NRA Gag Order Angers Membership

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that the anti-gun idiots specifically hate the and fear the NRA is reason enough to be a member of that organization. I am a member of the NRA and GOA. I encourage all of you to do likewise. Don't neglect the state RKBA organizations, because the states have a lot of swing, a little less now, but there you go.
 
Inane babble. I don't know how familiar people are with corporate structure; but the Board of Directors is the body responsible for appointing Wayne LaPierre, Chris Cox, and others to their positions. When is the last time you saw General Electric or Boeing's CEO dictate orders to the Board of Directors? No different at the NRA.

This is just Erick Erickson at Redstate pitching a fit again because he would like to see NRA-supporting Democrats squashed in the November elections by being forced to choose between their party's Supreme Court nominee and an NRA record vote. The NRA isn't obliging him on that (or on the DISCLOSE Act) because they recognize that you can't advance the Second Amendment by tying it to a single political party.

That is what this inane squawking is all about and it is what the previous complaints about the DISCLOSE Act are all about. Redstate wants the NRA to fall on its sword for conservative causes unrelated to the Second Amendment and not suprisingly, the NRA isn't going for it.
 
What Bartholomew Roberts said.

Twice in my lifetime i've had to defend my family and myself against gun armed home invaders. My Second Amendment right is the most precious right there is. Political hacks on both sides of the aisle in DC would love to take away my right to defend myself and mine.

This 50 year+ NRA member could care less that the staunch pro-gun politician is a fire breathing Baptist preacher in the mold of John Brown or a lesbian Wiccan.

The anti-gunners are laughing their rears off as gunowners regurgitate hate mail aimed at the NRA. :cuss:
 
"This is just Erick Erickson at Redstate pitching a fit"

He is so full of it that I can't imagine why anybody reads his silliness. I suppose there's no accounting for taste. Or lack of it.
 
Yeah, if you're going to be silent about Kagan, I'd wildly guess that the front page of the Wall Street Journal On-line is not the best place to do it...

http://online.wsj.com/home-page

As of 3:00 MDT, it's front and center: NRA: Kagan 'Should Not Serve on Any Court'
 
It does seem that John Boehner (R,Ohio) went out of his way to criticize the NRA leadership, and NRA members are also a part of his loyal conservative constituency. So by criticizing the NRA he's taking a risk if his criticism is considered to be wrong or unwarranted.
Click to expand...

I live in Ohio, matter of fact in the neighboring congressional district to Mr. Boehner. John says a lot of things, sometimes he even gets lucky and doesn't stick his foot into his mouth clear up to his crotch. I'll give him credit, he doesn't say as many truly stupid things as the VP does, but he's a close second on that list.
 
From Chris Cox of the NRA-ILA, June 30, 2010

... I sent an e-mail to NRA board members and staff stating that with the critical case of McDonald v. Chicago still pending before the Court, “it is very important that NRA not comment on Justice Stevens nor engage in speculation on potential successors.”

Similarly, when the President nominated Solicitor General Kagan to the Court in May, I sent a message to the NRA Board pointing out her lack of a judicial record; noting that NRA-ILA was reviewing all available information; and stating that “it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment.”... (Emphasis Added)
Click to expand...

OK. He didn't use the word "gag"...

Woody
 
it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

This sentence sounds to me like, "We need to be grownups, keep our heads out <...>, and make sure we know what we're talking about before we go off."

Now I've seen and heard a lot of people here who seem to advocate:

1. Being childish
2. Shoving our heads up <...>
3. Going off about things we don't know about.

Now maybe you might find doing that amusing, but it's not very smart. In fact, it's about as stupid as one could possibly be.

<...Insult removed...> It sounds that way. I am an NRA member who LIKES that the NRA is not giving sound bites to the enemy, making us look foolish, and squandering political capital. There are things about the NRA that I don't like, but a policy of not speaking out before gathering information is not one of them!

Let me make this clear: someone who <...Insult removed...> gives fodder to the enemy, is NOT on my side. <...>

Chris Cox doesn't want the NRA's efforts -- imperfect though they may be -- to be sabotaged by people who think they're on the same side. If that's a "gag order", so be it. <...Low Roadism removed...> Alan Gura is on our side, no matter what I think of his giving away potential NFA challenges in Heller. Chris Cox is on our side, no matter how I feel about the NRA's political game-playing. Larry Pratt will be on our side the moment he is a net positive for RKBA, but not while he's doing nothing but attacking the NRA. I totally disagree that we should be NRA and GOA members. Support efforts in the courts, and in politics. SAF, NRA, and other groups do this, however imperfectly. GOA merely funnels money away from them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Armed Bear

I, too, am an NRA member. Maybe if the NRA was a little more forthcoming to its members - you know, like posting messages to the hoi poloi about the goings-on - then there wouldn't be so much vocal dissent. The handling of the DISCLOSE Act certainly was a bust!

In this case, all it would have taken is a statement that the NRA was looking into Kagan and would come out with a statement shortly at the same time the Board members were cautioned.

It's undeniable what Chris Cox said to the Board members concerning Justice Stevens, however. Evidently Chris Cox has about as much faith in the Board as you do in me!

<...Response to Low Roadism removed...>

Thanks for the advice. I'll certainly take it under advisement.

Woody
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"OK. He didn't use the word "gag"..."

Nope. Or anything even similar to it. What he was doing was leading and organizing. That's what they pay him for.

John
 
In this case, all it would have taken is a statement that the NRA was looking into Kagan and would come out with a statement shortly at the same time the Board members were cautioned.
Click to expand...

I don't know what language you speak, Woody, but "it is important that we all refrain from commenting until we know more about Kagan’s views regarding the Second Amendment" says exactly that, to me.

First off "we are looking into Kagan's 2nd Amendment stance" is a <...Low Road...> statement from the NRA! Why would he need to say that to the Board (assuming he didn't already)?

Your attempt to justify your irrational accusation by imagining words that should be in a sentence is not working, sorry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
some of the people here (when not too busy building backyard bomb shelters) need to send money to GOA

some of the people here need to read actual statements from the NRA board of directors

some of the people here need to "buy more rope"

some of the people here need to send a few more of their hard earned dollars to NRA, even if they do not always agree with every position NRA may take (like me)

some of the people here have never done and never will do, no matter their loud sense of outrage, what NRA has done for us

some people (like me) think Heller and McDonald would never have happened in the in the last or next 30 years, absent what NRA has done for us for over 50 years

people who use only angry words to make you angry have only one purpose in mind, and is not your best interest they are thinking about, it is your money (or your vote, pretty much one and the same) in their pocket

grow up
 
Last edited:
I note that in the history of corporations, board members give orders. They may take advice, but they give orders. Kinda hard for employees to give orders to the boss--and still remain employed.

Nuthin' like making this website resemble a day nursery with missed naps...

Enuf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top