Former Spokesman Fires At NRA
- Thread starter ronwill
- Start date
- Status
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Not really activism but......
From the article (it's long).
Well, I've been an NRA member for 30 years, and I have heard less out of them in the last 6-8 months than ever before. Not a single email, phonecall, or regular mailing other than my magazine.
I think I got one letter from NRA-ILA a few weeks ago with more of the post Katrina legislation stuff, but that's it.
This is one guy, Feldman, who wrote a "tell all" book about the gun lobby. I have a copy on order from Amazon and I'll read it a post a report once I get it, but I don't expect much out of it.
I question the thing in general to be honest. What book publisher would publish such an odd topic? As many of the writers here know it's tough to get published, and this is such an off beat boring topic to most people it makes me wonder who was behind getting this book going.
Tin foil hat conspiracy time? I can see both Soros and GOA having reason to help get this book published
I think the final paragraph sums it up nicely:
From the article (it's long).
Well, I've been an NRA member for 30 years, and I have heard less out of them in the last 6-8 months than ever before. Not a single email, phonecall, or regular mailing other than my magazine.
I think I got one letter from NRA-ILA a few weeks ago with more of the post Katrina legislation stuff, but that's it.
This is one guy, Feldman, who wrote a "tell all" book about the gun lobby. I have a copy on order from Amazon and I'll read it a post a report once I get it, but I don't expect much out of it.
I question the thing in general to be honest. What book publisher would publish such an odd topic? As many of the writers here know it's tough to get published, and this is such an off beat boring topic to most people it makes me wonder who was behind getting this book going.
Tin foil hat conspiracy time? I can see both Soros and GOA having reason to help get this book published
I think the final paragraph sums it up nicely:
Car Knocker
Member
Duplicate: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=311281
I don't see anything about activism here.
I don't see anything about activism here.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
When people talk about the "bloodsucking gun lobby" they mean you if you're a member of the NRA or any other organization that advocates for gun owners. You're part of the "Gun Lobby" because you're a member of this forum, for example.
That way of defining a "lobby" is unique to anti gun forces including the mainstream media, the Brady Campaign, Ted Kennedy, and others. Use the same approach and every member of the AARP would become part of the "Age Lobby," because the AARP is an advocate for the elderly. Join the American Automobile Association and that way of thinking makes you part of the "Automobile Lobby," because AAA has traditionally supported the rights of car owners.
Stay with me because here's where that crazy thinking gets to be fun. If you're a ham radio operator who, like many others, enjoys that hobby and you join the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) you would be part of the "Hobby Lobby" if that way of thinking is applied.
And--again according to that way of thinking--if you join a group supporting the re-election of Ted Kennedy you would be part of the "Kennedy Lobby," or if you subscribe to one of Michael Bloomberg's financial services you become part of the "Bloomberg Lobby," if you're a registered Democrat you are therefore part of the "Democrat Lobby," if you subscribe to the New-York Times you become part of the "Times Lobby" and the "Newspaper Lobby," and if you have cable TV you are most definitely part of the "Cable TV Lobby."
Crazy thinking? You bet it is. That thinking distorts the word "lobby" so it has no effective meaning at all. The approach turns your participation in any membership organization that actually does anything at all into the act of joining a lobby. Where it becomes obviously crazy is that even your most passive participation becomes lobbying. Many people join because the private range they want to use requires NRA membership. Some people belong as a way to support gun safety training for kids. Still others receive NRA membership as gifts from family members and friends. But all of them--according to the crazy and devious people out there--are members of the "bloodsucking gun lobby."
Liberals are making an especially grave mistake when they use such insane rhetoric because it's exactly what was done to people with left wing beliefs during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. A great many of those people lost their jobs and had their lives ruined because insane right wingers did then what those insane liberals are doing now. In the 1950s even a subscription to a left wing magazine or youthful flirting with the American Communist Party during the Great Depression of the 1930s (when it was fashionable) was equated with treachery to this country and got them blacklisted. It was crazy thinking then and is crazy thinking now, and it was wrong then and is wrong now too. But they don't get it and they don't realize that it will bite them hard.
