The NRA is NOT the best gun group.

"Yes, the most right-wing Reps are the farthest to the right, and the most left-wing Dems the farthest to the left, but that's about all you can say."
On gun issues? No; that's not about all you can say. One of them has plainly codified their opposed stance into the party platform, and like it or not, the Democrat Party has been far more successful of late in getting their members to stick to the party platform than the Republicans (especially on gun issues)

"In reality, most Americans are in that middle area and have far more in common than either party would have them believe."
In reality, most Americans are in the middle because they don't really care to commit to either side significantly. Easy to choose "independent" when you really don't care about any major party. They have their apathy in common, but that's not particularly productive. Same as with most folks on gun issues. I do agree that the two parties have "conveniently" divvied up their pet issues such that so-called libertarian principles (i.e. "American" principles) are neatly divided into a minority set within each group that is fiercely quashed whenever they get noisy (see: Tea Party before social conservatives hi-jacked the movement)

"NRA protection has saddled us will bullcrap like the 68 ann 86 gun control acts"
Dude, those were thirty and fifty years ago, for Pete's sake. The old leadership is dead and retired. Their gun rights advocacy is practically militant at this point; by far the most assertive it's been since the days of the Bonus Army occupying the capital, I'd wager*. The more recent stuff, that actually matters to you and I in judging the organization, has been consistently opposed.

Things like barrel imports, ATF overreaches, import bans, and the like never received much fight, but it's not like anyone was working for us there. Those are niche within niche within niche issues; populism simply won't get much traction. That's what good legislation is for (prevent these fringe abuses by properly securing federal authority)

The legislation front is where the NRA fails us, I think. They focus way too hard on merely opposing bad laws, when a defensive stance is only half the battle. A lot of this is due to history, and unity. We've not had the opportunity to start demanding concessions since...ever. It's also understandably hard to advocate for specific legislation when you know that at least some contingent of your following will oppose it (silencers vs. hunting rights vs. reciprocity vs. etc.). If we can hold this dominant position, I think the NRA will eventually catch up and learn to parlay our advantage into real, permanent gains, but that it will take time. Even very pro-gun lawmakers are understandably skeptical that we really can deliver the support needed for them to take a risk on pro-gun legislative changes.

"i cant understand how indoctrinated people have to be to put so much blind faith in the NRA to believe theyd have less gun rights without them"
Well, our opposition certainly seems to think so, and they'd know if anyone would, right? I sure hope you realize that the NRA performs a critical function of simply relaying information through a bullhorn to gunowners, which many places like THR do, but over a far broader cross-section of America. That's a function even non-members benefit from, and which cannot be denied. This latest ammo ban nonsense is the exact kind of stuff that would have received practically no exposure back in the day, but the NRA has been spewing "alarmist" articles on it daily --low and behold, "AMMO BAN" finally makes the headline on the DrudgeReport and the ATF almost immediately backs off (if only for now)

TCB

*Which is why we're seeing so much pushback from the Federales, again

NAGR? Do we really want to get into their deficiencies? It's late, but I can pile on tomorrow if needed. Let us just say for now, they have trouble staying on message.

TCB

great outspent...
money only goes so far, and while the NRA isn't the greatest, they have the bully pulpit, maybe not the best or always agree, however, name something more effective.

As for the veterans/PTSD-mental illness, I've posted both on this forum & others that I do not think disabled veterans or military veterans with diagnosed mental illness should get valid CCWs or hunting licenses/gun permits.
A 100% disabled veteran can't say; oh, I'm to sick to work or maintain employment but Im sane enough or responsible enough to carry a concealed loaded firearm or hunt with a high powered rifle, .
Sorry, no sale.
Id add that if this became a political issue or state ballot measure, and the voters/general public allowed disabled veterans or those with PTSD to have CCWs/gun licenses, then Id be okay with it. I wouldn't march up & down the street with a banner.
We live in a free society where laws & statues are debated & voted on.
The NRA isn't great but I wouldn't scream & yell over it.

Click to expand...

Really? As a veteran yourself, you should know better. Not all disability is in the form of some mental illness, and not all diagnosed cases of PTSD should bar gun ownership. I have a buddy who is 100% disabled. To look at him, you'd never know he had a 6 foot long piece of shrapnel enter his leg through a butt cheek and exit just below his sternum, shredding his guts on the way through. You think he shouldn't own a gun? Or qualify for a hunting license based on THAT? Disgusting.

