TexasCHLforum.com

brianko wrote:

mr.72 wrote:But the fact remains that the NRA does not appeal to the majority of normal people, and the majority of normal people have no reason to believe that the 2nd Amendment is under attack.

Actually, this is no longer the case...as of last year, more than half of all Americans hold a favorable opinion of the NRA (the first time since 1994 that this has happened). (Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nra ... trol-slips" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

However, there's another interesting tidbit: Support of the NRA by women and blacks has not increased appreciably since 1995.

I didn't say they didn't have a favorable opinion, I said "appeal".

I have a favorable opinion of onions. I know a lot of people like them and that's well and good with me. But they do not appeal to me. So you can have onions and I will support you in doing that, but for me, hold the onions.

This is what I meant.

If the majority of Americans found the NRA to appeal to them, they would join, no?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Why don't you accurately read my post, rather than taking yet another opportunity to erroneously claim the NRA is ineffective and out of step with Americans?

My post didn't mention the NRA; it specifically addressed the mission of Texas CHL Forum, Inc., an organization that will have nothing to do with the NRA. The mission of that organization is to court people who 03Lightningrocks identified in his post.

Chas.

Sorry, Charles. My mistake. I assumed that since 03Lightningrocks post seemed to imply that these people needed to be courted for the NRA, that implication was adhered to by your agreement with his post.

I don't know anything about Texas CHL Forum, Inc.

flintknapper wrote: I think Chas' point...was to "find a way" to make this group more interested and supportive of RKBA.

You mean, get them to join the NRA?

Maybe you'd like to join the Austin Cycling Association? What? You don't support my right to ride a bicycle on the road? Or the ACLU? What, you don't support the first Amendment? Does the average citizen have to join and contribute to a lobbying organization in order to support every right they think they have?

Ambivalence is indeed the problem. I would characterize this kind of "support" as static at best...and "stagnant" at worst. This group may profess to support the 2nd, and it makes good "conversation" over dinner for them, but they do nothing (for the most part) to actively further a pro-gun cause.

This is the thing. It doesn't have to be "pro-gun" in order to be "pro-RKBA". That right there is the difference between the NRA and the regular people. Regular people support their rights, and don't care about equipment.

I know you meant "pro-gun-rights cause". But that also misses the point. Taking people to the range misses the point. That's about warming them up to guns, and I am talking about the fact that most people support rights even if they are scared stiff of guns! We don't need to get people to not be afraid of guns! We just need to let the lawmakers know that it's not just pro-gun, gun-owners, NRA-members, etc. who support our rights.

There must be some way to reach a small portion of these folks and persuade them to actually support their belief though membership, monetary support and their vote.

Their vote? For what? You mean, voting for politicians who do not actively oppose the RKBA? I think the majority of Americans already to this, every time. The NRA has nothing to do with it! I voted for Republicans and Libertarians who are strong RKBA supporters for years before I owned a gun or cared about owning a gun, because I support freedom. This argument would make sense if ONLY NRA members voted for pro-RKBA candidates.

SAYING "I support the 2nd amendment and RKBA" is very different from ACTING upon it. [/quot]

Acting on it, just exactly how? Why do I need to act on it? The Constitution was ratified a couple of hundred years ago. I keep voting for people who do not actively try and change our form of government and restrict my guaranteed freedoms. Is this not enough "acting" on it?

Also, with each generation...you have to deal more and more with the "whats in it for me" people.

Here we are with the dig at people younger than you.

That's the way to get them to join!

nitrogen wrote:
Let me answer as someone who's an NRA member, but wants to kick the NRA repeatedly for many things:

The NRA is effective.
They aren't as effective as they could be. They do plenty of things that limit their effectiveness, but they ARE effective.

So what? That doesn't matter to the regular, average, normal person who doesn't own a gun and is ambivalent about gun ownership, but believes the Constitution says what it says for a reason and that it is the supreme law of the land.

I think this is very typical.

Mostly the only people who have noticed that the RKBA constantly gets infringed and requires a fight are gun owners who happen to also be reasonably activist in nature. That would be most of the membership of this forum. But the rest of people have no reason to think that the RKBA requires defending. Once they hear an ad from the NRA trying to tell them about how the RKBA is under attack, they tune it out, because you know, that's an organization for gun owners, and that doesn't include me!

Anyway, this NRA-centric view is probably the single most limiting thing about RKBA. It's definitely a double-edged sword. Maybe we need the NRA. Maybe they are effective. But the fact remains that the NRA does not appeal to the majority of normal people, and the majority of normal people have no reason to believe that the 2nd Amendment is under attack.