So you, gentle reader, are a member of the "bloodsucking gun lobby" because you have read this message. By the slightest of logical extension, anyone who hasn't read this message is a member of the "Illiteracy Lobby," is opposed to the First Amendment, and denies the fundamental right of every American to have an education.
Those guys are big league crazy for real.
That way of defining a "lobby" is unique to anti gun forces including the mainstream media, the Brady Campaign, Ted Kennedy, and others. Use the same approach and every member of the AARP would become part of the "Age Lobby," because the AARP is an advocate for the elderly. Join the American Automobile Association and that way of thinking makes you part of the "Automobile Lobby," because AAA has traditionally supported the rights of car owners.
Stay with me because here's where that crazy thinking gets to be fun. If you're a ham radio operator who, like many others, enjoys that hobby and you join the ARRL (American Radio Relay League) you would be part of the "Hobby Lobby" if that way of thinking is applied.
And--again according to that way of thinking--if you join a group supporting the re-election of Ted Kennedy you would be part of the "Kennedy Lobby," or if you subscribe to one of Michael Bloomberg's financial services you become part of the "Bloomberg Lobby," if you're a registered Democrat you are therefore part of the "Democrat Lobby," if you subscribe to the New-York Times you become part of the "Times Lobby" and the "Newspaper Lobby," and if you have cable TV you are most definitely part of the "Cable TV Lobby."
Crazy thinking? You bet it is. That thinking distorts the word "lobby" so it has no effective meaning at all. The approach turns your participation in any membership organization that actually does anything at all into the act of joining a lobby. Where it becomes obviously crazy is that even your most passive participation becomes lobbying. Many people join because the private range they want to use requires NRA membership. Some people belong as a way to support gun safety training for kids. Still others receive NRA membership as gifts from family members and friends. But all of them--according to the crazy and devious people out there--are members of the "bloodsucking gun lobby."
Liberals are making an especially grave mistake when they use such insane rhetoric because it's exactly what was done to people with left wing beliefs during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. A great many of those people lost their jobs and had their lives ruined because insane right wingers did then what those insane liberals are doing now. In the 1950s even a subscription to a left wing magazine or youthful flirting with the American Communist Party during the Great Depression of the 1930s (when it was fashionable) was equated with treachery to this country and got them blacklisted. It was crazy thinking then and is crazy thinking now, and it was wrong then and is wrong now too. But they don't get it and they don't realize that it will bite them hard.
So you, gentle reader, are a member of the "bloodsucking gun lobby" because you have read this message. By the slightest of logical extension, anyone who hasn't read this message is a member of the "Illiteracy Lobby," is opposed to the First Amendment, and denies the fundamental right of every American to have an education.
Those guys are big league crazy for real.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Sure inspires lots of confidence in the Democans and Republicrats, doesn't it?
YardVarmint
Member
I'm sorry I used to be a member but I can't see them doing squat about the real issue which is the NFA and '68 Gun Control Act.
I don't believe in compromising our rights away. In the mi-80's we got back the right to import and buy obsolete military bolt actions. But once the supply dries up they are gone period. In exchange we lost the right to register/own newly made machine guns.
The biggest problem is not the rank and file membership but the upper level administrators, lobbyists and paper pushers. They have a vested interest in not resolving the gun control issues with regards to the 2nd Amend. It's a money maker for them.
But that is just my opinion of them I got from years of following the gun control debate.
I don't believe in compromising our rights away. In the mi-80's we got back the right to import and buy obsolete military bolt actions. But once the supply dries up they are gone period. In exchange we lost the right to register/own newly made machine guns.
The biggest problem is not the rank and file membership but the upper level administrators, lobbyists and paper pushers. They have a vested interest in not resolving the gun control issues with regards to the 2nd Amend. It's a money maker for them.
But that is just my opinion of them I got from years of following the gun control debate.
JohnBT
Member
"...but I can't see them doing squat about the real issue which is the NFA and '68 Gun Control Act."
