Latest Emails from the NRA Change in Tone

Status
Not open for further replies.
If anybody here doesn't think the NRA doesn't have well educated think tanks and strategists plotting and planning their every move...
Yup!
I'm still DVRing a bunch of MSNBC shows and skimming 'em every night to see what gun lies they're telling tonight (they gave up trying to be cute / skirt the edges a while ago). I particularly remember one show (Chris Haynes) where the MSNBC talking heads were engaged in their usual groupthink, and making fun of the NRA (sounded like a bunch of the "cool kids" in high school).

One of the guests that night was Jack Abramoff (you remember him, don't you?).
Old Jack gave the MSNBC pundits around the table a quick lesson on how lobbying really works, and explained to them how the NRA was playing both sides in the recently defeated legislation. If one group they're lobbying wins, the legislation goes down in defeat - if the other side they're lobbying wins, they're working to water down the legislation to the point of it being useless.

I could not help laughing, as you could see the light come on in the heads of all the MSNBC "cool kids" around the table after Abramoff schooled 'em a bit - you could see the "HUH" expression on all of the group's faces!
Unfortunately, some NRA members have not had that light come on yet.

I saw many gun owners that were ripping the NRA because of some stuff they were doing regarding the recently defeated legislation - it's a shame they didn't see Abramoff's 'Inside Baseball' take on what the NRA was up to.

'Course, human nature being what it is, some of those same folks will refuse to see that light, and will probably stomp off in a huff....
I ain't giving that NRA any of my money!

Hey, I may not agree with everything the NRA does, and LaPierre may not be the best spokesman I've seen, but the more I learn, the better they seem to be playing the political game lately.

I wonder how many of those "ain't giving none of my money to the NRA" crowd are supporting their state 2nd Amendment activists?

I belong to the NRA for the national level work they do - I belong to VCDL for the state level work they do.
 
I, too, would prefer "my" NRA to be focused solely on issues surrounding 2A.

On the other hand, one can empathize with the change in tone given the recent "Et tu, Harry?" moment after decades of endorsements.
 
It depends on whether you see a politician or an administration as the embodiment of the anti-rights movement, and if you're willing to see our single-issue rights organization diversify into broader political infighting. Unfortunately, the "liberal" side of the aisle from generation to generation, doesn't have any sort of monopoly on unethical or even illegal activities, so if you tie RKBA to one platform or the other, then RKBA is vulnerable when "its" politicians falter, just as we may see Schumer & Co. as vulnerable when "their" folks are caught doing something despicable.

Surely, issues of the day can be used to torpedo the prospects of individual politicians, but the NRA should stay out of such things. Let the other political rodents gnaw on each other. Don't bring our RKBA organization down into that morass.
So by the same tolen, should all those political rodents who support the 2nd Amendment just STHU and keep out of the fight?
 
I sympathize with the OP.
While I am totally in support of protecting the Second Amendment, the NRA does occasionally cross into right wing hysteria.
It's unproductive.
 
So by the same tolen, should all those political rodents who support the 2nd Amendment just STHU and keep out of the fight?
What would that accomplish? I think you missed my point. I don't want the NRA endorsing any other political issues. But if the political types don't support RKBA, why would the NRA or any of us support THEM?
 
jem375 - I didn't say I'm not into politics. But why lump the gun issue with the other issues when it doesn't always line up? There will be plenty of times where a GOP candidate with an NRA "F" rating may be going against a Dem with an "A" rating. The NRA isn't about health care, foreign policy, or abortion rights. It is about the 2nd Amendment.
Can you cite any examples of these Republicans with F rating and Democrats with A ratings?
 
One of the guests that night was Jack Abramoff (you remember him, don't you?).
Old Jack gave the MSNBC pundits around the table a quick lesson on how lobbying really works, and explained to them how the NRA was playing both sides in the recently defeated legislation. If one group they're lobbying wins, the legislation goes down in defeat - if the other side they're lobbying wins, they're working to water down the legislation to the point of it being useless.

