Mike Irwin
Member
Thanks, but I'll speak for myself.
No organization, especially one with close to 4 million members, is going to be able to please everyone all of the time.
If you're 100% happy as a clam with them, they're pissing someone else off who doesn't share your particular vision.
Being a gun owner means a LOT of different things to a lot of different people.
There are those who say "no restrictions on any guns at all."
There are those who say "I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle, but leave my bolt-action hunting rifle alone."
There are those who say "I'm only a hunter, I'd never use a gun to defend myself, so I have nothing to worry about."
Then there are those who say "I'm a trap and skeet shooter. As long as they don't touch my Perazzi, they can ban all the guns they want and I don't care."
Then, of course, there are the coheisve groups -- the hunters vs. the strict Second Amendmentists vs. the hard core legislatives vs. the high power rifle shooters, etc. ad nauseum.
I spent 3.5 years INSIDE the NRA as an employee. Am I 100% happy with them and everything they've done, and are doing?
Nope.
But do I have any illusions at all where gunowners would be in this country without the NRA?
Nope.
A long-term politician once told me that the BEST way to destroy any credibility you have with your FRIENDS in a legislative body is to adopt an absolutist stance. NRA is somewhat unique in that it's data has credibility not only with our Friends, but with those who are also apathetic toward us, and to a degree even with those who do not like us. I can't think of another organization, perhaps other than AARP, that has that kind of cross-Congressional clout.
I think everyone really needs to get used to a simple fact of life. The Supreme Court is NEVER going to take on the kind of sweeping "Second Amendment, absolut or conditional" case that we want. The Supremes don't have the guts.
My suggestion to you is one of two options.
Run for the NRA Board of Directors in an effort to change the inequities you see in the organization.
Or two, quit NRA and join one of the smaller, more directed lobbying groups that doesn't have NRA's war chest, its member number clout, or its access to politicians.
But, for God's sake, do SOMETHING.
No organization, especially one with close to 4 million members, is going to be able to please everyone all of the time.
If you're 100% happy as a clam with them, they're pissing someone else off who doesn't share your particular vision.
Being a gun owner means a LOT of different things to a lot of different people.
There are those who say "no restrictions on any guns at all."
There are those who say "I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle, but leave my bolt-action hunting rifle alone."
There are those who say "I'm only a hunter, I'd never use a gun to defend myself, so I have nothing to worry about."
Then there are those who say "I'm a trap and skeet shooter. As long as they don't touch my Perazzi, they can ban all the guns they want and I don't care."
Then, of course, there are the coheisve groups -- the hunters vs. the strict Second Amendmentists vs. the hard core legislatives vs. the high power rifle shooters, etc. ad nauseum.
I spent 3.5 years INSIDE the NRA as an employee. Am I 100% happy with them and everything they've done, and are doing?
Nope.
But do I have any illusions at all where gunowners would be in this country without the NRA?
Nope.
A long-term politician once told me that the BEST way to destroy any credibility you have with your FRIENDS in a legislative body is to adopt an absolutist stance. NRA is somewhat unique in that it's data has credibility not only with our Friends, but with those who are also apathetic toward us, and to a degree even with those who do not like us. I can't think of another organization, perhaps other than AARP, that has that kind of cross-Congressional clout.
I think everyone really needs to get used to a simple fact of life. The Supreme Court is NEVER going to take on the kind of sweeping "Second Amendment, absolut or conditional" case that we want. The Supremes don't have the guts.
My suggestion to you is one of two options.
Run for the NRA Board of Directors in an effort to change the inequities you see in the organization.
Or two, quit NRA and join one of the smaller, more directed lobbying groups that doesn't have NRA's war chest, its member number clout, or its access to politicians.
But, for God's sake, do SOMETHING.
But, the trick to politics is to sway the ones in the middle. To reach them, you have to be somewhat in the middle. That's the sticking point. People of principle detest compromise. Whenever the ancient Greeks found a man of solid principles, they would force him into public office at the point of a sword. Because they knew that he would never approach that "roiling snakepit" voluntarily, and because they knew (or at least hoped) that he would place his principles above personal gain. So, while I too long for more forceful and decisive action, I have to remember that politics does not work that way, stinking necessary evil that it is. I do realize, though, that I could never accomplish much in the active arena of political compromise. As much as it galls, we have to admit that we need those who can.
