NRA Paradox

[Waitone]

NRA is not perfect. No organization is. But what impresses me is the NRA impact is significantly larger than its size. Socialists and various statists in this country fear the NRA's effectiveness. Any number of advocacy groups point to the NRA as the most effective, most imitated, most respected grassroots organization. I find it quite appropriate that those who would strip the citizen of the right to self-defense fear this one organization.

Fear is a great motivator and if it is fear of the NRA that keeps Schumer and Feinstein rocked back on their heels, I'm in. I am sick of the incrementalism by our opposition. I don't like to see my side agree to anything. I am not happy with a lot of what the NRA does because I WANT ROLLBACK AND I WANT IT NOW. Fortunately I'm not in the political arena but the NRA is and it does a great job. If you can find a more effective organization join up.

 

[sfhogman]

Waitone,
Well said.

Jeff

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

The NRA Should Pick Its Fights Carefully

One of the most effective ways to prevail in the forum of public opinion is to label the other side (whomever they are that particular day) as 'extremists'. That way folks who are neutral or leaning sympathetically in your direction don't have to give it much thought.

Going down the same path, "capturing the center" is how you win elections, and especially if you can convey that your approach to the question at hand is the "Mainstream" position.

The NRA is doing a decent job of portraying Gun Owners in a more favorable light and reducing the effectiveness of the media and antis in trying to demonize us. However, we all could do much more. That takes some dollars and some efforts to organize people who should count to get up off their rear ends and participate.

The NRA will only be extinct and "not matter" if we allow it to happen. The organization is certainly not perfect, but then neither is democracy. However the effectiveness of both depend largely on the PARTICIPATION of those who are impacted. As the saying goes, we ARE the NRA, and I for one have recruited 11 new members just this year.

 

[JohnKSa]

Hey, I'll switch memberships in a millisecond if someone shows me something better. I'm not talking about idealistic organizations that sound great but can't produce, I'm talking about a real world organization with the political clout to encourage politicians to go along with their views and the views of members.

What? You can't build an organization like that overnight? You sure as hell can't--it took over 100 years. So before you decide you want to tear it down, you'd better have something to replace it.

Unless you're the ruler of a dictatorship, compromise is an absolute necessity to achieve political goals. At least until everyone thinks exactly alike.

BTW, compromising one's IDEALS is not the same as the compromise required to make political progress in a climate of wide-ranging political views.

Carry permits are a perfect example. There is no way that most states would have been able to pass laws that simply legalized handgun carry with no restrictions. However, they have been able to pass carry permit laws. As a result, the progression in TX has led, over a period of years from virtually no legal handgun carry, to permit carry, to now, starting on September 1, ANYONE will be able to carry a handgun in their vehicles. WITHOUT A PERMIT.

Strictly speaking, carry permits are a compromise from the ideal that law abiding citizens should be able to carry handguns. However, they have led to many gun-right advances.

So, because I advocate carry permits does that mean that I have compromised my IDEALS in regard to bearing firearms? No, it means that I realize that in the fight to regain firearms rights it is necessary to compromise, to exercise some give and take, in order to make progress. People don't all think alike and you can't get them to move from dark to light in a single step.

 

[NineseveN]

One step forward, 2 half-steps back.

In PA, Act 17 comes to mind and how the NRA sold us out.

The fact that many anti-gun candidates or those that have a history of voting FOR gun control get "A" ratings from the NRA comes to mind.


The NFA act comes to mind (even though not recent):

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)

Check out:
http://www.jpfo.org/speech.htm



Where is the NRA on the June 13th, 2005 letter by the ATF banning imported barrels because they figure they can reinterpret the law after over 35 years?:

And S.397? (while I agree this might be a little paranoid, people said the same thing about the "Sporting purposes" language of old, and look what it got us? Everything banned or regulated in some way, at the discretion of the ATF):
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146323



The bottom line is, the NRA is a great outfit for training, competition and advocating hunter's rights.

I don't compete
I don't hunt
I don't train with the NRA

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson

Nothing in there about "Sporting purposes".

