NRA - making them 'effectively'work for us


PDA






Lonest@r
November 12, 2008, 03:08 PM
I saw a couple threads questioning the effectiveness of the NRA, which quickly turned PRO/CON NRA and they closed before I had a chance to participate.

Hoepfully this one will stay on the topic of making our money work for us,

I just joined for $10 even though I despise much of the nra's past behavior AND Lapierre's salary).

So, in short - I don't hate the NRA, I just don't agree with their tactics, or how they choose to go about doing what they do.

That's the problem with any so called 'non-profit', SALARIES?

Sinixter: I feel the same way. My father is always trying to get me to sign up, and when I brush it off, he signs me up as a gift.

The problem I have with NRA is they use too many political mud-slinging/fear tactics. Most any American Rifleman/Hunter is full of "They're taking our guns" and "Top 10 anti-gun politicains" type headlines. When I saw the "I'm a BITTER gun owner and I VOTE" sign, I rolled my eyes, talk about whacko(waco?). That was before learning it was in repsonse to Obama's remarks, but even though, they could use their money to a much better cause than regurgitating political speech. It's just more rousing to the average 'redneck' NRA member....

BUT on the otherhand, whats our other choice? Politics again.

We need to make our money work for us... MAybe it's time to send some letters to WAYNE to better inform rather than scare gun advocates into voting their 'approved' candidates and mailing millions of 'canned' letters to our leaders.

Any bets on how long this one stays open?

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA - making them 'effectively'work for us" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
camslam
November 12, 2008, 03:21 PM
Lonestar:

The problem is there isn't anything remotely as powerful as the NRA when it comes to gun rights.

You can write your stupid Congressman and call them till you are blue in the face and as we recently saw with the "Bailout", it does absolutely no good.

The last time the politician's listened to the people was when they tried to shove through that Shamnesty Bill a couple of years ago.

Bottom line is the NRA has the clout and power to at least get these politicians to listen. That is better than nothing. They are not perfect, but they are doing something.

Until something better comes along, what else would you suggest being a part of?

I will also add that while the NRA isn't perfect, it does more good for gun rights in this country than anything else, so they will continue to get my support.

X-Rap
November 12, 2008, 03:33 PM
Your argument sounds a lot like some in the loosing party are leveling against a certain running mate because *** was to ***** wing and didn't appeal to the centerist voter.
As a gun owner I support the org. that has that focus and frankly that is the defining issue for me at the polls since it is usually the only constitutional right that is directly threatened.
The scare tactics that you refer to are the bits of information that we as voters need to make the informed choices to support our cause.
We "average rednecks" need these little blurbs to keep us fired up while you refined folks can take much deeper thought and disscussion.
We are in this present situation because of apathy due to having very little contrast in candidates and a party trying to inhabit middle and left ground that is already well represented. I hope we can avoid that in the gun debate.

camslam
November 12, 2008, 03:45 PM
Well said X-rap.

No Fear
November 12, 2008, 03:57 PM
That's the problem with any so called 'non-profit', SALARIES?Since you're going to quote me I need to clarify. Lapierre makes almost a million a year.
http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/2915/nrataxreturnpage2withofwz2.th.jpg (http://img186.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nrataxreturnpage2withofwz2.jpg)http://img186.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif (http://g.imageshack.us/thpix.php)

When I said "past behavior," I was referring to the laundry list of gun bans the nra supported (PM me for the list).

I joined today (as an "associate" member for only $10) so I could get my name on their rolls that their lobbyists will show to the anti gun congress"men," not so I could pad Wayne's salary or get some stupid magazine to clog my trash can with.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 04:04 PM
The problem is there isn't anything remotely as powerful as the NRA when it comes to gun rights.

The greater problem is we overestimate the power of the NRA. They are influential to politicians who are already pro-gun. That doesn't help matters a whole heck of a lot in terms of bringing a greater number of people over to our side. I hear people say "we've got 3.5 million members! let's make it 5!" Yea, cause in a state like California with 55 million residents, 5 million people spread out around the country who can't vote in CA elections is REALLY going to make a difference?

The NRA has for the most part become a partisan attack dog. That's fine, there are times when that's needed, and called for - but that's ALL they've become to a lot of people. That makes the 3.5-5mil number inconsequential - as for a lot of politicians it's easy to say "well - those are people who weren't going to vote for me anyways". They then turn around and run back to the base of the anti-movement, who they know will vote for them.


The scare tactics that you refer to are the bits of information that we as voters need to make the informed choices to support our cause.
We "average rednecks" need these little blurbs to keep us fired up while you refined folks can take much deeper thought and discussion.


This may be true - but there is an equal (sometimes greater than equal) and opposite reaction from the other side. Those tidbits of fire to keep the NRA base active, also is great motivation for the anti crowd. NRA sends out a call to action to raise money to fight legislation, guess what - the Brady crowd takes the same NRA call to action, quotes it - and uses it in their campaign.
I don't think anybody's saying we have to move to the center on policy. I don't think we do, and certainly don't think we should. Where we do need to move to the center, is in presentation and image. Various groups have done a pretty good job at marginalizing the pro-gun movement as "fringe gun crazies" - which is extremely UNAPPEALING to a majority of people. So while the policies may remain firmly on our side - as long as our imagine is one of "those people" - we lose. As long as it's an "us vs them" argument - we lose. As long as the issue is seen as a partisan battle, we lose.

If people want to support the NRA, that's fine - that's their choice. The NRA does do some good work, and certainly even with (what I think are) all their faults, they do remain the largest and most active lobby we have.

I do think we need to do more. I don't think the NRA is enough.
I think people rely on the NRA too much. I've seen people say on here "the NRA is what gives us a voice" or "the NRA is what influences politicians". No. not by any stretch of the imagination. What gives us a voice is by speaking up and making voices heard. Going out into the community, supporting causes on the local level (ya know, 'community organizing'..), and making your individual voices heard to the people in power.
The NRA doesn't vote - you do. The NRA doesn't introduce non-gun owners to guns. The NRA doesn't change your neighbor's mind, or your friend's mind, or your family's mind. That's YOUR job.
Sending the check is fine - but don't let that be the end of it. There's far more that needs to be done, and it's NOT going to happen via the NRA.

