NRA screwing us again!

[NineseveN]

Um, that was meant to be a parody of the anti-NRA crowd who are always accusing the NRA of having secret anti-gun agendas. Obviously any attempts at parodying conspiracy theorists tend to be lost on actual conspiracy theorists.

Are you insinuating that I am a conspiracy theorist? There is no conspiracy or theory about it. The NRA supports some forms of restriction. Period. It’s not secret, they admit it. So do a lot of gun owners.

I have never said people should not join GOA or JPFO or any of the other smaller gun rights groups. I just said that if you want to effectively support RKBA, you should not EXCLUDE the NRA from your support. It is true that some of the other groups have a more absolute interpretation of RKBA. But, they are by definition small splinter groups and there are some things the NRA can do that the small splinter groups cannot.

What has the NRA done, specifically, and by itself, that no other group could have or helped to do?

Let's take an example: let's say I am personally committed to the idea that all US citizens should have the right to own tactical nuclear weapons, and that all US households should be required to own at least one crew-served infantry weapon. I'm also opposed to firearms licensing and registration.

I am obviously going to have some diffferences with the NRA, because although the NRA does support my views on licensing and registration, they have never supported private ownership of nuclear weapons nor have they ever supported mandatory weapons ownership.

If I follow the example of NineseveN and others here, I will support from the NRA, actively campaign against the NRA, and support only my own tiny fringe organization which is in favor of private nukes and mandatory mortars and HMG's.

Bad hypothetical. There is no such provision in the USC that would include such weapons. There is a difference between arms and ordinance. Here’s a better hypothetical.

Suppose the ACLU supported the right to speak freely in public, except when the speech is criticizing the government. Now, they tote themselves as being pro-First Amendment and the ACLU supporters feel they are the most important game in town due to their power in Washington and their money/membership numbers.

Now, suppose the ACLU does a number of great things such as:

Opening literacy camps to train people to use words more effectively.
Supporting a wide variety of national spelling bee and essay contest every year.
Campaigning loud and hard against censoring journalists
Campaigning loud and hard against censoring musicians and performing artists
Boycotting companies that fire an employee for criticizing the company they work for

Those are all great things, but suppose the following was also true:

Every time the issue of freely criticizing the government came up, the ACLU suddenly got quiet.
They did no campaigning, either loud or hard against censoring private citizens when talking about their government
They have had spokespeople comment in the past that they “support reasonable restrictions on speech”.
They have done nothing notable in quite some time, if ever, to repeal a law banning public criticism of the government that was enacted 60 years ago.


Now, here’s what it comes down to. Yes, they do fight infringements on free speech on a lot of levels, except on the level it matters most, the level that was intended by the First Amendment. The amendment was not recorded so that rap stars could say mutherf%$@*& on every rap album, or so that Wiccans could claim equal protection of their religion as any Christian, those things were not even around then on this continent (at least, not in the forms we see today). The drafters of those articles knew very well the need to keep the government’s leash tight enough so that it could not stop a free people from publicly questioning or criticizing the actions of the government. If you do not support that, absolutely, are you really a supporter of the First Amendment? Supporting free speech and supporting the First Amendment can be two very different things.


The NRA supports the right to own firearms. They tote themselves as being pro-Second Amendment and the NRA supporters feel they are the most important game in town due to their power in Washington and their money/membership numbers.

The NRA does a number of great things such as:

Sponsoring a number of educational and safety course and programs on firearms
Supports and sponsors a number of shooting competitions
Campaigns loud and hard for hunters and sportsmen/women
Campaigns loud and hard for the support of Law Enforcement Officers
Boycotts companies that prohibit an employee from having a gun in their car while on company property
Campaigns for CCW rights (with mixed resolve, but they do work for it generally)


Those are all great things, but the following is also true:

Every time the issue of NFA weapons comes up, the NRA suddenly gets quiet

They do no campaigning, either loud or hard for the rights of a free citizen to own NFA weapons
They have had spokespeople comment in the past that they “support reasonable restrictions on firearms”.
They have done nothing notable in quite some time, if ever, to repeal a law banning fully-automatic weapons that was enacted over 60 years ago.