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

That about sums it up. And until the NRA takes that stance, and hits the road to advocate ALL firearms rights, but ESPECIALLY in the spirit that the Second Amendment dictates, they can piss off.

If they're not going to do anything, when the FedGov outlaws everything except .22's, then I will be a criminal. Come get my guns, bring body bags and save one for me. Sad, sad world these days.

 

[medmo]

I don't compete
I don't hunt
I don't train with the NRA

There is the problem NineseveN. It's not all about you. That is why it is called the National Rifle Association and not the NineseveN Rifle Individual. You are bringing up stuff from seventy years ago referencing the NFA of 1934 and the FFA of 1938? I guess Wayne LaPierre should take a black eye for that one.

Check it out: http://www.nra.org/

If this organization doesn't deserve your membership for the $ amount of a couple of boxes of ammo per year than you are nothing more than a selfish tight wad. You nit pick the NRA while ignoring the incredibly significant "good" that it does for the rights of gun owners. Go ahead and stay with the useless grabastic, unorganized group of INDIVIDUALS that have absolutely zero impact on the political/legal process. You don't have to genuinely feel the gratitiude but us folks that do support ALL of the national and local organizations that actually effect the political/legal process would appreciate even an unfelt and insincere "Thank You". I really don't appreciate your NRA bashing. If I want to read that kind of garbage I can go here: http://www.handguncontrol.org/

 

[NineseveN]

There is the problem NineseveN. It's not all about you. That is why it is called the National Rifle Association and not the NineseveN Rifle Individual.

What happened to, "I am the NRA".

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or even training. It has to do with keeping and bearing arms. That's a right that shall not be infringed, control is an infringement. So as long as the NRA advocates some measure of gun control, even what they term "reasonable gun control", they're party to an infringement on the rights of every American citizen. And really, while they are much better in a lot of areas, in the area of defending the true Second Amendment, they are no better than the Brady Bunch.

The GOA can have my money, they get it.

Insulting me isn’t very THR-like of you. I am not a tight-wad, but why should I support an organization that does not fight for my rights? What sense does that make?

And after you insult me like a total child, I am supposed to thank you and the NRA for countless years of appeasement and gun control? The lesser of two evils is still evil. No thanks. You need to step back and cull some of that emotion you seem so fit to attack me with.

You sir, while having your heart in seemingly the right place, are disillusioned. I'm going to ask you to lay off the personal attacks and insults. If you cannot do that, you're not really worthy of my time to discuss this with.

 

[medmo]

"And really, while they are much better in a lot of areas, in the area of defending the true Second Amendment, they are no better than the Brady Bunch."

Insulting and defaming the National Rifle Association and any other group that defends 2nd Amendment Rights is not at all THR of you.

My opinion that you sound like a narrow minded tight wad is nothing more than an opinion. Prove me wrong. Go make that check out and send it in. We need ALL of the help we can get from ANYWHERE we can get it.

 

[NineseveN]

Perhaps I should have used "effective" in stead of "better". It wasn't an insult or an attempt at one. There's a difference between criticizing an organization and insulting an individual. On THR, it is perfectly acceptable to say, "Smith and Wesson has terrible quality control", it is not, however, okay to say, "Joe, you own a Smith and Wesson, so you are a dirt bag".

Apparently, you fail to see the distinction. Right now, your only comeback is that I am cheap. You have not challenged even one of the reasons I have stated as to why the NRA won't get any more $$$ from me until they change their attitude and approach, all you've done is insult. When you have no argument, you are left only to attack the opposition as fiercely as you can in hopes that others will join in on the mob mentality and gather as support for your argument. Your stance is typical of the NRA and their die-hard supporters. No matter what point you raise, they ignore it and say, "we still need your money". How nice.

When the NRA stops perverting their use of the notion of protecting the Second Amendment and they actually fight for us n a consistent basis, they can have that check. I'll even write it out now and stash it in my safe. Until then, if they want my money otherwise, they can try and wrestle it from the GOA (which is not at all perfect, but they at least get the point).

As for you, you don't know me, so your uninformed opinions as to my character are worth exactly what you paid to post them here, nothing.