This really applies more to the thread "Will you continue to support the SAF after..." than to this one. If in part of lobbying the NRA has to stoop to endorsing some other Conservative issue, I do not want them going that far.
 
jem375 - I didn't say I'm not into politics. But why lump the gun issue with the other issues when it doesn't always line up? There will be plenty of times where a GOP candidate with an NRA "F" rating may be going against a Dem with an "A" rating. The NRA isn't about health care, foreign policy, or abortion rights. It is about the 2nd Amendment.

I know this is a good point in theory, but in practice it seems like both parties don't really fear losing an NRA A rating (Toomey had one as did at least one Democratic senator who voted for the bill) unless there's a risk they'll loose soon (all the Democratic senators who voted against the bill are from strong gun states--Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Arkansas) and at least one is up for re-election soon (Montana's other Democratic senator voted for it despite an NRA A rating). In practice, one thing both parties seem to fear is a more extreme candidate "primarying" them, and sadly the more extreme pro-gun candidates tend to be of the Republican variety. Until there's a pro-gun primary risk for a super majority of senators in both parties, I'd expect this to remain an issue.
 
The last couple of e-mails I've gotten from the NRA (during and since the conference) and in the latest copies of magazines I've gotten, there are frequent references to unemployment, ObamaCare, Benghazi, and many other topics that don't have anything to do with guns.

While I don't think we need to hear bout ObamaCare form the NRA....I am perfectly fine with them hammering Benghazi. Obama is showing his UTTER HYPOCRISY right now. He has claimed that Republicans are dishonoring those who died at Benghazi by turning it into a political controversy.

This is not even a month after Obama paraded around the parents of the Newton victims for his own political capital. Not much infuriates me more than hypocrisy.
 
While I don't think we need to hear bout ObamaCare form the NRA....I am perfectly fine with them hammering Benghazi. Obama is showing his UTTER HYPOCRISY right now. He has claimed that Republicans are dishonoring those who died at Benghazi by turning it into a political controversy.

This is not even a month after Obama paraded around the parents of the Newton victims for his own political capital. Not much infuriates me more than hypocrisy.
ObamaCare is chock full of antigun gun ownership regulations, Obama's Affordable Health Care is not about health, it is about control. And when you and your family's health care is controlled by the government, they will be controlling every aspect of your life.
 
ObamaCare is chock full of antigun gun ownership regulations...
Nobody's paying attention to ya - quotes like that just get in the way of a good rant! :rolleyes:

From a post way back, I reported that I have seen numerous discussions about how ObamaCare can be used as a back door for various aspects of gun control.
If true, I not only have no problem with the NRA opposing it, I feel it's their job to do so.
 
Certainly it is perfectly acceptable for the NRA to take a strong public stance against an anti-gun provision in a specific piece of legislation. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

I think what most of us here are opposed to is if the NRA should pander to broad "conservative" (or liberal, for that matter) issues that have no direct, tangible affect on gun control. e.g.: immigration, abortion, gay rights, education, foreign policy, religion, economics, etc., etc.
 
I hope they focus on gun issues and not other non-gun issues as has happened with the AMA and ABA.

it is true though that often the gun issues are hidden deep inside other legislation or at first glance it may not seem gun related.

Part of what makes the NRA strong is the unity that the members share.
 
And when you and your family's health care is controlled by the government, they will be controlling every aspect of your life.
Yep and it is scary how many sheeple don't get that or worse, want it.
 
You have to pass it to see whats in it.

This is another reason I think gun control is out of wind right now. Whenever you get politicians to reach across the aisle for stuff like Obamacare you are pretty much out of favors at this point.
 
In general, I'm not so sure we can separate things out into stand alone, single issues. If voters keep voting the same way as they have in the last couple of elections (both parties tend to stand on platforms), I don't think the people behind Obama Care, Benghazi, and environment/jobs are going to allow the 2nd Amendment to stand alone. It will be taken away with the rest. So I can understand why the NRA might mention some other political issues that on the surface may seem unrelated, but foundationally are one and the same. Going a step further, I might add that I'm of the opinion that most people who ahve problems with this, try to play it off and being fair-minded, when in fact it is a reflection that their politics in the main are probably contrary to those the NRA are now promoting (A.K.A. Democrat/Liberal leaning voters).
 
