Why did the NRA throw in the towel?

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

The NRA shouldn't appear neutral to this guy.

They are anything but neutral. The NRA magazine last month had Holder's picture on the front cover with an article titled "The Holder Deception", so the primary focus of the entire issue was with actively opposing him. If they could have done more but pulled their punches a bit, then I'm disappointed with them, but it cannot be said that they didn't oppose him. They badmouthed him continuously for months (for good reason).


This made me laugh hard for some reason:

The NRA is just playing the passive game of "give a monkey a hand grenade... eventually it will blow itself up". I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[JohnBT]

"Choosing not to oppose an appointment that amounts to the administration thumbing its nose at gun owners is not a compromise. Where was the negotiation? What did the gun owning community gain from its highest-profile advocate failing to oppose that appointment? "

Uh, hello? The Democratic Party is in a position of power if you haven't noticed. They don't need to do much, if any, compromising.

The NRA did object, but wisely didn't waste very much time on it.

What did we get out of it? We don't have a collective headache from banging our heads against a wall that wasn't going anywhere.

Do you read the same news the rest of us do?

John

 

[Drail]

When the founding fathers decided to engage in a revolution against the ruling power of the time they did not rely on a non profit political action organization and attempt to vote the problem away because they were smart enough to realize it was too late for that tactic to work. We have just about reached that point again. You cannot beat the criminals in Washington by playing by their rules. History clearly has shown that ALL governments will become totally corrupt given enough time. All of them. The founding fathers knew this well. That's why they were adamant about ensuring we were to have the tools to deal with the problem. Yes, this is radical talk. These are radical times. I used to work for the NRA. I won't rely on them anymore.

 

[JohnBT]

Well maybe if they'd had a "non profit political action organization" way back when they wouldn't have needed an armed revolution. But they didn't exist, so they couldn't use one.


"History clearly has shown that ALL governments will become totally corrupt given enough time. All of them."

All of them? Clearly shown? No room for inept ones? Heck, I can refute your claim with one word: Switzerland. (founded 1291)

JT

 

[chrisknox]

JohnBT, I'm acutely aware of who's in power. And I'm well aware that the skids were greased and the train was moving down the track. Winning is not the point. Fighting is. It's all about the perception.

I want an NRA that behaves like an advocacy organization. Why should gun owners just hang our heads when our so-called friends (Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, et al) won't even offer token resistance to a nominee who has advocated forcefully against our interests?

Abortion rights groups like NARAL and AAUW went up against Ashcroft, an AG nominee they didn't like, and they counted the votes, despite the fact that their opponents were firmly in control and had set the agenda.

Why can't the Second Amendment have hard-nosed and effective advocacy?

From what was printed in the magazines, it would appear that NRA had pulled out all the stops against Holder. But that was for outside-the-Beltway consumption. Go downtown and the message changes. I'm ready for an NRA that lives up to the tough talk.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Winning is not the point. Fighting is.

But that would waste the NRA's resources, and possibly make some people go from moderate to anti-gun. I would much rather they make sure they can win the important fights, like another AWB, than fight stuff like this and lose the important ones.

 

[rbernie]

A strategy of fighting hard on every issue presumes an unlimited coffer and a complete suspension of internal priorities amongst the CongressCritters. Neither of those two things will ever occur.

The NRA-ILA will always have a known budget, and they will always be courting CongressCritters that are busy trading votes on issue X in exchange for some alternate largess on issue Y.

Abortion rights groups like NARAL and AAUW went up against Ashcroft, an AG nominee they didn't like, and they counted the votes, despite the fact that their opponents were firmly in control and had set the agenda.

So let's pull on that thread; of what value to their long-term strategy was this tactical battle?

What, other than name recognition, did they gain? More importantly, what did this cost them, plus or minus (both money and influence/goodwill)?

 

[chrisknox]

A strategy of fighting hard on every issue presumes an unlimited coffer and a complete suspension of internal priorities amongst the CongressCritters. Neither of those two things will ever occur.

Let's see, there's the cost of some extra ink at the bottom of that very nice letter that they sent only to the Judiciary Committee (it's here, by the way) saying something to the effect of, "We will look for your vote against confirmation and look forward to reporting to our members that you supported the Second Amendment."

