NRA SOLD OUt..

Status
Not open for further replies.
NRA??? Not Really Accurate

Go for it, and listen to the bleating far behind you!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The NRA has specifically pointed out that they protect the second amendment, not the first amendment.

Why is everyone so mad about that? If it makes you mad, you should give your money to the ACLU. They "protect the freedom of speech."

EDIT: This is an Op Ed article, by the way.
 
And, Harry reid has a decent 2a record
Click to expand...

He had an A+ rating last time I checked. He pretty much has to in Nevada. That said, this congress has proposed ZERO gun control under his watch, so I guess he has at least ONE issue I can agree with. I certainly havn't found any others.
 
Yes let's tear down the NRA and make them out to be the badguy.

Let's sling mud and blame them for all our troubles so we can drive down their membership and make them an impotent and powerless organization!


That'll sure help our cause!





If you're an anti that is.


Hell some of you guys are better at hating the NRA than the Brady bunch.
 
Last edited:
Yes let's tear down the NRA and make them out to be the badguy.
Click to expand...

We do tend to eat our own, don't we? The quest for philisophical purity with regard to guns is not possible. One need only witness the debate in nearly every thread of this forum to know that.

The NRA has a SINGLE issue focus, and many want that to be party specific, or constitution specific, or political leaning specific. It simply isn't. There are numerous Democrats & folks far left of my personal views that also happen to be pro-gun. The day may come when we lose without them. In fact, that time may well have been THIS CONGRESS. We need the NRA's singular focus even when it walks on other views I may hold dear; Even when it means supporting left of center candidates that will vote properly on this singular issue.
 
The op-ed piece has some inaccuracies and beats the NRA for not championing the author's other cause by endorsing his favored candidate. It's important to read any article and challenge the content because all authors are biased in one way or the other. Good ones try to be objective and state their bias. This author doesn't.

What are the facts? He only identifies the ones that support his purpose and makes vague accusations instead of references to anything that doesn't. If he identifies the state bill his candidate supported then why doesn't he identify the ones the candidate he doesn't like supported? Why does he feel it necessary to claim support of those bills was disingenuous without identifying them or telling the reader whether they passed or not? That's a biased smoke and mirrors approach to presenting the facts. If you go to his candidate's issues page on his website you don't see 2A mentioned at all. Neither do you see the issue included on the single term incumbent. What you do see when you dig is that his candidate supported a state pro2A law and the incumbent cosponsored a fed pro2A law during the 2yrs in office. Not exactly objective or accurate "reporting".

Other inaccuracies are pointed out.

So we have an op-ed piece wherein the author has an agenda and doesn't present the facts objectively forcing the reader to actually dig into the records of the two candidates to find out the factual accuracy, and reliability, of the author. We're going to see a lot of these sorts of pieces wherein the NRA will be the nominal topic of the article, but the political candidate being supported is the true issue. NRA support someone you don't like, discredit the NRA and taint the other candidate. Simple formula that works if no one digs into the records.
 
Yeah that was an interesting article. I appreciate that the writer is a pro 2A guy so that makes his piece more credible. Is he wrong? maybe not - like hso said is is clearly biased. The thing is, the game politics is not black and white and it is undoubtedly a game, one that the NRA plays fairly well. I have no idea why they would throw their support behind someone who might seem to be less pro 2A than the other, but I'm sure there is a reason.
 
Look, the NRA has to walk a political tightrope to retain their effectiveness, and sometimes that looks weird, on the surface, anyway. Their call on Heller was too cautious, and this was a mistake. They're not perfect, and it was fortunate that there were other groups who were bolder at that moment.

The NRA's ads and communications with members are often really embarrassing, and seem aimed at the lowest common denominator in terms of education, political awareness, and even intelligence sometimes.

But, the NRA is still on OUR SIDE. Contribute to other groups that do positive things for RKBA (SAF, for example).

Just don't shoot your allies. That's stupid, and it will hurt us all. The NRA is an ally. Give honest feedback to your allies when you disagree with their methods, but don't shoot them. That's how you lose the war!

And I would say, don't contribute to a group whose sole function appears to be to attack the NRA, not to do anything substantive to protect and expand RKBA.
 
As a life member, I don't agree with them 100% either, BUT without the NRA we would all be shooting super soakers instead of our firearms, of that I'm 100% convinced, there is no other CREDIBLE 2a organisation with the clout that the NRA has in DC halls of power. Get involved in the NRA make your concerns voiced, vote in the organisation and make it stronger. We ARE winning!
 
Check the author credit for that op-ed: "Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. He is the Republican National Committeeman for Colorado."

NRA backs Democrat or Republican incumbants with an acceptable RKBA record. One, it negates the charge by John Donohue et al that NRA and Republican are joined at the hip. It's a bipartisan issue with pro-gun Dems as well as anti-gun Dems, and lest we forget, pro-gun Repubs and anti-gun Repubs.

I prefer an NRA not controlled by either party and independent of both.
 
Also, remember that, with a significant Democratic majority, it was in this Congress that we got National Park carry. It took a lot of Democrats for that to happen.

Majorities come and go, you can't tie an issue to a party if you're serious about the issue.
 
"Mark Hillman served as Senate Majority Leader and State Treasurer. He is the Republican National Committeeman for Colorado."

So the opinion piece is a hatchet job by a paid political hack.

That figures.

John
 
Their call on Heller was too cautious, and this was a mistake.
Click to expand...
REALLY? :scrutiny:
Lemme see-5 to 4 in what should have been a 9-0 decision...kinda sounds like they had reason to be cautious.

'Course, the same folks that bash the NRA for not pursuing Heller as soon/aggressively as they'd like would no doubt be the first in line to bash the NRA had they done so and lost Heller (then where would we be?).

Ain't Monday morning quarterbacking grand?!
 
basicblur, you need to get yourself a dictionary.

If you know something is a mistake beforehand, you generally don't make it, unless you have psychological problems. You seldom know whether a judgment call was right or wrong, until after the fact. That's one reason why central planning by government has led to the deaths of millions by starvation.

The fact is that no one person or group can possibly ever make all the right decisions, all of the time. That's why I, as an NRA Life Member, see the value in supporting other organizations, too -- but NOT the one that exists primarily to undermine the NRA. If we support different groups that are really working toward the same cause, then sometimes, when the avenues pursued by one of them fail, we still have another chance at success.
 
Last edited:
^^^^I'm not an aclu suporter however as alwas the world isn't black and white and you happen to be wrong. Read how Limbaugh was defended by them http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108140,00.html

"But the privacy rights group was on his side Monday when its Florida branch filed a "friend-of-court" motion on behalf of Limbaugh arguing state officials were wrong in seizing his medical records for their drug probe."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top