The NRA is NOT the best gun group.

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AR15activist

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2015
Messages
172
They routinely endorse anti-gun Democrats like Harry Reid(1) over solid republicans; offering endorsements which can then be used as cover for bad votes. They have also called for banning private sales(2) and mental health background checks(3); which would violate our privacy and hurt military veterans with PTSD.

Discuss.

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKEDb0Eq65s
(2) http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...k-obama-says-nra-used-support-expanded-backgr
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ss-database-thirty-eight-states-have-that-now
 
Mod:

This thread might belong on "Activism Discussion and Planning," sorry if that's the case.
 
NRA...

I'm currently an active NRA member. :D
I'm also a veteran(active duty, honorable discharge), gun owner & valid CCW license holder.
I disagree with a few of the points about the NRA. If you do not like the group, then don't join or donate $$$. ;)
I'm not thrilled about all the NRA's political messages or issues either but they do fight to maintain gun rights and carry-firearm licenses all across the USA.

As for the veterans/PTSD-mental illness, I've posted both on this forum & others that I do not think disabled veterans or military veterans with diagnosed mental illness should get valid CCWs or hunting licenses/gun permits.
A 100% disabled veteran can't say; oh, I'm to sick to work or maintain employment but Im sane enough or responsible enough to carry a concealed loaded firearm or hunt with a high powered rifle, :confused: .
Sorry, no sale.
Id add that if this became a political issue or state ballot measure, and the voters/general public allowed disabled veterans or those with PTSD to have CCWs/gun licenses, then Id be okay with it. I wouldn't march up & down the street with a banner. :rolleyes:
We live in a free society where laws & statues are debated & voted on.
The NRA isn't great but I wouldn't scream & yell over it.
 
Define best.

Yes long term some of the compromises have not at all worked out well. But I'm STILL a lifetime member. ALL gun owners should be members.

I tend to detest Gottlieb and yet I join his groups. He does some good work but makes some horrible decisions and I honestly think it's all about him, not necessarily gun rights. He got a lot of money from me for 591, and it was a bad, bad idea.

I guess that leaves GOA. Member there, too.
 
I've been a member since my teenage years. Some of the things they did really torqued me off, some were a minor annoyance, the rest was a solid track record of defending our RKBA. We would be in a much, much worst state right now if it wasn't for the NRA. The good outweighs the bad in my estimation, but I can understand how some would be turned off from the group. YMMV.

Show me another RKBA that has close to the same strength as the NRA and has a better track record and I'll support said group with my dollars and time in a heartbeat. I haven't seen one yet, but should that change, I'd be glad to help.
 
As for the veterans/PTSD-mental illness, I've posted both on this forum & others that I do not think disabled veterans or military veterans with diagnosed mental illness should get valid CCWs or hunting licenses/gun permits.
A 100% disabled veteran can't say; oh, I'm to sick to work or maintain employment but Im sane enough or responsible enough to carry a concealed loaded firearm or hunt with a high powered rifle, .
Sorry, no sale.
Id add that if this became a political issue or state ballot measure, and the voters/general public allowed disabled veterans or those with PTSD to have CCWs/gun licenses, then Id be okay with it.
Click to expand...
For someone who claims to be pro-gun you're certainly open to infringing on others' rights. Your attitude, and the anti-gunners who have the same attitude, is a large part of why many vets won't seek mental health treatment. Meanwhile, every day 22 veterans commit suicide. If you want to help your fellow vets out quit stigmatizing mental health treatment.
 
I joined the GOA back in the 90's after the NRA screwed us here in N.Carolina joined up with NAGR and JPFO a few years ago . I have almost no use for the NRA ..
 
AR15activist said:
They routinely endorse anti-gun Democrats like Harry Reid(1) over solid republicans;
Click to expand...

In 2010, the NRA gave Sharon Angle, a nobody, an A-rating and gave the sitting Senate Majority Leader a B-rating. NRA did not endorse either candidate. (Source: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...-wayne-lapierre-why-senator-and-nra-ceo-broke)

In 2004, NRA gave Reid a B-rating and gave his challenger Richard Ziser, an A-rating. (Source: http://www.nrapvf.org/grades/archive/2004/Nevada)

In short, NRA hasn't even endorsed Harry Reid over other pro-gun candidates, let alone demonstrated any kind of "routine" endorsement of anti-gun candidates over pro-gun candidates.

