NRA - making them 'effectively'work for us

[Sinixstar]

If any of you think that you will bring more anti-gunners into our fold with honey, rather than vinegar, you are fooling yourself. That will work for moderates and people that are rational, but my experience has shown me that most of the anti-gunners are passionate, emotional, illogical people, they don't care about facts, truth, or reality when it comes to guns. So in the end, the tactics that the NRA employs I don't see they do much damage.

But that is just my opinion.

Here's the flaw with that argument.
You see the outspoken and vocal few - and assume that's how everyone is. Not the case. Just as we know that when the anti crowd tries to paint all gun owners as these raging lunatics who just want to kill things, that's not true.

Let me put it in more practical terms. Understand I am not trying to make a political argument, just demonstrating a point.
The last numbers I saw, showed that roughly 15-20% of the population identified as "extremely conservative". Roughly the same size crowd - 15-20% identified as "extremely liberal".
Everybody else? the other 60-70% of the people out there - somewhere in the middle. A sizable chunk may identify as "liberal" or "conservative" - but they are by no means hard core partisans.

I have no imagination that i'm going to go out and win over the hard-core anti-gun crowd. Their minds are made up. Just as they will not win us over. However, they are not going to be the ones that ultimately decide this. The people who will decide this, IS that moderate/middle road group. As with the past several election cycles, it's those "swing voters" that end up determining the outcome. Those are people we CAN reach out to, who will be interested in hearing our side, and they DO respond to honey over vinegar.
The reason why the anti-crowd has enjoyed more support from those middle of the road people over the years, is not that they're right, it's not that they have reason or truth on their side - it's that their argument is more "attractive". It feels better. "We're not taking away your rights, we're simply trying to balance rights - with saving lives." How do you argue against "saving lives"? It becomes an academic discussion about rights - which is something only lawyers tend to respond to at a gut level. Average people who do not feel they have a huge stake at play, will go with the gut "feel good" side. The attractive argument - not necessarily the "right" side of the issue.

THAT is where the NRA's tactics do not do much damage. Perhaps not with the hard-core anti crowd - but with the middle of the road people, when we've been painted as the 'crazies' - it absolutely kills us.

The history of legislation in this country is all the proof you need of that.

 

[eflatminor]

Nothing wrong with LaPierre's salary

Do you want proven talent at the top? The guy that can make the right decisions to lead the overall direction of the ship? Then you have to pay for that. That's capitalism and it works. Now if you think he's the wrong guy, that's another story but to suggest the salary level is too high for an organizatoin the size of the NRA is off base. It's a competitive salary and similar to what Fortune 500s of the same size pay their CEOs.

 

[Sinixstar]

While you are at it, could you please explain to each of us how it came to be that the country's most liberal states, also have the most draconian gun laws? Or maybe I have my geography mixed up and California, New York, New Jersey, Massachussetts, Illinois, Wisconsin, District of Columbia are really Conservative areas that are pro-gun.

Those areas also happen to be some of the most populated. It's a lot easier to make a public safety argument in an area such as Chicago - where population density is around 1150/sqmi, than it is in say Douglas Co Nevada where population is around 47/sqmi.
Urban areas also tend to have more responsive (because of density and the nature of an urban environment) essential services. Tends to take some of the bite out of the "the cops are 20 minutes away, and I need to protect my family" argument.
You also don't have a whole heck of a lot of sporting in a densely populated area. Last I checked there was no hunting in Lower Manhattan, or the south side of Chicago.
The standout here - is WI. IIRC - that was an effort on behalf of Illinois/Chicago. They tried the same thing with Indiana. What happens is, since guns/ammo are illegal in chicago, people just drive an hour or so away to Indiana or WI, load up there -and come back.

As far as gun control laws in some of these areas are concerned - i'm not sure how many big cities you've been to - but I honestly cannot think of a single place in NYC you could fire a gun, even in self defense - and do so safely. The argument in favor of restricting guns there is pretty compelling, and in places like that - we probably don't have a whole heck of a lot of chance. That's fine for now. Again, focus on the places where you can make a difference - focus on the moderate, middle of road people/places that are persuadable.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Fire A Gun Safely?

