What does the NRA specifically stand for?

hi-impact

First, let me clarify that the CMP partners with the NRA in sponsoring the most prestigious national and international marksmanship competitions, at their Camp Perry location, their Anniston Alabama location, and at state and local completions at numerous sites across the country.

Originally, the Director of Civilian Marksmanship Program (DCM) was a congressional directive to the United States Army, to develop marksmanship among law abiding citizens, and since its establishment as the Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice in 1903, it has been supported by every Congress and every President to the present day. The Army requested a change, as this was not part of their core mission, and the CMP was established in 1966 to carry on the function, with a congressional charter given to the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety (CMP). Olympic gold medalist Gary Anderson was the first civilian director. They maintain the Congressional Distinguished Rifle and distinguished Pistol awards program. They are all about safety, and receive no federal funds, only surplus firearms from the US military, which are safety checked and sold. They could not function without the NRA volunteer support.

I was introduced to the NRA by a WWII veteran, who let me read every American Rifleman since VE day till we met in 1972. It was clear to me that the NRA was created as, and continued to be, the defender of our right to keep and bear arms.
I joined as a life member, and increased my membership and participation steadily since.

The NRA stands for the need for freedom loving people to be ready to stand up to the worldwide historic pattern of those in power steadily trying to increase their power. The right to defend ourselves against a deadly threat is part of natural law. The constitution's Bill of Rights confirmed that government tyranny was a deadly threat.

"Reasonable" gun laws attempt to limit the ability of those unfit for daily life in a free society to easily access weapons. (Convicted felons, adjudicated incompetents) The failure of every law attempting to block individuals from weapons confirms the NRA stance that very few firearms and knife laws are appropriate or needed.

To the extent possible, the NRA maintains a "single issue" stance, defending the Second Amendment. Politicians of any party have been and continue to be supported by the NRA through the NRA-ILA (created as a political activist entity, it is not tax exempt). However, when the First Amendment was challenged, the NRA and the ACLU both joined the defense. (Citizens United case).

The NRA Training programs are the backbone of this nation's firearms safety effort. Civilian and Law Enforcement programs are the national standard. NRA Certified Instructors are the ones recognized by the laws of the several states for firearms safety training, and most organizations offering shooting sports or concealed carry specify the NRA trained Instructors and Range Safety Officers for their ranges. The Boy Scouts of America put more people on the range for the first time than any other organization, and specify NRA Certified Instructors and NRA Range Safety Officers.

The NRA needs to do a better job of convincing their membership that increased active membership is essential to the defense of our constitution. More face to face, one on one recruiting is needed, and fewer slick ad campaigns offering prizes. The current "I am the NRA" television campaign is great communication, No gimmics, no fluff - "We ARE Freedom's Safest Place !"

Just my 2¢.

~ Don McGaffey
NRA Distinguished Expert, Master Training Counselor, ILA Election Volunteer Coordinator - Michigan, Benefactor Life Member, and certified Good Guy.

P.S. If you don't want so much mail from the NRA, call membership and request DNP (Do Not Publish). And life membership (available as Easy Pay in installments) neatly takes care of the renewal mail. And it's a bargain. Really.

The biggest distinction that everyone should be aware of is that there is the NRA and then there is the NRA-ILA which is the Institute for Legislative Action. Your annual NRA dues don't go to fighting gun control laws, rather gun safety programs, marksmanship, awareness, and whatever else the NRA does (I'm a member but focus on the ILA side).

Click to expand...

There are also other arms of the NRA which, like NRA-ILA are separate entities such as NRA-PVF (political victory fund) to support pro 2A candidates and issues in elections. They also have an NRA Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund.

None of these other arms of the NRA receive funding from membership dues.

TimSr said:

There are also other arms of the NRA which, like NRA-ILA are separate entities such as NRA-PVF (political victory fund) to support pro 2A candidates and issues in elections. They also have an NRA Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund.

None of these other arms of the NRA receive funding from membership dues.

Click to expand...