NRA grades follow a very simple formula. If you vote 100% with NRA on graded votes, you get an A. If you vote 100% with NRA on graded votes and sponsor NRA-supported legislation, you get an A+. As the stock market guys say, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.

They have also called for banning private sales
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. Unlike you, I happened to be around for the big Columbine gun law push and the NRA wasn't backing even gunshow background checks when the laws came up for a vote. They certainly weren't "banning all private sales" as you allege. NRA spent $600,000 just at the state level to defeat gun show background checks in Colorado (see: http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-40358.html and http://thefiringline.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-26627.html). Maybe Politfact isn't a fair and unbiased source for information?

You might also consider looking at the actual historical record re: voting or NRA opposition to the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2001, etc.

and mental health background checks(3); which would violate our privacy and hurt military veterans with PTSD.
Click to expand...

The NRA has and continues to support adding people who have been adjudicated mentally defective (as the 5th Circuit defines that) to the list of prohibited people on NICS. This doesn't violate privacy as being adjudicated mentally ill is a public hearing and the NRA version does not include diagnoses of PTSD unless the veteran in question is adjudicated mentally defective and found to be a danger to himself or others.
 
Yet Wayne LaPierre stood on stage and said that Harry Reid was pro-gun, called for making private sales illegal in the late 90's, and advocated for strengthening "mental health background checks," while people in New York and CT are losing guns after being diagnosed with insomnia.

So far 3/8 on here have acknowledged the NRA is flawed, lets have the debate.
 
Last edited:
ugaarguy said:
For someone who claims to be pro-gun you're certainly open to infringing on others' rights. Your attitude, and the anti-gunners who have the same attitude, is a large part of why many vets won't seek mental health treatment. Meanwhile, every day 22 veterans commit suicide. If you want to help your fellow vets out quit stigmatizing mental health treatment.
Click to expand...
Win.
 
Swing said:
I've been a member since my teenage years. Some of the things they did really torqued me off, some were a minor annoyance, the rest was a solid track record of defending our RKBA. We would be in a much, much worst state right now if it wasn't for the NRA. The good outweighs the bad in my estimation, but I can understand how some would be turned off from the group. YMMV.

Show me another RKBA that has close to the same strength as the NRA and has a better track record and I'll support said group with my dollars and time in a heartbeat. I haven't seen one yet, but should that change, I'd be glad to help.
Click to expand...
Ultra-conservative gun group outspends NRA on lobbying, -- 5/02/13

"A newcomer by federal lobbying — the National Association for Gun Rights or NAGR — spent nearly $1.9 million during the first three months of the year — exceeding the $700,000 reported by powerful National Rifle Association."

NAGR fought harder against the AWB V2 than the NRA.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-national-association-for-gun-rights/2130047/
 
In 2010, the NRA gave Sharon Angle, a nobody, an A-rating and gave the sitting Senate Majority Leader a B-rating. NRA did not endorse either candidate. (Source: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...-nra-ceo-broke)

In 2004, NRA gave Reid a B-rating and gave his challenger Richard Ziser, an A-rating. (Source: http://www.nrapvf.org/grades/archive/2004/Nevada)

In short, NRA hasn't even endorsed Harry Reid over other pro-gun candidates, let alone demonstrated any kind of "routine" endorsement of anti-gun candidates over pro-gun candidates.

NRA grades follow a very simple formula. If you vote 100% with NRA on graded votes, you get an A. If you vote 100% with NRA on graded votes and sponsor NRA-supported legislation, you get an A+. As the stock market guys say, past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.
Click to expand...

The NRA is Helping Preserve the Anti Gun Democrat Majority RedState, 10/5/10

http://www.redstate.com/2010/10/05/the-nra-is-helping-preserve-the-anti-gun-Democrat-majority/
 
The NRA is not an organ of the Republican Party, nor should it be. During a time when both houses of Congress were held by the Democratic Party they found Democrats who would work with them and who pledged to support 2A. That's just good lobbying. Yes, Manchin turned on them. So have moderate Republicans. Political party affiliation is no guarantee of ideological purity.

Most people might not want to hear it, but for the sake of 2A a Democrat in a position of leadership and seniority who reliably votes pro 2A is better than a Freshman Republican with no voting record.
 
Personally, I'm not anti-NRA, but I'm not a fan either. They did virtually nothing here in Colorado when we were facing our Bloomberg-pushed legislative battles, and they always seem more concerned with defending hunting than other lawful reasons for gun ownership. I hunt, but I've also owned quite a few 'Evil Black Rifles'.