Then there's the expense of tallying the vote in a database and reporting votes for and against Holder in an upcoming edition of the magazines.

Oh, and there might be an additional five seconds spent on that phone call two weeks ago with a recording of Wayne LaPierre telling me my new membership card is in the mail and that I should take this opportunity to upgrade my Endowment Membership to Benefactor for a discounted price.

And that nice girl that called me last week trying to sell me a flashlight for $150 might have mentioned that I should call Jon Kyl to thank him for voting right on Holder (Kyl voted wrong, but if he'd received a different message from NRA then that outcome might have been different).

Victory isn't necessarily defeating the Holder nomination. Victory might be enforcing discipline amongst the disheveled Republican minority.

 

[chrisknox]

Abortion rights groups like NARAL and AAUW went up against Ashcroft, an AG nominee they didn't like, and they counted the votes, despite the fact that their opponents were firmly in control and had set the agenda.

So let's pull on that thread; of what value to their long-term strategy was this tactical battle?

What, other than name recognition, did they gain? More importantly, what did this cost them, plus or minus (both money and influence/goodwill)?

The name recognition is worth something. I doubt it cost them much in terms of influence or goodwill. Their friends know who they are and they know that they expect their friends to act like friends, i.e. to defend their interests. Let's look at the other end of that thread. What would ignoring their members' interests and not counting a vote to confirm Ashcroft cost the abortion groups in terms of credibility among their members? What did giving lip service to its members' opposition to Holder in order to avoid treading on delicate Republican toes cost NRA?

 

[JohnBT]

"Why should gun owners just hang our heads when our so-called friends (Orrin Hatch, Jon Kyl, et al) won't even offer token resistance to a nominee who has advocated forcefully against our interests? "

I'm not hanging my head and neither are my friends. Maybe you need some new friends.

Token resistance, pfui, a waste of time and effort.

John

 

[chuckusaret]

I believe the pro-gunners must take up the task ourselves. Our so called friends in Washington are our friends only until it has some possible future negitive impact on their careers. I believe the local, city, state and national organized pro gun demonstrations is the way to go. As a new member of the NRA I was shocked to see the NRA fall on their sword over the Holder appointment. I don't believe we have much help In Washington in the protection of our 2nd amendment rights or any of our rights. The Obama Bin Biden teams is also out to limit the 1st and 16th amendment rights also. There is growing unrest in my area over the presidents stimulus package, his planned activation of the "Strong Civilian Force" and his attack on our constitutional rights. Most gun owners, that I have spoken to, have indicated that they will not give up their guns and will use them , if need be, to protect their rights. We are in for some tough times.

 

[Hugo]

I think the NRA is following Patton's rule of "Only fight a battle big enough to be important and small enough to win." They must really hate to stop fighting this idiot but they know they have many more problems to deal with soon, and more in the long term over the next 4 years. Like stopping another do-nothing Assault Weapons Ban from happening. It sucks but that's the situation.

 

[chrisknox]

The crux of my column that I came into conversation with:

There is nothing wrong with losing a fight, provided it’s the right fight and you actually do fight.

It’s certainly more fun to win, but there are times that losing one fight can head off others. When I was in grade school we moved quite a bit, and being about the same size as the smallest girl in my class, I learned a bit about bullies. When I was having trouble with a bully I found the best thing to do was to get it over with. While he was running his mouth, I’d hit him hard between the running lights, assuming I could reach that high – my secondary target was the third button on his shirt. Sometimes that solved the problem, but usually it just preceded the thumping that was coming anyway. But it always changed the way he – and his friends – dealt with me in the future. I was not an easy target.

Through its supine reaction to the Holder nomination, the NRA has left the impression that the nation’s gun owners are an easy target, and have poorly served its members and the larger community of gun owners. By rolling over on the Holder nomination they have invited more trials and tests.

Yes, we should choose our battles, but a lost tactical battle can advance a larger strategy. The question is what it would cost to fight -- to credit votes against confirmation as pro-gun votes, and votes for confirmation as anti-gun votes. The answer is Not Much. Instead, the Republicans got to feign bi-partisanship at the expense of gun owners.