TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

NcongruNt wrote: Unless the NRA is addressing these very specific issues, I don't believe they have any business making discrediting statements against Al Gore or his group. The purpose of the NRA is to promote safe and proper use of firearms and to support the 2nd amendment through political action. If the NRA is getting involved in side-tiffs with other organizations on topics not directly related to gun ownership and use, then it seems to me that it is misusing the donations and contributions of its members.

Actions like this are what keep people such as myself from joining up. I'm all for the above-stated purpose of the NRA. I don't want my money being frivolously spent pursuing arguments that have nothing to do with shooting or the 2nd amendment.

What do you think of the NRA's opposition to McCain-Feingold? The history is that at first they stayed out of it, stating that they were a single-issue group and wanted to stay that way.

Later, when it became apparent that McCain-Feingold would drastically shift the terms of political speech, favoring Big Media and the super rich, while marginalizing and limiting the ability of groups like the NRA (which "live" mostly on a huge number of small contributions) to run ads and get their message out, they started campaigning against it and even joined the Supreme Court challenge effort (which sadly, failed).

Do you think that was a legitimate thing for the NRA to do, or was that spurious dabbling in a "side issue"?

I'm not familiar with the issue you're presenting here, but if it's as you described, then that would fall under the "support the 2nd amendment through political action" area I stated above. Sure, if there is legislation that will curtail the organization's effectiveness and ability to function using its members' contributions, then it has a place to challenge such legislation. It's not quite the same thing to spend time and money opposing the aims of a environmental organizations simply because it "falls in line" with the republican/conservative agenda of many (or probably most) of its members. If the NRA wants to remain effective, especially with a Democratic Congress, it should be doing all it can to attract membership and support from all over the political spectrum where the common issue is RKBA.

nitrogen wrote: When the NRA does things like this, it shoots itself in the foot. Believe it or not, there are plenty of liberal/democratic 2a supporters. Picking fights over things that have nothng to do with RKBA is counterproductive. I think the NRA should welcome people who like Al Gore's movie into the fold. I think it'd be better for the NRA's credibility.

It seems to me that the NRA assumes that all of it's members are republicans, and most of them tow the republican party line. I think that assumption hurts its credibility terribly.

Agreed. I have made this point before in these and other forums in response to blanket statements bashing liberals, or even more broadly - against the entire city of Austin. I said it then and I will say it now. A lot of those "hippie liberals" or whatever slur many here and elsewhere label people with are just as much for the upholding of the Second Amendment as our members. If life has taught me anything, it's that political beliefs cannot be divided into easily categorized black and white divisions. Labeling people like that only hurts the cause.

The name calling that I've seen go on in these and other forums serves to show me the ignorance of particular individuals, but more critically - serves to push someone sitting on the fence to the other side. It's not nearly as much of an issue here as I've found on other forums, but it does seem to be the general attitude of the gun community that if you're not republican (or at least libertarian), you must be against guns, and you're a freedom-hating liberal.

frankie_the_yankee wrote: At the risk of carrying the thread off topic here, I think the reason the NRA tries to discredit Al Gore's movie is because the radical environmentalist factions that he and the movie represent would close down every shooting range in the country and ban all hunting if they could.

Unless the NRA is addressing these very specific issues, I don't believe they have any business making discrediting statements against Al Gore or his group. The purpose of the NRA is to promote safe and proper use of firearms and to support the 2nd amendment through political action. If the NRA is getting involved in side-tiffs with other organizations on topics not directly related to gun ownership and use, then it seems to me that it is misusing the donations and contributions of its members.

Actions like this are what keep people such as myself from joining up. I'm all for the above-stated purpose of the NRA. I don't want my money being frivolously spent pursuing arguments that have nothing to do with shooting or the 2nd amendment.