Now, here’s what it comes down to. Yes, they do fight infringements on firearms ownership on a lot of levels, except on the level it matters most, the level that was intended by the Second Amendment. The amendment was not recorded so that hunters could kill some critters every season, or so that target shooters and competitors could engage in their chosen sport, nor was it recorded so that we may own semi-functional, watered down copies of military small arms. The drafters of those articles knew very well the need to keep the government’s leash tight enough so that it could not enslave a free people by removing their ability to defend themselves using the very same tools a government soldier or law enforcement officer would, or to keep an invading army from enslaving them without a means of defending themselves using those very same tools. If you do not support that, absolutely, are you really a supporter of the Second Amendment? Supporting gun rights and supporting the Second Amendment are two very different things in this case.

The opposition - the Brady Bunch, VPC, and so on - would LOVE for us all to follow this pattern. By splintering all the gun owner groups into smaller, less effective, narrow-interest groups, there will be no organized unified opposition next time they try to pass a national firearms registration and licensing scheme.

Let’s be realistic. The NRA was the only real game in town when the GCA, NFA, AWB and Brady Bill Passed. By my count, only one of those is no longer in effect, and that was due to a sunset clause, which the NRA did help to get put in. However, that clause did bring many of the fence-sitters over into agreeing with it. We may never have had the AWB if that piece had not been in there. Politicians like duality and deniability. Any constituents upset over the AWB were often told that it was “a temporary measure” and “when the people see that crime does not go down, there will be a new understanding of how gun control does not work which will eliminate gun control completely”…we were also told that “you can still hunt and defend yourself, we’re not banning guns, simply certain features which you have no need for and serve no purpose”. The NRA made the safe play, and it can be argued that what they did was smart, it can also be argued that the shot themselves and us in the foot. Neither here nor there.

If the NRA is so powerful, tell me how every significant, widespread firearms control measure has passed under their watch? If it is because they can only do so much, then do we really need them? If it is because we didn’t campaign hard enough as individuals, then again, do we really need them? I say the NRA is needed on a lot of levels (their education and training programs are excellent IMHO), but they have failed on the levels that matter most to me, thus I do not support them.


P.S. Ted Nugent is awesome, but not a great spokesman for Mainstream Joe to relate to.

 

[bakert]

Although at times I've disagreed about certain issues with the NRA as far as I'm concerned it's the best deal around for gun owners. Much of what I've read in this thread can be classified as what a gentleman in another forum calls Bovine Excrement!! :banghead:

 

[antsi]

NineseveN,
I never said the NRA was all-powerful, or that it was a realistic expectation that they would prevent all anti-RKBA legislation. What I do believe is that the NRA is the most effective organization out there to enhance the political power of gun owners.

Nor do I think it is accurate to characterize the NRA as "supporting some forms of restriction." They do tend to strategize their legislative agenda, and they do try to pick winnable battles and they do try to assess which threats are grave threats to RKBA and which are nuisances. There are some restrictions that are very broadly supported by the public and by lawmakers - such as restrictions on full-auto. I'd like to see that reversed, but if that does happen, it's going to happen by increments, not in one fell swoop by a sudden repeal of all gun laws next year. What you're really saying is that the NRA has failed to fight against all forms of restriction simultaneously.

I do not buy your ACLU analogy. Criticizing the government is the very core and essence of freedom of speech. The NRA has tactically backed off of currently unwinnable battles like the NFA, but I would not say that they have abandoned the very core and essence of RKBA. If the NRA was supporting a ban on all lethal weapons, and only supporting the right to bb guns and paintball guns, then I think your analogy would hold and in that case, yes, I'd say the NRA had lost any meaningful claim to supporting RKBA.