Now, on the flip side, because he is 100% disabled, he CAN NOT work and maintain his benefits. His family has fallen apart and he sadly turned to drugs and alcohol. It is for those reasons, not his disability status, that I wouldn't feel comfortable with him having a gun. But those are temporary reasons, and he has since cleaned up his act and got his life back on track.

Obviously you don't have to deal with the VA and the nightmare that is being 100% disabled, and the strings that come attached to those benefits. He wants to work, would rather work. It's not that he's physically incapable of it, but the state and the federal governments restrict his ability to work and maintain benefits. He didn't want the be labeled 100% disabled, he was assigned that by the VA upon his medical separation from the Army.

I have PTSD, albeit a mild form, and limited disability. My disability is mild hearing loss and exposure to radioactive material. Do you think I shouldn't own guns or have a CPL? You want to give the power of my gun ownership to the general ignorant masses? Wow. Just wow. So much for the land of the free.

USAF Vet, let it go, realize that for those who don't know
most can't get far enough over themselves and stop looking down their noses to see past their biases. Some day, he will have the joy of getting chewed up in bureaucracy. I hope he finds people just as understanding as himself.

Shadow 7D said:

great outspent...
money only goes so far, and while the NRA isn't the greatest, they have the bully pulpit, maybe not the best or always agree, however, name something more effective.

Click to expand...

except they would appear to only be bullying gun owners on behalf of anti-gun legislation, and bullying legislators on behalf of the gun manufacturers, theyre nothing but a do-nothing for-profit organization that has to keep the threats to guns alive so they can stay in business

Emotions, posts...

Some forum members here(and staff) are taking things out of context & letting emotions run away from themselves.

First, I do not or will not say that "all disabled veterans shouldn't have loaded firearms".
I also never stated or claimed that I think anyone with a diagnosed mental health disorder should or will automatically lose their CCW license or gun permit without it being adjudicated or voted on by elected officials.
I posted; "if those laws or statues(that gave disabled/PTSD veterans the ability to carry guns or hunt)" I would be okay with that.

Members are twisting my remarks and only posting sections of my post(s).

Also, if this topic is a debate then there should be civil discourse not bullying or emotional tirades(based on false or misleading information).

Edit: to be clear, when I use the term: disabled or service-connected I refer to mental health or diagnosed mental disorders not all combat injuries or service connected disabilities(lost limbs, cancer, lost eyes, etc). These injuries are not in the same category as a person adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompent.

N.R.A. Good? Bad? Best? Or "In Between"?

I just this minute noticed this thread; as I'm right in the middle of trying to do about 4 things simultaneously at the moment, I'm unable to read all of the replies that have already been made at this point, and I'm very anxious to read them all before saying a whole lot on this subject.

I will say this however; I'm not currently an NRA member; I was a member for probably ten years, even though at the time I didn't even own any guns that were operable. In spite of that fact, I always have been and always will be a very strong and vocal supporter of "gun rights" and the second amendment. I had absolutely no concerns about paying my yearly dues to the NRA, but I did finally drop my membership for several reasons, and I have since been a dues paying member of several other groups that advocate for gun rights.

When I started renewing my interest in guns, gun owner rights, shooting sports, etc. I also started thinking more and more about probably becoming an NRA member again; this thread may very well end up influencing me one way or another on that matter.

Even though I have barely "glanced" at what's already been said on this issue, I was already aware of several of the things that I believe may be causing the OP to feel the way he does, and at the moment, I'm thinking that there is a possibility, (or even a likelyhood) that I may share his "concerns". I can already see that this topic has the distinct possibility of angering a few people so I'm hoping that it will still be open for discussion when I'm able to get back to it.

Charley C said:

I just this minute noticed this thread; as I'm right in the middle of trying to do about 4 things simultaneously at the moment, I'm unable to read all of the replies that have already been made at this point, and I'm very anxious to read them all before saying a whole lot on this subject.

I will say this however; I'm not currently an NRA member; I was a member for probably ten years, even though at the time I didn't even own any guns that were operable. In spite of that fact, I always have been and always will be a very strong and vocal supporter of "gun rights" and the second amendment. I had absolutely no concerns about paying my yearly dues to the NRA, but I did finally drop my membership for several reasons, and I have since been a dues paying member of several other groups that advocate for gun rights.

When I started renewing my interest in guns, gun owner rights, shooting sports, etc. I also started thinking more and more about probably becoming an NRA member again; this thread may very well end up influencing me one way or another on that matter.

