Are The Pro 2A Organizations Doing Enough?

[ilbob]

Does this really MATTER? Does it change the discussion in some way?

Kind of like saying "The airlines don't care so much about TRAVEL as they care about making money, so they'll only travel if people pay them."

The people who do this work day-in and day-out do so because it is their passion. But they can't do it without money, both as operating capital for the organization and in the form of salaries so they can feed their families while they do their good work.

These "they just care about the money" gripes are petulant and self-defeating.

It was not a complaint. It was an observation. Very few people are independently wealthy and can afford to work for free. The organization has expenses that have to be met. If they do not meet those expenses the organization will cease to exist. That is why keeping the money rolling in is the number one priority and has to be. It is that way for churches, the Red Cross, the Cancer Society and every other group.

If an organization loses badly when it tries to go after even laudable goals, it will be seen by those who are funding it as ineffective and the funds will stop coming in.

As for the NRA, most members have long forgotten or never knew that the NRA was part and parcel of helping to set the terms of both the NFA and the GCA. They looked at both and decided it would have little effect on either hunting or target shooting and said "no problem". In any case, the NRA just did not get involved in politics to any significant extent back then.

The NRA's involvement in politics grew over time and really blossomed after the member revolt in Cincinnati in 1977 when it became clear to a lot of members that if the NRA did not become politically involved, there would be no hunting or target shooting down the road. IIRC, the ILA had only been formed a few years before the member revolt, and was not yet particularly effective because there was no clear goals set out for it.

The old guard still mostly cared about hunting and target shooting and just did not see any danger to either from the new laws that were being passed with regularity across the country and nationally.

Some understood what was really going on and realized that these laws needed to be fought.

 

[Sam1911]

Gotcha. And certainly true. The NRA, like the rest of society, really had no understanding that gun rights even COULD be threatened in the US, until pretty far along in the last century. They had to play a lot of "catch-up ball" there in the 60s-80s, and really didn't become the political powerhouse we've come to expect it to be until pretty recent times. The organization has changed a lot. The goals and focus, and accepted core beliefs, even, of the Association were not, in 1934, or even in 1968, much like they are today. I'd argue that in 1986, they were still a pretty far cry from where they stand in 2012.

 

[GEM]

Gun Fight by Winkler has a great review of the issues and evolution of the NRA position. Good read. Goes over the current court cases - how Heller came about,etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Remember also that politics is the "art of the possible" not the art of the impossible. A big part of effective political activism is distinguishing between what can be achieved and what can not reasonably be achieved, and concentrating on the former.

Then again, on one hand folks complain about the gun rights organizations continually asking for money. On the other hand, gun rights organizations can only do what they have the resources to do.

Then again, politics is a numbers game, what really counts is how many voters, and how much economic power is on each side of an issue. Folks who are reluctant to join major gun rights groups, especially the NRA, dilute the organization's ability to be effective.

And someone said something about getting a million gun owners to march on Washington. That was tried in 2010, and something like 2,000 showed up.

It's fashionable to blame politicians. But politicians are interested in getting elected and re-elected. So what it really comes down to is our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. If enough of our neighbors, enough of the people in our communities, enough of the people in our towns, enough of the people we work with, enough of the people we see at the mall, etc., don't like guns, and don't trust the rest of us with them, politicians who take anti-gun stands can get elected and re-elected (and bureaucrats who take anti-gun stands can keep their jobs).

So we need to remember that part of the battle to keep and expand our gun rights needs to start with our neighbors, the people in our communities, the people in our towns, the people we work with, the people we see at the mall, etc. We need to engage and include as many of them as we can.

What are you doing to be a good ambassador for gun ownership and to help try to change the views of your neighbors, the people in your communities, the people in your towns, the people you work with, the people you see at the mall, etc? Here's a hint: denigrating them, berating them, or calling them things like "sheeple" isn't going to help.

 

[X-Rap]

4.3 million members
44 million gun owners
Somebodies need to step up. The numbers can be disputed the disparity can not.

 

[phil dirt]

There are far too many gun owners who whine, piss and moan about the NRA and refuse to join and support it. I have nothing but contempt for them, in fact, I dislike them even more than anti-gunners. If you are one of these free loader types that refuse to join and support the NRA because you don't like the fact that they need money to operate effectively, or some other misguided reason, don't complain to me when you are disarmed. The NRA is the only reason we still are allowed to own guns today. And another thing, most gun owners I know who refuse to join up are the same goof balls who get on their macho high horse and start spouting off BS like "from my cold dead hands." Get real. If we loose our gun rights it will be in Congress and the state legislatures, not because you successfully stood off the police and military. That is a fight we will not win!

 

[Nushif]

There are far too many gun owners who whine, piss and moan about the NRA and refuse to join and support it. I have nothing but contempt for them, in fact, I dislike them even more than anti-gunners. If you are one of these free loader types that refuse to join and support the NRA because you don't like the fact that they need money to operate effectively, or some other misguided reason, don't complain to me when you are disarmed. The NRA is the only reason we still are allowed to own guns today. And another thing, most gun owners I know who refuse to join up are the same goof balls who get on their macho high horse and start spouting off BS like "from my cold dead hands." Get real. If we loose our gun rights it will be in Congress and the state legislatures, not because you successfully stood off the police and military. That is a fight we will not win!

And *this* is how you win them over? Have you ever considered that a large chunk of gun owners aren't NRA members for very, very valid (well, valid is a bit of a meaningless word ... reasons they consider valid) reasons?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Let's avoid turning this into another NRA good or bad thread.

 

[JohnBT]

"And *this* is how you win them over?"

It's wrong to tell them they're wrong? Are they overly sensitive to criticism?

I'm reminded of the farmer who carried a length of 2x4 when he plowed. When the mule got stubborn and decided the sit for a spell, the farmer would whack him between the eyes. A passerby asked if that got the mule going. The farmer said no, the mule would work when he was told to work, but he wouldn't listen to directions until you got his attention.

 

[ilbob]

"And *this* is how you win them over?"

It's wrong to tell them they're wrong? Are they overly sensitive to criticism?

I'm reminded of the farmer who carried a length of 2x4 when he plowed. When the mule got stubborn and decided the sit for a spell, the farmer would whack him between the eyes. A passerby asked if that got the mule going. The farmer said no, the mule would work when he was told to work, but he wouldn't listen to directions until you got his attention.

If more NRA members made their feelings known with their pocketbooks and in NRA elections, it is quite possible the NRA would change its tactics. I for one think they have been about as successful as they can be, although their near total reliance on the political process pretty much doomed whatever success they might have to the 40 states that have relatively decent firearms laws already, with some minor tweaks at the federal level.

Only the courts can deal with the fundamental issue of whether there is really some meaningful 2A right or not. And they have been afraid of that approach for a very long time. I can't say I blame them. Its pretty much an all or nothing play. With the legislative option, there is always another legislative session in play.