I think 1994 and the AWB was a good example of sound political strategy by the NRA. The writing was on the wall, AWB was going to pass. So the NRA limited its fight on the AWB to trying to limit the damage (including the sunset clause) and put its major effort into a winnable battle, state-by-state CCW laws. This effort was strongly backed by the NRA and as a result we have a lot more shall-issue states now, and as a result of that, we have a lot more actual citizens actually bearing arms on a daily basis. I'd say that was a major win for RKBA, and a big difference versus pre-1994. I'd rather have a pistol on my person than a full-auto M16 in the gun safe back home - ie, the ability to actually go around armed is just as important, if not more important, than having unrestricted access to purchasing NFA weapons.

And please, try to get over this "on the NRA's watch" nonsense. The NRA wasn't elected to anything, and they weren't in charge of anything. Ultimately it is the responsibility of voters to make political change. The NRA can enhance our efforts, represent our interests, and organize opposition to gun control - and they do that more effectively than any other organization out there. They are consistently recognized as the most powerful political lobby out there. But that doesn't mean somebody gave them a magic wand or that they have veto power over any law passed by Congress. If the people elect a Democrat house and a Democrat senate and put a gun-grabber like Clinton in the white house, then bad things are going to happen for RKBA. Still, I would assert, not as bad as what would happen if the NRA wasn't there.

I agree with your reading of the Second Ammendment and agree that all citizens should have access to modern state of the art individual infantry weapons. Currently our political situation is a long way from there. If we are ever going to get there, it is going to be by cooperating and by working one step at a time, picking the most winnable battles first, not by getting into ideological "more RKBA than thou" battles amongst ourselves.

I do not believe there is ever going to be a history book written, looking back on this time now, that says "the crucial turning point in the restoration of full Second Ammendment rights was the defeat of the NRA, led by a handful of RKBA absolutists."

 

[NineseveN]

riticizing the government is the very core and essence of freedom of speech.

And military arms is the core of the RKBA. Dollars to donuts, it's the same thing. You don't have to buy it, it's up to you.

Ultimately it is the responsibility of voters to make political change.

Then we don't need the NRA, do we?

They are consistently recognized as the most powerful political lobby out there.

But how powerful is that if "Ultimately it is the responsibility of voters to make political change."?

And please, you've got to get over this "on the NRA's watch" nonsense.

You can't tell me they're powerful to the extent that it is imperative that EVERY gun owner support or keep from criticizing them, and then brush aside the fact that they did nearly nothing on the most significant enactments of gun control in the past 100 years in this country. Something has to give.

If the people elect a Democrat house and a Democrat senate and put a gun-grabber like Clinton in the white house, then bad things are going to happen for RKBA.

Is the house still DEM controlled? Is Clinton still in there? Other than the AWB, which had a sunset clause built in, what nationally significant gun control has been repealed by the NRA? Or the GOA or JPFO for that matter? None. So it goes like this?:

NRA + DEMs + Clinton = bad things
NRA + Repubs + Bush = nothing

Okay, so it is better wit the Repubs and Bush, but not exactly groundbreaking and powerful results there.

I'll ask this again, one more time. Feel free to skip over it again like anyone else would:

"What has the NRA done, specifically, and by itself, that no other group could have or helped to do given the same amount of members?"

The reason I ask, is again, another question you folks conveniently gloss over, "What is wrong with the NRA members leaving them and joining the GOA?"

If the number of members = power, then why is the NRA with millions of members better to you than the GOA with millions of members? If membership is not power, then who cares who is a member of what, because "Ultimately it is the responsibility of voters to make political change".

I agree with your reading of the Second Ammendment and agree that all citizens should have access to modern state of the art individual infantry weapons.

Show me undeniable proof that the NRA believes this, as a core and current belief, and I will go join right now.

 

[antsi]

----quote-------------
If the number of members = power, then why is the NRA with millions of members better to you than the GOA with millions of members?
----------------------

The problem is, you're not going to get millions of members. The reason the NRA has millions of members is that they appeal to a broad cross-section of gun owners.

