NRA - what should be its role?


PDA






oboe
August 4, 2010, 02:35 PM
Here's a link that raises some important issues, and rather than just state my own opinion, I'd like to solicit yours. Here's the link:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100712/pl_politico/39591

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA - what should be its role?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bigalexe
August 4, 2010, 02:48 PM
This is a side affect of playing in American Politics, you get dragged into crap that isn't your business because you have to in order to stay in the game.

NRA as I understand it should have 2 purposes:

1.) Set Standards for Safety and general procedures, so basically the gun version of the AMA for medicine or ISO for industry.

2.) Lobbying in America and abroad as it relates directly to 2A or whatever is relevant at that location. The NRA is a single-issue group aimed at 2A, they are not after 1,3-10 or any other issues. Also firearms are not a right/left or conservative/liberal or democrat/republican issue. They are an American issue and so I don't see an issue what side they support as long as it is Pro-2A.

stickhauler
August 4, 2010, 02:49 PM
First off, it repeats a lie that's been parroted too many times already, that they endorsed Reid for November. Just because that lie has been repeated way too many times doesn't make it the truth.

But the article is written with the bias that the NRA endorses only Republican, or conservative candidates. That simply isn't true. They're a single-issue organization, their endorsements go to the candidate they feel, based on both prior voting results by the candidate, and candidate surveys, will protect the 2nd amendment the best. Plain and simple.

Take Ohio's governor race for example. Ted Strickland has been endorsed by the NRA for the November election, based on his actions in maintaining 2nd amendment rights for Ohioans. John Kasich, his Republican challenger, voted for the Clinton Gun Ban while in Congress.

Erickson has expressed his preference for the smaller but more reliably GOP-leaning Gun Owners of America, which he called a consistent and uncompromising defender of the Second Amendment, not a weak little girl of an organization protecting itself while throwing everyone else under the bus.

Using that buffoon as a source, and quoting his tripe shows how much effort the writer took to research his article.

To me, it's yet another salvo in the barrage by anti-gunners, and groups who have been used to show a fissure in the pro gun side willingly allow their names to be used, thinking I guess that they'll gain members if they persuade NRA members to leave the group.

Sam1911
August 4, 2010, 02:59 PM
This crap has been discussed at great length in 3-4 threads already this spring/summer.

I think Chris' comment pretty much sums up the reality.

Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, said the criticism ignores the reason the NRA is such a powerful brand: that it focuses on its core mission of advancing gun owners’ rights, rather than on trying to advance the goals of the conservative movement, writ large.

“We are part of the conservative movement, but the Second Amendment is unique because it transcends politics; it transcends race, gender, socioeconomic and certainly partisan lines,” he said. “I may have strong personal views on a lot of things — whether it’s health care, immigration, the bank bailouts, taking over car companies, all those things — but that’s not my job. My job and my fiduciary responsibility is to get up every day and protect the Second Amendment.”


As I've said before, each time we've run over this ground, I don't want the NRA doing ANYTHING that isn't related to RKBA -- directly.

If I want someone to invite in illegal immegrants or kick them out, I'll send money to THAT group. If I want someone to stand up for 1st Amendment issues, I'll send money to THEM.

The NRA WORKS because they/we are focused. If you support the 2nd Amendment, you can support the NRA. You don't have to worry that they're also fighting to make school kids learn the history of the world according to Genesis, or to make it illegal to bring a Bible to school. They aren't pushing "conservative" or "liberal" issues. They're pushing RKBA, period.

CORE ISSUE. That is all.

basicblur
August 4, 2010, 03:45 PM
There was a short segment on guns on Nightline last night (video here (http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/open-carry-gun-laws-pro-gun-grassroots-groups/story?id=11313221)).
The Brady Bunch spokesman apparently sees a chance to attempt to split the NRA and various other gun groups, so that appears to be the angle they're gonna play.
Hopefully some of those smaller groups that are intent on taking pot shots at the NRA will pay attention?
(Divide and conquer donchanknow?) :scrutiny:

Don't get me wrong-there are a number of things the NRA does that I might not agree with, but one often has to look two moves ahead to determine how the cause is best served, instead of taking a no compromises stance.