What we need instead is a much more simple campaign, not focused on the RKBA but the whole Bill of Rights, pointing out that our form of government is under attack at the very core, by constant eroding of freedoms by government.

Neal Boortz recently recommended that his listeners contact their state legislator and request that they begin a Constitutional Convention, with the aim of repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments. State legislators can probably support such a thing since this restores states' rights. But the point is that we could also add to that, incorporation of the entire Bill of RIghts.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:. . . Something I have observed. It seems a large portion of folks are neither pro or anti gun. Many seem to have no emotional investment either way. Many just don't have guns or the desire to own them while at the same time not having the desire to keep me from owning them. These are the folks, IMHO, that we need to get on our side.

. . .

My point is. We need to work on getting the middle of the road folk with us. Many of them are possibly swayed by taking them shooting and getting them interested. I have yet to take anyone shooting for the first time who did not just eat it up and want more. Making sure they realize that being silent is the same as being in agreement with the anti-gun mob. Many of the middle of the road folks are just sitting by thinking the laws don't affect them.

I couldn't agree more. This is precisely the audience we will be trying to reach with Texas CHL Forum, Inc. when it "goes live" next month. These people are an untapped political resource that can make a huge impact not only on the NRA, but on the entire national debate on gun rights.

Chas.

Why does this group of people have anything at all to do with the NRA?

Why would someone who is ambivalent about guns and owning guns have any desire to join an outfit known best as a sort of club for gun owners?

I know, I know. I can tell by this 18 page thread. Most NRA members cannot see how their right to keep and bear arms, and their defense of the Second Amendment, can be accomplished without the NRA, so naturally, anyone who doesn't actively oppose RKBA should join the NRA, right?

IMHO, we would be a lot better off if we could figure out how to not need to get these people into the NRA in order to improve our RKBA support. It is a fool's errand to think that the millions upon millions of people who don't care anything about guns but don't oppose the RKBA are going to join the NRA. It's just not going to happen. What we need to do is find a way to make sure that lawmakers know that the NRA does not contain every single RKBA supporter in the USA, but rather that the 2nd Amendment support is a default position for virtually all Americans.

Right, so why would I join an organization which I don't really support? Is it not extremely divisive for people to join the NRA and then go about trying to change it?

I mean, if we are all going to join an organization with intent to change it, then we shouldn't be joining the NRA, but the Brady Campaign!

Again, I think this argument does not make one whit of sense. Of course the NRA doesn't care what I want. But I also suggest they really don't care what millions of other gun owners who are not NRA members want either, and this is costing them members.

flintknapper wrote: If you belong to the third group that thinks an entirely different program would be better, please get started forming it (time is wasting).

Much like my opposition to the recent bailouts of failing businesses, it is exceedingly difficult to start anything new and have it take hold when it must compete with the well-established incumbent, even if that incumbent is not potentially as effective as the newcomer would be.

This is why I would advocate the NRA themselves divest in the 2nd Amendment /RKBA fight and either split off another organization or openly support another to do the 2A front, and then keep on doing whatever other stuff they do for hunter safety and marksmanship and all that jazz. That way when some representative of the 2A action group shows up on Hannity and Colmes to debate the Brady folks, they don't also come with the label (right or wrong) "some hick hunter that you liberals can't relate to" stuck to their forehead.

I guess that puts me completely in the opposite camp from most everyone else. I think the NRA is doing an OK job of 2A protection, but I want them to quit, so someone else can do a better job of it. I really don't want the NRA to work any harder at doing their 2A protection job, I want the job of 2A protection to be done by some organization without the legacy of the NRA.

WildBill wrote: The NRA, like all organizations, can improve. I don't believe the NRA would or should change to an "all RKBA" organization. In addition to the supporting the RKBA, the NRA is the leader in firearms training - firearm safety, marksmanship and hunter safety. The NRA educates both civilians and LEO agencies. Their training classes and certifications are known and respected through out the world. I believe that most of the forum members [and all shooters, I hope] agree, training is an essential ingredient for handling guns used for self defense. For this reason alone, the NRA is a useful and worthy organization.

I agree wholeheartedly. However I think this also makes the NRA a poor choice as our primary RKBA voice.

Simply I think an RKBA-only organization, split off from the NRA, with tens of millions of members, would be much more effective to carry the RKBA flag, and then the NRA could be left to do all of their other non-RKBA things without impacting the RKBA issue.

This is why I think RKBA-supporters joining the NRA and then trying to change it from within won't work, not in the least. The change that makes the most sense for RKBA support, is the one that makes the least sense for the NRA. It makes far more sense to just support a more focused RKBA-only organization and in fact I think if the NRA would just endorse such a third party and get out of this game altogether (maybe just simply split), then it would be better for our rights and also would not undo any of the other good that the NRA does.

anygunanywhere wrote: As I read these posts it appears that the ones most opposed to the NRA are harboring hurt feelings and allowing their ideologies to get in the way of their joining. Fine. That IS their choice.

