES?!?!?!?"

Hogwash.

In the meanwhile, we have heavy lifting to do right here at home. Most of the world adopted Kyoto and we didn't. Most of the world could adopt a small arms treaty and if we are NOT signatories, they can just hate us some more than they already do.

If that pitch last night would have been about cash needed for a campaign to whack our stateside antis into the deepests depths of a hell of irrelevancy, I'd have opened my wallet. Instead of a campaign against that which ails us directly on a daily basis, I am instead asked to get alarmed enough to pay for some stupid shot at the shadows which are hiding an international disarmament conspiracy.:scrutiny:

Soros and Peters scare me not. They only bear watching, not turning the NRA top brass into international jet setters.

saltydog
January 24, 2006, 08:59 PM
But you can't hang the 1968 GCA on the NRA because the NRA wasn't in the politics business at that time.
hillbilly
I'll back the NRA on just this one. The blame lies on the people who voted those morons (Congress Critters, etc) into office.:confused:

People vote politicians into office to "Represent their view" and HaHa!, we get the 68 GCA! Onward registered American voter---->:eek:

JohnBT
January 24, 2006, 09:05 PM
Jet setters? I'd have thought you'd want them out of the country. ;)


"and for doing that, i'm guaranteed an NRA travel mug"

I got a nifty pocket knife for upgrading from Life to Endowment. Now where did I put that leather jacket they sent me for upgrading to Life? I've never worn it. I should give it to a long-time Life Member because I doubt I'll ever wear it - I like my Coronado jacket better.

John

Silver Bullet
January 24, 2006, 10:19 PM
Look at what they did for the people of New Orleans when the Police took their guns...........0.00
I can’t tell if you’re being facetious.

But, just in case:

NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Confiscations (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=157704&highlight=nra+orleans)

Cosmoline
January 25, 2006, 02:03 AM
Hogwash.

You don't seem to understand. 99% of world public opinion views the likes of you and I as at best a dangerous anachronism. You ignore that at your peril, particularly given the drive towards a world criminal justice system and world government. This is not paranoia. There really is a global push to get rid of us, one way or the other.

Can the NRA do more at home? Certainly. I'd like to see them take on everything from the zero tolerance policies of schools for even DRAWING a firearm to the expansion of federal "gun crime" laws. But I recognize the political difficulties of making such moves. This is a very long game of chess we're playing, not football. The NRA is an important piece on our side of the board. Just because it only moves back and forth is no reason to abandon the piece.

palerider1
January 25, 2006, 02:09 AM
i just pay my yearly membership and ignore all of the fund raising stuff.

shecky
January 25, 2006, 05:12 AM
The UN is irrelevant to the US. Period. If the US doesn't want to follow UN ideas, it won't. End of story.

When organizations like the NRA try to make hay with such a paper tiger as the UN, all it does is make folks write them off as a bunch of whiny delusional whackos.

gunsmith
January 25, 2006, 07:23 AM
I am now a fully functional NRA life member after EPL life membership for years.
I have never recieved one phone call ever!! not one, nada, zip, zero.
I got my notices that my dues were due by mail and thats it.

I'm feeling a little left out:(

Why do they only call people who don't like them? they are like my old cat...he would find people who didn't like cat hair & jump into their lap.:evil:

antsi
January 25, 2006, 10:10 AM
I give a mini lecture, “The President signs it and the Senate ratifies it. No way, no how is Bush going to sign off on small arms controls that abrogate the Second, let alone would the Senate ratify it. Good night.”
.

I agree Bush would not sign it, and a Republican controlled congress would not pass it.

But President Hillary and a Democrat controlled congress? They'd ratify that thing so fast it would make your head spin.

It has already happened in Europe where the EU Uber-Government has pressured member states to change their laws. In Switzerland I believe there was pressure to change gun laws. This is a great way to concentrate government power and erode freedoms: if one government won't do the dirty work, create an uber-government over their heads to do it. These people have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with preserving your liberties, least of all your gun rights. And one of our major domestic political parties is right in line with this agenda. They have the support of 49.9% of the US population, and they're a few swing votes away from taking control.

As gun owners we ignore these threats at our peril.

antsi
January 25, 2006, 10:31 AM
The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.

I'm sorry, but this is a groundless piece of nonsense that has been repeated over and over again.

First of all, what would make the 2nd "safe?" Do you think all the anti- groups are just going to go away?

Secondly, the NRA has many functions besides legislation. They run ranges and competitions and and training programs and youth programs and a million other shooting-related activities. The legislative action arm is a small fraction of overall NRA activities.