Did you miss FOPA of '86?
In any event, do you seriously expect anyone to be able to completely squash the GCA of '68 anytime soon? Where are the votes coming from to allow the interstate transfer of guns by non-FFLs; allow youngsters to buy guns; eliminate the requirement for serial numbers; eliminate the 4473; etc.
The following was Googled up at random so I wouldn't have to type out the list myself. John
"The GCA of 1968 was passed as a delayed reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy. Also known as the "Omnibus Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act of 1968", it repealed FFA38 but reenacted provisions thereof. In the process, gun law was moved from Title 15 to Title 18 of the US Code.
GCA68 provided the following:
prohibited the interstate transfer of guns between non-FFLs,
prohibited shipping guns through the mail system,
prohibited shipping ammunition through the mail system (overturned by FOPA86),
establish of minimum ages for firearms purchasers,
require that all firearms (domestic and imported) be affixed with a serial number,
the expansion of the categories of prohibited persons,
and enacted prohibitions on the importation of firearms “with no sporting purpose.”
Implemented the Form 4473 (yellow form) for purchases.
Attempted to address "Saturday Night Specials" by prohibiting from import small handguns.
Established some sentencing guidelines for firearm involved crimes.
It did not prevent the domestic manufacture or sale of firearms which would not pass the federal criteria for determining whether a firearm has “a sporting purpose.” "
But do look up the FOPA of '86. You're talking like you think nothing has changed since 1968. Something has changed and the NRA was involved.
John
Did you miss FOPA of '86?
In any event, do you seriously expect anyone to be able to completely squash the GCA of '68 anytime soon? Where are the votes coming from to allow the interstate transfer of guns by non-FFLs; allow youngsters to buy guns; eliminate the requirement for serial numbers; eliminate the 4473; etc.
The following was Googled up at random so I wouldn't have to type out the list myself. John
"The GCA of 1968 was passed as a delayed reaction to the assassination of President Kennedy. Also known as the "Omnibus Crime Bill and Safe Streets Act of 1968", it repealed FFA38 but reenacted provisions thereof. In the process, gun law was moved from Title 15 to Title 18 of the US Code.
GCA68 provided the following:
prohibited the interstate transfer of guns between non-FFLs,
prohibited shipping guns through the mail system,
prohibited shipping ammunition through the mail system (overturned by FOPA86),
establish of minimum ages for firearms purchasers,
require that all firearms (domestic and imported) be affixed with a serial number,
the expansion of the categories of prohibited persons,
and enacted prohibitions on the importation of firearms “with no sporting purpose.”
Implemented the Form 4473 (yellow form) for purchases.
Attempted to address "Saturday Night Specials" by prohibiting from import small handguns.
Established some sentencing guidelines for firearm involved crimes.
It did not prevent the domestic manufacture or sale of firearms which would not pass the federal criteria for determining whether a firearm has “a sporting purpose.” "
But do look up the FOPA of '86. You're talking like you think nothing has changed since 1968. Something has changed and the NRA was involved.
John
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I'm not going to argue the NRA is perfect, and frankly, the weight this book places on some of the allegations causes me great displeasure in my NRA.
I am going to argue that they're useful, and -but-for- them heading certain things off, a lot of us would already be dead, mourned and forgotten.
Amongst other examples I'll leave for others, they were useful in 2003 & 2004 when the AWB came up for renewal.
The digerati made it perfectly clear to them that their credibility and future existence was on the line. They snapped to attention, reversed course, and got their car in gear.
I am going to argue that they're useful, and -but-for- them heading certain things off, a lot of us would already be dead, mourned and forgotten.
Amongst other examples I'll leave for others, they were useful in 2003 & 2004 when the AWB came up for renewal.
The digerati made it perfectly clear to them that their credibility and future existence was on the line. They snapped to attention, reversed course, and got their car in gear.
JohnBT
Member
"NRA slammed by turncoat."
Of course the guy wasn't even working for the NRA when he was let go, er, fired. Still sounds like a bunch of sour grapes in book form.