Lonest@r
November 12, 2008, 04:06 PM
Until something better comes along, what else would you suggest being a part of?

I guess that is my question also?

As a gun owner I support the org. that has that focus and frankly that is the defining issue for me at the polls

The scare tactics that you refer to are the bits of information that we as voters need to make the informed choices to support our cause. We "average rednecks" need these little blurbs to keep us fired up while you refined folks can take much deeper thought and disscussion.

Don't blame you for supporting the org. I'm simply questioning the effectiveness of our money and possibly the fact that those bits and blurbs keep supporters 'fired-up' and happy they help expose such things are smoke screen, meanwhile the NRA leaders pocket much of our membership fees that could otherwhise be better spent....

Lapierre makes almost a million a year.
Sounds like just another WallStreet CEO to me....

BUT then again,
Until something better comes along, what else would you suggest being a part of?

X-Rap
November 12, 2008, 04:26 PM
Again I don't think we as a group do any service by marginalizing our cause and watering down the issue.
What should happen is when the NRA presents one of its tidbits of fire it should enflame the whole spectrum of gun owners from full auto cl3 crowd to the clays shooter. What seems to be the case is some don't worry about cl3 or hi cap pistols cause their gun only holds 2, 5, or 6 like they are safe from consideration. One has to only look at other countries and see how rapidly they have gone from resticting a few guns to outrigh confiscation and various storage schemes that require you to store your gun at some club or armory.
Today the comments on the NRA have run the gammot of to hard and firey on the retoric to being AWOL on important causes and not getting NFA repealed, Holy crap it seems like they are right in the middle after all.

camslam
November 12, 2008, 04:34 PM
Look, I feel the pain of those of you that are Liberal and/or Democrat posting in a pro-gun forum.

You probably don't like the NRA, even though they endorse numerous Dems.

And...

You probably don't like conservatives, even though they easily make up the vast majority of gun owners.

However at the end of the day, there is some reason that you own a gun and participate here in this and other gun forums. While I appreciate your ownership and participation, I can't help but wonder why people so wholeheartedly support a party that is CLEARLY and COMPLETELY anti-gun.

I know that most of you will say you are not one issue voters, and that is fine. But isn't the real problem identified by Lonestar, that he doesn't have a place to go to support gun rights because the NRA is too extreme for him?

I think that is the price you will pay for being a Liberal, Democratic, gun owner. You aren't going to find a lot of 2nd amendment groups that fit you, because quite honestly, most 2nd amendment groups don't agree with much of the Liberal Democratic ideals of today.

Like I said, your politics are you business, and I can understand your frustrations, but you have to recognize that the party and ideals that Liberals support are directly in contradiction to the 2nd amendment and gun rights overall.

I would love to see a legitimate 2nd amendment group that is made up of Liberals and Democrats, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Maybe some of you will start one and prove me wrong.

No Fear
November 12, 2008, 04:48 PM
Look, I feel the pain of those of you that are Liberal and/or Democrat posting in a pro-gun forum. You probably don't like the NRAWell that's one way to mischaracterize and avoid the reasons why many of us don't like the nra. Can you even accept the fact that many people hate the nra because of it's poisoned bill in 1986? How bout support for the lautenberg ban under a republican congress?

Your strategy: ignore history and call everyone a democrat who dares speak of nra's past support for gun bans.

Lonest@r
November 12, 2008, 04:56 PM
Who said anything about Rep/Dem? I'm not a one issue voter, lots of issues come into consideration. I'm more of a 'constitutional', pro-family, anti-civil/special rights common sense voter, say conservative moderate. Lets leave it at that, don't want politics to get this one closed down.

I just feel there are better ways..
Various groups have done a pretty good job at marginalizing the pro-gun movement as "fringe gun crazies" - which is extremely UNAPPEALING to a majority of people.

I say less crazy and more constitutional.

Why not bring relative arguments to the debate, such as:
PROHIBITION and DRIVING
DUI vs. GUN relate death
AUTO vs. GUN related accidents
Assault Weapons vs. Crime Weapons

Should we ban alcohol due to those irrespsonsible distillers/bartenders?

How about the automakers that manufacture vehicles capable of exceeding speed limit?

Should we ban weapons that mostly law-abiding own because it's scary looking?

Why doesnt that type of data get printed by NRA. I think there where several recent threads looking for such data.

ArfinGreebly
November 12, 2008, 05:02 PM
Years ago, some youngster complained about the "system" and wished it could be different.

Some older guy told him -- and likely was quite smug as he did so -- to sign up, run for office, get into the system and change it from within.

The younger guy took him seriously.

Today, decades later, the system is indeed different. Changed from within. By people who were that youngster.

Took a long time, like forty or fifty years. And here we are.

The NRA will only listen to input from its members. To whom else, indeed, should they listen?

The only way to change the NRA is from within.

For which task, you must be a member.

Patience and persistence.

In the meantime, you may want to actually keep your guns, and it seems to me they're your best hope for that.

So, my suggestion is to join the NRA and be active in it. It is only from this that change will come.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 05:07 PM
Camslam - i'm not even reading your entire post. You're falling into the single most common pitfall of this whole thing. It's not left or right, dem or rep, conservative or liberal.

Last I checked the constitution was an AMERICAN document.
The question needs to be about "pro" or "anti" 2nd. Period. No if and buts or qualifiers.

You wonder why there's no democratic gun rights groups? It's simple. Because if you even mention that you're a democrat, voted democrat, or even lean left - the crazies come out of the wood work telling you you're a hypocrite, unamerican, don't understand the issue - or are some sort of plant to try to disrupt the pro-gun cause. Why on earth should of any of [us] subject ourselves to that?