Urban areas also tend to have more responsive (because of density and the nature of an urban environment) essential services. Tends to take some of the bite out of the "the cops are 20 minutes away, and I need to protect my family" argument.

Negatory. If the cops are even five minutes away they will be too late.

I honestly cannot think of a single place in NYC you could fire a gun, even in self defense - and do so safely.

Which is why the police there don't carry guns?


I would suggest that there is flawed reasoning at work here.

 

[SuperNaut]

I honestly cannot think of a single place in NYC you could fire a gun, even in self defense - and do so safely.

Maybe you aren't thinking hard enough?

 

[Sinixstar]

Negatory. If the cops are even five minutes away they will be too late.

You and I understand that - but again, for argument's sake, it's not like you're in a rural area where the cops are 20 minutes away.

Which is why the police there don't carry guns?

Yes, As a matter of fact, quite a few do not.

I would suggest that there is flawed reasoning at work here.

Have you ever seen the movie "Thank you for smoking" ?
It should be required watching for anyone making an argument on this issue.
Being "right" isn't the gold standard of winning the battle. You just have to prove the other guy is wrong, and do it in a way that's more attractive.

 

[MT GUNNY]

SiniXstar said:

"You wonder why there's no democratic gun rights groups? It's simple. Because if you even mention that you're a Democrat, voted Democrat, or even lean left - the crazies come out of the wood work telling you you're a hypocrite, unamerican, don't understand the issue - or are some sort of plant to try to disrupt the pro-gun cause. Why on earth should of any of [us] subject ourselves to that."



What about the Brady Camp?

I could say the same thing about mentioning you're a Republican with Conservative values- the Idiots come out..........................................

 

[Lonest@r]

What you seem to have taken issue with is the way that the NRA portrays certain people, politicians, or issues in regards to gun rights.

NOT AT ALL. I don't care how they portray people/issues, but how they do it. People/issues are who/what they are, simple information is all we need, not 'hate speech', and I use that term loosely.

If any of you think that you will bring more anti-gunners into our fold with honey, rather than vinegar, you are fooling yourself.

It is not my goal to convert anti-gunners, but rather rally more pro-gunners and reach moderates with 'straight talk', facts and common sense.

to suggest the salary level is too high for an organizatoin the size of the NRA is off base. It's a competitive salary and similar to what Fortune 500s of the same size pay their CEOs.

Non-Profit? Why don't I just start up a non-profit (THR.org) , collect ~$100K, pay myself $50k and, spend the other $50K on T-shirts, posters, flyers and premotional material to make money. Grow from there, give myself % annual raise according to inflation regardless of actual income, claiming non-profit accepting donations and asking for volunteers. Comments not directed directly towards NRA, thats just my beef with all Non-Profits.

Some material gun-advocates could benefit from...

PROHIBITION and DRIVING
DUI vs. GUN relate death
AUTO vs. GUN related accidents
Assault Weapons vs. Crime Weapons

Should we ban alcohol due to those irrespsonsible distillers/bartenders?

How about the automakers that manufacture vehicles capable of exceeding speed limit?

Should we ban weapons that mostly law-abiding own because it's scary looking?

Such a thread topic was brought up recently, apparently nobody knew where to find them and it was noted to "do your own research. These are the types of facts I would think pro-gun organizations would compile annually to state their case....

To clarify...
I do AGREE with everything the NRA does/stands for, just maybe NOT how they address the issue to it's members. It would be nice to be armed with FACTS rather than rhetoric.

 

[Sinixstar]

What about the Brady Camp?

I could say the same thing about mentioning you're a Republican with Conservative values- the Idiots come out..........................................

Absolutely.
I firmly believe political ideology is no prerequisite for idiocy.

 

[wacki]

Since you're going to quote me I need to clarify. Lapierre makes almost a million a year.

One million a year? Ugh... I support the NRA but I can't stand that guy. When he talks it's like he's more about booming voices and dramatic flair than actually having his facts in order.

oh well... He's better than nothing, that's for sure.