The publisher, Wiley, is huge and well regarded generally. IIRC, they publish the Dummy series and publish stuff for Microsoft. But I repeat myself.
John
Of course the guy wasn't even working for the NRA when he was let go, er, fired. Still sounds like a bunch of sour grapes in book form.
The publisher, Wiley, is huge and well regarded generally. IIRC, they publish the Dummy series and publish stuff for Microsoft. But I repeat myself.
John
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Let's all resign from the NRA at once, then let's all vote for Hillary Clinton in the next election. That would send everyone a big message for sure I betcha. It wouldl show them exactly who we are and who they're dealing with, just in case they don't know already.
I used to like the NRA but they keep asking me for money to defend my Second Amendment rights. What gall! It says right there in black-and-white that I already have them rights, so the NRA ain't doing nothing for me.
And besides that I don't like all them hunting guns in the magazine and I don't like all them tactical guns in the magazine and I don't like the rifles or the handguns or the muzzleloaders or the shotguns or any of that other stuff either. If they don't print pictures of the guns I like--none of that other stuff--they don't represent me.
And besides that they're the biggest gun control organization in the world, which is why the anti gun people want to kill the NRA, which proves that the NRA is anti gun.
And besides that they send me those videos and ask me to pay for them. If I want videos I'll go to Blockbuster and rent me some gooduns.
And besides that the NRA passed the NFA law back in '34 and the FOPA back in '86 and they started the Civilian War back long ago. And they don't let me buy machinery guns neither so they're worthless trash.
And besides that if Wayne LaPierre wants to defend my rights he can dig into his own pocket instead of asking me for money. The nerve of that guy. He wears a suit.
I buy ammunition with my hardearned money and I belong to my local Jolly Boys Group, and some day I'm going to send those boys a buck or two. They don't like the NRA neither.
Don't need no NRA.
Why don't the NRA do something about those people who want to take away my guns!
That's why I don't belong to the NRA and why I'm voting for Hillary in the next election. That'll show them for sure.
I used to like the NRA but they keep asking me for money to defend my Second Amendment rights. What gall! It says right there in black-and-white that I already have them rights, so the NRA ain't doing nothing for me.
And besides that I don't like all them hunting guns in the magazine and I don't like all them tactical guns in the magazine and I don't like the rifles or the handguns or the muzzleloaders or the shotguns or any of that other stuff either. If they don't print pictures of the guns I like--none of that other stuff--they don't represent me.
And besides that they're the biggest gun control organization in the world, which is why the anti gun people want to kill the NRA, which proves that the NRA is anti gun.
And besides that they send me those videos and ask me to pay for them. If I want videos I'll go to Blockbuster and rent me some gooduns.
And besides that the NRA passed the NFA law back in '34 and the FOPA back in '86 and they started the Civilian War back long ago. And they don't let me buy machinery guns neither so they're worthless trash.
And besides that if Wayne LaPierre wants to defend my rights he can dig into his own pocket instead of asking me for money. The nerve of that guy. He wears a suit.
I buy ammunition with my hardearned money and I belong to my local Jolly Boys Group, and some day I'm going to send those boys a buck or two. They don't like the NRA neither.
Don't need no NRA.
Why don't the NRA do something about those people who want to take away my guns!
That's why I don't belong to the NRA and why I'm voting for Hillary in the next election. That'll show them for sure.
RevolvingCylinder
Member
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 782
Turncoat? Is there something wrong with having legitimate issues with an organization and addressing them? Or does that make one a "traitor" for not having blind loyalty. I guess you can call me a "turncoat" as well, especially since I'll at least listen to the opinion of someone who has done a great deal to protect what little is left of the Second Amendment.
There are plenty of things wrong with the NRA today and only by addressing them can we fix them. Richard Feldman's "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" is a book that I'm interested in reading myself.
Here is an excellent article on the book along with a little history on the NRA:
http://www.thegunzone.com/software/ricochet.html
There are plenty of things wrong with the NRA today and only by addressing them can we fix them. Richard Feldman's "Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" is a book that I'm interested in reading myself.