Even though I have barely "glanced" at what's already been said on this issue, I was already aware of several of the things that I believe may be causing the OP to feel the way he does, and at the moment, I'm thinking that there is a possibility, (or even a likelyhood) that I may share his "concerns". I can already see that this topic has the distinct possibility of angering a few people so I'm hoping that it will still be open for discussion when I'm able to get back to it.

Click to expand...

save your money, give it to the people who are actually challenging gun control in the courts

Join your local Friend of the NRA
alot of the fight is getting to know your legislators, getting face to face with them. You local legislators are people, some nicer than other, and usually they have interests, if you can relate your side, your point to them, it's amazing how much progress you can make.

NRA has access on a national scale, don't like how things are done, then get your signatures and change it.

For Rusty Shackleford sir, you are have joined my list of wrong minded characters. I am doing my best to maintain the previously high standards of this group. I am 100% disabled as a result of my Vietnam service and when you use that to indicate that I am defective you have insulted me. I take this very personal and I demand an apology. Moderators, you are not susposed to let this guy get away with this. Suspend his right to insult service connected disabled veterans! I will have my revenge on him by living well on his tax dollars.

Good, better, best?

Each pro-gun organization has it's merits.. and the NRA does a whole lot more for members than lobbying (that's the NRA-ILA, anyway, so technically the original poster is barking up the wrong tree.)

Mr. Shackelford...

As for the veterans/PTSD-mental illness, I've posted both on this forum & others that I do not think disabled veterans or military veterans with diagnosed mental illness should get valid CCWs or hunting licenses/gun permits.

Click to expand...

Why are you making this your personal sandbox? By post three you derailed the thread with a stand on the soapbox decree about veterans rights, and sidetracked the issue.

You should stick to the point; or start a thread to discuss your specific issue with Veterans mental health. I'm sure a lot of veterans on this board really want to hear what you have to say about them.

So back to the point, which group is good, better, or best? Does it really matter? They all stick it to the gun grabbers trying to take our rights, and that makes them all OK in my book.

Anyway this seems like that is the sort of conversation that one would see about Glocks or 1911's. Or 185gr vs 230gr projectiles.

Personal preference. Take your pick. If you have issues with one group there are others you can choose from.

Sandbagging on one organization you have a personal vendetta against is a pretty low form of advertising for the other groups. It actually causes your argument to lose a lot of merit, when you have to trash one organization to elevate the worth of another. Comparative arguments of 'this group did X times on this', are all well and good, but if you look at the big picture what you are really doing is not really at all different from the mud slinging political advertisements we get plagued with each election year.

I'd suggest you look at the broader picture of heritage and recognize that each group has a role, or roles, to play.

This game isn't ALL about politicians we need to influence.

It isn't ALL about the court cases we need to win.

It is also about hunting rights, about training our kids properly, about encouraging new shooters to try our shooting sports, about building community, about advancing the general knowledge of marksmanship and encouraging an atmosphere of cooperation.

I see nothing of that in this thread. So obviously, every group is failing to unite gun owners. Either that, or some people are so off base on their own personal agenda they can't accept that anything outside of their very narrow focus matters.

You can win every court battle you want, and influence every politician today in your favor, and you'll still lose 40 years from now if the kids aren't trained and brought in to our heritage; if there aren't competitive shooting programs and training programs available which endow the fundamental values and ethics in to the next generation of shooters and hunters.

Open your eyes and accept that ANY organization is going to have shortcomings, but they are also going to have their strengths.

Numbers matter in this game, and numbers are worthless if we continue to act so divided even here, among our own kind.

Bloomberg would read this thread and laugh himself to tears.

Seriously.

olafhardtB said:

For Rusty Shackleford sir, you are have joined my list of wrong minded characters. I am doing my best to maintain the previously high standards of this group. I am 100% disabled as a result of my Vietnam service and when you use that to indicate that I am defective you have insulted me. I take this very personal and I demand an apology. Moderators, you are not susposed to let this guy get away with this. Suspend his right to insult service connected disabled veterans! I will have my revenge on him by living well on his tax dollars.

Click to expand...

He didn't insult any service members.

Good gracious this forum devolves into childish name calling every time this topic comes up. It should have been obvious from the confrontational first post if this thread what the intentions were and everyone fell for it anyway.

Keep bashing the NRA. I wouldn't have a carry license in my pocket if it weren't for the NRA. Their lobbyist in IL, Todd Vandermyde, worked non stop for years and was a pivotal piece in the puzzle. There was lots of money spent and hours invested. Now we are a shall issue state.