ArfinGreebly
November 12, 2008, 05:21 PM
See post #12.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 05:27 PM
thanks for the edit greebly - mind works faster than the hands sometimes. :)

camslam
November 12, 2008, 05:43 PM
Lonestar wrote:

The problem I have with NRA is they use too many political mud-slinging/fear tactics. Most any American Rifleman/Hunter is full of "They're taking our guns" and "Top 10 anti-gun politicains" type headlines. When I saw the "I'm a BITTER gun owner and I VOTE" sign, I rolled my eyes, talk about whacko(waco?). That was before learning it was in repsonse to Obama's remarks, but even though, they could use their money to a much better cause than regurgitating political speech.

Followed up with:

Who said anything about Rep/Dem?

It is what it is. The Dems are usually after the guns, the Repubs aren't. I was simply trying to explain why I don't think many Liberal Democrats find the NRA very appealing. Maybe you are different, but from what you posted in the OP, you don't care for the "wacko" tactics they employ.

Sinixstar:

I'm not trying to pick a fight, and I'm trying not falling into the same old trap of left/right, conservative/liberal.

But can we at least call a spade a spade? It is because of anti-gun groups, organizations, and politicians, that our gun rights are constantly under attack.

If I am off base by identifying Liberals and Democrats as the sole catalyst for the assault on our gun rights, please, by all means, correct me.

The problem is you have:

Clinton
Schumer
Obama
Biden
Lautenburg
Kerry
Kennedy
Boxer
Feinstein
Durbin
McCarthy
Bloomberg - Liberal and Democrat before wanting to run for mayor of New York.
Fenty
Nagin
Daley
Blagovich - Governor of Illinois
Rendell - Governor of Pennsylvania
Doyle - Governor of Wisconsin
80% of the rest of Democrats in Congress
Famous Liberals in the Media (Rosie O'Donnel, Michael Moore, etc..)

Each of these is an avowed anti-gunner, is on the record as being such, and up until a recent run for President, all but 2 of them have never claimed any different.

These are not conservatives. Can you please provide me with one conservative that comes even remotely close to what these people have tried to do to the 2nd amendment and gun rights?

I understand if the NRA isn't your cup of tea, but please don't blame the lack of activism for the 2nd amendment from Liberal Democrats on the NRA or any other pro 2nd amendment group. When you have the list of losers that I mentioned above, as THE representation of Liberal Democrats and how they feel about gun rights, THAT is the reason you don't see Pro 2nd amendment and pro gun rights groups that are Liberal and Democrat.

Kentucky-roughrider
November 12, 2008, 05:45 PM
ArfinGrebly will said sir well said.

Mrs. Armoredman
November 12, 2008, 05:57 PM
I can see that y'all are concerned about what the NRA is going to do for us. Well in the mean time write or email all your state reps. Email the NRA and ask them. Make them work for you and help them if you have the time.

jnyork
November 12, 2008, 06:07 PM
I am one of those wacko redneck bitter voting NRA members and I dont give a hoot for your scornful elitist remarks.

NRA all the way!!!

Lonest@r
November 12, 2008, 06:16 PM
don't blame the lack of activism for the 2nd amendment from Liberal Democrats on the NRA
Umm, do what? Again, I don't think it is a Rep/Dem issue, but rather a issue of extreme fanatical behavior and the level of effectiveness that turns people off. For example, I know many McCain/Palin supporters turned off by such pro-gun speech.

Just because I don't agree with one's religious organizations tactics does not make me athiest. Those looking for 'spiritual fruit' tend to overlook the 'spiritual nuts'.

Rimmer
November 12, 2008, 06:18 PM
I guess I'm as guilty as anyone for touting my view on the NRA.

If I step back for a minute ....

I'm a certified safety instructor and have been for years. In 04, through some effort, Ohio passed a concealed carry law and I was able to provide training for people so they could apply for a permit. To date over 120,000 have been issued a permit in Ohio.
I've been involved in training for young shooters as well. All thanks to the NRA support literature, etc. Over 100 kids and their (sudo) safe parents went through the class. The NRA has an excellent education program. All good stuff. All positive.

There may be another org out there that provides the same, I do not know.

As to the political issues ahead. I'm concerned and have joined a grass-roots
org here in Ohio.
The NRA will always get a few dollars from me as well as any other org that will help the cause. I would hope we all find a way to involve ourselves so that my children's, children get to keep the guns. And be safe with them.

Just my ol 2

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 06:23 PM
Camslam:

Go back and take a look at past legislation, and look at the actual recorded roll call votes in the house and the senate. The results may surprise you.

taprackbang
November 12, 2008, 06:29 PM
We are in this present situation because of apathy due to having very little contrast in candidates...

WITH the exception of Ron Paul..

camslam
November 12, 2008, 06:32 PM
Lonestar: I'm going to try to explain this one more time. I'm not trying to paint you a certain way, I'm not trying to argue that you are one way or the other, I don't really care what your politics are, and I'm not trying to argue with you.

What I'm saying is in answer to your problems with the tactics of the NRA. I've said there aren't any better organizations to my knowledge when it comes to broad, macro approaches to the 2nd amendment and gun rights.

What you seem to have taken issue with is the way that the NRA portrays certain people, politicians, or issues in regards to gun rights.

What I'm saying is while they are far from perfect, they are the best thing going at this point. You PERSONALLY may not be an athiest based on your problems with a certain religion, but when you belong to or support an organization that IS athiest, what does that say about you?

That is the point I'm trying to make about Liberals and Dems. There are some Liberals on THR that I really respect, there are some that are whack jobs. The same can be said for Conservatives. The problem is ,the only thing we have to counter the assaults on the 2nd amendment from the whack jobs in charge of running this country, is the NRA. There are other groups, but they don't have near the same access, clout, and power that the NRA has. You may not like their tactics, but it is the best thing going.

As I mentioned before, I would love to see Liberals/Democrats form a 2nd amendment rights group, but I just don't see it happening, and furthermore, it wouldn't make a bit of difference when that party is run by the the people I listed in my above post.