Here is an excellent article on the book along with a little history on the NRA:
http://www.thegunzone.com/software/ricochet.html
He also makes $1 Million per year from the NRA and has an open expense account funded by NRA members' contributions.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
Yup, RevolvingCylinder, I know what Wayne LaPierre is paid: I've actually read the IRS forms and didn't get my information secondhand.
LaPierre's entire compensation package is laughable when compared with that of the 500 highest paid chief executives in the country as determined by Forbes Magazine's annual survey but LaPierre is the chief executive of an organization that is as large and complex as many of those on the list.
More important to me, the organization LaPierre heads--the NRA--is what stands between my right to keep and bear arms and the Brady Campaign, the Million Moms, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Adrian Fenty, C. Ray Nagin, the United Nations, and all the other people and organizations that want to deprive me of those rights.
I don't want a cut rate advocate leading the only effective organization that serves my interests. It evidently troubles you, but I'm sure that we don't share the same interests. My own interests are in keeping my rights and I am willing to pay the cost of doing that. You're not. It troubles you that LaPierre is paid more than many other people and it also bothers you that he has an expense account funded by NRA member contributions. It doesn't bother me in the least. I want that man on the road working for me. He does it well. I haven't seen you do anything to help me, though, so I wouldn't contribute a cent to pay your salary or your expenses. Perhaps you don't get paid as much and don't have an expense account.
Who else should fund that expense account but NRA members? You might have a good idea and I'd love to hear it. For example if you have a way to get Ted Kennedy or Michael Bloomberg to fund the NRA expense account, I'm all for it. Or if you think that LaPierre should open a lemonade stand to earn money to fund the expense account, it's okay with me if you suggest that to him or raise it to the NRA membership. "LaPierre's Lemonade Puts a Smile on Even the Sourest Disposition" could be a catchy slogan. Or I suppose LaPierre could arrive at the airports early enough to pass the hat for his tickets and meals. That's another possibility you should suggest.
But neither of those things--LaPierre's salary and his expense account--bothers me at all. My focus is sharp and exclusive. I've told you what interests me. From my focus LaPierre is doing an excellent job. I still have my guns. On the other hand you, with all the respect due to you, have done nothing at all to help me keep them. You're interested in your issues with the NRA. I'm interested in keeping my guns. Life is beautifully simple for me.
You're not an NRA member, are you? It's great to be virtuous and save $35 a year too. I have to say that by the same standard I am one hell of a virtuous guy: I virtuously refuse to belong to organizations with membership fees much higher than that, and I should tell you that I don't belong to a great many of those. I even criticize them a lot, which makes me still more virtuous. I don't have your principles but I'm sure I beat you on virtue as measured by that scale.
Nope, I don't see "something wrong with having legitimate issues with an organization and addressing them?" But that's not what I think you're doing. I think you're merely being "virtuous" and "principled." No one who doesn't belong to an organization gets to "address issues" with it. The way to "address issues" is from within the organization. Belonging to an organization like the NRA doesn't mean complete approval of or agreement with everything it does. In fact the larger the organization the less general agreement and approval there will be. The way this darned world works is that you don't get to run it. Much, much more serious a problem is that I don't get to run it either, even though I would do a really great job. See, the trouble we both face is that other people have other ideas and don't recognize how smart we both are. And since they get a voice and a vote, we can't always have everything our own way even though we are gun owners. Drat it.
That's the interesting thing about every membership organization: if you don't belong to it you don't get to have a voice in it, and when there are "legitimate issues" on which votes are taken you don't get a vote either. Countries work that way too: only citizens get a voice and are entitled to vote. Business corporations too: only shareholders get a voice and votes. What you get to do from the outside is whine, carp, complain, attack, sneer, deride, derail, and all sorts of other stuff like that, but you don't get to "address" or even to have "legitimate issues." You can stomp your foot and say that they are too "legitimate issues" but they aren't, not even if you do it a lot and get your friends in that situation to join you in the mightiest chorus the world has ever heard. All you good folk are doing is making a lot of noise.
