NRA - what should be its role?

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.

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.”

Click to expand...

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.

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.”

Click to expand...

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.

There was a short segment on guns on Nightline last night (video here).
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?)

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?

The NRA should put on interpretive dance routines at Farmer's Markets in Tulsa, and endorse dairy products.

I

don't want the NRA doing ANYTHING that isn't related to RKBA -- directly.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Lobbyist for gun rights.

I don't want the NRA doing ANYTHING that isn't related to RKBA

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Sam1911 said:

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.

Click to expand...

You and your facts.......

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

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