Last edited:
Well, I just got an email from the NRA Wine of the Month Club. So at least they are getting back to their core RTKBA mission.
 
I also got the NRA wine of the month club email... You've got to be kidding.
 
Doug, I think you hit the nail on the head. The people shouting loudest about the NRA's conservative leanings and favor separating the 2A from other issues have been, in my experience, much more likely be liberal and Democrat. They don't like being forced to decide just how strongly they feel about the 2nd Amendment, and would rather pretend to embrace it, while wholeheartedly supporting those whose mission it is to destroy it. You can't have your cake and eat it to, and to pretend that this issue doesn't have partisan leanings simply means you arent paying attention.
 
I've been a member of the NRA for over 50 years: For many years i donated to the ILA and PVF until it hurt.

The NRA got into superfluous feel good stuff when long time political operative David A. Keene became president of that organization.

While the NRA was warning about the the US government confiscating your guns under the auspices of a UN treaty and Obama-Care; politicians in several states were planning serious gun control. As a result we were blind sided.

i find it strange that the NRA never demanded reform of the BATFE during the now defunct congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious.

http://www.meetthenra.org/nra-member/David A. Keene
 
While the NRA was warning about the the US government confiscating your guns under the auspices of a UN treaty and Obama-Care; politicians in several states were planning serious gun control. As a result we were blind sided.

I don't believe for a second that many people were blindsided by the gun control movement, especially after it was given such a boost from Sandy Hook. Anyone who was "caught unaware...be it NRA leadership...its membership...or the common citizen...by this administration pushing gun control hasn't paid attention to Obama and Biden's history in regards to guns, their previous statements, and general arrogance.
 
...The people shouting loudest about the NRA's conservative leanings and favor separating the 2A from other issues have been, in my experience, much more likely be liberal and Democrat. They don't like being forced to decide just how strongly they feel about the 2nd Amendment, and would rather pretend to embrace it, while wholeheartedly supporting those whose mission it is to destroy it. You can't have your cake and eat it to, and to pretend that this issue doesn't have partisan leanings simply means you arent paying attention.

I don't believe for a second that many people were blindsided by the gun control movement, especially after it was given such a boost from Sandy Hook. Anyone who was "caught unaware...be it NRA leadership...its membership...or the common citizen...by this administration pushing gun control hasn't paid attention to Obama and Biden's history in regards to guns, their previous statements, and general arrogance.

Agreed, and agreed, and the truth is obvious for any discerning individual to see. What shocks me is the number of people like the ones mentioned in the comments that are members of gun forums, and claim to be advocates of the 2nd Amendment. No wonder our 2nd Amendment rights are so endangered.
 
Is Biden that anti or is he just playing the role that was assigned to him?

I don't have a problem with Democrats or liberals being pro gun. I believe they can be a very necessary group in the fight for gun rights. Those guys are working it from the inside. The Dems avoided this subject for a lot of yrs and recognized it as the political poison it really was. However, they thought they had a winner with Sandy Hook and rekindled the fight. Well, they found out different and I hope when many of them lose their jobs over this they will go back to being in the closet. I believe this is why they want to push a UBC through before the yr is up b/c in 2014 when they see the fallout it creates the movement will be dead again for many yrs.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, and agreed, and the truth is obvious for any discerning individual to see. What shocks me is the number of people like the ones mentioned in the comments that are members of gun forums, and claim to be advocates of the 2nd Amendment. No wonder our 2nd Amendment rights are so endangered.
I'm just going to assume that you and Davek1977 are referring to the NRA-ILA, not the NRA. Because your self-righteous tone would only make sense if you were referring to the part of the NRA that actually does something, not the part that sells t-shirts and hats and magazines.

If I am wrong and you are actually referring to the merchandising and sales wing of the NRA, then well, enjoy your hat...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top