If any of you think that you will bring more anti-gunners into our fold with honey, rather than vinegar, you are fooling yourself. That will work for moderates and people that are rational, but my experience has shown me that most of the anti-gunners are passionate, emotional, illogical people, they don't care about facts, truth, or reality when it comes to guns. So in the end, the tactics that the NRA employs I don't see they do much damage.

But that is just my opinion.

camslam
November 12, 2008, 06:37 PM
Sinixstar: It wouldn't surprise me. The sheep that we have in Congress will go along with anything if they think it will get them re-elected or more money.

There are plenty of "so-called" Conservatives that have voted for Gun Control in the past. Old Jon McShame is one of them, but at the end of the day, it is the Liberals and Democrats that have carried this torch and keep it burning bright, low these many decades.

If you have proof otherwise, please share it with us.

While you are at it, could you please explain to each of us how it came to be that the country's most liberal states, also have the most draconian gun laws? Or maybe I have my geography mixed up and California, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, District of Columbia are really Conservative areas that are pro-gun.

Yep, I'm all mixed up.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 07:04 PM
If any of you think that you will bring more anti-gunners into our fold with honey, rather than vinegar, you are fooling yourself. That will work for moderates and people that are rational, but my experience has shown me that most of the anti-gunners are passionate, emotional, illogical people, they don't care about facts, truth, or reality when it comes to guns. So in the end, the tactics that the NRA employs I don't see they do much damage.

But that is just my opinion.


Here's the flaw with that argument.
You see the outspoken and vocal few - and assume that's how everyone is. Not the case. Just as we know that when the anti crowd tries to paint all gun owners as these raging lunatics who just want to kill things, that's not true.

Let me put it in more practical terms. Understand I am not trying to make a political argument, just demonstrating a point.
The last numbers I saw, showed that roughly 15-20% of the population identified as "extremely conservative". Roughly the same size crowd - 15-20% identified as "extremely liberal".
Everybody else? the other 60-70% of the people out there - somewhere in the middle. A sizable chunk may identify as "liberal" or "conservative" - but they are by no means hard core partisans.

I have no imagination that i'm going to go out and win over the hard-core anti-gun crowd. Their minds are made up. Just as they will not win us over. However, they are not going to be the ones that ultimately decide this. The people who will decide this, IS that moderate/middle road group. As with the past several election cycles, it's those "swing voters" that end up determining the outcome. Those are people we CAN reach out to, who will be interested in hearing our side, and they DO respond to honey over vinegar.
The reason why the anti-crowd has enjoyed more support from those middle of the road people over the years, is not that they're right, it's not that they have reason or truth on their side - it's that their argument is more "attractive". It feels better. "We're not taking away your rights, we're simply trying to balance rights - with saving lives." How do you argue against "saving lives"? It becomes an academic discussion about rights - which is something only lawyers tend to respond to at a gut level. Average people who do not feel they have a huge stake at play, will go with the gut "feel good" side. The attractive argument - not necessarily the "right" side of the issue.

THAT is where the NRA's tactics do not do much damage. Perhaps not with the hard-core anti crowd - but with the middle of the road people, when we've been painted as the 'crazies' - it absolutely kills us.

The history of legislation in this country is all the proof you need of that.

eflatminor
November 12, 2008, 07:10 PM
Do you want proven talent at the top? The guy that can make the right decisions to lead the overall direction of the ship? Then you have to pay for that. That's capitalism and it works. Now if you think he's the wrong guy, that's another story but to suggest the salary level is too high for an organizatoin the size of the NRA is off base. It's a competitive salary and similar to what Fortune 500s of the same size pay their CEOs.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 07:49 PM
While you are at it, could you please explain to each of us how it came to be that the country's most liberal states, also have the most draconian gun laws? Or maybe I have my geography mixed up and California, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, District of Columbia are really Conservative areas that are pro-gun.


Those areas also happen to be some of the most populated. It's a lot easier to make a public safety argument in an area such as Chicago - where population density is around 1150/sqmi, than it is in say Douglas Co Nevada where population is around 47/sqmi.
Urban areas also tend to have more responsive (because of density and the nature of an urban environment) essential services. Tends to take some of the bite out of the "the cops are 20 minutes away, and I need to protect my family" argument.
You also don't have a whole heck of a lot of sporting in a densely populated area. Last I checked there was no hunting in Lower Manhattan, or the south side of Chicago.
The standout here - is WI. IIRC - that was an effort on behalf of Illinois/Chicago. They tried the same thing with Indiana. What happens is, since guns/ammo are illegal in chicago, people just drive an hour or so away to Indiana or WI, load up there -and come back.

As far as gun control laws in some of these areas are concerned - i'm not sure how many big cities you've been to - but I honestly cannot think of a single place in NYC you could fire a gun, even in self defense - and do so safely. The argument in favor of restricting guns there is pretty compelling, and in places like that - we probably don't have a whole heck of a lot of chance. That's fine for now. Again, focus on the places where you can make a difference - focus on the moderate, middle of road people/places that are persuadable.

ArfinGreebly
November 12, 2008, 08:20 PM
Urban areas also tend to have more responsive (because of density and the nature of an urban environment) essential services. Tends to take some of the bite out of the "the cops are 20 minutes away, and I need to protect my family" argument.

Negatory. If the cops are even five minutes away they will be too late.


I honestly cannot think of a single place in NYC you could fire a gun, even in self defense - and do so safely.

Which is why the police there don't carry guns?


I would suggest that there is flawed reasoning at work here.

SuperNaut
November 12, 2008, 08:31 PM
I honestly cannot think of a single place in NYC you could fire a gun, even in self defense - and do so safely.

Maybe you aren't thinking hard enough? (http://www.westsidepistolrange.com/) ;)

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 08:33 PM
Negatory. If the cops are even five minutes away they will be too late.
You and I understand that - but again, for argument's sake, it's not like you're in a rural area where the cops are 20 minutes away.

