Seriously NRA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SilentStalker

Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,588
Location
Somewhere in the U.S., London, or Australia
Ok, so I go out and check the mail this afternoon and see an urgent letter from the NRA! So, I open it and I am expecting their normal kind of campaign deal but this one really rubbed me wrong. They started out by saying time is running out and our second amendment rights are about to be a way of the past and of course the call to action is to join and send them more money! Well, number one I am already a member and I think it looks bad on their part for them not to know that for many reasons. Second, if they are so worried about losing the rights then why in the hell did they just support the implementation of one of he most antigun people in Washington to be over the BATFE? Why should I give them more money when IMO they are doing a crappy job as is! And if they are going to continue to support antigun people and then campaign for more money to fight then they don't deserve my hard earned cash. Seems to me like the NRA has become nothing more than any political organization these days. They are all about the money and run it as a business instead of actually fighting for the cause. Perhaps it's time to form a new organization who is not in bed with Washington only to make more money by creating this illusion they are doing something. Is this really how the NRA is? Someone please change my opinion of them!!!
 
why in the hell did they just support the implementation of one of he most antigun people in Washington to be over the BATFE?
Click to expand...

I would like to see the meat behind that statement myself - Please post the source because I need to know if its true.
 
Ok, so I go out and check the mail this afternoon and see an urgent letter from the NRA! So, I open it and I am expecting their normal kind of campaign deal but this one really rubbed me wrong. They started out by saying time is running out and our second amendment rights are about to be a way of the past and of course the call to action is to join and send them more money! Well, number one I am already a member and I think it looks bad on their part for them not to know that for many reasons. Second, if they are so worried about losing the rights then why in the hell did they just support the implementation of one of he most antigun people in Washington to be over the BATFE? Why should I give them more money when IMO they are doing a crappy job as is! And if they are going to continue to support antigun people and then campaign for more money to fight then they don't deserve my hard earned cash. Seems to me like the NRA has become nothing more than any political organization these days. They are all about the money and run it as a business instead of actually fighting for the cause. Perhaps it's time to form a new organization who is not in bed with Washington only to make more money by creating this illusion they are doing something. Is this really how the NRA is? Someone please change my opinion of them!!!
Click to expand...

You're going to need to provide links to substantiate this cvlaim.
 
Perhaps it's time to form a new organization who is not in bed with Washington only to make more money by creating this illusion they are doing something.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you don't fully understand how things work in Washington??

You don't get something for nothing.

And I don't care who ya are.

The NRA is the only organization with enough political clout & large enough membership to defend our gun rights.

Sometimes, they have to give in to something to get something else in return.

I don't agree with all the fund raising BS they put out either!

But they are the only reason we are able to still be on a gun board tonight arguing about how bad they are.

Without everything they have done in my 69 year lifetime?

We wouldn't be here worrying about them tonight.

Because guns would have been long gone, probably before you were born.

rc
 
Second, if they are so worried about losing the rights then why in the hell did they just support the implementation of one of he most antigun people in Washington to be over the BATFE?
Click to expand...
They didn't. They neither supported nor opposed his nomination/confirmation.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/201...r-todd-jones-appears-headed-for-confirmation/

"NRA director of public affairs Andrew Arulanandam on Tuesday confirmed the organization of 4-milion-plus members would neither fight the nomination of Todd Jones nor support it."​
 
rc said,

I don't agree with all the fund raising BS they put out either!
Click to expand...

I think the crux of his complaint was mostly because (of his claim of) the NRA supporting a very antigun person as head of the ATF.

However, the OP still hasn't substantiated his claim.
 
Ok, I should have explained myself better. I am talking about the recent nomination if Todd Jones. As someone already mentioned they neither opposed or supported this nomination. Or, did they? Here is my deal, if you aren't opposing it then you might as well be for it. By not opposing it, it made it easy for someone to slip him in place. So, why would the big guerrilla as you guys say, the biggest fighter for our rights allow such a antigun person to be easily moved into place as a perfect pawn with no opposition. That doesn't make any sense. As far as how Washington works, yes I know it all too well and that is precisely part of my problem with the NRA acting in this way. By stooping to their level and tactics you are encouraging the same political practice that has been in play. That encourages the downward spiral of the same system IMO rather than fighting to fix it!
 