You don't even get the right to complain about Wayne LaPierre's salary and expense account unless you contribute to the funds that pay them. Don't mistake me. Of course you may continue to complain about such things but you just don't have the right to do it. So sad.
By the way, I look forward to those videos that the NRA/ILA distributes as a way to raise additional funds to fight for my right to keep and bear arms. Most of them are the History Channel's wonderful videos on guns. They're the best things around and the price is reasonable. The most recent one is on the M16. I want more. It's especially pleasing to me that the NRA/ILA uses my money to support my right to keep and bear arms. It does bother me, though, that in doing so the NRA/ILA also supports your right to keep and bear arms. If ever I can figure out a way to correct that obvious inequity you should be sure that I'll address that legitimate issue. I'm an NRA Life Member and contribute heavily to the ILA every year.
I carry you and several other people too, so be nice to me. It's easy to do because I am warm and cuddly, and rather loveable too in my own way.
LaPierre's entire compensation package is laughable when compared with that of the 500 highest paid chief executives in the country as determined by Forbes Magazine's annual survey but LaPierre is the chief executive of an organization that is as large and complex as many of those on the list.
More important to me, the organization LaPierre heads--the NRA--is what stands between my right to keep and bear arms and the Brady Campaign, the Million Moms, Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Adrian Fenty, C. Ray Nagin, the United Nations, and all the other people and organizations that want to deprive me of those rights.
I don't want a cut rate advocate leading the only effective organization that serves my interests. It evidently troubles you, but I'm sure that we don't share the same interests. My own interests are in keeping my rights and I am willing to pay the cost of doing that. You're not. It troubles you that LaPierre is paid more than many other people and it also bothers you that he has an expense account funded by NRA member contributions. It doesn't bother me in the least. I want that man on the road working for me. He does it well. I haven't seen you do anything to help me, though, so I wouldn't contribute a cent to pay your salary or your expenses. Perhaps you don't get paid as much and don't have an expense account.
Who else should fund that expense account but NRA members? You might have a good idea and I'd love to hear it. For example if you have a way to get Ted Kennedy or Michael Bloomberg to fund the NRA expense account, I'm all for it. Or if you think that LaPierre should open a lemonade stand to earn money to fund the expense account, it's okay with me if you suggest that to him or raise it to the NRA membership. "LaPierre's Lemonade Puts a Smile on Even the Sourest Disposition" could be a catchy slogan. Or I suppose LaPierre could arrive at the airports early enough to pass the hat for his tickets and meals. That's another possibility you should suggest.
But neither of those things--LaPierre's salary and his expense account--bothers me at all. My focus is sharp and exclusive. I've told you what interests me. From my focus LaPierre is doing an excellent job. I still have my guns. On the other hand you, with all the respect due to you, have done nothing at all to help me keep them. You're interested in your issues with the NRA. I'm interested in keeping my guns. Life is beautifully simple for me.
You're not an NRA member, are you? It's great to be virtuous and save $35 a year too. I have to say that by the same standard I am one hell of a virtuous guy: I virtuously refuse to belong to organizations with membership fees much higher than that, and I should tell you that I don't belong to a great many of those. I even criticize them a lot, which makes me still more virtuous. I don't have your principles but I'm sure I beat you on virtue as measured by that scale.
Nope, I don't see "something wrong with having legitimate issues with an organization and addressing them?" But that's not what I think you're doing. I think you're merely being "virtuous" and "principled." No one who doesn't belong to an organization gets to "address issues" with it. The way to "address issues" is from within the organization. Belonging to an organization like the NRA doesn't mean complete approval of or agreement with everything it does. In fact the larger the organization the less general agreement and approval there will be. The way this darned world works is that you don't get to run it. Much, much more serious a problem is that I don't get to run it either, even though I would do a really great job. See, the trouble we both face is that other people have other ideas and don't recognize how smart we both are. And since they get a voice and a vote, we can't always have everything our own way even though we are gun owners. Drat it.
