No NRA apparel if you want to vote

I wear NRA apparel probably half the time I'm dressed-wife buys them for me, and I'm quite proud of what the NRA/ILA has done. Don't really give a damn who it rattles, or whether I'm "advertising" anything. And I'm quite sure nobody's going to kick me out of our townhall during the vote.

Midwest said:

Yes the ACLU defends gun rights. The ACLU filed suit against New Jersey's Firearm ID card law in 1966 or 1967.

Click to expand...

Since the sole example is a single event almost a half century ago, it might be more proper to say, "Yes, the ACLU once defended gun rights"

I voted from home so I could wear anything or nothing, lol

I wonder what ruckus my gadsden flag shirt might cause...but this is Kentucky where guns are more common than people

The most recent NRA , American Rifleman, lists "Your official 2014 Pro-Gun Ballot."

Click to expand...

It's interesting how NRA endorsements work. In my district, the NRA has given the challenger an "AQ" rating (which is an "A" rating but "qualified" since she has no official voting record) while the incumbent, Gerry Connolly, has an "F" rating. Yet, the NRA has not endorsed in this race! (Probably because it's made the determination that the challenger has practically no chance, and a loss by an endorsee would make the NRA win/loss statistics look worse.)

Nevertheless, in his campaign materials, Connolly is using the challenger's conditional NRA "A" rating as a point against her, equating it with an actual NRA endorsement. Apparently, from his private polling and focus groups, Connolly has determined that the NRA is the "kiss of death" in this largely anti-gun district.

I've received numerous flyers from Connolly in the mail, in which he brags that he's for "reasonable" and "common-sense" gun measures, including a new "assault weapons" ban with stronger teeth, and "universal background checks" on private sales, including those at gun shows and over the Internet.

Each time I get such a message, I'm more determined to vote against him. I just wish more of my neighbors felt likewise.

It should be allowable to wear it to the polls. If people want to advertise the fact that they keep guns at home, that's ok.

And they don't mind somebody following at two hundred yards, to note which house to burglarize when the owners leave, that should be ok.
They can even advertise it on their car.

Ignition Override said:

It should be allowable to wear it to the polls. If people want to advertise the fact that they keep guns at home, that's ok.

They can even advertise it on their car.

Click to expand...

Sure can.

Sure will.

Interesting. Think I will wear an NRA shirt on Tuesday.

Ryanxia said:

Isn't it the NRA-ILA that gets involved in politics and the actual NRA stays away from it? I'd point out that the NRA has no political affiliation whatsoever and is a completely separate organization than the NRA-ILA (that is, if I'm correct).

Click to expand...

Yup.

NRA is a training / shooting sports organization.

NRA-ILA is a separate political lobbying group.

I was unaware that you weren't supposed to wear political shirts to the polls.

I strolled into the polls wearing a Bush/Cheney shirt during that election and no one said a word. Is the rule new?

"I plan on wearing my "IllinoisCarry.com" T-shirt to which I have added these words on the back"

You don't suppose that wording would constitute a threat when worn in a gun free zone (like a school-yard polling station..?) Be careful, and yes, that would probably give some Archie's Wife poll-watcher the vapors.

TCB

natman said:

Just to put this in perspective, you can't wear anything promoting a political issue at a polling place. No donkeys, no elephants, no "Anarchists Unite" T shirts, nothing. It's not just the NRA.

Although technically an NRA hat should have been OK as long as it wasn't an NRA-ILA hat.

Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking.

Here we have the executive vice president of the NRA. (appearing as E.VP of the NRA, not appearing for the NRA-ILA, it seems)

Does this seem like a political statement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b18859PcOIo

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjr9B-RKoOA

Here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rF7pCGkWLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwdNspFABCc


I don't see how you can get more political than that unless running for office yourself

I agree, Warp. I think the NRA, like Fox or MSNBC, still makes the claim of being politically neutral while being clearly, blatantly in favor of one camp.

I still donate, but they've come close to losing me a few times with the hyperbole.

ClickClickD'oh said:

Since the sole example is a single event almost a half century ago, it might be more proper to say, "Yes, the ACLU once defended gun rights"

Click to expand...

Or "The ACLU defended gun rights once."

LockedBreech said:

I think the NRA...makes the claim of being politically neutral while being clearly, blatantly in favor of one camp.

Click to expand...

They are in the favor of the camp that isn't blatantly in favor of massive gun control. Makes total sense to me.

If they start printing material about immigration, or health care in American Rifleman, then I might see a problem.

Warp said:

Here we have the executive vice president of the NRA. (appearing as E.VP of the NRA, not appearing for the NRA-ILA, it seems)

Does this seem like a political statement?

Click to expand...

From the NRA-ILA mission statement:

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), established in 1975, is the NRA’s lobbying and political arm.

Click to expand...

Now the NRA may do things that seem political to us, but rest assured that either it's not considered "political" from a legal perspective or that it's the NRA-ILA that's doing them.

