2fewdaysafield
Member
+ 1 for Michael Thomson
Why did the NRA throw in the towel?
- Thread starter Skykomish
- Start date
- Status
The NRA has limited resources and may not get as much revenue due to the economy. With the anti-gun Dems in charge they need to pick the battles that matter. Obama is going to choose an anti- why fight this one. The NRA should keep their pocketbook closed until something big comes along like a new AWB. Pelosi said “when the time is right we will address gun issue, but now we must focus on the economy.” Read “After the next mass murder we will garner enough sympathy to pass a gun ban.” With the economy contracting as it is, I don’t think she will have to wait long. It seems logical to let Holder go to fight another day.
I get that, but nothing to show for it
Well, how about concealed carry laws, castle doctrine laws, guns-in-car laws, the defeat of Al Gore, the Thiart Amendment, the Federal law that was passed after Katrina dealing with confiscations, and gazillion of other gun rights (you can do your own research if you wish) that you are currently enjoying. "Nothing to show" for is a bit out of line, if you ask me.Who here has actually gone to the NRA for information on what they are or are not doing about the Holder nomination. hotair? infowars? I love reading those sites, but I wouldn't take what comes from them as gospel.
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HolderLetter010909.pdf
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4307
http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/HolderLetter010909.pdf
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4307
Gunnerpalace
Member
Listen to me, Join the NRA ,
Join the NRA,
Keep in mind that I am a NRA hater to, but boy oh boy we are gonna need them. look at this:
However,
If we get another 922o, I'm gonna be vocal. and a half.
Join the NRA,
Keep in mind that I am a NRA hater to, but boy oh boy we are gonna need them. look at this:
That is true, the only way we can hold them off until the next elections is in court and the NRA can do this.
However,
If we get another 922o, I'm gonna be vocal. and a half.
BHP FAN
Member
I'm an NRA member,and a regular contributor to GOA.If I had more money,I'd join some more organizations.We all do what we can.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Do you realize that each of these "rights" you are touting are nothing more than a few placations - exceptions to the underlying unconstitutional laws that make it "necessary" to have laws that allow you to carry a gun concealed or otherwise? Get that ? ALLOW. You were BORN with the right to carry a gun concealed, open, on your hat like an ornament, drug behind you like a sled, or one big enough that you and 5000 others can ride in/on it with you?
Yes, the NRA staff has done much of what we pay them to do, but please understand the difference between a right and a right infringed with placating exceptions.
The defeat of Al Gore and the blow struck to the Democrat majority in Congress in '94 are laudable achievements. Castle doctrine laws are great advances in the self defense category. Don't forget the act that froze out all those frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry. But please understand that the worse thing we suffer is the infringements, along with the audacity of those in government who passed and/or refuse to repeal such law that infringes upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
What is the most important and of the most value to us is what happens in court - when unconstitutional law gets shot down - not in a legislature when "placations" are passed that are supposedly in our favor.
The NRA is a leader in these court cases and is producing some outstanding results. Along with the training and education they provide, these are the main reasons I joined. But, the NRA staff needs to quit supporting/endorsing certain acts that are infringements upon our rights, such as the NICS. Defeating laws - that make it "necessary" for us to have things like the NICS to clear us to be "allowed" to exercise a right - is more in line with what they should be doing.
The recent "improvements" to the NICS is a prime example. The NRA could have done just as good a job slicing, dicing and limiting that act without an endorsement of it!(That went up me sideways.)
I want the NRA to be more open with the people it puts up for us to vote into the NRA High-Mucky-Muck Decision Making Department. I want more than their "qualifications". I want their stance on all the issues. I want the voting record of all the existing staff. I want to be able to make informed decisions. I want a kick-ass NRA, not a compromise/schmoozing/placating NRA. After all, it is us they represent, not themselves. How can we properly choose without the afore mentioned knowledge? If you want to make a difference, get on their case and demand what the stance is of each of those members on that executive committee.
Woody
Ok, I got bored reading this thread when Ron Paul got mentioned.
For the geniuses that think the nra is so bad I'm still waiting for suggestions that will successfully defend our 2a rights. I also want to know which organization has enough resources and membership to replace the nra.
For the geniuses that think the nra is so bad I'm still waiting for suggestions that will successfully defend our 2a rights. I also want to know which organization has enough resources and membership to replace the nra.