I don't buy into the idea of "if you aren't an NRA member you don't care about your rights", nor do I subscribe to the philosophy that the NRA is solely responsible for me enjoying my rights. I've spent a lot of personal time writing letters to legislators, and contributing to the campaigns of those I feel are worthy of office. I've given money to pro-gun groups, but I don't feel like I need to be an NRA member to say that I've done my part (though I have considered membership again from time to time).
 
gearhead said:
The NRA is not an organ of the Republican Party, nor should it be. During a time when both houses of Congress were held by the Democratic Party they found Democrats who would work with them and who pledged to support 2A. That's just good lobbying. Yes, Manchin turned on them. So have moderate Republicans. Political party affiliation is no guarantee of ideological purity.

Most people might not want to hear it, but for the sake of 2A a Democrat in a position of leadership and seniority who reliably votes pro 2A is better than a Freshman Republican with no voting record.
Click to expand...

Fair points -- I'm more of a (l)ibertarian myself so I see your point. All though, I prefer confrontation to placation.
 
They routinely endorse anti-gun Democrats like Harry Reid(1)
Click to expand...

Okay, this how far I got. FIRST do we define "routinely" as ONE???

How about the if your going to make a claim that someone does something routinely list more than one example!

And
At one time Harry R. was somewhat on board with 2A issues. The biggest thing I can think of is the time he sold some gov owned land to fully fund a public gun range. But that shouldn't count because the antis do that all time....right?:rolleyes:

Then I started the video where they say Mr. Reid has a history of supporting anti gun SCOTUS.... Such as Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
Question, did you know the NRA no longer endorses Harry and didn't in last election? The reason they quit endorsing him was because he voted for Elena and Sonia!!!! Hello!!! Anybody home?

So after those 2 things I got angry because people are bashing the NRA without knowing what they're talking about, then I typed out this rant and now I simply ask for you NRA bashers to at least know what your talking about before you go on and on beating on the people that are fighting FOR you!

In the mean time enjoy your freedom that still exists in no small part to the NRA you hate so much.

BTW:
I am not under the illusion that the NRA is perfect, but they are the biggest, most influential, well funded 2A organization out their with more name recognition than all the rest combined.... So yeah, they are the "best" in a real way.
 
Using government money to build a trap shooting range has nothing to do with being pro gun.
Click to expand...


He sold gov land to private citizens/businesses and used the profits to build the gun range. It was in no way a burden put on any tax payer.

But you are correct, that doesn't make him "pro-gun" but it does make it difficult to say he is "anti-gun" as you stated. What he is, is a politican. He is what ever today calls for, scum of the truest order.
 
In Reid's defense, what exactly has he accomplished to infringe our rights? He's always been the weak kind of pol that follows the strongest wind, which (he thought) was gun control for a handful of months in '13. He sure as heck hasn't gone out on a limb to either embrace or attack gun control issues (he's been drug kicking and screaming by a big portion of his conference, but he never took the lead).

Sounds like a "B" or "C" to me, considering that D/F is reserved for straight-up frequent advocacy. Just because he was a horrible senator and majority leader with corrupt dealings doesn't make him fervently anti-gun.

As far as the NRA's recommending Democrats every once in a while; they aren't a Republican advocacy organization, regardless of how they are characterized, or how much the Democrat leadership seem intent on forcing them to be by adopting ever more radical anti-gun positions.

"I don't buy into the idea of "if you aren't an NRA member you don't care about your rights""
Look at it objectively, then; if you support gun rights, is a membership with the NRA useful? I've long weighed the question, myself, and the more I learn about how the organization actually conducts itself, the more I think the answer is yes. You can get a lot of the benefits of being a member simply by following or hearing about their activities; that's the magic of this internet thing. It used to be you wouldn't hear about the pending M855 ammunition ban unless you were a member on their mailing list, but now every single member can phone-chain the message outside the group to every person with the slightest interest.

What you get by being a member, is the ability to influence the messages and causes being pursued, rather than simply marching in support of them. It's not huge influence, since there are a lot of members, but the NRA is very responsible to its membership (electorate) compared to many charities, so it's there. I can be a lot more influential there than I can be in the official representative channels in our national government.

I would agree that for a person who simply wishes to latch onto an already-popular movement or cause and lend it support, membership in the NRA or other orgs is not particularly rewarding. Unlike many 'shake down' charities or activist orgs, the NRA doesn't typically try to strong-arm associate non-members into joining in order to be a party to their activities.