Which is why the police there don't carry guns?
Yes, As a matter of fact, quite a few do not.

I would suggest that there is flawed reasoning at work here.
Have you ever seen the movie "Thank you for smoking" ?
It should be required watching for anyone making an argument on this issue.
Being "right" isn't the gold standard of winning the battle. You just have to prove the other guy is wrong, and do it in a way that's more attractive.

MT GUNNY
November 12, 2008, 08:57 PM
SiniXstar said:

"You wonder why there's no democratic gun rights groups? It's simple. Because if you even mention that you're a democrat, voted democrat, or even lean left - the crazies come out of the wood work telling you you're a hypocrite, unamerican, don't understand the issue - or are some sort of plant to try to disrupt the pro-gun cause. Why on earth should of any of [us] subject ourselves to that."



What about the Brady Camp?

I could say the same thing about mentioning you're a Republican with Conservative values- the Idiots come out..........................................

Lonest@r
November 12, 2008, 09:03 PM
What you seem to have taken issue with is the way that the NRA portrays certain people, politicians, or issues in regards to gun rights.
NOT AT ALL. I don't care how they portray people/issues, but how they do it. People/issues are who/what they are, simple information is all we need, not 'hate speech', and I use that term loosely.

If any of you think that you will bring more anti-gunners into our fold with honey, rather than vinegar, you are fooling yourself.
It is not my goal to convert anti-gunners, but rather rally more pro-gunners and reach moderates with 'straight talk', facts and common sense.

to suggest the salary level is too high for an organizatoin the size of the NRA is off base. It's a competitive salary and similar to what Fortune 500s of the same size pay their CEOs.
Non-Profit? Why don't I just start up a non-profit (THR.org) , collect ~$100K, pay myself $50k and, spend the other $50K on T-shirts, posters, flyers and premotional material to make money. Grow from there, give myself % annual raise according to inflation regardless of actual income, claiming non-profit accepting donations and asking for volunteers. Comments not directed directly towards NRA, thats just my beef with all Non-Profits.

Some material gun-advocates could benefit from...
PROHIBITION and DRIVING
DUI vs. GUN relate death
AUTO vs. GUN related accidents
Assault Weapons vs. Crime Weapons

Should we ban alcohol due to those irrespsonsible distillers/bartenders?

How about the automakers that manufacture vehicles capable of exceeding speed limit?

Should we ban weapons that mostly law-abiding own because it's scary looking?
Such a thread topic was brought up recently, apparently nobody knew where to find them and it was noted to "do your own research. These are the types of facts I would think pro-gun organizations would compile annually to state their case....

To clarify...
I do AGREE with everything the NRA does/stands for, just maybe NOT how they address the issue to it's members. It would be nice to be armed with FACTS rather than rhetoric.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 09:23 PM
What about the Brady Camp?

I could say the same thing about mentioning you're a Republican with Conservative values- the Idiots come out..........................................


Absolutely.
I firmly believe political ideology is no prerequisite for idiocy.

wacki
November 12, 2008, 09:30 PM
Since you're going to quote me I need to clarify. Lapierre makes almost a million a year.

One million a year? Ugh... I support the NRA but I can't stand that guy. When he talks it's like he's more about booming voices and dramatic flair than actually having his facts in order.

oh well... He's better than nothing, that's for sure.

camslam
November 12, 2008, 09:42 PM
Sinixstar: I'm not sure how we jumped from gun control advocates and the states they represent, to suddenly talking about the uses of guns in big cities, etc...

I have visited and lived in several big cities. I don't care what city you are in whether it has 20,000 or 6 million residents, guns have their use and like any instrument can be effective for good and bad.

Lonestar:

I think we agree on most items here. I would love to see the money brought into the NRA spent more effectively, I would like to see them take tougher stands on things, and I would like to see them administer some things differently, but at the end of the day, they are still the best thing going for gun rights.

I don't think they have participated in any hate speech tactics, what they have done is use the ignorant words of a candidate against him. Is it effective? Who knows, this election was as messed up with a perfect storm of variables as I have ever seen.

If Obama had lost, it would have left many people really scratching their heads.

The key to gun rights in the future is recruiting more people to our activity and understanding of guns and their uses.

I have personally helped bring 6 previous anti or moderately opposed individuals into the shooting arena over the last several years. All of them now own guns, 4 of them have obtained CCW permits, and 2 of them are very passionate about their gun rights now. I have several people I am still working on, that will continue to be a challenge.

Get out and expose people, that is the key to our future.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 09:51 PM
I'm not sure how we jumped from gun control advocates and the states they represent, to suddenly talking about the uses of guns in big cities, etc..

We got on the subject by discussing the tactics/arguments used by both the pro/anti sides - and why they're effective/not effective.
If you want to plead your case effectively - you must understand your opponents argument in order to properly counter.
You asked why the big "dem" states are so anti-gun. Because they've found an effective argument to bring people to their side. One that we have yet to find an effective counter to.

The case that's made in Wyoming or Nevada or Indiana - often times will not work in LA, Chicago, or New York. The anti-crowd varies their message to the environment they're marketing to, if we hope to compete - we must do the same.

Maia007
November 12, 2008, 10:25 PM
Sinixstar............you make compelling arguments. As we have seen, the country is shifting. We must also shift from simply being "right" (which we are) and from a strategy of "preaching to the choir" and firing up the NRA membership, to appealing to the ordinary less-than-hard-core (not like us) public with arguments that are relevant to them and their lives. Because that is what the other team is doing...

I believe that this can be done....but not the way we (and the NRA) are doing it now.

camslam
November 12, 2008, 10:40 PM
Sinix and Maia:

That all sounds well and good, but the realities are much different. The realities are, it doesn't matter if you are in New York City, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Orlando, Chicago, Des Moines, St. Louis, etc...

The media is about 98% against guns and portrays them in a bad light. That goes from TV, to magazines, to newspaper, to movies, to politicians, etc... Throw in the educators of our schools, particularly colleges, and you have more than an uphill battle.