I'll give my money to the NRA, and I'll smile when I do it. It beats bashing them on the internet for giggles with half truths and accusations.

Rights

I am 100% disabled as a result of my Vietnam service and when you use that to indicate that I am defective you have insulted me. v

Click to expand...

I agree...that would be insulting.
Did he actually say that - that if you are disabled you are defective?
I am trying to make some sense of the varying responses....not taking sides.

Pete

For someone who claims to be pro-gun you're certainly open to infringing on others' rights. Your attitude, and the anti-gunners who have the same attitude, is a large part of why many vets won't seek mental health treatment. Meanwhile, every day 22 veterans commit suicide. If you want to help your fellow vets out quit stigmatizing mental health treatment.

Click to expand...

And military veterans are more likely than non-veterans to use a firearm when they kill, or attempt to kill, themselves. Firearm use in general tends to make for higher death rates in suicide attempts. Going by stats for active duty personnel (the VA study citing 22 suicides/day doesn't mention means used in completed suicide attempts), about 13 of those deaths per day involve a firearm.

It's a complicated issue. I feel like I've seen both sides of it, to an extent -- I had a good friend who came off a deployment very messed up on the mental health side and assigned to the post WTB, on suicide watch, and with all his firearms locked up with the MPs as part of the safety plan his providers implemented. I was personally beyond conflicted between my philosophical belief in the 2A and his right to firearms versus the assessed risk if given access to them he'd either harm himself or settle some very bad blood with a couple members of our chain of command from downrange. Did locking up his guns help his treatment and recovery? I doubt it, outside of the fact that if he'd killed himself it would have been a moot point.

On the other hand, you're right about stigmatizing people getting help. I can't think of a much more infantalizing act by the .mil (an organization which specializes in infantalizing adults on a daily basis) then telling some guy who carried weapons in harms way downrange "sorry, we don't trust you with guns anymore."

Anyway, there are two sides to the point I believe Rusty Shackleford was trying to make, and both merit consideration. None of which has anything to do with the breaking news story that the NRA isn't an ideal fit for most gun owner's sentiments about all aspects of firearms ownership. It's a huge organization -- I don't know that I'd trust anyone who agreed lockstep with the NRA on all topics any more than I'd trust someone who was a talking-points recitation machine for the Republican or Democratic parties either.

The NRA may not be the 'best' in a philosophical sense (I have disagreed with some of their 'compromises' in the past), but they are the ones giving the anti's fits; just look at the name calling from Moms Demand Stuff, Bloomie and the rest-they don't mention GOA or anyone else-their opponent is the NRA.

Love them or hate them, they're what's keeping our gun rights safe on the national stage, and not belonging because you can find a few things to disagree with them about is just a clever way of saving $30, IMHO.


Larry

Yet Wayne LaPierre stood on stage and said that Harry Reid was pro-gun, called for making private sales illegal in the late 90's, and advocated for strengthening "mental health background checks," while people in New York and CT are losing guns after being diagnosed with insomnia.

Click to expand...

Can you cite a hard reference for this. Please.

AR15Activist, yyou've referenced losing guns over such minor things as insomnia several times in this thread. Can you provide a link to the case(s) you are familiar with when this has occurred, or are you referencing it only as a "possibility"? If you can't provide proof of this happening, please quit stating that it IS happening. While I don't like the laws in CT or NY, I also haven't heard of people being disarmed merely because of their sleep patterns.

AR15Activist, yyou've referenced losing guns over such minor things as insomnia several times in this thread. Can you provide a link to the case(s) you are familiar with when this has occurred, or are you referencing it only as a "possibility"? If you can't provide proof of this happening, please quit stating that it IS happening. While I don't like the laws in CT or NY, I also haven't heard of people being disarmed merely because of their sleep patterns.
Today 05:40 AM
OilyPablo

Click to expand...

It was in NY not CT

Mobil link, best I can do right now.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-officers-were-knocking-on-his-door-lawsuit/

He's wrong about a lot concerning the NRA, but he's right on the insomnia case.

rustyshackelford said:

As for the veterans/PTSD-mental illness, I've posted both on this forum & others that I do not think disabled veterans or military veterans with diagnosed mental illness should get valid CCWs or hunting licenses/gun permits.

Click to expand...

Why do you specifically target veterans? Do you believe that there is some difference between a veteran with a diagnosed mental illness and a non-veteran with a diagnosed mental illness?