 

[javafiend]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Nonsense. There is no shred of evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever wrote or said such words. See Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders.

 

[NineseveN]

Well, you have your one website that says so, I'm looking for more. Hard to wade through the thousands of hits that say he did write that. Regardless of who wrote that, is it any less true? I don't believe so.

 

[javafiend]

Well, you have your one website that says so, I'm looking for more. Hard to wade through the thousands of hits that say he did write that.

And not one of them can give a correct verifiable cite. Amazing, isn't it? People believe what they want to believe, and go along with the herd.

Regardless of who wrote that, is it any less true? I don't believe so.

I'm not sure any more. The Swiss own weapons, and have kept their freedom. The Iraqis were armed to the teeth, and those worthless PoS *still* allowed Saddam to come to power.

Here we sit in America, drifting to tyranny, and yet we have 300 millions or so weapons in private hands.

 

[NineseveN]

I wouldn't bring the Iraqi's into it, different culture, and that makes things different. Because of their culture, not just their rulers, they have never known freedom such as we do. You can arm certain cultures to the teeth, and they'll still become someone's servant. Some cultures, will bring stones to a tank fight when they have no other weapons simply because they refuse to lie down and serve another.

It's a big world out there. Regardless on the alleged Jefferson quote, the very website that was linked to denounce the quote gives a number of others that fit the bill just as easily, though written in a different style and more difficult for some to understand fully.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'm not going to argue about the "rightness" of what the NRA did 70 years ago. The people that made those decisions are dead and gone.

Getting back to the present, you can concentrate on the negatives or the positives. Sure, like any organization made up of fallible humans, there are warts. But there have also been advances in the last 20 years or so. FOPA is a major one. The concealed carry movement is another. The Brady sunset is another. 397 is another--naysayers notwithstanding. Besides the gains, there have also been victories in terms of bills defeated--those are too many to list.

The fact is that the NRA WORKS. It's not perfect, but it WORKS. And more to the point it works BETTER than anything else out there. Until something better comes along, it will do nicely.

Again, it's critical to understand where I'm coming from. I don't think it's reasonable to expect all gun owners to support the NRA. Many people for one reason or another just don't feel like they can. I can understand that. I just wish that gun owners in that position would refrain from ATTACKING the NRA and trying to tear it down.

 

[medmo]

"When the NRA stops perverting their use of the notion of protecting the Second Amendment and they actually fight for us n a consistent basis, they can have that check. I'll even write it out now and stash it in my safe. Until then, if they want my money otherwise, they can try and wrestle it from the GOA (which is not at all perfect, but they at least get the point)."

I just got off the phone with Wayne LaPierre. He told me that they would stop the perversion tomorrow. Now will you send in the check?

"The Big Picture" and "You" aren't even on the same continent. GOA isn't close to the size and strength of the NRA. Am I a member? Yes, because I support any and all groups that significantly support The 2nd Amendment. Here is another example so stay with it and you might get my point. Though I own a couple of Glocks and have had bad experiences with them due to their management. I think the folks in the big offices there really stink. Am I a member of GSSF? Yes, because I support any and all groups that significantly support The 2nd Amendment. Let me know if you need more because I have other memberships in organizations that significantly support The 2nd Amendment.

What do you have a case of Pro 2nd Amendment Group elitism here or what? You can solve that by supporting them all. Do you need the address or a stamp?

 

[NineseveN]

Not sure there's a point to arguing with you, in fact, I am quite sure it is the opposite. If you want that squirmy feel-good sensation by trumpeting that you support a veritable cornicopia of so-called, "pro-second amendment" organizations, hope you enjoy it.

The second amendment is about the normal, every day, free citizen having the liberty to have access to and own firearms as a defense against any that may try and remove their rights from them. It has nothing to do with huntng, sport shooting or any of the other crap that the NRA puts before actually defending the RKBA.

People like you are too busy scoffing up the table scraps the NRA negotiates for you from the gun-grabbing socialists to even get the point.

I hope they're enjoying your money.

Principle, it's what's for dinner.

 

[JohnKSa]

I hope they're enjoying your money.

