So, how stupid must the NRA think we are?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We must stragle infant international gun control in its cradle - with apologies to Churchill.
 
Well God bless the NRA. Ken Hackathorn uses "God bless..." as being what he says when he doesn't have something good to say.

As an organization that thrives on donations, you have to wonder just how much of the donated money actually goes to supporting RKBA and their membership. They sure as heck are not one of the groups that puts 70-90% of their income into guns and gun issues, 10-30% in running the organization. It is probably more like 70-90% in running the organization and 10-30% for gun issues.

As near as I can estimate, my joining of the NRA has cost them money, so my membership has been a negative impact on the group. Not only do I get American Rifleman, but videos (2, both the same gun history video, but 2 copies about 6 months apart), my fake silver bullet, key chain, mailing labels, and about 5 -8 mailings a month with each asking for money in some way, accounting for probably 3/4 of a ream of paper expended. I find it terribly impractical that I can get 2 mailings in one day from the NRA, different letters but both wanting money and I know that they could have just mailed everything in one envelope instead of two.

I still don't understand how they reason that if they sent me the first free video and I didn't donate more money how sending me a 2nd copy of the same video will then make me want to send them more money! Given the crap they mail me, I have trouble believing that if I send them any more money that they will handle it better and put it to better use than the money I have already sent them.
 
In VA it is the VCDL that makes the gains. Sometimes the NRA actually works AGAINST the rights of gunowners! :cuss:
 
Hobie said:
In VA it is the VCDL that makes the gains. Sometimes the NRA actually works AGAINST the rights of gunowners! :cuss:

The SDGO (South Dakota) has similar problems. And yet in some areas the NRA ILA or a local affiliate is the only game in town and does a decent or at least semi-decent job.
 
The NRA doesn't want the 2nd Amendment to be protected. They're a big business now, and if the 2nd Amendment was safe they would go out of business.
While indeed, if the Second Amendment were "safe", the NRA would be out of a job, the Second Amendment will never be "safe".
 
Sergeant Bob said:
While indeed, if the Second Amendment were "safe", the NRA would be out of a job, the Second Amendment will never be "safe".

I think what is generally meant by "if the 2A was safe, the NRA would be out of business" is that if the Second Amendment was not perceived to be in great and impending peril, the business model of the NRA would have to scale down. Now, that might be a good thing for us firearms owners (if the NFA, GCA and AWB's were all defeated) but it would give gun owners a lot less incentive to give money to the NRA or any other gun rights organization. They would lose power, money and a large part of their size. No organization wants that.

For example, the ACLU has a better business model in that even though the rights they support are better protected and acknowledged, the issues they face involve mostly individual situations (one writer being censored as opposed to all writers or an entire publication) or a broad scope among multiple amendments and civil rights (patriot act, racism/sexism/etc...). There are tons of civil suits than can be lobbied within the scope of the ACLU's charter.

The NRA however, would not find itself in such a position as it is in if all it had to face were singular issues of disarmament because firearms rights are pretty well defined (even though not adhered to) and those areas that are not are defined within the scope of another aspect of the Bill of Rights or Constitution (private property rights or unreasonable search and seizure for example).

The ACLU has multiple dogs in the fight, the NRA is a one-trick pony as a lobbying and rights-based organization. They would have to further invest into sports/education/training and events, and they would have to compete in the market with some very respectable outfits for that business.

The thing is, they've already done all of that...


And on the phone calls and mailings thing, it is very easy to get those to stop, just call the NRA. You're a member, they'll respect your wishes. If that's your only reason for leaving the NRA, it's not a very good one IMHO.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Well God bless the NRA. Ken Hackathorn uses "God bless..." as being what he says when he doesn't have something good to say.

The NRA has a really nice museum in Fairfax.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
They sure as heck are not one of the groups that puts 70-90% of their income into guns and gun issues, 10-30% in running the organization. It is probably more like 70-90% in running the organization and 10-30% for gun issues.

Where do you get your numbers? Have you actually looked at the NRA budget, or are you just guessing? Have you ever actually tried to research this issue and find out where NRA funds go? Or have you just simply decided that you're mad at the NRA, and believing that they waste a lot of money on unnecessary administrative salaries makes you feel better? Are you distinguishing between NRA-ILA (the political action arm) and the NRA as a whole? Do you have any idea of all the gun-related activities the NRA supports?

If you are really concerned about the NRA's use or misuse of funds, have you ever called them or gone to the website to find out where the money goes?

Or are you just throwing out unfounded accusations because it makes you feel good?

The NRA itself is not allowed by charter to engage in political advocacy. Joining the NRA does have some political effect, though, by the simple matter of adding to the membership rolls. An organization with 4 million members is not an organization to be taken lightly in political circles. But the NRA membership dues do not go to political activity.

The NRA-ILA is the political action arm of the NRA. They spend money on political lobbying, legal fees, legal research, and so on. For just one instance, I know that lawsuit on behalf of the Katrina victims wasn't cheap. Everyone is always wanting the NRA to sue the government - often on unwinnable "fantasy" lawsuits - but then begrudge them their funding. Do you people have any idea how much money it costs to sue the federal government?
 
Last edited:
NineseveN said:
I think what is generally meant by "if the 2A was safe, the NRA would be out of business" is that if the Second Amendment was not perceived to be in great and impending peril, the business model of the NRA would have to scale down. ...
.

Actually, I think what people mean when they say this is
1) the NRA is not sincere in trying to protect RKBA (they espouse protecting RKBA, but secretly work to threaten it behind the scenes in order to preserve their own jobs)
2) the NRA overestimates the magnitude of threats, in order to generate more support

#1 is inane. By the same logic, doctors and nurses are actually secretly working to promote disease. Why? Because if disease were cured, they'd be out of a job. Also, all firemen are secretly arsonists. They go around setting fires for job security. Off-duty cops go around commiting crimes so the on-duty cops will have something to do. At shift change, they trade roles.

Oh, and by the way. The American Cancer Society? They don't want to find a cure for cancer, because it would put them out of business. Same thing goes for the Diabetes Foundation. March of Dimes, too: they're secretly in favor of birth defects, because it creates sad-looking babies for them to put on their posters.

#2 kind of goes with the territory. Fire marshals are a little more paranoid about fire safety than everyone else. That doesn't mean that if a fire marshal tells you to avoid smoking while filling your tank, that he's just being paranoid or just trying to drum up support for his job.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top