I would guess if you were there and making the decisions and understanding all the details about this nomination it might be better understood.

I'm sure I know little to nothing about the details or how it all came about as is the case of most all of the members here.
 
You also have to remain a necessity. If not, people will lose interest in you. If you aren't needed, you aren't wanted. But in politics that's a very slippery slope. However, as long as there are antis in Washington, there will be NRA. And I support them.

But I agree that they should have known you were a member and sent the letter accordingly. It wouldn't be that hard to write 2 different intros to the same letter. One for members and one for prospects.
 
As stated before, the NRA was neutral in the confirmation. Gun control advocates seem to be glad he is in office. We'll have to wait to see how this plays in real time, and respond accordingly.

I see far too many RINOs getting sucked into liberalism, lately.
 
This isn't a "NRA knows best" reply, but since neither of us are privy to all the details and deals it might be best to be cautious instead of hyperbolic in the rhetoric used about this.

You can't honestly believe that anyone acceptable to the NRA would ever be nominated by this administration to head the BATFE so what do you expect opposition to have accomplished? How does spending political capital on trying to go to the mat on this nomination when there's no more chance of a snowball in hell of accomplishing anything? What principle is involved in spending resources on a battle that can't be won when there are battles to spend those resources on coming up? That's a cut your nose off to spite your face reaction.
 
Last edited:
That encourages the downward spiral of the same system IMO rather than fighting to fix it!
Click to expand...
Nobody else has ever been able to fix it in the last 200 years.

Why would you expect the NRA to be able to fix it now??

On the other hand, if you know of a better system or form of government anywhere else in the world?

You should probably move there ASAP, before it goes to hell too.
Which it surely will eventually.

It's the history of the worlds governments.
And you can't change history.

Even if you know what is going to happen anyway.

rc
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Todd_Jones
B. Todd Jones attended Wyoming High School in Cincinnati, Ohio. Jones received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Macalester College in 1979 and his Juris Doctor from the University of Minnesota Law School in 1983. He served in the U.S. Marine Corps as an infantry officer, prosecutor, defense attorney and judge advocate between 1983 and 1989. From 1992 to 1994 and 1997 to 1998, he served as an assistant U.S. Attorney.
Click to expand...
Jones became acting director of the ATF on August 31, 2011, following the resignation of Kenneth E. Melson in the aftermath of the ATF gunwalking scandal. As part of a push to improve gun control announced on January 16, 2013, President Barack Obama nominated Jones to serve as permanent director of the ATF. Due to gun lobby opposition, the bureau had not had a permanent director since the position was made subject to U.S. Senate approval in 2006.
Click to expand...

I suspect NRA has been paying attention to Jones since 31 Aug 2011.

Anyway, on the NRA, the gun control talking points handbook "Preventing gun violence through effective messaging" contains this for supporters of stronger gun control: "Also, average voters have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association (NRA). You are welcome to criticize the NRA when speaking to the progressive base, but it won’t help you persuade swing voters. That’s why these talking points don’t include anti-NRA language."

The NRA was blamed/credited by Senator Tydings with defeating his 1969-1970 proposal for federal registration and taxation of all firearms. That would make the NFA match the original dream of FDR, NY Sullivan Act extended to the federal level:
http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/111266/franklin-roosevelt-the-father-gun-control#
Adam Winkler, "Franklin Roosevelt: The Father of Gun Control", The New Republic, 19 Dec 2012.

Gun control is one of the great pieces of unfinished business for the Democratic Party. ... Roosevelt's original proposal for what would become the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun control law, sought to tax all firearms and establish a national registry of guns.
Click to expand...
The NRA is blamed for getting ordinary rifles, shotguns and handguns out of the NFA.

NRA has done more for the majority of gun owners than any of its critics.
 
hso said:
This isn't a "NRA knows best" reply, but since neither of us are privy to all the details and deals it might be best to be cautious instead of hyperbolic in the rhetoric used about this.

You can't honestly believe that anyone acceptable to the NRA would ever be nominated by this administration to head the BATFE so what do you expect opposition to have accomplished? How does spending political capital on trying to go to the mat on this nomination when there's no more chance of a snowball in hell of accomplishing anything? What principle is involved in spending resources on a battle that can't be won when there are battles to spend those resources on coming up? That's a cut your nose off to spite your face reaction.
Click to expand...
Bears repeating, especially the bold faced part.
 
