My frustration with the NRA and other RKBA activist organizations

[antsi]

I'm disappointed that gun-rights have been allowed to become a partisan issue. This may not be a direct failing of the NRA-ILA, but I think it makes the gun-community weaker. We become dependent upon one party to look after our concerns, and popular opinion will never allow one side to hold power for long (thank god).

I feel like our gun-rights are eggs and all of them are in the Republican basket. This is a failing of the NRA-ILA. The alienation of more liberal gun owners (like myself) by supporting candidates they'll hate more than they love their guns is not a smart policy. I can't find reasons to join such an organization.

OK, this is starting to get a little silly here.

It certainly is not the fault of the NRA-ILA that gun rights tends to split on party lines.

If the Democratic party wants to make gun rights a non-partisan issue, that is entirely in their control. All they have to do is drop gun control from their policy platform.

I think this is misplaced frustration on your part. The NRA-ILA is not preventing the Democratic party from embracing gun rights. For this you have your own party to blame. Maybe you should put some of this righteous indignation where it belongs.

 

[AStone]

24 year old, white male, unmarried, no kids
I've owned guns since the day before my 13th birthday (H&R Topper in 20ga )
I own handguns, rifles and shotguns - for self defense and target shooting (I no longer hunt)
Democrat and member of the ACLU
Atheist/Agnostic
Completed college, but still a student

Only differences:

I'm 50-something.
I own levers & wheels.
I've owned guns since I was 7.
(Daisy BB gun, followed by my first .22LR,
followed by a 16 ga, then a Marlin 336C in .35 Rem.
I now own .30-30, 357 mag, .22 LR, & .38 spl. )

Sorry, I don't like the NRA.
It's their force-it-down-my-throat
marketing tactic that I object to.

A few days ago,
I was interrupted at work
by a phone call from them.

A woman caller identified herself
as a representative of that organization,
then proceeded to read what was unquestionably
a scripted rant about how .gov was usurping our rights.

Agreed that .gov may want to usurp our rights.

But when the NRA uses the same tactics that
a telephone company uses to gain consumers
- she talked very fast so I couldn't explain
that "now" was not a good time for a call -
well, I'm just not interested.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Just do what I do when the NRA calls -- hang up. As much a nuisance as they are, they are still very effective at protecting our RKBA. Without them, there would have been some possibility that you wouldn't have all those guns, Nematocyst, at least the handguns. That may or may not matter to you. It does matter to me.

 

[AStone]

... they are still very effective at protecting our RKBA.

I agree.

But they can do that
w/o interrupting me at work.

 

[Frank Ettin]

A lot of people used to interrupt me when I was working. A lot of people call me and interrupt me at home. I don't like it, and those people don't do me any good. I hang up on them and don't buy their products or give them money.

The NRA does me quite a bit of good. I still hang up on them; but because of what they do for me, I'm willing to tolerate the occasional (brief -- because I just hang up) interruption. YMMV

 

[Dark_Harvest]

at the risk of outing myself as literate... i would like to debate the following point...


OP says:

i'm a...

"Democrat and member of the ACLU"

also stated by OP:

"I worried that the NRA makes it easier to portray gun owners too simply, as well."


How is your description of yourself any less simplistic than any NRA description of it's constituents?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

belus:

I believe I share your concerns about the direction the country is heading. There are a number of warning signs about the future of freedom in this country, and they're frightening to those who are attuned to them. I'd argue that we're seeing something of a backlash against intellectualism, which is generally tied with totalitarian thinking, rather than seeing something of an intellectual elite forming at the 'top.' But that's getting off-point.

I'll agree with you that the NRA is far from perfect. Look into their interaction with the Heller case for the most recent example (try to torpedo it, then try to take it over once they couldn't kill it), or look into their involvement and support of NFA-34, GCA-68, and the FOPA (which killed the ability to register new machine guns). Many will argue that the NRA made these "compromises" in the best interest of gun owners, and that the Heller decision was "too risky" and that the NRA was right to oppose it are much as they did.

Me? The last time I was a member I saw too many instances of local groups negotiating for years over gun rights finally about to get what they wanted, then the NRA would come in and offer something less and take credit for the whole thing. It was enough to make me swear off the NRA for good (to the point of refusing a free life membership from my father in law). The whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

But again, that's getting off-topic.

I've been looking into the requirements of becoming a nonprofit organization of late, and the rules are pretty strict. If your stated goal has to do with "firearms," then attacking the farce that is "unlawful enemy combatants" (used against citizens, and strictly a tool to get around rules that protect prisoners of war and judicial defendants) or the trying to redefine torture as something that causes "death or organ failure" (so that we can use "coercive methods" that no longer fit the definition of torture) is risking your 501c(3) status.