That's the interesting thing about every membership organization: if you don't belong to it you don't get to have a voice in it, and when there are "legitimate issues" on which votes are taken you don't get a vote either. Countries work that way too: only citizens get a voice and are entitled to vote. Business corporations too: only shareholders get a voice and votes. What you get to do from the outside is whine, carp, complain, attack, sneer, deride, derail, and all sorts of other stuff like that, but you don't get to "address" or even to have "legitimate issues." You can stomp your foot and say that they are too "legitimate issues" but they aren't, not even if you do it a lot and get your friends in that situation to join you in the mightiest chorus the world has ever heard. All you good folk are doing is making a lot of noise.
You don't even get the right to complain about Wayne LaPierre's salary and expense account unless you contribute to the funds that pay them. Don't mistake me. Of course you may continue to complain about such things but you just don't have the right to do it. So sad.
By the way, I look forward to those videos that the NRA/ILA distributes as a way to raise additional funds to fight for my right to keep and bear arms. Most of them are the History Channel's wonderful videos on guns. They're the best things around and the price is reasonable. The most recent one is on the M16. I want more. It's especially pleasing to me that the NRA/ILA uses my money to support my right to keep and bear arms. It does bother me, though, that in doing so the NRA/ILA also supports your right to keep and bear arms. If ever I can figure out a way to correct that obvious inequity you should be sure that I'll address that legitimate issue. I'm an NRA Life Member and contribute heavily to the ILA every year.
I carry you and several other people too, so be nice to me. It's easy to do because I am warm and cuddly, and rather loveable too in my own way.
mjrodney
Member
This thread reminds me of an event that took place some years ago.
A stranger walked up to me out of the blue and said.....
"Do you want to go to heaven? If you do, you will say this prayer with me....exactly as I say it.....word for word. Don't miss a word or the doors will close".
This woman was obviously a fruitcake, but very "principled" and convinced of the error of my ways.
When I simply said, "No, thanks", she let loose with a tirade of indignance.
How dare I not do exactly what she wanted? I was a sinner and destined to go straight to hell. She then wanted nothing to do with me and moved on.
Right.
If I were to withhold my support of the most acknowledged heavyweight behind the Second Amendment every time they annoyed me (and they do, at times), I would be just like this stranger.
No, I continue to support the NRA, though less than perfect they be.
(Kinda like me, I guess).
And frankly, I support them in large part because they do far more to protect my Second Amendment rights than those of you who would be so "principled".
A stranger walked up to me out of the blue and said.....
"Do you want to go to heaven? If you do, you will say this prayer with me....exactly as I say it.....word for word. Don't miss a word or the doors will close".
This woman was obviously a fruitcake, but very "principled" and convinced of the error of my ways.
When I simply said, "No, thanks", she let loose with a tirade of indignance.
How dare I not do exactly what she wanted? I was a sinner and destined to go straight to hell. She then wanted nothing to do with me and moved on.
Right.
If I were to withhold my support of the most acknowledged heavyweight behind the Second Amendment every time they annoyed me (and they do, at times), I would be just like this stranger.
No, I continue to support the NRA, though less than perfect they be.
(Kinda like me, I guess).
And frankly, I support them in large part because they do far more to protect my Second Amendment rights than those of you who would be so "principled".
That is the bottom line indeed! The guy who wrote the book was on Tom Gresham's Guntalk last week. He seems to have some issues with the top management at the NRA (albeit nothing substantive the way I see it), however, even he said that if it was for the NRA, we would not be today where we are in regard to RKBA!
BTW, I expect Tom to invite in the studio someone from the NRA so that we can hear their side of the story. It will be only fair.
Last edited:
dhoomonyou
Member
Sour grapes.
and its written by a BRITISH rag, didnt THEY lose to the "colonies" a while ago?
and its written by a BRITISH rag, didnt THEY lose to the "colonies" a while ago?