You've already indicated in this thread your contempt for the hunters and skeet shooters and target shooters, unless they are 100% on board with your NFA agenda. Get rid of the hunters and skeet shooters and target shooters, and you're not going to get your millions of members.

I do agree with you on the NFA, that is why I am willing to support other groups that are working on that issue. And no, the NRA is not backing that issue right now, I wish they were. But that is not enough for me to withdraw all support from them, especially because I understand their grown-up, non-fantasy-world reasons for taking the positions they do.

Effective political action is about building coalitions on issues that you can get large numbers of people agree on. If you can get the NRA High Power shooters to sign on against the AWB (which in fact did happen since most competition rifles are considered "assault weapons" by Feinstein Shumer et al), then you have rallied support and increased your chances of effective action. If you can get the hunters and skeet shooters to support CCW, then your chances of getting a CCW law passed are a lot stronger (even if the hunters and skeet shooters don't broadly support repeal of the NFA right now). It's called "building coalitions." It's called "effective politics." It is very different than "I'm going to sit in the basement and cry if they don't give me everything I want right now!"

Like it or not, there is no broad support right now for unrestricted civllian access to full-auto. If the NRA came out strongly in favor of that under the current climate, it would drive off a lot of the hunters and skeet shooters and it would damage their chances to fight mainstream battles that they otherwise do have a chance of winning.

And in answer to your repeated question, I do think the vast increase in shall-issue CCW states starting in the mid-90's is strongly attributable to NRA leadership. And, again, I think the ability to actually bear arms (ie; go around in public with guns without getting arrested) is just as important a part of the RKBA as being able to buy full-auto.

 

[NineseveN]

The problem is, you're not going to get millions of members. The reason the NRA has millions of members is that they appeal to a broad cross-section of gun owners.

I didn't advocate that, was just wondering what your reasoning was.

You've already indicated in this thread your contempt for the hunters and skeet shooters and target shooters, unless they are 100% on board with your NFA agenda.

Nowhere did I express any contempt for hunters and skeet shooters and target shooters, nowhere. It's not "my" agenda, it's the Second Amendment.

Effective political action is about building coalitions on issues that you can get large numbers of people agree on. If you can get the NRA High Power shooters to sign on against the AWB (which in fact did happen since most competition rifles are considered "assault weapons" by Feinstein Shumer et al), then you have rallied support and increased your chances of effective action. If you can get the hunters and skeet shooters to support CCW, then your chances of getting a CCW law passed are a lot stronger (even if the hunters and skeet shooters don't broadly support repeal of the NFA right now). It's called "building coalitions." It's called "effective politics." It is very different than "I'm going to sit in the basement and cry if they don't give me everything I want right now!

Yeah, that's nice and all, but what, specifically is the NRA doing to bridge shooters together? Anything, nothing? If anything, it's members like we see in this forum oftentimes that create or worsen the gap. I don't support the NRA, so I'm a DU plant? I'm not a real gun owner? I'm "insert random insult here". Wow, way to bring us around guys. Let me run right out and re-join the NRA!


I NEVER advocated that people leave the NRA or that NRA members are bad people, I simply articled my reasons why I don't support them.

Like it or not, there is no broad support right now for unrestricted civilian access to full-auto. If the NRA came out strongly in favor of that under the current climate, it would drive off a lot of the hunters and skeet shooters and it would damage their chances to fight mainstream battles that they otherwise do have a chance of winning.

Again, if it is up to us to make the change, then we don't need the NRA. All we need are some addresses, some time and some letters written on every issue. The NRA has )and even you have) all of this rhetoric, but the words and actions conflict.

Again,

I agree with your reading of the Second Amendment and agree that all citizens should have access to modern state of the art individual infantry weapons.

Show me undeniable proof that the NRA believes this, as a core and current belief, and I will go join right now.


P.S.