The organization you should be angry with is the ACLU. If they would support the 2nd Amendment with the same ferocity with which they support the rest of the bill of rights then they would be an amazing organization. The opinions of Fox News viewers notwithstanding.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

Finally, the gun community seems mute to acknowledge that violent crime is a problem. Why aren't we suggesting alternative ways to combat crime?

What NRA are YOU talking about? The whole CCW push is in direct response to crime.

I think one point the OP is making is that the NRA supports (as far as I know) only Republican candidates. You can argue that in most cases, only Republican candidates support 2A issues. OK. But the OP is suggesting, if I understand correctly, that the current Republican administration is responsible for a serious erosion of other constitutional rights - and that - as important as the 2A is - it is not the ONLY one we should be concerned about.

Well, no, there are Dem candidates that are pro gun and get supported by the NRA.
Then again, "that the current Republican administration is responsible for a serious erosion of other constitutional rights " is a legitimate concern. I just don't see any Dem candidates recently that weren't for gutting the Constitution even further. Look at what the Dems did during Katrina. Look at Chicago, DC, NY, Mass, and other Dem controlled territories and tell me if you think the rights are more or less protected than under the current Admin. If those are our only two options what do you expect from the NRA? The rant borders on hypocrisy.

 

[Drgong]

The NRA is focused on the 2nd amendment, as that is what they do, just as the pro-free speech groups mostly do not talk about gun rights or the 4th amendment.

Now I belive that we have to protect ALL of our rights, but in many cases groups focus in on one right. For example, the ACLU does not support the 2nd amendment as a individual right except one state chapter out west (I think it is Arizona, but do not quote me) The NRA does support Democrats who show support for gun rights. I don't vote JUST on gun rights, for example my house representative is about as pro-gun as you can get, but I am very unhappy with her and as a independent I emailed the person running vs. her to see there gun views.

I was a freeloader for a few years, Few days ago I joined the NRA. The NRA is a political organization, with all the warts that come with it, but they are the best at what they do.

 

[hso]

The organization you should be angry with is the ACLU. If they would support the 2nd Amendment with the same ferocity with which they support the rest of the bill of rights then they would be an amazing organization.

Derek may have hit it on the head. If you don't like the NRA for ignoring the rest of the BOR, the ACLU should make your hair burst into flames because they have denied part of the BOR.

As an ACLU member, they've certainly infuriated me over their current stance on the 2nd. Had they accepted the recent SCOTUS decision and joined in the fight to restore/protect our rights I would have been sending extra money to them. Instead I've stopped sending anything to the ACLU, except letters asking them to change their position on the 2nd, and Cato and the NRA get my support now.

 

[Drgong]

Actually speaking of gun crime, I believe that the NRA was at the forefront of the very effective program of laws that makes it a five year sentence for a felon to be in possession of a firearm in states like VA.

 

[Owens]

Unfortunately (or sometimes fortunately) compromise is the only way that legislation can get passed. Until legislators all get on the same page and remember that they are to serve the people and are to be guided by the USC, not their own agendas, we are gonna be stuck with this situation.
The NRA has a bit of a balancing act to do to maintain some effectiveness.

In short, I don't think there is a perfect RKBA organization.

 

[csmkersh]

belus, I'm a Patron NRA member. I also have problems with the BS La Pew and Company have pulled in the past. I also hold my nose and contribute to GoA despite their efforts against Texas CCW bill back in 1995. The SAF is often "over the top" with their alerts, but I contribute to them too. None are perfect, but I suspect you are just looking for an excuse not to join.

I'd suggest, as a minimum, you join the Arizona Rifle and Pistol Association rather than taking a free ride on others efforts.


​

 

[Wes Janson]

Actually speaking of gun crime, I believe that the NRA was at the forefront of the very effective program of laws that makes it a five year sentence for a felon to be in possession of a firearm in states like VA.

If the latter half of that statement is true, then I can only hope that the former half is sarcasm.

 

[Drgong]

Call me old school, I don't think felons should have Gun ownership, voting, and other rights till they show that they are peaceable citizens.

I also support the idea that rights should be restored in a timely manner, and the time needed to restore the rights depends on the crime at hand. the more "White collar" crime would be restored upon end of probation, and rapists would have a long time till they rights are restored.

Just my .02 Lira.

 

[rainbowbob]

I think one point the OP is making is that the NRA supports (as far as I know) only Republican candidates.

When I wrote "...as far as I know..." apparently what I knew wasn't very far. Several of you have pointed out that the NRA supports Dems who are pro-gun. That's good to know.

 

[ilbob]

The NRA is not perfect. It is primarily interested in the 2A. If you want to promote further spending on failed public education systems, that is your right, but it has nothing to do with the 2A. The NRA cannot even be all things to all gun owners, much less all things to all people.

If your issue is more leniency to terrorists who want to kill Americans, that is also your right. The ACLU is right there with you. They will happily accept your yearly dues check, while they actively work against any right that you might have to own firearms, much less carry them.

