Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by Confederate, Feb 12, 2013.
Don't forget Hitler did the same thing. Only the gun control had already been passed in Germany by then. He was herding kids up to support other oppressive programs.
Seems that "do it for the children" needs to become an alarm bell.
Im glad I never joined the NRA...it has too much with the gun maker lobby...there is a very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd that makes me cringe. Wayne is not a very good speaker. The NRA has sometimes showed a terrible image to middle America. There are too many gun-kooks out there and I keep them at arms length.
Ok, wow. Where to start?
You didn't join the NRA because they are in with the gun makers, which if they didn't would be run out of business by legislation, and you wouldn't be able to ever buy another gun again? Doesn't make sense to me.
How has the NRA shown a terrible image to middle America?
And where are all the gun kooks, I only know regular plain gun owners, but would love to know where all the kooks are at?
The NRA is the largest lobbying group keeping our rights in place fighting against a power that has no lack of money, and they keep winning for us. Maybe the NRA isn't some evil corporation, but IT'S US! The NRA is made up of members, who vote for the people we choose to represent us.
It has too much with the ... ? What did you just say? Are you talking about the NSSF? They're a great group as well, but not the same thing as the NRA. The NRA represents the U.S. citizen, while NSSF represents the shooting industry.
Ok, what do you mean by that, exactly though?
There are a lot of us here in the shooting crowd who say there's a very unappealing element to the "sportsman" crowd who refuse to get off their butts to support gun rights and the shooting sports, believing that if they just play nice with the anti-gun folks that they'll be allowed to keep their duck gun and deer rifle.
I prefer to see no separate "crowds" but rather all of us under one tent working together. What say you?
He has his ups and downs. He's got a very multi-faceted job and appealing personally to the public at large is only part of it. However, a great many of us are looking forward to seeing Chirs Cox and other more ... personable? ... folks take an increasing role in the public view.
Sometimes the fight requires a hard line to be drawn. Sometimes a more gentle approach can be taken. In politics, rarely are things said -- or things said the way they're said -- for completely transparent or simple reasons.
LOL! Uh, you might have just stepped into a hornet's nest of them here! Might want to think about clarifying what's a "gun-kook" in your humble opinion.
My goodness...I don't even know what the point of that was. The only 'lobby' I'm aware of that the NRA speaks for is the 'pro 2A, gun owner' lobby.
I'm not sure what this 'terrible image' is that has been shown to America, maybe just hurting feelings with fact and reality?
I don't really know what constitutes a 'gun kook'? A criminal? Or just someone really into their hobby?
Let's be honest, we know there are 'gun kooks' out there, just like there are kooks in every hobby. I hear them talk at my gun club all the time about various conspiracy theories and how Obama is akin to Hitler and is a secret Muslim, etc, etc. Really the worst of the 'right wing'. I know you guys know what I'm talking about, these are the guys who bury spare AR15's in the woods in water-proof tubes because they actually think that the government is coming to take their guns by force.
I joined the NRA because I shoot bullseye and wanted to be classified. I joined the TSRA because I wanted to shoot bullseye in the state match. I don't support a lot of what the NRA does today; I would much rather support USA Shooting and other organizations that actively promote sport and target shooting.
The NRA used to be about safety and responsible gun ownership. Then there was the '77 convention and ever since then the NRA has been on a downhill slide, IMHO. Obviously others will disagree.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support the 2A, and I recognize that the NRA is basically trying to defend it, but I disagree with both their tactics and their incessant phone-calls for money.
(For example, the NRA did not want DC v. Heller to make it to the SCOTUS; they wanted their own case to be tried in front of the SCOTUS because they didn't think the lawyer representing Heller could win.)
Me thinks the poster mistakenly thinks he is on daily kos or the huffington post...
The NRA is millions of American citizens, I thank God daily for those brave souls who carry that load. I wish all American gun owners would stand up and do the same.
I agree... every one of his posts are poiticaly charged.
So a 'gun kook' or a 'gun nut' is a 'conspiracy theorist'. Well, that seems to be a little unfair to the real gun 'enthusiasts' out there, of which you seem to be one. My point is that people like to use the label 'gun kook' or 'gun nut' and slather it with some politically silly left/right nonsense, but a 'biker nut' or 'car nut' get's no such 'treatment'.
There is nothing wrong with being a 'kook' or 'nut' about your hobby, if that's what firearms are to you, but it's wrong to ascribe negative stereotypes to that.
LaPierre needs to not speak in the MSM. He needs to do what he's good at behind the scenes. Let Colion Noir and others deliver the public message.
I am a NRA member that's because the range I belong to before made me join!. I use to send money but now NOTHING!
It seems that they agree with you. LaPierre is good at the behind the scenes stuff, and getting Colion Noir on was a good move.
This is one of the common pro-control crowd's talking points. That the NRA is not representing gun owners, but rather gun makers. I have yet to see any evidence that this is truth. In addition to supporting firearms safety and the shooting sports, the NRA supprots the 2A and lobbies against restrictions on sale and ownerships of firearms. Sure, that benefits the gun industry, but it benefits the gun owners, too.
And what does this even mean? What dark, unappealing side? The "shooter crowd" is made up predominatly of people who want to use guns for hunting, recreation, and self defence. What is "dark and unappealing" about any of these activities? Its a media lie that the "gun crowd" is somehow made up of sociopathic fanatics who don't care about crime or violence as long as they can keep their dangerous, bloodthirsty toys.