 

[camslam]

Sinixstar: I'm not sure how we jumped from gun control advocates and the states they represent, to suddenly talking about the uses of guns in big cities, etc...

I have visited and lived in several big cities. I don't care what city you are in whether it has 20,000 or 6 million residents, guns have their use and like any instrument can be effective for good and bad.

Lonestar:

I think we agree on most items here. I would love to see the money brought into the NRA spent more effectively, I would like to see them take tougher stands on things, and I would like to see them administer some things differently, but at the end of the day, they are still the best thing going for gun rights.

I don't think they have participated in any hate speech tactics, what they have done is use the ignorant words of a candidate against him. Is it effective? Who knows, this election was as messed up with a perfect storm of variables as I have ever seen.

If Obama had lost, it would have left many people really scratching their heads.

The key to gun rights in the future is recruiting more people to our activity and understanding of guns and their uses.

I have personally helped bring 6 previous anti or moderately opposed individuals into the shooting arena over the last several years. All of them now own guns, 4 of them have obtained CCW permits, and 2 of them are very passionate about their gun rights now. I have several people I am still working on, that will continue to be a challenge.

Get out and expose people, that is the key to our future.

 

[Sinixstar]

I'm not sure how we jumped from gun control advocates and the states they represent, to suddenly talking about the uses of guns in big cities, etc..

We got on the subject by discussing the tactics/arguments used by both the pro/anti sides - and why they're effective/not effective.
If you want to plead your case effectively - you must understand your opponents argument in order to properly counter.
You asked why the big "dem" states are so anti-gun. Because they've found an effective argument to bring people to their side. One that we have yet to find an effective counter to.

The case that's made in Wyoming or Nevada or Indiana - often times will not work in LA, Chicago, or New York. The anti-crowd varies their message to the environment they're marketing to, if we hope to compete - we must do the same.

 

[Maia007]

Sinixstar............you make compelling arguments. As we have seen, the country is shifting. We must also shift from simply being "right" (which we are) and from a strategy of "preaching to the choir" and firing up the NRA membership, to appealing to the ordinary less-than-hard-core (not like us) public with arguments that are relevant to them and their lives. Because that is what the other team is doing...

I believe that this can be done....but not the way we (and the NRA) are doing it now.

 

[camslam]

Sinix and Maia:

That all sounds well and good, but the realities are much different. The realities are, it doesn't matter if you are in New York City, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver, Orlando, Chicago, Des Moines, St. Louis, etc...

The media is about 98% against guns and portrays them in a bad light. That goes from TV, to magazines, to newspaper, to movies, to politicians, etc... Throw in the educators of our schools, particularly colleges, and you have more than an uphill battle.

Gun stories rarely ever get a fair shake or objective perspective when they are reported.

How do you propose to influence all the moderates and get them to understand the simple truths behind guns and their use in this country and the world?

That is why I would like to see a more concerted effort by the NRA to actually educate the masses, but probably not in my lifetime, because it would make too much sense.

We can write all the letters we want to everyone we want, but until we reach critical mass in this country, where people understand the truth about guns, gun laws, and gun uses in this country, it is going to be literally 1 recruit at a time.

Self defense and the right to keep and bear arms doesn't change based on local. That is what Obama has been preaching as of late. Self defense is self defense, you may need it more in some areas than others, but those are the areas you can't get it.

What is the old adage? A liberal is just a Conservative that hasn't been mugged yet?" That is obviously just a fun joke, so please don't take it literally.

 

[Sinixstar]

How do you propose to influence all the moderates and get them to understand the simple truths behind guns and their use in this country and the world?

That is why I would like to see a more concerted effort by the NRA to actually educate the masses, but probably not in my lifetime, because it would make too much sense.

You make the argument for me.
The fired up rhetoric doesn't cut it with the moderate/undecided segment. Education of facts and logical concise arguments do.
The Brady crowd throws their numbers, statistics, etc out - and makes a compelling emotional argument.
We counter by getting fired up and angry and throwing accusations around - and those middle-of-the-road people get turned off.