And this is an important distinction because I can't count how many times I've heard, "man the NRA didn't help my State in XYZ issue, I'm not giving them any more money." Well unless you specifically donated to that arm of the NRA it's not your money to begin with, so if you want them to help out more, start donating lol.

Mikestone967

The NRA is all about separating YOU.... from your MONEY!

Click to expand...

Better than Mr. Obama separating me from my firearms.

They are not trustworthy..

Click to expand...

I trust them to help me keep my rights. I trust that they are trying.

Are they perfect? Who is?

Many people don't realize that the NRA has, for a long time, been the backbone of firearms educations and training in the US.

To include:

1. safety and marksmanship program curriculum
2. instructor certification
3. range safety standards and training
4. technical consulting for range design and safety improvements.
5. insurance underwriting for ranges (there would be far fewer ranges and range fees would be much, much higher with out this).
6. Hunter safety program curriculum and instructor training and certification.

IMO, the NRA does all of these things very well.

AlexanderA said:

until the "revolt in Cincinnati" in 1977. Before that, it was primarily a Fudd organization...

Click to expand...

...Fudd, that's me. First became familiar with the NRA back in the 70's when I was involved with the Civilian Marksmanship Program and when it was hunter-oriented and outdoorsy, rather like a natural extension of the Boy Scouts. But the disarming of law-abiding citizens had always been a serious issue for Americans and somebody had to look out for us, so who better than the good old NRA?

IMHO other countries envy our freedom to bear arms in the same way that a lot of us envy drivers who are free to drive the Autobahn without speed limits. But we're becoming younger and angrier and more authoritarian, and I just hope we don't collectively screw ourselves out of these sorts of freedoms...

Ironically enough the thing I liked best about the NRA was the no-nonsense focus on gun safety and education. One learned that when it came to potentially dangerous activities and equipment, boring was better.

Well.....

You can show a man the facts but you can't make him comprehend them...

NRA= No Longer Relevant...

This..... Is a Fudd...

The NRA sanctioned the matches I competed in during high school and college years.

The NRA provides training programs for police officers in small townships and counties throughout the nation.

The NRA provides museums in Virginia and Missouri for the preservation of historically significant firearms, and these are open to the public.

The NRA publishes magazines for those of us who enjoy reading about firearms, firearm history, hunting, new firearm designs.

The NRA provides a grading score on Second Amendment support for every politician who wants your vote.

The NRA has started providing well-scripted television ads in support of the Second Amendment. I think my favorite is the older gentleman who survived Nazi occupation in Europe and was lucky enough to immigrate to America. I sent the NRA-ILA another donation after seeing that ad, even though I am already at the Patron level of Life Membership.

The NRA asks you for money because it is doubtful that anti-gunners will support it.

stonecutter2 wrote:

I'm not sure of the historical relationship between the NRA and the CMP, but currently you cannot satisfy the CMP requirements of being in a marksmanship program by joining the NRA. You can participate in an event by the NRA where you demonstrate you can fire a firearm and have basic marksmanship skills, and use that as evidence...but membership in the NRA alone won't cut it. Wanted to clarify that for anyone who read this and wasn't familiar with the CMP.

Click to expand...

This has changed over time. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong in this, but I believe the old Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) came under the Department of Defense, whereas the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) is an independent congressionally-chartered corporation. One criticism of the DCM and the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice was that they were too cozy with the NRA, and that NRA members got privileges in dealing with them that non-NRA members did not get. In the late 1950's, when I first became aware of this program, an NRA membership card was all that was needed in order to buy from the DCM. (Just think -- for a mere $17 you could have a refurbished surplus M1911 pistol delivered right to your door!) Indeed, this was an incentive that got a lot of people to sign up for NRA membership in those days.

By 1971, when I bought my National Match Garand from the DCM, additional requirements had been added, besides NRA membership. I remember that I had to prove that I was involved in competitive shooting, by submitted a score book from NRA-sanctioned competition. I wasn't really interested in competitive shooting, but I did it for one season just so I could get that National Match M1 (then, as now, I was primarily a collector -- to this day, I've never actually fired that National Match M1).