I understand that very well, but I also understand reality. Yes, a lot of the laws are unconstitutional but how do you propose we go about that. Unless the Supreme Court rules them all unconstitutional (which ain't gonna happen), the legislative arena and the Federal and State courts are the way to go, step by step, law by law, ordinance by ordinance. NRA, 2 Amendment Foundation, and the state gun rights organizations are doing exactly that. VCDL is a good example about fighting tooth and nail for every piece of legislation and every court case. Then you have the other organizations (some of us know who they are) who just scream the sky is falling and no compromise, and have no single tangible accomplishment.
Also, remember that in the legislative arena deals need to be cut...on both sides. That's the reality too. Good example of that was the law funding the States (after Virginia Tech) to report mentally ill folks to NICS. Some folks at the time cried wold that NRA and Brady are pretty much the same. Like NRA was supposed to come out and declare that they are against enforcing a good law that already was in the books, and no one objected to it. They jumped on Board, had an input in what was done, and the legislation that came out did not infringe on our rights. It's all a game and who plays it well wins!
Very true and very important. This is real life in the real world -- where some things are possible and some things are not. If one doesn't recognize the difference, nothing will ever get done.camacho said:
+1 -- I'll never understand why some folks think that all we have to do is dig in our heels and scream "no" as loudly as possible.camacho said:
Last edited:
Me neither. I also believe that that type of attitude if implemented on organizational level/even personal level brings more harm than good. The antis just point out at organizations/individuals like that and claim: We told you so, those guys are loons. The PR battle is for the average Joe/Jane, not the Bradys. If average Joe believes that the pro-RKBA movement is loony, we are history!
jahwarrior
Member
no surprise here. the NRA flaked on the Heller case, and they're flaking now. they wrap themselves in the 2A, and cash in on it. compromise, collabarate, comply; that seems to be their "strategy".
JImbothefiveth
Member
Which is why the NRA doesn't need the attorney general to have a grudge against them.
JImbothefiveth
Member
LOL!
Okay, so when did mr. Heston say "we need to ban "assault weapons", for the good of our nation!"? When did the NRA oppose CCW?
The NRA is the only gun lobby with any real nationwide influence. (I wish there were more gun lobbies with nationwide influence, but let's face it there aren't.)
Will do!
1: A lot of people can't CCW on campus. The NRA doesn't like this.
2:I can't import guns that aren't "sporting enough". I don't think the NRA-ILA even existed in 68.
3:In my state, a carry permit took about 3 months to get. The NRA didn't say it has to take that long. (And that isn't even a restriction, more like an inconvinience)
If they negotiate restrictions, it's to prevent an even worse alternative.
What pro-gun legislation has a different gun lobby pushed for successfully, without the NRA's support?
JImbothefiveth
Member
It would just make them look bad and waste cash, meaning they'll have less influence when it's time to vote on revolver ban 2.0.
I would, but first I ahve a question: Does the GOA always attack the mostly pro-gun candidates, or just this year? If they're going to attack the most pro-gun of the electable cadidates, I personally feel that they are doing more harm than good, and would rather just donate to NRA-ILA. If we elect pro-gun politicians, we don't get gun bans. Or does it just depend on whether or not the candidate in question has a high enough GOA rating?
Last edited:
Ridgerunner665
Member
The NRA did not flake on the Heller case...
IF the NRA had been in on that...we may well have lost the decision simply because of political "posturing"...the NRA stayed out of it which kept the political pressure down just a tad.
As I said before...everything is not always what it seems and a lot of you NRA bashers need to either put up or shut up.
After all...without the NRA we (gun owners) would be nearly extinct by now.
IF the NRA had been in on that...we may well have lost the decision simply because of political "posturing"...the NRA stayed out of it which kept the political pressure down just a tad.
As I said before...everything is not always what it seems and a lot of you NRA bashers need to either put up or shut up.
After all...without the NRA we (gun owners) would be nearly extinct by now.
JImbothefiveth
Member
BTW, here's what the NRA has to say about it:
The president of the NRA also sent letters to some senators, saying why he was bad.