As for "doesn't changed based on locale" - I agree on the intellectual level. Having lived in NYC, and gone through some sketchy situations in the process - i will tell you this.
There were times where even though I felt threatened, had I been armed, I would not have taken the shot.
I can live with taking down a bad guy - I couldn't live with knowing I took down the innocent guy down the street.
So while i absolutely agree to the academics of the rights/locale point of view, it comes back to - who's making the attractive and emotional plea? When we start getting into the intellectual argument, we lose (as history has shown).

 

[Lonest@r]

As for "doesn't changed based on locale" - I agree on the intellectual level.

Agreed. Although it is hard to teach city folk country thinking. I'll quote Hank Williams- Country Boy Can Survive.

I had a good friend in New York City
He never called me by my name, just hillbilly
My grandpa taught me how to live off the land
And his taught him to be a businessman
He used to send me pictures of the Broadway nights
And I’d send him some homemade wine

But he was killed by a man with a switchblade knife
For 43 dollars my friend lost his life
Id love to spit some beechnut in that dudes eyes
And shoot him with my old 45
Cause a country boy can survive
Country folks can survive

Cause you can’t starve us out and you can’t make us run
Cause one-of- ‘em old boys raisin ole shotgun
And we say grace and we say Ma’am
And if you ain’t into that we don’t give a damn

 

[camslam]

There were times where even though I felt threatened, had I been armed, I would not have taken the shot.
I can live with taking down a bad guy - I couldn't live with knowing I took down the innocent guy down the street.

Without getting off onto a completely different tangent, every person has to decide what they will do if confronted with a lethal threat. In New York city, you would have been breaking the law to begin with, if you were carrying a gun. Hence the problem with gun laws.

That being said, the scenario that you paint isn't too likely as most criminals look to pick the low hanging fruit. They get people when they are isolated, not in a crowd. While crimes can and do happen with several people around, usually it is less crowded.

I would never want to hurt or injure another if I used my gun in self defense, but then again, that is why I stay aware, practice on a regular basis, and try to avoid situations to begin with.

It is very hard to help anti-gun people understand that your right to self defense doesn't change when you walk out onto the street, enter a restaurant or theater, etc... Boy it would be nice to live in the world free from any recognition as to what really goes on.

The Brave One was an interesting movie to watch for just that reason. So bringing it all back:

Let's recruit more people to our side.

Let's accept the NRA for what it is and support it.

Let's all do our part to educate the masses. Too bad we don't have the time, money, and resources to do it on a massive scale.

Anybody want to buy Powerball tickets with me.

 

[Lonest@r]

Let's recruit more people to our side.

Let's accept the NRA for what it is and support it.

Let's all do our part to educate the masses.

By recruit, do you mean rally others who already beleive in 2A to join the fight, either by NRA, some other 2A organizationform, or some other form of activism.

We shouldn't just 'accept', we should voice our opinions, that we do not feel we are being adequately represented just as we would our elected officials. What can we do?

Education is the key. More than just firearm education, but also US HISTORY and the reasoning for 2A. Recent statistical data showing guns are not the problem, lack of responsibility is the problem, criminals are the problem.

Oh how the times have changed, my father told me how when they we're teenagers he and a friend would carry their 22 rifles on downtown public transportation to the gun range. I couldn't imagine carrying a 22 in public these days, everyone would suspect your some kind of sniper.

WE THE PEOPLE need to defend our Constitutional Bill of Rights, just as Christians defend the 10 Commandments.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

From Within

See post #12 of this thread.

Join.

Be active.

Be noisy.

Change from within.

 

[Lonest@r]

That's about the only way...

 

[MT GUNNY]

Suck it up! Get on the offensive.
November 13, 2008

Last Sunday I gave callers 30 minutes to whine, complain, worry, snivel, posture, and generally go through whatever stages of grief worked for them following the election results putting Senator Obama into the White House. After all, we need time to "process" and "deal with it," don't we? (If you missed the show, you can download it at www.guntalk.libsyn.com)

Are you kidding? Suck it up! I have a plan. Many gun owners are living in a fantasy world, meaning they don't know what's going on, don't know how to put it into perspective, and don't have a clue about what is the most effective course of action.