I ain't gonna tell ya to join the NRA, but you need to belong to a group that has some pull on the national level.
You also need to join an effective group on the state level to cover stuff the NRA may not be addressing in your area/state.

Over the past few years, gun ownership demographics have changed-I think the NRA has been a bit slow to address that, but then again, maybe they see it as a two-front fight (continue to focus on traditional gun owners, let state organizations focus on newer/younger owners).

It appears the NRA may be getting dragged along/into change by some of the state organizations?

ArmedBear
August 4, 2010, 04:12 PM
The NRA should put on interpretive dance routines at Farmer's Markets in Tulsa, and endorse dairy products.:rolleyes:

alsaqr
August 4, 2010, 04:29 PM
I don't want the NRA doing ANYTHING that isn't related to RKBA -- directly.

Good post.

i do not want the NRA to get wrapped around the axle by a bunch of feel good stuff that has nothing to do with guns or gun rights.

AirForceShooter
August 4, 2010, 04:31 PM
The NRA hasn't ever backed a political candidate.
If they had bye bye tax deductible contributions and memberships.

Now the NRA-ILA has done all these things

There is a difference. a BIG one.
Not a single cent of NRA dues has ever been spent on politics. It's all education.

AFS

oboe
August 5, 2010, 02:20 PM
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. It's encouraging.

KAK
August 5, 2010, 03:44 PM
Lobbyist for gun rights.

KBintheSLC
August 5, 2010, 03:56 PM
I don't want the NRA doing ANYTHING that isn't related to RKBA

Yup.

I give them money, they help preserve/advance our 2A rights... it is a simple and mutually beneficial arrangement. I also like the free subscription to AR magazine.

macadore
August 6, 2010, 12:25 AM
The NRA should support the individual's right to own and carry firearms. Nothing else. Unfortunately, it's a lobby for the firearms industry. It will not hesitate to sell the individual down the river if it means more profit for the firearms industry. The NRA sold out on the machine gun ban because it meant less paper work for businesses selling ammunition. I will never forgive the NRA for that.

LibShooter
August 6, 2010, 01:38 AM
The NRA's core mission is to protect the right to keep and bear arms, and promote gun related industries and sports. This requires they garner support for progun candidates and issues and actively oppose the others.

Since politics is a messy business, the NRA will get tangled up in party politics. There's no way around it. As a Democrat I would prefer they not be so closely aligned with the Republicans, but they have to be. The GOP is much more firearm friendly.

We're in a period of increased political polarity. The Democrats are going to get more liberal. The Republicans will become more conservative. The NRA will be dragged along to the right and be pressured to get involved in issues not directly gun related.

I hope they remember that part of their mission is and always will be to teach kids the joy of shooting.

Sam1911
August 6, 2010, 08:13 AM
The NRA sold out on the machine gun ban because it meant less paper work for businesses selling ammunition. I will never forgive the NRA for that.

Well. I know it would be wrong to be too harsh in a criticism, but that is one of the most irrational, unfounded, and just bizzarely wrong theories I've ever heard someone put forth.

I mean, we're talking "Area 51, mind control rays, Major-League-Baseball killed Kennedy" level of goofy.

If you really want to know exactly how the Hughes Amendment came to be, do a search or post a thread in Legal asking for the history. Don't just make up wacky stuff.

Yo Mama
August 6, 2010, 10:30 AM
The NRA hasn't ever backed a political candidate.
If they had bye bye tax deductible contributions and memberships.

Now the NRA-ILA has done all these things

There is a difference. a BIG one.
Not a single cent of NRA dues has ever been spent on politics. It's all education.



I'd check on some of this. I used to this this also, but first to my knowledge contributions and memberships are not tax deductible.

I called the NRA on the political issues, and asked if the NRA also contributes vs. the NRA-ILA. It's so unclear every time I ask, getting a different answer.