Gun stories rarely ever get a fair shake or objective perspective when they are reported.

How do you propose to influence all the moderates and get them to understand the simple truths behind guns and their use in this country and the world?

That is why I would like to see a more concerted effort by the NRA to actually educate the masses, but probably not in my lifetime, because it would make too much sense. :rolleyes:

We can write all the letters we want to everyone we want, but until we reach critical mass in this country, where people understand the truth about guns, gun laws, and gun uses in this country, it is going to be literally 1 recruit at a time.

Self defense and the right to keep and bear arms doesn't change based on local. That is what Obama has been preaching as of late. Self defense is self defense, you may need it more in some areas than others, but those are the areas you can't get it.

What is the old adage? A liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet?" :) That is obviously just a fun joke, so please don't take it literally.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 10:55 PM
How do you propose to influence all the moderates and get them to understand the simple truths behind guns and their use in this country and the world?

That is why I would like to see a more concerted effort by the NRA to actually educate the masses, but probably not in my lifetime, because it would make too much sense.


You make the argument for me.
The fired up rhetoric doesn't cut it with the moderate/undecided segment. Education of facts and logical concise arguments do.
The Brady crowd throws their numbers, statistics, etc out - and makes a compelling emotional argument.
We counter by getting fired up and angry and throwing accusations around - and those middle-of-the-road people get turned off.

As for "doesn't changed based on locale" - I agree on the intellectual level. Having lived in NYC, and gone through some sketchy situations in the process - i will tell you this.
There were times where even though I felt threatened, had I been armed, I would not have taken the shot.
I can live with taking down a bad guy - I couldn't live with knowing I took down the innocent guy down the street.
So while i absolutely agree to the academics of the rights/locale point of view, it comes back to - who's making the attractive and emotional plea? When we start getting into the intellectual argument, we lose (as history has shown).

Lonest@r
November 12, 2008, 11:31 PM
As for "doesn't changed based on locale" - I agree on the intellectual level.
Agreed. Although it is hard to teach city folk country thinking. I'll quote Hank Williams- Country Boy Can Survive.

I had a good friend in New York City
He never called me by my name, just hillbilly
My grandpa taught me how to live off the land
And his taught him to be a businessman
He used to send me pictures of the Broadway nights
And I’d send him some homemade wine

But he was killed by a man with a switchblade knife
For 43 dollars my friend lost his life
Id love to spit some beechnut in that dudes eyes
And shoot him with my old 45
Cause a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive

Cause you can’t starve us out and you can’t make us run
Cause one-of- ‘em old boys raisin ole shotgun
And we say grace and we say Ma’am
And if you ain’t into that we don’t give a damn

camslam
November 13, 2008, 01:02 AM
There were times where even though I felt threatened, had I been armed, I would not have taken the shot.
I can live with taking down a bad guy - I couldn't live with knowing I took down the innocent guy down the street.

Without getting off onto a completely different tangent, every person has to decide what they will do if confronted with a lethal threat. In New York city, you would have been breaking the law to begin with, if you were carrying a gun. Hence the problem with gun laws.

That being said, the scenario that you paint isn't too likely as most criminals look to pick the low hanging fruit. They get people when they are isolated, not in a crowd. While crimes can and do happen with several people around, usually it is less crowded.

I would never want to hurt or injure another if I used my gun in self defense, but then again, that is why I stay aware, practice on a regular basis, and try to avoid situations to begin with.

It is very hard to help anti-gun people understand that your right to self defense doesn't change when you walk out onto the street, enter a restaurant or theater, etc... Boy it would be nice to live in the world free from any recognition as to what really goes on.

The Brave One was an interesting movie to watch for just that reason. So bringing it all back:

Let's recruit more people to our side.

Let's accept the NRA for what it is and support it.

Let's all do our part to educate the masses. Too bad we don't have the time, money, and resources to do it on a massive scale.

Anybody want to buy Powerball tickets with me. :evil:

Lonest@r
November 13, 2008, 09:22 AM
Let's recruit more people to our side.

Let's accept the NRA for what it is and support it.

Let's all do our part to educate the masses.
By recruit, do you mean rally others who already beleive in 2A to join the fight, either by NRA, some other 2A organizationform, or some other form of activism.

We shouldn't just 'accept', we should voice our opinions, that we do not feel we are being adequately represented just as we would our elected officials. What can we do?

Education is the key. More than just firearm education, but also US HISTORY and the reasoning for 2A. Recent statistical data showing guns are not the problem, lack of responsibility is the problem, criminals are the problem.

Oh how the times have changed, my father told me how when they we're teenagers he and a friend would carry their 22 rifles on downtown public transportation to the gun range. I couldn't imagine carrying a 22 in public these days, everyone would suspect your some kind of sniper.

WE THE PEOPLE need to defend our Constitutional Bill of Rights, just as Christians defend the 10 Commandments.

ArfinGreebly
November 13, 2008, 10:44 AM
See post #12 of this thread.

Join.

Be active.

Be noisy.

Change from within.

Lonest@r
November 13, 2008, 02:48 PM
That's about the only way...

MT GUNNY
November 13, 2008, 07:52 PM
Suck it up! Get on the offensive.
November 13, 2008

Last Sunday I gave callers 30 minutes to whine, complain, worry, snivel, posture, and generally go through whatever stages of grief worked for them following the election results putting Senator Obama into the White House. After all, we need time to "process" and "deal with it," don't we? (If you missed the show, you can download it at www.guntalk.libsyn.com)

Are you kidding? Suck it up! I have a plan. Many gun owners are living in a fantasy world, meaning they don't know what's going on, don't know how to put it into perspective, and don't have a clue about what is the most effective course of action.

Note the word "effective." Burying your guns is just plain stupid. It's like volunteering to give your guns to the banners, and they don't even have to take action. Give me a break. What's your plan? Dig them back up when tanks are coming down the street? Yeah, right. Time to quit indulging in fantasies, reach in your pocket for some dollars, and buy a clue.