TCB
 
The gun rights debate is not something that belongs strictly along party lines, any more than any other divisive social debate (abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc.). The U.S. state with longest-standing, most consistent stance in favor of the right to keep and bear arms is...Vermont...which has also voted for the Dem presidential candidate in every election for the past 20 years.

The two-party monopoly of the Reps and Dems means that both parties cover an enormously diverse range of views. Yes, the most right-wing Reps are the farthest to the right, and the most left-wing Dems the farthest to the left, but that's about all you can say. In reality, most Americans are in that middle area and have far more in common than either party would have them believe.

Want to see real change in America? Break the two-party monopoly and give us a a dozen parties representing a real choice and breaking up control of the Congress so that legislation must be made by discussion and compromise not political grandstanding.

Personally, I would love to belong to a party that supported the platform that the government should stay out of the bedroom, out of the reproductive health clinic, out of marriage, and out of the gun cabinet, while not subsidizing or bailing out any industry and simply making sure that every American has access to the health services, education, basic rights, safety and security to have a fair chance of success while preserving our planet for the next generation.

That doesn't describe either Reps or Dems, unfortunately. Similarly, the NRA doesn't represent my views on guns, but unfortunately there aren't many options out there.
 
the NRA has proven to me that they are in the market of making money, if this means siding and endorsing politicians that will threaten gun rights so they can offer you their shoulder to cry on (for a fee) then they tend to do it.. i wouldnt be at all surprised to find they have agreements with some of these anti-gun people to mention the NRA by name in exchange for their endorsement on anti-constitutional measures like mental health checks and such.. by being mentioned by name their subscription sales go up

fact is, theyre nowhere to be found when our rights are threatened, when types of ammo get banned, and have made no efforts to repeal previous acts against our constitution.. the DC and chicago gun bans being overturned, the work against ATF for M855, even a recent court case against machine gun bans that is yielding the very real possibility of legal full autos once again, none of this the NRA has had any part of

i refuse to give them a single dollar for them to bathe in until they actually put up a fight for the constitution, and not just being the lobbying branch of gun manufacturers
 
Nothing like a good NRA bashing from within a national pro gun forum to give credence to the anti gunners. In my admittedly flawed and simplistic view, if we beat up any worthwhile gun-supportive group, we're just hurting ourselves. Sort of a "if we don't hang together, we'll hang separately" sort of thing.

I've been a member of the NRA since the early '60s and I paid my life member dues almost 25 years ago. My wife is also a member. The NRA is far from perfect, but in the political climate of the whole gun ownership shebang, I feel they do pretty good.

As far as the NRA supporting certain less-than-desirable gun rights positions, sometimes you have to give up a bit to gain a lot. And what I call a "bit" is just my opinion and I don't debate my opinions. Others have their realities and I have mine.

What it all comes back to for me is this: what would our corner of the world be like if the NRA had never existed? Again, you have your reality; I have mine. If you don't like the NRA, don't send them any of your money. Simple ... the American way.
 
the NRA doesnt protect our gun rights, the constitution does.. NRA protection has saddled us will bullcrap like the 68 ann 86 gun control acts.. and the premise that you have to give up a little to game some is a load of bullcrap, the american gun owner is not obligated to give up anything, and nor should they, and sure as hell not to line the private bank accounts of people like lapierre

i cant understand how indoctrinated people have to be to put so much blind faith in the NRA to believe theyd have less gun rights without them, or that the NRA is doing their best, not when we've had many, many gun rights victories in the last few years and not a single one was the NRA present.. our gun rights are becoming more and more in line with the constitution, and the NRA is still nowhere to be found on any of it

the american gun owner has simply stopped letting the NRA represent them and since we've stopped doing that we've began representing ourselves and through that we are winning these battles
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Reid pulls gun bill from Senate
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Bruno2
B
S
  • Locked
Why did the NRA throw in the towel?
2 3 4
Replies
87
Views
5K
chrisknox
C
B
  • Locked
Finally: Word Leaks on Biden Group's Gun Control Plans
2 3
Replies
69
Views
4K
Al Thompson
A
BSA1
  • Locked
Obamacare gift to gun owners
Replies
2
Views
788
hso
hso
danez71
  • Locked
Gun violence drops "dramtically" according to US DOJ
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
22-rimfire
2
Back
Top