We hear over and over on this board about how the NRA is only about hunting and skeet shooting, with little interest in firearms rights. Well, it is true that there are many shooters and many NRA members who are not as concerned with gun rights as they should be. So, the NRA sends out materials warning members about threats against their gun rights, and then they get criticized for hyping up nonexistent problems to preserve their own existence. Which is it, people? You can't have it both ways.

Also, Bart Roberts had a good example citing the abortion batte. Just because Roe v Wade got decided the way it did, the pro-choice groups didn't just disappear. And I can guarantee you, if Roe gets overturned, the pro-life groups won't disappear either.

So, does your same concept apply to the anti's? I guess they don't really want guns banned, because if guns were banned they would go out of business, right?

Shoot, I guess we can just forget about all this. The anti's aren't serious. They aren't really trying to get any gun bans passed. It's all a propaganda stunt. Go home everyone, and vote for Hillary. It doesn't make any difference.

thereisnospoon
January 25, 2006, 02:01 PM
I received the same call three times, THREE TIMES in one month and finally asked the lady at the other end of the telephone to put me on their DO NOT CALL list.

I am an NRA member. I have to be to be a member of my club, otherwise they would never get a penny.

When I see them actually taking on real issues , HERE ATHOME, I'll voluntarily send them a check.

Now I know some of you will say "if you lose your guns, don'y cry foul". The NRA has proven ineffective at defending the 2A, otherwise, they would have fixed the '86 AW import ban and 68 GCA already. INEFFECTIVE!

Deathrider1579
January 25, 2006, 02:05 PM
I dream of the day when the NRA sues the ATF / federal government for its infringement of the second ammendment since 1934 (right year?).
I also think that will be the same day hell freezes over, the NRA isnt exactly a pro - weapon orginisation, they are more of a pro-hunting group. That said they are big and they are the best we got right now.

-DR

buzz_knox
January 25, 2006, 02:10 PM
I dream of the day when the NRA sues the ATF / federal government for its infringement of the second ammendment since 1934 (right year?).
I also think that will be the same day hell freezes over, the NRA isnt exactly a pro - weapon orginisation, they are more of a pro-hunting group. That said they are big and they are the best we got right now.

-DR

And if the NRA sues and loses, the 2nd Amendment goes out the door. Ever thought that maybe they know that as well and are waiting for the right case and Court makeup? Would you respect them more if they threw all their eggs in one basket and we all lost as a result?

With Roberts as Chief Justice and Alito coming on, you may see that lawsuit but this time with a higher chance of success.

cbsbyte
January 25, 2006, 02:24 PM
Everyone, this is important. You can have your name taken off their call list. Its easy just call them or tell them next time they call that you want to be taken off all their call list. Thats what I did, and I have not recieved a call in three years. I still get tons of NRA mail every year but it better than being called at dinner time.

FRT007
January 25, 2006, 02:28 PM
We must stragle infant international gun control in its cradle - with apologies to Churchill.

Double Naught Spy
January 25, 2006, 02:37 PM
Well God bless the NRA. Ken Hackathorn uses "God bless..." as being what he says when he doesn't have something good to say.

As an organization that thrives on donations, you have to wonder just how much of the donated money actually goes to supporting RKBA and their membership. They sure as heck are not one of the groups that puts 70-90% of their income into guns and gun issues, 10-30% in running the organization. It is probably more like 70-90% in running the organization and 10-30% for gun issues.

As near as I can estimate, my joining of the NRA has cost them money, so my membership has been a negative impact on the group. Not only do I get American Rifleman, but videos (2, both the same gun history video, but 2 copies about 6 months apart), my fake silver bullet, key chain, mailing labels, and about 5 -8 mailings a month with each asking for money in some way, accounting for probably 3/4 of a ream of paper expended. I find it terribly impractical that I can get 2 mailings in one day from the NRA, different letters but both wanting money and I know that they could have just mailed everything in one envelope instead of two.

I still don't understand how they reason that if they sent me the first free video and I didn't donate more money how sending me a 2nd copy of the same video will then make me want to send them more money! Given the crap they mail me, I have trouble believing that if I send them any more money that they will handle it better and put it to better use than the money I have already sent them.

Hobie
January 25, 2006, 02:52 PM
In VA it is the VCDL that makes the gains. Sometimes the NRA actually works AGAINST the rights of gunowners! :cuss:

NineseveN
January 25, 2006, 03:01 PM
In VA it is the VCDL that makes the gains. Sometimes the NRA actually works AGAINST the rights of gunowners! :cuss:

The SDGO (South Dakota) has similar problems. And yet in some areas the NRA ILA or a local affiliate is the only game in town and does a decent or at least semi-decent job.

mrmeval
January 25, 2006, 03:26 PM
+1

The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.

Sergeant Bob
January 25, 2006, 03:30 PM
The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.
While indeed, if the Second Amendment were "safe", the NRA would be out of a job, the Second Amendment will never be "safe".