Actually YOU'RE enjoying the money. You just don't realize it because you refuse to acknowledge the benefits you have solely because of the work the NRA has done on behalf of U.S. gunowners (including you.)

People like you are too busy scoffing up the table scraps the NRA negotiates for you from the gun-grabbing socialists to even get the point.

You too enjoy the "table scraps" but you aren't grateful. Instead you denigrate the organization that has bought back your precious rights using the money of the people you ridicule for supporting it.

Once again--unless you're the dictator, or are proposing armed revolution, negotiation and compromise are necessary to make political progress. That should be abundantly obvious to anyone who bothers to spend a second or two thinking about the process. Anyone who denies this fact is either incredibly ignorant, intentionally obtuse, trying to incite revolution, attempting to create a political crisis, or simply arguing for the sake of argument.

What a person believes forms his principles. What a person is forced to accept forms his reality. What a person is forced to accept does NOT alter his principles unless he allows it to.

 

[Kamicosmos]

The NRA 'comprimised' on the 1934 Gun Control Act, because originally, it was to apply NFA taxes to ALL guns, including HANDGUNS. If it had gone through in it's original form, we would have been gun free in 1934 beacuse no one could have afforded that kind of tax on handguns and 'normal' rifles.

I am a member of NRA. I joined my local state gun organization as well. Actually, I joined them instead of GOA. Why? Because NRA and WMSA have DONE THINGS on state and federal levels. GOA has done....? I'm not saying GOA is not a worthy organization to join. As another poster said, its taken the NRA over 100 years to build up thier reputation and membership. It will take GOA a while too. But...My local organization was critical in getting MO CCW laws passed, with the Help of the NRA. The GOA is a 'no-comprimise' organization, and guess what? They have not compromised on anything!

That's why I am a member of these two organizations. My next tax return is tagged for a Life Membership in NRA. All these that say I need to get something for my money. Grow up. You have received a lot of stuff from the NRA and your local state organizations, with or without 'your money'.

 

[ruger270man]

its the simple fact that a large majority of that 80 million is the one rifle, one shotgun, once-a-year, shoot at a paper plate a week before deer season crowd.

quite unfortunate.

and a good portion of that group doesnt even know the true definition of an assault rifle (according to the 1994 ban), but they trust CNN that theyre bad..

and they think their hunting rifle is safe from Ted Kennedy, even though 'ol Teddy wants to ban armor piercing ammunition..

"but my .308 isn't armor piercing!!"

give me a break

 

[Red Dragon]

I think if more people were truly educated about firearms instead of being fed the constant shovels full of BS about 'em by the media, than things would be different.

 

[JohnBT]

"People like you are too busy scoffing up the table scraps the NRA negotiates for you from the gun-grabbing socialists to even get the point."

scarfing up, not scoffing up

If you're going to insult us, how about putting a little more effort into it?

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Life Member

 

[NineseveN]

Looks guys, do whatever you want. You think your NRA cheerleading is helping our rights? Fine, be my guest. I feel differently.

You can make your snide remarks about me all you like, I could care less. You only read the hype. The NRA has a vested interest in gun control, because we won't need them anymore if it ever goes away, which is why they say, "we support reasonable gun control".

Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Control is an infringement, period. ANY organization or person that says they support the RKBA but is also in favor of any gun control, reasonable or not, just doesn't get it. They have no idea what the 2A is about.

And spare me the thing about them being responsible for the AWB sunset. It expired because the Dems lost control based largely on that VERY ban, when the Repubs came into power, they knew that it was a loser issue for them if they didn't steer it towards expiration. The ban would have expired with or without the NRA.

The NRA is a political player and a lobbyist for gun makers first, THEN an advocate for our rights afterwards. They fully and publicly endorse candidates that want to ban semi-automatic firearms, want more restrictions on CCW and more regulations on what firearms and in what calibers the unwashed masses may own. They give some of these folks "A" ratings (ILA). But some of you can't see past your NRA pom-poms to realize this. They want gun control, without it, there would be no use for them anymore.