Fatelvis
Member
The NRA is by far our best weapon against the potential loss of our RKBA. I came to accept that the higher ups will get decent salaries, and that some monies will be misused (in my opinion). Every big organization has this, and is no reason to stop supporting them. If there is some wasted money or not, the vast majority of the donated funds go towards Our better interests... Which is alot more than I can say for our State/Fed taxes!
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
I am about half way through the book, it came in from Amazon on Tuesday.
It's very interesting to say the least. Yes there are LOTS of bad feelings between Feldman and NRA, but I think there is some truth in what he says.
One of his big complaints seems to be that LaPierre is paid a LOT of money. I suspect that the head of the AFL-CIO is paid well, as is the head of AARP and probably even the Milk Producers Lobby. Feldman seems to be saying that the execs in NRA should be doing the work for minimum wage, but I notice that he hasn't mentioned in the book yet what he made at NRA or Glock.
On the other side I think there are things "revealed" which we have known all along. The NRA does come up with a "panic of the year" to get money, as do most lobby groups. The NRA executives would certainly be in a bad spot if all of a sudden all gun laws were repealed it's true, but I don't think they are in any danger of that so it's only a hypothetical anyway. Feinstien and McCarthy are not likely to change their minds next week.
Like I say I am half way through the book, and it is interesting, but I have yet to see any proof that NRA has ever intentionally derailed pro gun legislation just to keep the money flowing, which is the contention made by Feldman.
Maybe it's there in a shocking ending, give me a couple more days
He is very condescending of people that like guns for the sake of "zombies" etc, making fun of gun people in camo or those that wear pro2A tshirts or hats.
He seems to feel that "proper" gun owners are wealthy New Englanders in $500 duck hunting boots with shotguns that cost more than a house.
Just based on that I already don't like the guy.
It's very interesting to say the least. Yes there are LOTS of bad feelings between Feldman and NRA, but I think there is some truth in what he says.
One of his big complaints seems to be that LaPierre is paid a LOT of money. I suspect that the head of the AFL-CIO is paid well, as is the head of AARP and probably even the Milk Producers Lobby. Feldman seems to be saying that the execs in NRA should be doing the work for minimum wage, but I notice that he hasn't mentioned in the book yet what he made at NRA or Glock.
On the other side I think there are things "revealed" which we have known all along. The NRA does come up with a "panic of the year" to get money, as do most lobby groups. The NRA executives would certainly be in a bad spot if all of a sudden all gun laws were repealed it's true, but I don't think they are in any danger of that so it's only a hypothetical anyway. Feinstien and McCarthy are not likely to change their minds next week.
Like I say I am half way through the book, and it is interesting, but I have yet to see any proof that NRA has ever intentionally derailed pro gun legislation just to keep the money flowing, which is the contention made by Feldman.
Maybe it's there in a shocking ending, give me a couple more days
He is very condescending of people that like guns for the sake of "zombies" etc, making fun of gun people in camo or those that wear pro2A tshirts or hats.
He seems to feel that "proper" gun owners are wealthy New Englanders in $500 duck hunting boots with shotguns that cost more than a house.
Just based on that I already don't like the guy.
NUFF SAID!!
Nothing like getting fired to cool one's enthusiasm. Do any of you actually think Mr Feldman has other reasons for badmouthing the NRA. Like has been said, the NRA , with it's faults is the best thing going for all gun owners period. Most of the reasons I hear for not being an NRA member sound uninformed or just plain lame to me!!
Grizzly Adams
Member
I've been a member of the NRA for over 40 years and have not always agreed with everything they have done. But what organization has anyone ever belonged to that they agreed with 100% of the time? As has been said, if you are a member you are entitled to criticize, if not got somewhere else to peddle your tripe. If you are a member and changes are needed go about it in a reasonable/orderly manner.
SammyIamToday
Member
Comparing non-profit .org organizations with Fortune 500 is the best argument I've read in a long time.
The guy isn't saying anything that I haven't thought (as far as fear tactics for money). Just because the NRA is the best thing we have going for 2A rights (arguably), doesn't mean that we shouldn't force them to be accountable and efficient.
- Status