Again, what does this even mean? I might agree that the NRA might do better in chosing their front man in terms of popular public appeal if that's your complaint. If you mean they need to appear more "concilliatory" on issues of new gun legislation to appeal to middle america, you are simply wrong. The gun control movement will never be satisfied by any "compromise" short of total disarmament of the civilian population. Every new attempt at gun control legistaltion must be fought tooth and nail, the issue allows no compromise.
IMO most of the "terrible image" of the NRA is due to the lies and slander of the gun control movement, and the politicians and media representatives that support them.
Again, you seem to be basing your opinions and actions on the lies and distortions of the popular media. All the gun owners I know are just normal everyday people; office workers, truck drivers, professionals, retirees and other regular people. They are not mass murderers waiting to go on a rampage.
This is just kind of the way it works here in America. You been here long?
The dictionary defines 'kook' as: "A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy."
I am not talking about enthusiasts, of which there are so-called 'nuts' in every hobby. For example, my uncle probably owns more guns than 99% of people on this forum (seriously, he has an *extensive* collection). But his views on gun ownership are rather pedestrian. Therefore I would not label him a kook, despite the fact that he owns more guns than there are days in a year.
To me, a "gun-nut" or more accurately a "gun-kook" is someone who is in constant paranoia that the government is going to come knocking on their door to take away their guns or holds other non-mainstream, non-provable opinions. We have to be honest with ourselves and realize that such a proposition is unrealistic at best. There would be way too many 'last stands' and policemen killed in such an operation, not to mention how many guns would be hidden, etc.
I would consider myself an enthusiast and given my desire to gain lots of knowledge about marksmanship and firearms, you might even call me a gun nut, in the nice way. But a kook I am not. But when I listen to some of the guys at my gun club, who are also enthusiasts, talk about how 9/11 was an inside job or stuff like that, well, that just screams 'kook'. Funny thing is, most of them are very nice guys if you can avoid talking about those issues.
I'm glad I'm a life member of the NRA, myself.
IMO it was a lousy case, and the result was we have "reasonable restrictions".
Well at least these anti NRA threads have gotten a Lille less common in the last couple of months. But I'm still sick of them.
Patron Life member here. While I don't agree with everything that goes on, we all, gun owners and gun "kooks", need to be thankful that the NRA is there for us. I suspect that there are some sheeple amongst us.
Endowment member here and proud of it.
Listen to the press and the left much?
I think everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but what you write is just wrong. NRA doesn't lobby for the gun makers (this is a common rant from the anti's). Not even sure why the whole new sentence after that "very dark, unappealing side to the shooter crowd". What does THAT even mean??? Are we talking like 50% or 10% or some percentage of shooters are just crazy idiots who could go off at any time? What exactly do you mean?
Wayne sucks as a spokesman. But you have ZERO say in that because guess what? You aren't a member!
Again with the image and gun kook stuff. What do you mean???
Thats incorrect, but often repeated. The National Shooting Sports Federation is the manufacturer's lobby. NRA is a member driven organization dealing with social/political/hunting/sport/recreation issues. They receive material support from industry elements, but they aren't a "gun maker lobby". That meme was started by antis as an attempt to convince the public that the NRA (and the NRA-ILA) are controlled by commercial special interests similar to the cigarette companies.
Yep We have fewer of them here than many other internet sites and if you just payed attention to Youtube you'd get the impression that shooters overall were irresponsible and unsafe (of course there wouldn't be much interest in boreing shooters properly enjoying the sport, would there?). Of course you know from your personal experience that most people you've been to the range with aren't any different from the average person. Still the extremes are the most apparent in any group and color the impression that people get.
I'd have to disagree that he isn't a "very good speaker". He isn't great and he isn't the most personable person out there, but just the standpoint of being able to speak clearly and to do so under pressure he functions and does better than most of us. OTOH, I'd like to see the NRA have other spokespersons that are easier to warm to.
I don't know what you're basing that on. The overall media treatment of the NRA has been to demonize them, but the organization hasn't done much to provide any image to middle America. If you have examples where the NRA has done this I'd be interested, but if it is just some other source trash talking them I have to wonder how we're supposed to judge people and organizations if we only take their detractors words into account.
I'm not sure what you mean by gun-kooks, but I tend to either try to educate people who aren't safe or skilled as long as it is safe for me to do so. If, OTOH, you're talking about people that aren't safe and who don't represent our community well, I try to avoid them as well, but we do have to try to counter the injury they do to our image by being good examples to others.
here is an example...do you think that 'man card' bushmaster marketing was in good taste...it portrays the shooter as an immature pumped up commando-type...and when the school shooting happened they removed it..why?...they can choose their marketing but such nonsense paints shooters as having a lust for violence..the public sees this and thinks are these guys gun crazy...frankly heston could have done better than lift a musket in the air and say from my cold dead hands...not the right kind of idea to give..more like a challenge to promote anarchy...if the gun crowd is going to thrive we need to be strong in our belief but still rational and civil...let the antis act kooky and they will appear so...we dont need that...you know?..take the HIGH ROAD?
I think that a "highly emotional" argument is not a winning approach. This gun debate is one that will last for many years, we need to stay on the side of reason and logic. NRA is not going to be very effective if they try to "out shout" the gun grabbers. They need to work wisely with the people that can make a difference. They need to win new converts at the gun ranges and training classes.
Separate names with a comma.