Defense does not win. Hiding does not win. Only going on the offensive will win. But first, some perspective. I started debating this issue in 1967, but it goes back much farther. I have a copy of an article in "This Week" magazine from 1955 titled "Get Rid of That Gun!" It starts out, "The pistol, unregulated and unchecked, is dangerously out of control. Two thirds of all the homicides committed in the United States now involve firearms." It goes on, but it's the same stuff you read today. That was more than a half-century ago!

Why bring this up? Just to show that this is an ongoing battle. This latest setback isn't the end, but it sure is serious. It does mean that we are faced with certain assault on gun rights, and those attacks are likely to come quickly. We have to launch our own broad-based action to beat back the efforts of those who have detailed plans to 1. ban the sale of the most popular rifles being sold (they call them "assault weapons") and used for hunting, competition and personal protection; 2. remove protections against junk lawsuits against gun makers; 3. close gun shows. Their plans were laid out in the web site the Obama transition team put up only hours after the election. Once I started talking about it on the air, though, they took it down. Now, I'm not claiming they did this because of Gun Talk Radio, but then again . . .

Not to worry. We've found the page they took down...Click Here to view (scroll down to the "Crime and Law Enforcement" section). Go take a look at what they don't want you to know.

ACTION PLAN

So, what do we do? I've always believed that we ultimately win the gun culture war by showing the public that firearms ownership is normal, safe, and that we gun owners are responsible neighbors. That's still my belief, but we don't have time for that right now. This new group of gun banners (Hey, Obama's chief of staff was the gun control point man for Bill Clinton!) are going to move quickly.

How can we fight it? Simple. We scare them. I don't really care if they respect us as long as they fear us. I'm talking about putting those elected folks in fear for their careers. There are enough elected Democrats in Congress that can be defeated if they vote for gun bans to stop this movement.

How do we do that? I can come up with only one way. We have to double, then triple, the membership in the NRA. Please, don't bore me with the "But the NRA sends me too much mail." Look, you're in or you're out. If you are out, you are part of the problem. If you are in, you are part of the solution. Get off your butt and join. Buy memberships for all the members of your family.

WE MAKE IT EASY

http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR020586

Click the "Join NRA" button above and you can join or buy memberships for others. BONUS! We've negotiated a deal for you. The regular price is $35 a year. You can get it for only $25 a year through our link. Also, you can get youth memberships and associate memberships. That last one is important. Other members of your family might be sharing your NRA magazines, and you may not want to duplicate that, so the associate membership is only $10, and the member doesn't get the magazine.

Why is this important? If Chris Cox, head of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, walks into a Congressman's office backed by three million members, it's one thing. When he walks in backed by 10 million, the reception is totally different. This is pure representative politics. You are sending someone to Washington to represent you. It is the heart of the democratic process in the United States. Right now, the message needs to be clear, and it needs to be backed with political muscle. This is hard ball. It's a knife fight in a phone booth. To lose is to die. We lose our gun rights if the gun banners succeed in the coming battle.

That message we must deliver is, "If you vote for a gun ban, or these other measures, we will send you back home at the next election." Period. We did it in 1994, and regained control of Congress after a 40-year reign by the Democrats, and it was because of their votes for Clinton's gun ban. They need to know we will do it again.

You've heard me say this before. If you are not an NRA member, you are sitting in the wagon, and the rest of us are having to pull your load. We need the help. We need for you to spend the cost of a single box of steel shot magnum loads and join. Then we need you to get your friends to join, or to sign them up.

My new rule. I require everyone I introduce to shooting to join the NRA on the spot. That's right. Hand me twenty-five bucks and I'll go online at www.guntalk.com and sign them up. Anytime someone mentions to me that he or she is a gun owner, I ask if they are an NRA member. If they are not, I embarrass them (if necessary), or do whatever is needed to get them to join.

I'll have more action items for you later, but this is important. This must happen immediately. Sure, you are buying guns, ammo, magazines, etc. So, invest a few bucks to make sure you can keep them!

Do it today.

And...stand by for more incoming.

Tom Gresham
NOTE not MT GUNNY's article!

Lonest@r
November 14, 2008, 10:25 AM
Great article Gunny. I agree, NRA is our best option at this point, I just question the effectiveness of my/our dollar...
Note the word "effective."
Time to quit indulging in fantasies, reach in your pocket for some dollars, and buy a clue........

Get off your butt and join.

We need to do more than simply get off our butt long enough to reach for our wallet.

I ask if they are an NRA member. If they are not, I embarrass them (if necessary), or do whatever is needed to get them to join.
Why? They could possibly spend their money and time more effectively, say teaching gun safety course or organizing a family type event for public, like Boy Scouts which teaches (not sure if they do anymore) archery and firearms, or even setup 'firearm education' booth at flee market or local mall.

But on the other hand, $35 is not worth worrying about if all you look to do is increase memebership for 'political' gain.

Just One Shot
November 14, 2008, 04:22 PM
Years ago I was a member of NRA. The thing that really yanked my chain was all the junk mail they sent me.

It seemed like I was recieving a request for money every few days. I got frustated and dropped my membership.

I can't help but wonder if they spent more money sending me all the junk mail than what my membership cost for a given year?

With that said, I will be joining back up in Jan. 09 because the range I'm joining is going to start requiring all members to be members of the NRA.

I know that their service is valuable to the gun owner and they do work for our rights, I just hope they have changed their practice of wasting the funds we give them by badgering their members for more money on a regular basis.

JN01
November 14, 2008, 06:32 PM
Lonest@r said:
The problem I have with NRA is they use too many political mud-slinging/fear tactics. Most any American Rifleman/Hunter is full of "They're taking our guns" and "Top 10 anti-gun politicains" type headlines. When I saw the "I'm a BITTER gun owner and I VOTE" sign, I rolled my eyes, talk about whacko(waco?). That was before learning it was in repsonse to Obama's remarks, but even though, they could use their money to a much better cause than regurgitating political speech. It's just more rousing to the average 'redneck' NRA member....