And in answer to your repeated question, I do think the vast increase in shall-issue CCW states starting in the mid-90's is strongly attributable to NRA leadership. And, again, I think the ability to actually bear arms (ie; go around in public with guns without getting arrested) is just as important a part of the RKBA as being able to buy full-auto.

Grass roots organizations had as much, and in some cases more to do with that than the NRA. They helped, but they didn't do it alone, nor did they handle the majority of the burden.

 

[rock jock]

Blind, sycophantic ramblings like yours have convinced me that it's time to leave this thread to the sheep. Later.

Right, most THR members are sheep. Too bad we can't all believe true believers, huh? (yawn)

 

[FPrice]

NineseveN...

I don't need to entice you to join the GOA.

Do you really think this whole thing is about you?

 

[NineseveN]

Do you really think this whole thing is about you?

Not sure what you're getting at, I just meant that I 'felt no" need to try and convert people away from the NRA. I simply feel the need to defend my position of why "I" choose not to support them at this time. Each person should do what they feel is best. We can't go around dictating the choices of others or belittling them over a difference of opinion, it's just not the right way to do things.

 

[odysseus]

distance themselves from idiots like Ted Nugent and old senile racists like Charlton Heston

I know it's been said already, but I had to pipe in too to say that was waaaay out of line to say that. It indicates a lack of sensitivity and awareness that precludes whatever your point is. Sorry but .

 

[NineseveN]

Well, after reading the OP another time, I think that this is written by a gun rights group. I recognize some of it, not sure from where though.

I agree, the shots insulting Heston and Nugent were a bit out of line. I mean, you can hold the personal opinion that the Nuge is an idiot, that's up to you, but it's a useless insult. The part about Heston was based off of misquoting him IIRC, which is equally dubious.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Those are all great things, but the following is also true:

Every time the issue of NFA weapons comes up, the NRA suddenly gets quiet

Actually that is not true, as recently as this summer the Department of Defense had demanded the return of legally owned and registered NFA weapons from four different states claiming that because they had once been DoD property, they still belonged to DoD.

NRA-ILA was the organization that went to bat for these gun owners and backed down the DoD (see pg. 122 of the October 2005 American Rifleman for more info).

 

[MountainPeak]

IMHO, the NRA haters are usually uniformed, and most always light weight, internet gun commandos, concerning the fight for our 2nd Amendment Rights. Oh, by the way, I get many more calls, mailings, from the RKBA/2nd Amendment Foundation than the NRA. I don't mind at all. Once again, I wonder what the founding fathers would think about some of your whining, your sacrifice, because you have to throw a letter away, or say no, I don't care to donate at this time, during a phone call. DAMN, that seems real tough. Groups don't fund raise because it loses money. WHINERS!!!! :banghead:

 

[NineseveN]

Actually that is not true, as recently as this summer the Department of Defense had demanded the return of legally owned and registered NFA weapons from four different states claiming that because they had once been DoD property, they still belonged to DoD.

The closest thing I know of in that arena happened in 2002.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3730/is_200206/ai_n9113854

Can't find anything from the NRA ILA on your story, I'd be interested to read it though. Wouldn't it be prudent for them to display such victories on their website if they were really pro-NFA? I mean, I don't know the details, but it sounds like these were military surplus arms, or military sales? So these were grandfathered arms? Were they truly automatic weapons or semi-autos? Do you have any details that might make this search easier, I don't have the American Rifleman. Perhaps they haven't gotten it up yet?

Though, if true and as glorious as you make it out to be, it still doesn't answer the NFA problem. We still can't get them unless they are grandfathered in. Protecting what someone already owns is easier than fighting for what someone took away that no one else ever has a chance at. Make sense? I'd still like to read that story.

 

[NineseveN]

IMHO, the NRA haters are usually uniformed, and most always light weight, internet gun commandos, concerning the fight for our 2nd Amendment Rights. Oh, by the way, I get many more calls, mailings, from the RKBA/2nd Amendment Foundation than the NRA. I don't mind at all. Once again, I wonder what the founding fathers would think about some of your whining, your sacrifice, because you have to throw a letter away, or say no, I don't care to donate at this time, during a phone call. DAMN, that seems real tough. Groups don't fund raise because it loses money. WHINERS!!