We're pretty disgusted with the NRA's lack of opposition as well. Jeff compared the Holder nomination to another eerily similar nomination under Carter in a column a couple of weeks ago. My current edition of the same column suggests that at the root of NRA squishiness like this is a Board that does not provide sufficient guidance to staff, but rather takes direction from the staff. The key is the Board, but we, the members of NRA, have too little say both in who gets in, and in what they do once they get there.
Tom Servo
Member
So, I wasn't the only one
Seriously, why did this turn so quickly into NRA bashing?
Frankly, I was fairly peeved at them last year for a couple of things. I was angry that they didn't support Heller more, until I found out that Gura's legal team had asked them to step lightly.
I was grinding my teeth over their lack of support for a piece of local pro-2A legislation. Then I found out that a) a local 2A group insisted on doing the grunt work, and b) they were waiting for the final details of the bill to get hammered out before throwing their weight behind it. Which they did, in the end.
I was unhappy that they didn't fight the NFA or the GCA until I realized that they weren't even a legislative organization back then.
Boy, was I ever steamed when I found they'd done NOTHING to prevent the disarmament of the Indian people British Empire in the 18th Century, but then I realized the NRA wasn't around yet at that point.
I don't know why, but there's been a rash of that lately, and usually from people with less than a year in the culture. The plain fact is this: compromise and negotiation are essential elements of politics. Absolutes don't fly in the real world.
Our rights were taken away in small increments, over a 70-year timeline. It's going to take a while to get them back, and it's going to be a long series of small steps. I know of no organization on the national level with the resources and reach of the NRA that could otherwise fill that role, so I support them. While I am a member of several other organizations, I know that their abilities are limited.
Trust me, our politicians have all heard the "what part of my cold dead hands" slogans before. Screaming at them doesn't get us what we need. We have to be smarter, more civilized, and more eloquent than the opposition.
JohnBT
Member
"Yes, the NRA staff has done much of what we pay them to do"
Well there we have it, the final word. Seriously, I agree.
And don't forget, you too can run for the Board.
John
Well there we have it, the final word.
Seriously, I agree.And don't forget, you too can run for the Board.
John
Compromise doesn't mean compromising principle
Tom Servo, I need to address that statement directly. Yes, you're right. Compromise and negotiation are a reality. But there are two kinds of compromise. There's a "give and take" compromise where each party gains something, say where you haggle on a price for a gun and reach a mutually agreeable deal. That's grown-up compromise resulting in a negotiation between equals.
Then there's a compromise, -- maybe even abandonment -- of principle.
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?
NRA certainly isn't going to say anything nice about Holder in public -- see Chris Cox's column in the February issue of the magazines. So it's acceptable if NRA's opposition is just talk? I'm just saying that NRA should back the tough talk directed outside the Beltway with follow through inside the Beltway.
Tom Servo said:
Tom Servo, I need to address that statement directly. Yes, you're right. Compromise and negotiation are a reality. But there are two kinds of compromise. There's a "give and take" compromise where each party gains something, say where you haggle on a price for a gun and reach a mutually agreeable deal. That's grown-up compromise resulting in a negotiation between equals.
Then there's a compromise, -- maybe even abandonment -- of principle.
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?
NRA certainly isn't going to say anything nice about Holder in public -- see Chris Cox's column in the February issue of the magazines. So it's acceptable if NRA's opposition is just talk? I'm just saying that NRA should back the tough talk directed outside the Beltway with follow through inside the Beltway.
Tom Servo
Member
True, but I'd ask: what could the NRA have done? It's not an elected position, and as others have pointed out, even if they could somehow get the appointment blocked, Obama would just choose someone else who was just as "anti."
I think this is a matter of them choosing their battles wisely. It certainly doesn't amount to surrender or "throwing in the towel."
Nor does it justify the bashing that some folks are doing on this thread.
JImbothefiveth
Member
As I said, Wayne Lappierre wrote letters urging opposition to his nomination. Spending money on this would have been useless, because another anti-gunner would have been nominated.
KBintheSLC
Member
OP... The NRA is merely playing politics. This is a new and powerful administration with strong influence in both the House and the Senate. They likely don't want to risk open warfare with so many years left to go. Anyway, if they feel the same way I do, Holder and others in Obama's administration will likely oust themselves through scandal. Most of them are dirty, and being appointed to a major national post will bring that out. 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.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