They are in the favor of the camp that isn't blatantly in favor of massive gun control. Makes total sense to me.

If they start printing material about immigration, or health care in American Rifleman, then I might see a problem.

Click to expand...

No argument that the camp they back, in the short term, is the one that it makes sense to back, but long-term it harms them and gun owners in general. The whole reason the NRA gained clout in the first place was by being an organization that cared about gun rights and gun rights alone. The more that it appears to become an arm of conservative politics, the less legitimate and less persuasive it becomes, and the frantic tone of Rifleman in recent years echoes the tone of fringe conservative/tea party publications.

They're making themselves easier to ignore.

LockedBreech said:

the frantic tone of Rifleman in recent years echoes the tone of fringe conservative/tea party publications.

They're making themselves easier to ignore.

Click to expand...

In what way?

I've only seen them pointing out the threats to our Second Amendment Rights....threats that are about as overt as they come.

The talk about the NRA having Congress by the short hairs and misleading the American public seems closer to fringe talk in my mind.

Sometimes it is a little difficult to filter politics and political parties out of discussions about guns and gun rights isn't it? Just about impossible. Threads like this eventually end up as a little political sounding board. Damn shame too.

Ron

natman said:

From the NRA-ILA mission statement:

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), established in 1975, is the NRA’s lobbying and political arm.

Now the NRA may do things that seem political to us, but rest assured that either it's not considered "political" from a legal perspective or that it's the NRA-ILA that's doing them.

Click to expand...

When I run NRA training courses, towards the end of class when I get to the last part of the presentation (which is essentially an "NRA commercial"), before this slide comes up I ask students "raise your hand if you thought, before today, that all the NRA does is political stuff."

Most students raise their hand.



Notice that it doesn't say a dang thing about politics or political activism?

The NRA was, is, and remains a training organization. It's only because every member has a common interest in protecting their heritage that the NRA-ILA was formed back in the 70's. Even so, the NRA organization didn't depart from it's core mission and core goals; it formed a new group to coordinate those common interests among members.

(Personally) I am more interested in the work of the Second Amendment Foundation at this juncture, as it's proven more effective and important (albeit more expensive and time consuming), to challenge bad laws and get them struck, than to try to keep them from getting passed in the first place. At this point there's enough bad gun laws out there to choke a Clydesdale. Through victories like the 7th and 9th circuit on "Shall Issue" concealed carry, gun owners are gaining BACK a lot of lost ground.

Lobbying and political activism are still important aspects - don't get me wrong - the NRA-ILA does some very important work, and we need to try to prevent bad laws from getting passed and the ONLY effective way to do that is to get the right people in office, and keep people in office aware of the ramifications of their actions in the chamber. But we've lost a massive amount of ground over the last 30 years, and the front lines are in the courtrooms now. (And that takes money....)

Anyway we've deviated from the course a little here.

But the NRA is NOT a political organization, and it is NOT a lobbying organization.

That's the NRA-ILA, and it's a separate entity.

(NOTE: I'm giving my own opinions here, and NOT expressing an opinion on behalf of the NRA.)

Trent said:

Notice that it doesn't say a dang thing about politics or political activism?

Click to expand...

And yet

Warp said:

Here we have the executive vice president of the NRA. (appearing as E.VP of the NRA, not appearing for the NRA-ILA, it seems)

Does this seem like a political statement?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b18859PcOIo

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjr9B-RKoOA

Here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rF7pCGkWLw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwdNspFABCc


I don't see how you can get more political than that unless running for office yourself

Click to expand...

They can put whatever they want on their fancy mission statement...that doesn't change what they actually DO

Now, you can argue, certainly, that the NRA doesn't support one particular party. Because they don't. They support any who align with the NRA's position, basically. But that's still political.

HOOfan said:

In what way?

I've only seen them pointing out the threats to our Second Amendment Rights....threats that are about as overt as they come.

The talk about the NRA having Congress by the short hairs and misleading the American public seems closer to fringe talk in my mind.

Click to expand...

I agree that the "NRA and the gun industry control our legislature!" stuff on the gun control side is just as hyperbolic and fringe, but I've never been a fan of sinking to my opponents' rhetorical level to defeat them.

I'm in the process of moving so most of my stuff is packed, but I'll try to dig up some issues of Rifleman after work.

Even aside from off-topic issues, there is content in every single issue lately that is frantic to the point that my eyes roll - unnecessary bolding, capitalization, hyperbole - and it has been every issue for a good long while now. When an article starts off something like "Is OBAMA working with CONGRESS to steal YOUR guns?!" I just can't read it any further.

If there's a valid point to be made, it can be made without all the childish theatrics. Stuff like that makes it sound like a high school newspaper or gossip rag instead of the publication of a large interest group with a significant and storied history.

What to wear when I vote

I can see now when I vote I will be wearing my best Marine T-shirt and my NRA cap.

Should be fun if nothing else.