That's a pretty bad stereotype. I have one for you, the NRA members that have no clue about the politics and what the NRA is doing. The same ones that pay their yearly dues but never contact a congress critter, never make a phone call, send a letter or shoot out an e-mail and think the 2A is about their right to hunt. Not a real fair stereotype, though there are more than a few of those in the NRA ranks.

I wonder what our founding fathers would think about people spending money for a group to fight for their rights because they're too lazy to send a letter or make a phone call, or even stay informed on what is happening to their rights.

Neither stereotype is representative of the norm, and I don't think it's fair to categorize either that way based on ignorance.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Call your congress critter first

That's why you must call the NRA today (800.392.8683), so we can pass H.R. 800 -- a clean House version of the gun makers and sellers protection act.

Call your congress critter first - also write, phone, fax and drop by any local or neighborhood or storefront office maintained in your district by your congress critter.

After that maybe contact Representative Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO)

Either S. 397 or H.R. 800 is better than no bill and H.R. 800 is better than S. 397. Congress not the NRA is where they vote on such things.

Doesn't make sense to me to say the NRA is so weak we should pound harder on the NRA.

Patron Member and proud of it

 

[Ryder]

So I'm a troll or obtuse? I repeat that all the cases I am aware of have been thrown out of court. Granted there have been several and I may not be aware of all of them. Show me a case against gun manufacturers where they were found responsible for criminal misuse. As far as I know it hasn't happened and isn't going to happen thus it is a wasted effort.

If they pass a law protecting gun manufacturers then they need one for baseball bats, knife makers, car makers, golf clubs manufacturers... ad infinitum. The list is endless. That makes sense to you people? It makes no sense to me.

Craft a law protecting ALL manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits and be done with it. It isn't just a gun issue. They've already lost in court. Precedent is set. Any further lawsuits are automatically frivolous. End of problem.

 

[farad]

GOA is the only no compromise group that I'm aware of. The NRA is quite a bit left of where I am. I can understand gun owners support of the NRA for various reasons. I however choose not to support organizations that are not aligned with my beliefs. There are so many organizations out there, why not choose one that is on our side all the way? Personally, I'd rather send $100 to GOA than $50 to the NRA and $50 to GOA.

But everyone has their own beliefs as to what's best for gun owners. I'm firmly in the offense crowd. Most people are still in defense mode and that's how we continue to lose ground. Even while the Republicans control everything and the NRA is probably as powerful as it's ever been right now.

 

[ClarkEMyers]

Thrown out of Court? Costs to defendents?

It isn't just a gun issue. They've already lost in court. Precedent is set. Any further lawsuits are automatically frivolous. End of problem.

Thrown out of Court is not the way I read:
Ceriale v Smith & Wesson Corp. et al.
Ileto v Glock
The City of Chicago and County of Cook v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., et al.
The City of Cleveland v. Hi-Point Firearms, et al.
The City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et al.
The City of Newark v. Arcadia Machine & Tool, et al.



This is not to say the plaintiffs have or will win in all or any of these cases but thrown out of court isn't true and establishing that further suits in these or other jurisdictions are automatically frivolous is beyond my reading of these cases and my understanding of our legal system.

How about a list of all the cases that have been thrown out of court as frivolous and why the next ones will be as well?

Manufacturer liability for intentional shootings

An emerging area of legal action is manufacturer liability for intentional shootings based on theories of negligence and public nuisance. Several cases now being litigated concentrate on firearms manufacturers' careless behavior in the marketing, selling, and distribution of their products. Recently, in the case of Hamilton v. Accu-tek, a federal jury in New York found that 15 gun manufacturers had negligently distributed their

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) and its sister organization, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence focus on

Litigation. Finally, the Educational Fund has developed sophisticated strategies and resources to use the civil justice system to reform the irresponsible practices of the gun industry itself.