The anti-gunners never tire of saying that the NRA is a wholly-owned tool of the firearms manufacturers. Nothing could be further from the truth. The gun manufacturers have their own trade association (the National Shooting Sports Foundation). The NRA is a grass-roots organization with millions of members. That, in fact, is its strength. It's the only organization that can motivate that many members to vote. Those little postcards that are mailed out by the NRA to its members before each election are the gun-grabbers' worst nightmare.

SSN Vet said:

Many people don't realize that the NRA has, for a long time, been the backbone of firearms educations and training in the US.

To include:

1. safety and marksmanship program curriculum
2. instructor certification
3. range safety standards and training
4. technical consulting for range design and safety improvements.
5. insurance underwriting for ranges (there would be far fewer ranges and range fees would be much, much higher with out this).
6. Hunter safety program curriculum and instructor training and certification.

IMO, the NRA does all of these things very well.

Click to expand...

If that was their primary focus I would still be a member. Today their primary focus is electing Republicans to office.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Just thinking out loud here.
If the NRA's work REALLY managed to get all the silly gun laws, and gun-grabbing politicians swept out the door, there would be no reason for 4.5+ million members to send them $30 a year for dues.

I have to admit I've never heard of anyone being pro-gun, but anti NRA before. Interesting.

Click to expand...

You can't make everyone happy. I don't agree with the way the NRA handles every situation.

The 2nd Amendment does not GIVE us anything. The 2nd Amendment recognizes that the people already have the right to keep and bear arms just because the people are human beings and the 2nd Amendment tells the government it does not have the authority to restrict or control (infringe upon) that right.

In other words, we... the people... are born with the right to keep and bear arms and even it there were no government we .. the people... would still have the right to keep and bear arms just because we are .... people.

Click to expand...

This is true, but someone has to keep reminding some in the government of this. The NRA isn't perfect, but I can't think of any other group that is more effective at effecting policy on any topic.

JSH1 said:

If that was their primary focus I would still be a member. Today their primary focus is electing Republicans to office.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

hi-impact said:

I have to admit I've never heard of anyone being pro-gun, but anti NRA before. Interesting.

For those that don't support the NRA, what is a better, more effective way to ensure that our guns are not taken away from us?

Click to expand...

As posted by,

D.H. Garrison, Jr.

Subject: If They Come for Your Guns, Do You Have a Responsibility to Fight?

Posted on January 3, 2013 by Dean Garrison


"A constitutional republic protects the rights of the individual even when their ideas are very much in the minority. If I were the only person in America who believed in the 2nd amendment, I would still be within my rights to call upon it. You would all think I was insane and possibly celebrate if I was gunned down, but in the end I would be the only true American among us.

Our framers were very clear on this. If my government comes to take my guns, they are violating one of my constitutional rights that is covered by the 2nd amendment.

It is not my right, at that point, but my responsibility to respond in the name of liberty. What I am telling you is something that many are trying to soft sell, and many others have tried to avoid putting into print, but I am going to say it. The time for speaking in code is over.

If they come for our guns then it is our constitutional right to put them six feet under. You have the right to kill any representative of this government who tries to tread on your liberty. I am thinking about self-defense and not talking about inciting a revolution. Re-read Jefferson ’s quote. He talks about a “last resort.” I am not trying to start a Revolt, I am talking about self-defense. If the day for Revolution comes, when no peaceful options exist, we may have to talk about that as well. None of us wants to think about that, but please understand that a majority can not take away your rights as an American citizen. Only you can choose to give up your rights."

That's how you handle tyranny.

Shovelhead said:

Just thinking out loud here.
If the NRA's work REALLY managed to get all the silly gun laws, and gun-grabbing politicians swept out the door, there would be no reason for 4.5+ million members to send them $30 a year for dues.

Click to expand...

hi-impact said:

6) What can they do better?

Click to expand...

Stick to RKBA, avoid non-2A political issues, and be inclusive vs. exclusive

JSH1 wrote:

If that was their primary focus I would still be a member. Today their primary focus is electing Republicans to office.