NineseveN
January 25, 2006, 03:53 PM
While indeed, if the Second Amendment were "safe", the NRA would be out of a job, the Second Amendment will never be "safe".

I think what is generally meant by "if the 2A was safe, the NRA would be out of business" is that if the Second Amendment was not perceived to be in great and impending peril, the business model of the NRA would have to scale down. Now, that might be a good thing for us firearms owners (if the NFA, GCA and AWB's were all defeated) but it would give gun owners a lot less incentive to give money to the NRA or any other gun rights organization. They would lose power, money and a large part of their size. No organization wants that.

For example, the ACLU has a better business model in that even though the rights they support are better protected and acknowledged, the issues they face involve mostly individual situations (one writer being censored as opposed to all writers or an entire publication) or a broad scope among multiple amendments and civil rights (patriot act, racism/sexism/etc...). There are tons of civil suits than can be lobbied within the scope of the ACLU's charter.

The NRA however, would not find itself in such a position as it is in if all it had to face were singular issues of disarmament because firearms rights are pretty well defined (even though not adhered to) and those areas that are not are defined within the scope of another aspect of the Bill of Rights or Constitution (private property rights or unreasonable search and seizure for example).

The ACLU has multiple dogs in the fight, the NRA is a one-trick pony as a lobbying and rights-based organization. They would have to further invest into sports/education/training and events, and they would have to compete in the market with some very respectable outfits for that business.

The thing is, they've already done all of that...


And on the phone calls and mailings thing, it is very easy to get those to stop, just call the NRA. You're a member, they'll respect your wishes. If that's your only reason for leaving the NRA, it's not a very good one IMHO.

Basura Blanca
January 25, 2006, 04:32 PM
Well God bless the NRA. Ken Hackathorn uses "God bless..." as being what he says when he doesn't have something good to say.

The NRA has a really nice museum in Fairfax.

antsi
January 25, 2006, 06:45 PM
They sure as heck are not one of the groups that puts 70-90% of their income into guns and gun issues, 10-30% in running the organization. It is probably more like 70-90% in running the organization and 10-30% for gun issues.

Where do you get your numbers? Have you actually looked at the NRA budget, or are you just guessing? Have you ever actually tried to research this issue and find out where NRA funds go? Or have you just simply decided that you're mad at the NRA, and believing that they waste a lot of money on unnecessary administrative salaries makes you feel better? Are you distinguishing between NRA-ILA (the political action arm) and the NRA as a whole? Do you have any idea of all the gun-related activities the NRA supports?

If you are really concerned about the NRA's use or misuse of funds, have you ever called them or gone to the website to find out where the money goes?

Or are you just throwing out unfounded accusations because it makes you feel good?

The NRA itself is not allowed by charter to engage in political advocacy. Joining the NRA does have some political effect, though, by the simple matter of adding to the membership rolls. An organization with 4 million members is not an organization to be taken lightly in political circles. But the NRA membership dues do not go to political activity.

The NRA-ILA is the political action arm of the NRA. They spend money on political lobbying, legal fees, legal research, and so on. For just one instance, I know that lawsuit on behalf of the Katrina victims wasn't cheap. Everyone is always wanting the NRA to sue the government - often on unwinnable "fantasy" lawsuits - but then begrudge them their funding. Do you people have any idea how much money it costs to sue the federal government?

antsi
January 25, 2006, 06:52 PM
I think what is generally meant by "if the 2A was safe, the NRA would be out of business" is that if the Second Amendment was not perceived to be in great and impending peril, the business model of the NRA would have to scale down. ...
.

Actually, I think what people mean when they say this is
1) the NRA is not sincere in trying to protect RKBA (they espouse protecting RKBA, but secretly work to threaten it behind the scenes in order to preserve their own jobs)
2) the NRA overestimates the magnitude of threats, in order to generate more support

#1 is inane. By the same logic, doctors and nurses are actually secretly working to promote disease. Why? Because if disease were cured, they'd be out of a job. Also, all firemen are secretly arsonists. They go around setting fires for job security. Off-duty cops go around commiting crimes so the on-duty cops will have something to do. At shift change, they trade roles.

Oh, and by the way. The American Cancer Society? They don't want to find a cure for cancer, because it would put them out of business. Same thing goes for the Diabetes Foundation. March of Dimes, too: they're secretly in favor of birth defects, because it creates sad-looking babies for them to put on their posters.

#2 kind of goes with the territory. Fire marshals are a little more paranoid about fire safety than everyone else. That doesn't mean that if a fire marshal tells you to avoid smoking while filling your tank, that he's just being paranoid or just trying to drum up support for his job.

If you enjoyed reading about "So, how stupid must the NRA think we are?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!