 

[MinnMooney]

I never knew of, nor think there is, an organization that is "Perfect". The NRA is definately focused on the 2nd amendment rights. Taking on the entire Bill of Rights defense would be an un-doable exercise in futility. It would cost too much and it would spread their resources way too thin. Nothing would get completed.

If you are too cheap or idealistic to join an organization that is out there fighting for your 2nd amendment rights then say so but don't accuse them of not caring what I and millions of others think.

Being a Democrate is mostly fighting against the 2nd amendment. Your vote cancels mine. Obama WILL take some of your 2nd amendment rights away (all of them if he had a free hand) but, at least, you won't have to worry about being robbed of your hard earned dollars (at $25m/yr., you're his target audience 'cause you qualify for many freebees which I'll have to pay for). In a Democrate's world, all working people make the same amount (thru huge taxes on the rich so it can rightfully be given to those who don't want to get a proper education and work hard for a living ) and the gov't takes care of anyone who is too lazy/stupid/illegal to make enough to live on.

 

[MinnMooney]

A lower crime rate overall would take the wind out of the anti's sails.

WHAT?!? Who are you trying to buffalo? The violent crime rate drops in EVERY STATE that has passed 'Right to Carry' laws. Do the anti's look at those facts? Of course not. Antis work on fear-mongering and inuendos.... they have no use for provable, documented facts that just get in the way of their agenda.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

The personal attacks need to stop.

 

[fatelk]

I think Bush is a great example of this latter issue, as we have a President who is seemingly beyond reproach by the NRA. He has done little or nothing to support our cause, and yet his actions in other arenas have caused all of us incalculable harm.

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one go unchallenged. I wil NOT defend Bush in everything, but this statement is objectively false. The appintments that he has made have have been very beneficial to our cause. The recent supreme court decision is just one example.

I really shouldn't even read these kind of threads, as I just get frustrated. As a conservative Christian, my beliefs and positions are frequently attacked and ridiculed as ignorant and uneducated, yet I am hesitant to defend them here because such things are off topic.

For example, the consensus among some is that the ACLU is wonderful except for their stance on the second amendment. As an educated, free-thinking person who cares about more than one issue, I could never support the ACLU even if they reversed their position on the 2A, because they distort most of the other amendments as bad as the second.

I don't bring this up to start anything, or stir the pot, so to speak. I just want to point out that this forum is populated with a very diverse crowd. It would be wise to remember this when spouting opinions about non-gun controversial issues. Not everyone agrees with you, nor are you likely to change their minds, no matter how convincing you think you are. People generally believe what they choose to believe, and if they are "fascist theocrats" or "socialist freaks" who happen to like guns, then so be it.

Personally, I have learned a lot, and developed a better understanding of people with opposite viewpoints, by reading this forum. I have not changed my mind on these other issues (drugs, abortion, homosexuality, etc.), and will continue to actively support organizations that share and promote my views in a positive manner. I do, however, realize that the folks on the other side are generally not evil demons, and we may very well agree on other issues. It really is OK to get along even if you don't agree, and the key really is to respect the other person and not get too uptight about your difference of opinion.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one go unchallenged. I wil NOT defend Bush in everything, but this statement is objectively false. The appintments that he has made have have been very beneficial to our cause. The recent supreme court decision is just one example.

Actually, Bush wanted to appoint Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales <shiver>. He was forced into more reasonable appointments by his fellow Republicans.

 

[Soybomb]

I think its just unrealistic to expect any organization to reflect your views 100%, at least assuming you hold rational views.

Democrat and member of the ACLU

So how do you rationalize membership in the ACLU while not the NRA? The ACLU has outright rejected the 2nd amendment giving an individual right and has continued to do so even after Heller flat out said they are wrong. I like the work the ACLU does even if I think they get it wrong here. I feel the same about the NRA. If I deprive either of money at this time it will ultimately only harm myself.

 

[JohnBT]

"If questions like these had been on their TAG poll, I would have signed up."

That is, in my opinion, a poor excuse to use. You would have signed up if you had wanted to sign up. You would have written down your thoughts and sent them to the NRA if you had really been interested in letting them know your thoughts.

As it is, it appears you have simply used their mass marketing mailing as an excuse to do what you already do - dislike the NRA.

As others have pointed out, you have many of your 'facts' wrong too.

John

 

[csmkersh]

Sorry, I just couldn't let this one go unchallenged. I wil NOT defend Bush in everything, but this statement is objectively false. The appintments that he has made have have been very beneficial to our cause. The recent supreme court decision is just one example.

Actually, Bush wanted to appoint Harriet Myers and Alberto Gonzales <shiver>. He was forced into more reasonable appointments by his fellow Republicans.

Amen, Derek. If Bush 43 had had his way and Gonzales had made the Court, Heller would have been 5-4 in favor of DC.


__________________

​