Owen
August 6, 2010, 12:36 PM
1.) Set Standards for Safety and general procedures, so basically the gun version of the AMA for medicine or ISO for industry.


There are standards orgs for the industry, and they aren't the NRA. The NRA is an educational/compeition organization. NSSF/SAAMI handles the industry side of the house. THe NRA doesn't involve itself in industrial issues.

Art Eatman
August 6, 2010, 01:06 PM
The anti-machine gun deal happened in conference committee, late at night after all the lobbyists had gone home. If you want to blame anybody, blame the good senator from Kansas, Robert Dole. He let it happen after having assured the NRA that it wouldn't.

The NRA is non-political and is tax exempt, although it has the 1A right to offer political opinions. The ILA is politically active in supporting candidates or lawsuits and is not tax-exempt. Two separate incorporations.

TexasRifleman
August 6, 2010, 01:13 PM
The NRA sold out on the machine gun ban because it meant less paper work for businesses selling ammunition. I will never forgive the NRA for that.

The insanity of that has already been addressed, so I'll try to put some reality back into this.

The real mistake NRA made around the Hughes Amendment was believing that President Reagan and they (NRA) had the stroke in Congress to get it overturned later.

That was the original plan, for Reagan to go ahead and sign FOPA since Hughes was such a small piece of it, then go back later and repeal Hughes.

That never happened and the NRA does have some responsibility for that no question but it was either accept FOPA with Hughes or get no FOPA at all.

Given those 2 choices there's no way you could reject the entire thing based on Hughes. The benefits of FOPA for the majority of gun owners is unquestionable.

This is why politics suck, not an example of the NRA selling anyone out.

It's a bad deal that has proven to be nearly impossible to reverse. If it is ever going to be undone it will be in the courts not Congress.

hso
August 6, 2010, 01:24 PM
No one can seriously think that RedState is going to provide anything other than a self-centered opinion on the role of the NRA when their only agenda is the advancement of their particular brand of conservative politics any more than you can expect Huffington Post to provide an unbiased opinion on them. Anything said by either should be approached with that understanding.

The NRA is about gun owners rights and safety and promoting shooting sports and that's all it should be about. It isn't supposed to be about conservative or liberal causes outside of that scope. RKBA, hunting, shooting sports, shooter education. That's all.

It's role is to advance our cause, not tilt at windmills and waste our resources. That can mean supporting a politician that isn't perfect, or anywhere close, like Harry Reid to keep a monster like Chuck Schumer out of a position of power. Realizing and acting on that reality means they're doing the job we need them to do in spite of what bloggers with a completely different agenda than ours want to use us for.

ArmedBear
August 6, 2010, 01:29 PM
No one can seriously think that RedState is going to provide anything other than a self-centered opinion on the role of the NRA when their only agenda is the advancement of their particular brand of conservative politics any more than you can expect an Huffington Post to provide an unbiased opinion on them.

I can seldom stand to read the drivel in the Huffington Post, but to be honest, I would expect a better piece from someone at HuffPo. They might WANT to write something really terrible and scathing, but it would be hard not to accidentally write something less vile than what RedState has been pumping out lately.

That can mean supporting a politician that isn't perfect, or anywhere close, like Harry Reid to keep a monster like Chuck Schumer out of a position of power.

Sometimes, when the election is between Bozo the Clown and Hugo the Dictator, you volunteer to campaign for Bozo. That's politics in our country. Only those who are willing to see this for what it is, ever win anything.

alsaqr
August 6, 2010, 05:09 PM
Erickson at redstates is shilling for so called "conservative" politicians who did nothing for our Second Amendment cause when they ran the congress and the white house. Now Erickson wants gunowners to support their entire program of feel good stuff.

i could care less if staunch pro-Second Amendment politician is a fire breathing Protestant minister in the mold of John Brown or a lesbian Wiccan.

jackpinesavages
August 6, 2010, 11:25 PM
Should it be selling insurance? I'm sick of getting "NRA mail" and it turns out to be another sales pitch from 21st Century Insurance Corp.. It's turned into a pork barrel joke of fake advocacy, turned now more towards selling crap. Once again, I'll let the membership lapse. Every 5 years or so I re-join to see if things have changed-they're getting worse.

hso
August 7, 2010, 01:22 AM
Then ignore the stuff and only contribute to the NRA-ILA or SAF or a local organization.

