Why *not* support the NRA?

[rellascout]

Y'know, maybe posting that discussion would be a bad idea.

It's all abstract and stuff. Guaranteed to slide right over people's heads, cause confusion, and generally invite all kinds of misguided debate and bickering.

And bickering typically turns into uncivil discourse.

And uncivil discourse leads to closing threads.

And I just took off my jack boots for the night.

Right because you are soooo much more intelligent than the avg THR member. People don't disagree with you because people don't understand you. People simply disagree with you.

:banghead:

 

[kingpin008]

but does the internet fight for your 2A rights?

In some cases, yes. In any case, the money it costs the NRA to send me all the junk they sent me (even the reduced amount after I called to stop the bulk of it) far, far exceeded the money I spent to join. How well can you fight when the bulk of your warchest is spent tossing mountains of literature and "free" stuff at your members?

 

[Old krow]

This sort of reminds me of those "is x caliber a good caliber for self defense?" threads. Some people say yes, some say no, but everyone agrees that it may potentially be better than a sharp stick with proper shot placement and the right ammo.

In terms of politics, the NRA is better than a sharp stick.

 

[RhinoDefense]

I don't support the NRA because they don't support NFA firearm ownership.

 

[bbuddtec]

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Where's the solution, the alternative to your rants, ppl.

PS, if you know what politically is going on, you should be glad you have a gun, and not crying about your NFA's... they (legislators) are BOMBARDING legislation with crap anti-gun advances, and if you let them get this, and so forth, your machine guns are sooooo history. Welcome to the criminalization of US. (yes that means YOU) Stay in for the win, and opt out of extraneous mailings... (yes that's an option)

(loosely paraphrased) "...The only way for evil to win is for good ppl to do nothing"

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

*Sigh*

Y'know, maybe posting that discussion would be a bad idea.

It's all abstract and stuff. Guaranteed to slide right over people's heads, cause confusion, and generally invite all kinds of misguided debate and bickering.

And bickering typically turns into uncivil discourse.

And uncivil discourse leads to closing threads.

And I just took off my jack boots for the night.

Wow. Elitist much?

 

[kingpin008]

Wow. Elitist much?

One, he was likely being sarcastic. Two, he's right. The pro vs. anti-NRA fight has been done to death here before, many times. It usually comes down to folks trotting out the same tired reasons for hating 'em, then folks standing up and explaining why those reasons aren't reasonable, and back & forth until we all end up screaming at each other. Reasonable discussion becomes impossible. Do a search on the subject, you'll see.

 

[XxWINxX94]

I am a member, and yes the junk mail and phone calls are annoying. Why would I want to renew my membership if it doesn't expire for a year and a half? I guess if you just want the hat, or bag or whatever its fine, but for the folks who don't, we don't really need mail every month and calls every month.

Also what they tell us.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but they seem to tell me some unusual, absurd, almost unrealistic things about politicians/UN trying to take away our guns, which, to me doesn't make too much sense because most of congress after the election is republicans, who generally agree with the RKBA. While I believe them to an extent, is Hillary Clinton really out to round up all the guns via United Nations because the election went bad for liberals? I don't like her personally, but I would hope this isn't the case. What I'm trying to say here, is that it seems the scenarios they describe are a little more radical than they actually appear.

I googled this to find out what the deal was, and if the NRA was actually describing what is going on truthfully, without extending the story. The only thing I could find was this: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=38103

That article is nearly a year old, could it be possible that the UN just waited awhile to address the issue RIGHT NOW like the NRA claims, or is the NRA just misinformed and looking for $?

The latest call was on this subject (Hillary & UN) and asked me to pledge 75$ or 35$ to help this cause. I told them I was in a bad financial situation, and couldn't at this time (which is mostly true). I haven't seen this on the news anywhere, and I'm having trouble finding up to date information on this on the internet.

Just a little hesitant to believe 100% of what they say because it seems a little far fetched. I think this is just because I'm not one of the lobbyists in congress and I don't see how they put the money to good use, and actually find out/address the issues, but I still generally support them and their efforts.

 

[Neverwinter]

I am happy that the NRA supports both Democrats and Republicans. It lends them credit as a legitimate organization that seeks to promote rights instead of a partisan group.

By comparison, the ACLU has lost nearly all credibility by siding with liberals/Democrats on almost everything.

Conversely, I would still be happy if the NRA did not support both Democrats and Republicans if those politicians did not support the RKBA. Endorsement should be solely dependent on their support for the rights and freedoms, rather than of a misguided desire for bipartisanship.

It usually comes down to folks trotting out the same tired reasons for hating 'em, then folks standing up and explaining why those reasons aren't reasonable, and back & forth until we all end up screaming at each other. Reasonable discussion becomes impossible. Do a search on the subject, you'll see.