David B. Kopel says:

the cost of defending suits in multiple jurisdictions is prohibitive. Already, several gun dealers and manufacturers have been forced into bankruptcy by litigation costs. The effect is to ratchet up the pressure for an out-of-court settlement, thus using the judiciary to circumvent legislatures

Litigation is already changing the designs and in some cases raising the price of new guns. Magazine safeties and loaded chamber indicators are being added as a result of litigation. Consider the number of key locks added and ask yourself if they would be there without civil suits - and for those who think the key locks are a good idea there are many more who don't and even pay a premium for say pre-lock S&W revolvers.

 

[Kjervin]

The legislation's primary benifit is to the gun industry (manufacturers) and the compromise is borne by intrusions (however minor) of the rights of gunowners. I realize that if firearms manufacturers are bankrupted, it would dry up the flow of firearms to gun owners, but our interests are not always the same. I do not claim to be the most informed about all things gun control, but I have always been of the opinion that the NRA seems to move a bit more decisively when the manufacturers are in jeapordy then when it is the owners. If US gun manufacturers are so afraid of being bancrupted, why aren't we hearing that some industry lobying group leading the charge to pass legislation to protect them. I am not so sure that the gun manufacturers (Smith and Wesson, Ruger, etc) are chomping at the bit to protect the rights of gun owners (as opposed to their profits, which , in fairness, is their job). I guess I would feel better about the whole process if it didn't feel so much like gun owners are carrying the freight for the gun industry. I think the gun industry is happy to use the name of those 4 million NRA members to hide behind, but who is the NRA's primary constituency? Would the NRA sacrifice a little bit of gun owners' rights to make a major gain for the gun industry? How Much? Did the NRA care when the BATFE annouced the new restrictions on parts kits? (I honestly don't know, but I haven't heard anything yet). How about when the executive order came restricting semiautomatic imports (the George H W Bush one)?

It seems to me that the things they are least interested in undertaking are things that involve importations, anything NFA, indirect infringements (gun locks, groundwork for future gun control efforts), complicated issues (anything they have to explain to Joe Sixpack). They seem more ready to take on attacks on the gun industry, blatant gun control (overreaching by anti's), Simple/straightformward issues (government actually taking guns from sympathetic victims). I fear the NRA is afraid that if they lose a major battle, their perceived effectiveness will suffer, so they only take on the fights that they believe they can win. That is a shame, because they could win some of the fights they concede to our enemies. They problem is that the NRA provides cover for gun control ("even the NRA doesn't suppport....." ) becase the anti (and large parts of the general public) view the NRA as the True Believers when, as an organization, they are kind of a concensus group. Instead of always telling us what they think is possible, they should state their goals/objective (whether to repeal 4473 forms, allow new machine gun registration, repeal the NFA, whatever) because until they do, it will be hard to tell if they are performing advocacy in whatever venue brings in the most donations, or else, raising money to perform the most effective advocacy. I am not anti NRA, but I think they need to be a little more clear as to what they are trying to do and be a little less reactive. For an organization that does a lot of educating, they are not communicating some things very clearly.

Kj

as to Charleston Heston being a racist, ya'll need to see The Omega Man again; he is down wit' the sista's.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Lots of Other Issues for NRA Time & Efforts

If there were no Anti-2A zealots trying to treat all firearms owners as a bunch of knuckle-dragging neandrathals and if no one was passionate about taking away my right to self-defense and recreational use of firearms, gee whiz the NRA could spend its efforts and time and money on other issues.

Unfortunately, there ARE people who really believe you & I are others in this forum are bad people because we exercise our rights. Sadly, many of them assume that our tools are inherently evil, yet they do nothing to ban automotive vehicles in light of their use by drunk drivers who have killed far more people in a year than defensive firearms do.