Elmer
August 7, 2010, 03:41 AM
Well. I know it would be wrong to be too harsh in a criticism, but that is one of the most irrational, unfounded, and just bizzarely wrong theories I've ever heard someone put forth.

I mean, we're talking "Area 51, mind control rays, Major-League-Baseball killed Kennedy" level of goofy.

If you really want to know exactly how the Hughes Amendment came to be, do a search or post a thread in Legal asking for the history. Don't just make up wacky stuff.

You and your facts.......

How dare you try and take away another reason someone can give for not belonging to the NRA!

:rolleyes:

gun guy
August 7, 2010, 09:38 AM
the nra is very good about promoting the nra and using scare tactics about the 2nd amendment to rake in your money. if you want to protect your right to hunt bunnys, by all means, join the nra. as to not being political, the nra, not being politically motivated is like saying fox news isn't opinionated. at least look over the track record of GOA before you send a nickle to the nra

Sam1911
August 7, 2010, 03:35 PM
at least look over the track record of GOA before you send a nickle to the nra

By ALL means do so. Don't look just at what they SAY, but at what they've ACCOMPLISHED. Then decide where your money will do the most good.

Remember, talk is cheap and easy. Accomplishment in the national political arena is both very complicated -- requiring both expertise and credibility as well as the power to speak for the largest constituency possible -- and VERY expensive.

TexasRifleman
August 7, 2010, 04:51 PM
the nra is very good about promoting the nra and using scare tactics about the 2nd amendment to rake in your money

So is GOA, so is SAF, so are the state organizations. If you look at other groups you will see the same kind of "worst case" scare stuff used. AOPA, AARP, etc.

The simple fact is that fund raising for legislative activities is difficult and sometimes the only way to get donors attention is to present a what if using a worse case example.

GOA does it all the time, theirs usually involves a discussion about how the NRA is giving away your rights. Is that scare tactic any more or less appropriate than any the NRA uses?

Join them all I say, and hope that at least one of them is awake when something comes up.

hso
August 7, 2010, 07:56 PM
Gotta agree with Sam and TR.

If you want to make a contribution to any RKBA organization take a hard look at what they've accomplished instead of what they say. Any huckster can tell you they'll do something for you if you'll just give them money, but a smart "consumer" checks out the performance of an operation before putting any important task in their hands (and they're hard earned bucks).

If it turns out that one operation does one thing well and a different operation does something else well and the two together give you a better result than either separately, pay for both to do what they've PROVEN to do well. Heck, support JPFO and SAF and NRA-ILA and GOA and your state organizations, just be sure you're spending your money wisely.

kingvillien
August 8, 2010, 12:01 AM
Support 2A to the fullest extent and not to endorse Harry Reid(D).

kingvillien
August 8, 2010, 12:03 AM
Harry Reid's gun record.
http://gunowners.org/is-harry-reid-pro-gun-or-anti-gun.htm

oboe
August 8, 2010, 12:09 AM
Some general observations:

In a democratic republic, the point is that people disagree but agree on a method by which they work things out.

You don't always get everything you want. You get as much as you can.

"Politics is the art of the possible." LBJ

There are two things you don't never wanna see being made. If'n you ever seen what went into 'em, you wouldn't want nothing to do with either of 'em. One is sausage. The other is law.

Reality is . . . real.

Effectiveness counts.

NRA.

BBQLS1
August 8, 2010, 01:27 AM
I support the NRA and a local (state) organization. The anti-NRA stuff is just silly.

lloveless
August 30, 2010, 06:37 PM
I hear here about accomplishments of GOA. I don't know of any. Can anyone elaborate? No politico has complained they didn't get elected or legislation passed because of GOA from where I sit. Maybe I am just dumb?
ll

If you enjoyed reading about "NRA - what should be its role?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!