Eventually it devolves into people making posts consisting wholly of ad homs with no actual argument. See the other NRA thread on page 1. Or not, because the majority of those posts were deleted.

 

[TexasBill]

It takes time to write the articles and columns; it takes time to proofread and edit; it takes time to assemble the pages; it takes time to convert the layouts to process the files for printing; it takes time to print and then it takes time to mail. Even with modern digital systems, if you can go from composition to mailing in six weeks, you are doing well. Most magazines want 60-90 days and most of that time is before the publication even gets to the printing press. Print, bindery and mailing takes just a few days.

Yes, the Internet is faster. But not everyone has the Internet or a personal computer. Of those that do have computers, many don't use them to surf the Internet. Many more people just prefer a print publication.

For every dollar the NRA makes through sales of NRA products or commissions on products they promote, like insurance and the credit card, is another dollar the NRA doesn't have to ask for in dues.

I don't mind that the NRA compromises: I may not like the compromise, but it's probably preferable to an outright defeat. It took years to wear away our Second Amendment rights; it will take years to wear away the laws that were enacted. Erosion is slow, but it works.

I do want the NRA to welcome both conservative and liberal members and I don't want it getting involved in other issues like a woman's right to choose. There's enough for the NRA to do with one issue: the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Ad Homs

Eventually it devolves into people making posts consisting wholly of ad homs with no actual argument. See the other NRA thread on page 1. Or not, because the majority of those posts were deleted.

Yeah. Sorry about that.

It's a jack booted thug thing.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Disagree?

Right because you are soooo much more intelligent than the avg THR member.

Why, thank you. It's so seldom that anyone appreciates the sheer magnitude of my awesomeness.

Of course, your flattery is unwarranted.

Most of the THR membership is more experienced than I, and many of them are smarter. There is some real depth here among our members, and I have so much to learn from them there's a good chance I'll never finish.

People don't disagree with you because people don't understand you. People simply disagree with you.

Yeah. Who knew I could be that wrong? Hey, but at least I'm consistently wrong.

That's gotta be worth something.


All the same, it seems to me that my original jocular suggestion that I post a singularly boring piece of analysis in a discussion like this was poorly judged.

I fear it would only breed discord, and given that I'm supposed to eschew that sort of thing, I must conclude it was a bad idea.

Not the first time I've been wrong.

Won't be the last.

 

[Neverwinter]

Yeah. Sorry about that.

It's a jack booted thug thing.

I wasn't complaining. A lot of noise was deleted, and my argument wasn't censored.

Thumbs up to the jack boot.

All the same, it seems to me that my original jocular suggestion that I post a singularly boring piece of analysis in a discussion like this was poorly judged.

The Analysis Which Shall Not Be Named must be quite the article if its mention can cause this level of conflict. Wait till we reach page 6, and then post it.

Also what they tell us.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but they seem to tell me some unusual, absurd, almost unrealistic things about politicians/UN trying to take away our guns, which, to me doesn't make too much sense because most of congress after the election is republicans, who generally agree with the RKBA. While I believe them to an extent, is Hillary Clinton really out to round up all the guns via United Nations because the election went bad for liberals? I don't like her personally, but I would hope this isn't the case. What I'm trying to say here, is that it seems the scenarios they describe are a little more radical than they actually appear.

Many of the "sky is falling" scare tactics are blatantly obvious on the first reading, but you aren't the target audience. They are aimed toward the people who wouldn't otherwise donate, but require that extra motivation. I won't go into the psychology of that mindset since it's beyond the scope of the thread and the forums.

You shouldn't be tithing to the organizations that you support, but at least give what you can comfortably afford, when you can.

 

[M-Cameron]

In some cases, yes. In any case, the money it costs the NRA to send me all the junk they sent me (even the reduced amount after I called to stop the bulk of it) far, far exceeded the money I spent to join. How well can you fight when the bulk of your warchest is spent tossing mountains of literature and "free" stuff at your members?

where do you think the NRA is getting their mailing supplies.....Staples?
they arent paying $7 for a box of envelopes.

they buy those mailers by the truck load, im willing to bet each mailer cost on the matter of pennies.

 

[rbernie]

I just got a new pair of jackboots, and this is the perfect thread in which to break them in. So, I'm closing this thread and further officially declaring a 48 hours cease fire in the NRA love-vs-hate threadfest of late. I do not suggest that any of y'all take the time to open yet another thread to replace the ones that have been closed, because that will likely result in sanctions that you do not want.

If anyone wants to evaluate the arguments for/against supporting the NRA, we have a long history of threads here on THR that are available via the search function.