So are you denying that there are in fact some politicians trying to take our guns, or do you not want the NRA to say anything about it, or just that they should find a "nice" way to point it out? One should take into account that NRA publications are targeted at members and are therefore mostly "preaching to the choir". Their sometimes (admittedly) overblown rhetoric is probably aimed at firing up the base, much in the same way that publications from you labor union, political party, or other special interest group do.

Sinixstar said:
You make the argument for me.
The fired up rhetoric doesn't cut it with the moderate/undecided segment. Education of facts and logical concise arguments do.
The Brady crowd throws their numbers, statistics, etc out - and makes a compelling emotional argument.
We counter by getting fired up and angry and throwing accusations around - and those middle-of-the-road people get turned off.

You contradict your own arguement. The Brady bunch does nothing but spew fired up rhetoric filled with lies, illogic, and emotionalism. It apparently works with a lot of people. A lot of people these days have really short attention spans. They don't want to have to listen to facts and reason, blah, blah, blah, blah. They react to what they "feel". Get them with an emotional response or you don't get them at all. The problem is, the antis have a much easier sell on emotion.

The other part of the problem is the fact that virtually all the entertainment/news media outlets are anti-gun. No matter how nice a face you put on the NRA, they (Hollywood/media) are going counter it with their propoganda, or simply deny access to your "kinder, gentler" NRA.

So exactly what should the NRA be doing differently to get to more people then?

7.62X25mm
November 15, 2008, 04:20 AM
Sign up for the NRA Life Membership with the "easy pay plan" -- $25 quarterly until you're paid up.

It's called "putting your $$$ where your mouth is" -- and putting your A$$ on the line.

I don't agree with MOST of what the NRA comes up with, but when the NRA lobbies, Congress listens.

Politicians realize that "gun control" is a losing political issue, and that coming out for it will cost you the election.

Demos need to think about that while the Southern Confederacy -- AKA "GOP" -- is getting its act back together.

Sarah Palin is NOT the answer.

JohnBT
November 15, 2008, 10:49 PM
For the members, please remember that federal law prohibits the NRA-Political Victory Fund and NRA-Institute for Legislative Action using our dues for political purposes. Dues support the educational activities of the NRA. Please send whatever you can spare to the political action arms of the NRA.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron

JohnBT
November 15, 2008, 10:53 PM
Going back to the original post...

"That's the problem with any so called 'non-profit', SALARIES?"

What's the problem? It takes money to hire the right people with the right connections. Not just any old person gets their phone calls answered and requests for appointments granted. Try it sometime, call a Senator or the White House. See if you can get an appointment for early next week.

John

ldcarson
November 15, 2008, 11:56 PM
I am still contemplating joining the NRA. You may ask whats holding me back? ONE major Issue, that to me shows lack of interest in 2A rights that THEY have not done. i.e. it wasn't their idea so they aren't getting behind it.

While I applaude the effort of the NRA in many areas, I have also been very disapointed in their stances. One issue is doing something simple like supporting the various OPEN carry movements in several States. Regardless of "Where" we are on CHL or OC, most of these states and organizations aren't even asking for Material Support, Just verbal support for the 2nd Amendment cause. Yet NRA and others are silent. For 1 million a year, and given that their charter is in support of the 2A rights, WHY is the NRA silent?

THATS my issue with NRA. Its the LACK of support across the broad spectrum. Support can be verbally, Written, or wholesale legal involvement. If the NRA is to be the premeire guns right advocates, that they should be, then IT should be supporting all groups working for 2A rights and that includes endorsing orginizations and their ideas as long as they are working for 2A rights.

Thats my two cents.

X-Rap
November 16, 2008, 10:54 AM
So you agree with most of what they do and admit that while they maybe unsupportive of some things you find important they are not opposed or anti.
And for this you decide not to join and enhance the largest pro 2a organization in the world:rolleyes:
We can all join up with those specific groups that focus on our favorite issue but without the NRA there are just a bunch of small less influential gun orgs. and I don't think we get the best representation.
If we all just skip a couple dinners out or a movie or ball game there is enough to help support 2a on many fronts.

Lonest@r
November 16, 2008, 09:15 PM
I think everyone here supports what the NRA represents, but are just questioning how money is spent and effectiveness of their actions. Thats it.

The topic if this thread was asking how can we get involved and effectively voice our thoughts and opinions to the organizational leaders to get members involved, rather than simply asking for donations.

Why can't we organize a NRA or 2A type rally or demonstration. The GAYS organized a national Civil Rights demonstration in protest of PROP 8 in California (there was even one in KY) simply using email, MySpace and Facebook and are effectively getting it overturned.

chemist308
November 17, 2008, 12:33 AM
For which task, you must be a member.

Patience and persistence.

In the meantime, you may want to actually keep your guns, and it seems to me they're your best hope for that.

So, my suggestion is to join the NRA and be active in it. It is only from this that change will come.


+1. Best advice and answer.

TEDDY
November 17, 2008, 05:36 PM
:uhoh:first you MUST know what the NRA is and what it can do and what it cant.
you will never know unless you ask.for those who can go to headquarters,you should find it eye opening.the NRA is a training and teaching org first.only since the attack on the 2nd began did they ever have to work in politics.they were the only congress approved org.they may or not be now.there main thrust was marksmenship.as I have been in the NRA since 1939 I have some idea of their operation.I was a member of a high school rifle team in Mass in a city of 60,000. all the team members went into the service in WW2.as an aside all firestations in that city had rifle ranges in their basements.If your not an NRA member your not helping.yes I flame!Mass had 1,700,000 licensed gun owner and 2 million voters and look at them.now they have 200,000 licensed gun owners.because the gun owners wont get of their ***** to vote for their rights.:banghead::fire::rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA - making them 'effectively'work for us" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!