Excellent posts guys! You did exactly as I hoped you would and helped me see the light behind the reasoning and swayed my opinion! Good job. Thanks for the understanding. Sometimes it takes others pointing out what we cannot see. I am young and perhaps that why I had a knee jerk reaction!
 
First of all, I'm not going to go bashing the only big boys we have protecting our 2A. And second, I've heard nothing that substantiates, much less suggests they have had anything to do with his nomination or confirmation. Now if it turns out that our NRA has decieved us, which I highly doubt, they will have to answer to it's members, and political affiliates. I'm not particularily worried about any one person in power just ripping our constitutional rights away from us. Regardless of such persons position, be it the ATF, or the president himself, they have to follow a political chain of command or protocol. And any attempt to side step the legal process would very likely result in a civil war, at the very least.

Am I intent on learning more of the facts, and I always have a hightened sense of awareness when I hear that a person in power or assuming a position of such, has an agenda that contradicts our constitutional rights. But for now, I'm just going to keep my ear to the ground, as always, and try to cull the media version out from the facts. And I still have a profound degree of trust in the NRA to protect our 2A. If anything, I would suspect their having kept quiet about his nomination may have some particular political stragity at work that has our 2A rights in their best interest. I heard something about this topic yesterday, and it was implied that there is some unknown dirty laundry that the right side is going to present at the right moment, which that time is apparently not right now.

So don't get too worked up, but rather keep a close eye on the situation and avoid allowing media versions from clouding the facts. We're still standing on some pretty solid ground at the moment, and I also tend to think that there are a few cards yet to play. Cards that have in the past, and will in the futre, force the left side relaize that any serious attack on the constitution will result in serious consequences and sacrifices they aren't willing to encounter quite yet.

And don't get so worried about their manner of trying to gain additional financial resources needed for the long fight. They are just doing what they feel is necessary to keep up to speed, and match the enemy move for move.

GS
 
Something to remember. This is the Obama Administration! Obama is not going to appoint someone that supports gun rights or the Second Amendment!

NOT! GOING! TO HAPPEN!

So as long as he doesn't appoint someone utterly corrupt or incompetent, their isn't much point in opposing who he picks.

Save the fight for winnable fights.
 
As someone already mentioned they neither opposed or supported this nomination. Or, did they? Here is my deal, if you aren't opposing it then you might as well be for it.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. The "If you ain fer us, yer agin us" ideal is a very stifling position to take. The world just isn't that black and white. Not opposing a nomination does not mean they support it.
 
SilentStalker said:
...As far as how Washington works, yes I know it all too well and that is precisely part of my problem with the NRA acting in this way. By stooping to their level and tactics you are encouraging the same political practice that has been in play...
Click to expand...
We have to continually remind ourselves that the way things work is the way things work. If we want to influence what happens in the political arena, we need to be there and play by the rules of that world. If we don't, we won't be at the table, and we won't have a say in the result.

If we abandon the political arena because we find distasteful the ways things are done there, those remaining will happily go on without us.
 
Be careful what you ask for

I'm a member. I do NOT get their junk mail anymore which is good and bad. I make a biggish donation around the first of the year to a few of their groups. But I don't get every (or any) solicitations anymore -- they'll stop those -- so I don't donate every time like I used to.

I bought something from Brownell's last night -- it asked if I wanted to "roundup," or make a $5 or $10 donation to NRA. They got my $10 -- I know they need it about now. But that's not my main point...

WOULD THE WHINERS PREFER NRA WASN'T AROUND ANYMORE TO ASK FOR DONATIONS!?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Why so many anti-NRA?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
150
Views
6K
Sam1911
S
T
  • Locked
Is it useful to send the NRA-ILA any more money?
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
4K
yzguy87
Y
A
  • Locked
Why *not* support the NRA?
2
Replies
39
Views
1K
rbernie
rbernie
castile
  • Locked
NRA being sued
Replies
1
Views
246
hso
hso
FROGO207
  • Locked
NRA member? Show your self
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
162
Views
5K
357sigRog
3
Back
Top