Note the word "effective." Burying your guns is just plain stupid. It's like volunteering to give your guns to the banners, and they don't even have to take action. Give me a break. What's your plan? Dig them back up when tanks are coming down the street? Yeah, right. Time to quit indulging in fantasies, reach in your pocket for some dollars, and buy a clue.

Defense does not win. Hiding does not win. Only going on the offensive will win. But first, some perspective. I started debating this issue in 1967, but it goes back much farther. I have a copy of an article in "This Week" magazine from 1955 titled "Get Rid of That Gun!" It starts out, "The pistol, unregulated and unchecked, is dangerously out of control. Two thirds of all the homicides committed in the United States now involve firearms." It goes on, but it's the same stuff you read today. That was more than a half-century ago!

Why bring this up? Just to show that this is an ongoing battle. This latest setback isn't the end, but it sure is serious. It does mean that we are faced with certain assault on gun rights, and those attacks are likely to come quickly. We have to launch our own broad-based action to beat back the efforts of those who have detailed plans to 1. ban the sale of the most popular rifles being sold (they call them "assault weapons") and used for hunting, competition and personal protection; 2. remove protections against junk lawsuits against gun makers; 3. close gun shows. Their plans were laid out in the web site the Obama transition team put up only hours after the election. Once I started talking about it on the air, though, they took it down. Now, I'm not claiming they did this because of Gun Talk Radio, but then again . . .

Not to worry. We've found the page they took down...Click Here to view (scroll down to the "Crime and Law Enforcement" section). Go take a look at what they don't want you to know.

ACTION PLAN

So, what do we do? I've always believed that we ultimately win the gun culture war by showing the public that firearms ownership is normal, safe, and that we gun owners are responsible neighbors. That's still my belief, but we don't have time for that right now. This new group of gun banners (Hey, Obama's chief of staff was the gun control point man for Bill Clinton!) are going to move quickly.

How can we fight it? Simple. We scare them. I don't really care if they respect us as long as they fear us. I'm talking about putting those elected folks in fear for their careers. There are enough elected Democrats in Congress that can be defeated if they vote for gun bans to stop this movement.

How do we do that? I can come up with only one way. We have to double, then triple, the membership in the NRA. Please, don't bore me with the "But the NRA sends me too much mail." Look, you're in or you're out. If you are out, you are part of the problem. If you are in, you are part of the solution. Get off your butt and join. Buy memberships for all the members of your family.

WE MAKE IT EASY

http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR020586

Click the "Join NRA" button above and you can join or buy memberships for others. BONUS! We've negotiated a deal for you. The regular price is $35 a year. You can get it for only $25 a year through our link. Also, you can get youth memberships and associate memberships. That last one is important. Other members of your family might be sharing your NRA magazines, and you may not want to duplicate that, so the associate membership is only $10, and the member doesn't get the magazine.

Why is this important? If Chris Cox, head of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, walks into a Congressman's office backed by three million members, it's one thing. When he walks in backed by 10 million, the reception is totally different. This is pure representative politics. You are sending someone to Washington to represent you. It is the heart of the democratic process in the United States. Right now, the message needs to be clear, and it needs to be backed with political muscle. This is hard ball. It's a knife fight in a phone booth. To lose is to die. We lose our gun rights if the gun banners succeed in the coming battle.

That message we must deliver is, "If you vote for a gun ban, or these other measures, we will send you back home at the next election." Period. We did it in 1994, and regained control of Congress after a 40-year reign by the Democrats, and it was because of their votes for Clinton's gun ban. They need to know we will do it again.

You've heard me say this before. If you are not an NRA member, you are sitting in the wagon, and the rest of us are having to pull your load. We need the help. We need for you to spend the cost of a single box of steel shot magnum loads and join. Then we need you to get your friends to join, or to sign them up.

My new rule. I require everyone I introduce to shooting to join the NRA on the spot. That's right. Hand me twenty-five bucks and I'll go online at www.guntalk.com and sign them up. Anytime someone mentions to me that he or she is a gun owner, I ask if they are an NRA member. If they are not, I embarrass them (if necessary), or do whatever is needed to get them to join.