Click to expand...

It's a somewhat fair criticism that the NRA "has become a mere extension of the Republican Party."

However, circumstances have forced it into that position.

Up until fairly recently, the NRA would support pro-2A candidates regardless of party. And, in turn, some Democrats were strong supporters of gun rights. Let's remember that John Dingell, a longtime liberal Democratic congressman, was on the NRA Board of Directors.

But the party platforms now present a stark contrast when it comes to gun rights. The Democrats are all-in allying themselves with the gun-grabbers.

The problem with the few remaining pro-gun Democrats in Congress is that they're part of the Democratic caucus, that votes in the Democratic party leadership, which is uniformly anti-gun. In other words, they enable that to which they are personally opposed. That puts them in a very difficult position.

The rules of Congress put a great deal of power in the hands of the governing party leadership. It sets the agenda.

So, it's not the fault of the NRA that it supports only (or mostly) Republicans. It's the fault of the parties themselves, and the positions on guns that they have chosen to take. The NRA is merely reacting defensively.

I think firearm rights were not as clearly under direct assault to the mainstream until after the 1968 GCA.

At that time they went from being little different than the chainsaw or other tool you buy at the hardware store in much of the nation or got ordered to your house to something with special rules beyond other things you buy. Yet it is an American right and tradition so someone had to take on the role of reducing how far things went.

Now they are a big lobbying group.
They lobby on behalf of a larger number of firearm owners than any other group currently, and are supported significantly by donations and memberships.
While the media attempts to marginalize them and give the impression they are a tiny organization only backed by blood money of some giant evil gun makers.
A significantly larger number of people give their hard earned dollars in support of gun rights than in support of gun control. Many of the more vocal/ media powerful anti gun groups received the bulk of their financing from limited sources, so they didn't really represent many that felt strongly enough to give.
Ironically when you look you see more money from people like George Soros
or Bloomberg propping up these organizations than donations from large numbers of individuals.

The media is powerful, and many that control the media do not like guns. They use the influence they have to try and convince the mainstream by selectively choosing what gets covered, and what time is spent reporting on issues that will give certain perspectives to the viewer.
They can make things rare seem common by telling you of a disproportionate number of them when it supports an outcome.
I hear about any mass shooting or as of late any police killed in any state in the nation in an attempt to promote anti gun policies, but only car accidents that happen in my county for example. A single cop killed on the other side of the nation is national news, but an accident that kills 10 doesn't get reported outside the state.

Most of the world does not let their citizens have modern effective firearms, the places that do are the exception. And most others that still have a way have people jump through so many hoops that any kind of defensive culture (and as a result legal protections) is dead and it is just about hunting or competition far removed from the mainstream. That has always been a goal of governments of the world, to put weapons only in the hands of those imposing the will of the government on others. It reduces the resources necessary to impose what you want on people when they have limited force to resist with. So gun control is about control. Those people most in favor of anti-gun legislation don't believe nobody should have guns, just that only those directly under their control should have effective ones.
While at the individual level guns are the equalizer. Men, women, disabled, most are brought closer to equal. Without guns the young man reigns supreme, and a group of young men can pretty much do what they want in the moment until others can catch up to punish them after the fact
Well nobody is young and strong or able and fit forever, and only half start out male.

Let's have a look at what the NRA bylaws say at Article II - Purpose and Objectives:

1. To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual American citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, collect, exhibit, transport, carry, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use firearms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self-preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberty of its citizens;
2. To promote public safety, law and order, and the national defense;
3. To train members of law enforcement agencies, the armed forces, the militia, and people of good repute in marksmanship and in the safe handling and efficient use of small arms."

Click to expand...

The fact that the anti-gunners are so worked up against the NRA, tells you all you need to know. It is the only organization that they're afraid of. That alone is enough reason to support the NRA.

The gun issue has never been more critical than it is now. Not at the time of the GCA '68, not at the time of the '94 AWB, not ever. This is it, folks. We all need to pull together, or lose our guns. It's that simple.