It is up to us -- and hopefully as an organized body -- to defend our rights without taking a breather. Our children and grandchildren deserve our best efforts to take action and to be organized and focused in our defense of our 2A rights. Otherwise, if we stop and point fingers at one another instead of acting together, we have no one to blame for the erosion of our rights but our failure to stand together.

Let's stop the collective whining and triple the NRA membership this year by each of us actively recruiting 5 to 10 members each. While that's not all we can do, it is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, we can just whine and cry and point fingers at each other while the Antis win lawsuits and votes on the floor of the House & Senate.

 

[JohnBT]

"...the NRA supporters feel they are the most important game in town due to their power in Washington and their money/membership numbers." - NineseveN

Only because it's true.

"Just how often do you see a thread in which an NRA member starts off by insulting other groups?" - FPrice

That's true, too.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
Endowment Member www.nra.org

 

[ebd10]

This thread has really brought out some interesting points. My original post, a copy of the GOA press release, stridently pointed out the difference between the 2 organizations. The GOA is a political action group that tends to work on the local level. The NRA tries to be all things to all gun owners and, in some areas, they fall short.

My main problem with the NRA is that they wear the label "Defender of the Second Amendment" which, when taken literally, is true. They DEFEND, because they don't want to offend. They also have gotten so cozy with the GOP that when the GOP does something that is anti gun, like GHW Bush's semi-auto ban, or the ATF's recent restriction on parts kits under this administration, they remain silent so as to preserve their relationships with the GOP. In short, politically they've been co-opted. This isn't to say that they are completely ineffective. The sheer size of their membership gives them indisputable clout when it comes to lobbying, because lobbying takes money. My problem stems from the fact that they eliminate the Neal Knox's and embrace the Charlton Hestons. Understand, Heston is, I think a principled and decent guy, but I don't think he got that the 2A isn't about hunting.

Moreover, I think that the NRA has lost the know-how to go on the offensive. They have lots of political capital that they could use to influence Court Appointments, repeal bad law, rein in the ATF and instead they continue to ride on their laurels. The current issue about S 397 vs HR 800 is a good example; rather than fight for one and settle for the other, they are willing to settle for a bill that's "good enough" and ignore the other bill, even thouygh there's enough support to push it through.

 

[Waitone]

A gun related analogy here. Every person, group, or organization is handed at its inception a full magazine. Some cases its a 5 rounder. Other cases its a 30 round extended. Some cases its a drum. But in every case its one mag.

The effectiveness of that mag depends to a large degree on the personality or group dynamics. Some like to fire single shots reducing immediate effectiveness for long term effect. Others like to rip off the whole mag with stunning effectiveness in the short haul but limited longterm impact. Others split the difference and use 3-round busts give a little more oompf in the short term but trading more effectiveness for limited longterm effect. Then you run into the sniper mentality. One round is all they want but demand maximum effectiveness.

I think the debate over the NRA // GOA can be characterized by how each organization uses the mags it has been given. I see the NRA as an organzation given a large drum full of ammo that sees fit to use it in a few round bursts only when the target is ID'd. Sure we'd all love to see a full auto hose but it ain't gonna happen. The more spectacular shows of shorter duration go to other organizations. I am sure the NRA sees the battlefield different than GOA. Both expend their resources in accordance with their view from the foxhole. What we ought to be appreciative of is the fact of having multiple organizations with different views of the battlefield holding different kinds of magazines.

Sorry about the analogy but it does seem appropriate.

 

[FPrice]

One of the problems with lobbying is that you could lobby Ted "The Swimmer" Kennedy and John "Effing" Kerry all day long with NRA/GOA/SAF/CCRKBA/JPFO money all day long and it ain't gonna do squat. They are hard-corp anti-gun senators and the only way to defeat them will be when they are called to their final accounting. Massachusetts liberals/welfare bums/idiots will continue to vote these guys back to office. And the state politicians are just as bad.

So we have to be content with compromise that gives us some minor gains.