I'll have more action items for you later, but this is important. This must happen immediately. Sure, you are buying guns, ammo, magazines, etc. So, invest a few bucks to make sure you can keep them!

Do it today.

And...stand by for more incoming.

Tom Gresham
NOTE not MT GUNNY's article!

 

[Lonest@r]

Great article Gunny. I agree, NRA is our best option at this point, I just question the effectiveness of my/our dollar...

Note the word "effective."

Time to quit indulging in fantasies, reach in your pocket for some dollars, and buy a clue........

Get off your butt and join.

We need to do more than simply get off our butt long enough to reach for our wallet.

I ask if they are an NRA member. If they are not, I embarrass them (if necessary), or do whatever is needed to get them to join.

Why? They could possibly spend their money and time more effectively, say teaching gun safety course or organizing a family type event for public, like Boy Scouts which teaches (not sure if they do anymore) archery and firearms, or even setup 'firearm education' booth at flee market or local mall.

But on the other hand, $35 is not worth worrying about if all you look to do is increase memebership for 'political' gain.

 

[Just One Shot]

Years ago I was a member of NRA. The thing that really yanked my chain was all the junk mail they sent me.

It seemed like I was recieving a request for money every few days. I got frustated and dropped my membership.

I can't help but wonder if they spent more money sending me all the junk mail than what my membership cost for a given year?

With that said, I will be joining back up in Jan. 09 because the range I'm joining is going to start requiring all members to be members of the NRA.

I know that their service is valuable to the gun owner and they do work for our rights, I just hope they have changed their practice of wasting the funds we give them by badgering their members for more money on a regular basis.

 

[JN01]

Lonest@r said:
The problem I have with NRA is they use too many political mud-slinging/fear tactics. Most any American Rifleman/Hunter is full of "They're taking our guns" and "Top 10 anti-gun politicains" type headlines. When I saw the "I'm a BITTER gun owner and I VOTE" sign, I rolled my eyes, talk about whacko(waco?). That was before learning it was in repsonse to Obama's remarks, but even though, they could use their money to a much better cause than regurgitating political speech. It's just more rousing to the average 'redneck' NRA member....

So are you denying that there are in fact some politicians trying to take our guns, or do you not want the NRA to say anything about it, or just that they should find a "nice" way to point it out? One should take into account that NRA publications are targeted at members and are therefore mostly "preaching to the choir". Their sometimes (admittedly) overblown rhetoric is probably aimed at firing up the base, much in the same way that publications from you labor union, political party, or other special interest group do.

Sinixstar said:
You make the argument for me.
The fired up rhetoric doesn't cut it with the moderate/undecided segment. Education of facts and logical concise arguments do.
The Brady crowd throws their numbers, statistics, etc out - and makes a compelling emotional argument.
We counter by getting fired up and angry and throwing accusations around - and those middle-of-the-road people get turned off.

You contradict your own arguement. The Brady bunch does nothing but spew fired up rhetoric filled with lies, illogic, and emotionalism. It apparently works with a lot of people. A lot of people these days have really short attention spans. They don't want to have to listen to facts and reason, blah, blah, blah, blah. They react to what they "feel". Get them with an emotional response or you don't get them at all. The problem is, the antis have a much easier sell on emotion.

The other part of the problem is the fact that virtually all the entertainment/news media outlets are anti-gun. No matter how nice a face you put on the NRA, they (Hollywood/media) are going counter it with their propoganda, or simply deny access to your "kinder, gentler" NRA.

So exactly what should the NRA be doing differently to get to more people then?

 

[7.62X25mm]

Sign up for the NRA Life Membership with the "easy pay plan" -- $25 quarterly until you're paid up.

It's called "putting your $$$ where your mouth is" -- and putting your A$$ on the line.

I don't agree with MOST of what the NRA comes up with, but when the NRA lobbies, Congress listens.

Politicians realize that "gun control" is a losing political issue, and that coming out for it will cost you the election.

Demos need to think about that while the Southern Confederacy -- AKA "GOP" -- is getting its act back together.

Sarah Palin is NOT the answer.