Funny thing, and check this if you know any insiders. They made a HUGE deal about removing liability of gun manufacturers for misuse of their product in the commission of a crime. They lobbied for the manufacturers...and that's cool, IF the prices of firearms go down in the next 3-5 years. It should, without all the lawsuits and insurance against lawsuits, American gun manufacturers will see less overhead, will we see a price break?

Now, the interesting thing here is, the ATF announced July 13th that they are going to reinterpret a 38-year old piece of regulation, which amounts to banning the importation of barrels and receivers (like for Ak-style rifles, FALs, Cetmes etc...) and they have made little to no comment about it.

When I called and asked about this (in August mind you, more than a month after the announcement), all 6 people I talked to at the NRA had no idea what I was talking about. When some folks from another forum got them information on the letter and sent e-mails/letters, the NRA said they don't agree with it.

But we're still waiting to see them do something about it. If they are in the pockets of gun manufacturers as I suspect they are now, they will do nothing. Banning imports is good for domestic manufacturers, this is good business for them.

So anyway, think what you will, toe the NRA party line all you like. Support them, love them, attack anyone that doesn't support them.


When was the last time the ACLU compromised on freedom of speech or civil rights?

"Any person can say what they want at any time, but no more than 10 words at once, and not near a school, and not while wearing BDUs, and not while wearing boots, and not without a permit. Furthermore, to get this permit, we endorse having to be trained by an ACLU speech trainer for safety reasons. If your spouse says you called them a bad name, or if they say you hit them, the government will remove your freedom to speak until you prove your innocence in the court of law. Also, you may not speak in languages from other countries, and books on those languages will be banned from import. Now, all of these things aren't our ideas, but we had to compromise in order to stave off something worse. We are committed to fighting for your rights, but we do believe in reasonable speech control, and we have always supported that."

Somehow, I don't see that coming from the ACLU or ANY advocate for freedom of speech. But replace the speech talk with firearms, and that's exactly what our dues to the NRA have gotten us.


YMMV. What you see depends on where you stand, what you’ll stand for, and if you’re even standing at all.

 

[NineseveN]

scarfing up, not scoffing up

My apologies, it was after midnight, had been a long day at work. I am glad you were able to catch that mistake, it was a focal point of the discussion.

 

[biere]

Someone said that since the folks who did the 1934 law drafting are dead it should be forgotten, I disagree.

That is the beginning of a time line that shows the nra is for gun control. Course their web sight says the same thing as well.

In my previous post on page 2 I have a quote about a utah bill. The people of utah had a bill that would have had no restrictions on out of state ccw permits.

The nra spokeman comes in and gets that changed to a 60 day limit. Please note the nra person came in and did this, they were not helping with the original bill.

This sort of action by an nra spokesman can only mean 2 things to me.

Either they are happy limiting the rights of gun owners, or they are playing politics and wanted their name on the bill or they wanted to be able to show they changed a no restriction bill to a 60 day limit.

I find it disturbing that so many people feel the best way to protect my gun rights is to support a group who is in favor of gun control. I don't care if it is some gun control or limited gun control, it is still gun control.

So while the true supporters of gun rights may not have a big old group with lots of history behind them, at least I am not sending money to a group that works to limit the 2nd amendment while saying they support my rights mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

This is simply something I will always disagree with folks about. If they feel they are helping to support thier gun rights by giving to the nra, I guess they are just picking a lesser evil in my opinion.

On this subject I will not give money to an evil.

 

[Justin]

Oh for crying out loud.

Look, the NRA really didn't have much say in the NFA and here's why:

At that time, the NRA was a purely educational and competitive organization. They weren't engaged in politics at that time because there simply wasn't a need. They were forced into playing political catch-up with regard to the NFA. Heck, Homer Stille, US AG at the time, is on record as proposing that not only should all guns be heavily taxed, but that every single round of ammunition should be taxed as well.

Heck, the NRA's hardcore lobbiest organization, the Institute for Legislative Action didn't even get started until 1975.

Has the NRA done things that I disagree with? Sure. But to claim that they are doing nothing or working to actively sell us out is nothing more than ill-informed hyperbolic smoke-blowing, and you know it.