They can stand by their ideology when the knock at the door comes.

Their choice, their freedom to do so.

If you have not noticed, over the years the only group to compromise has been us. It needs to be our CHOICE to now, this day and time, to draw a line and tell the antis that we will not tolerate any more infringements. Period. I think that that is worth someone "holding their nose".

I don't think that is true. In fact, I think many of those who have posted in this thread are categorizing the disagreements in these terms because it makes them easy to dismiss.

In this thread, I don't think I have read one single disagreement with the NRA over their support of RKBA or the 2A. Not one! Please point out one! That's the "baby" that we all support.

However there is lots about the NRA that is not directly related to this, and that's where most of the disagreement begins. It's the "bathwater". So yeah, if we want an organization to support the RKBA, why do they have to do all of these other things? Because these other things they are doing, not directly related to RKBA, are driving away legitimate RKBA supporters who have not joined the NRA.

Now I actually agree with most of what the NRA does, but I also think that the baggage dilutes their message when they take on the RKBA front, and they are meeting a focused and unified resistance. A more focused and unified organization, in my mind, would be better suited to the RKBA fight. And it is my personal opinion that the NRA is not the right organization to do the RKBA fight because they are more well known among the vast majority of people who are not members (gun owners or not) as an organization supporting primarily hunters and shooting for sport, whether this is accurate or not.

As long as the NRA insists on keeping up all of the non-RKBA policies, then they will be unnecessarily limiting their membership and maybe weakening the RKBA front as a result. As a strong RKBA supporter, I see this as a genuine need for change.

Give me one organization focused on RKBA alone, and one without political or ideological baggage, or stigma of being about hunters and wannabe militiamen, and one which can attract a more diverse membership than the current NRA. Frankly, I agree with you. NRA members like it the way it is. If so, then lay off those who choose not to join. You are choosing to limit the membership and you only invite division if you try and get people to join who do not adhere to the whole, non-RKBA agenda of the NRA.

Mr. Anygun, I truly appreciate your willingness to just admit that maybe the NRA members like it the way it is and don't want to change. That's honest and IMHO, right on the money. Of course the whole point of this thread was to discuss opportunity for change in the NRA. I don't think such a thing really exists in practical terms.

We should take the Libertarian Party debate to another topic, I think.

I had never read the LP platform in detail before, since I am much more of a "small-l" libertarian and not a party libertarian. However, given the quote from above:

We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

I think it would be worthy of discussion since this is a very unequivocal position of the Libertarian Party regarding gun rights.

Bringing this back on topic, I think in 16 pages of discussion here it has become clear to me that some gun owners have some legitimate reasons for not supporting the NRA completely. Many of the people who are strong supporters of the NRA seem to be unwilling to address the concerns of these people. Instead they intend to convince these people to kind of hold their noses and support the NRA anyway since the NRA is the only chance we could have at defending our 2A rights.

So it's kind of like, if you want the baby, you had better be ready to keep the bath water as well. Is that about right?

I can't claim to be inside the minds of possibly hundreds of millions of Americans who own guns but do not join the NRA. I do know my own mind and I'm fairly confident about my understanding of the opinions of my close friends and family members who own guns and are not members of the NRA. So far, from what I can tell, NRA members who are vocal in this thread are not willing to hear the reality of the position of at least those people who I can represent about reasons for not joining the NRA, and perhaps it is true that only this small number of people that I know are completely unique in their opinions and it is sensible for other NRA members to ignore this input. In that case, then the few hundred dollars in membership fees that the NRA loses with me and my kind is not worth seeking. However, if it is possible that maybe this range of opinion that I share with my friends and family is more common than just a few dozen people in the Austin suburbs, then it would be advisable for the NRA to make some changes.

Basically, if the NRA is going to change, then the NRA members have to quit defending the old way and look for opportunities to change. There are millions of gun owners out there who don't join for some reason. Maybe it's time to start actually listening to the reasons.

NcongruNt wrote: In response to Mr.72's reasoning that "shooting is fun" isn't going to win people over, I'm going to have to sincerely disagree.

The rest of your post details how my point would not apply to you.

You see, you already knew you needed a gun for protection and that it was perfectly valid and right for you to be able to have one. You knew it was a useful tool and did not have any reason to not own one. The "shooting is fun" factor came in after you had already made up your mind that a gun was an ok thing to own.

I am talking about people who just passively say "who on earth would need a gun? What would I need that for? That sure is an expensive toy that can be dangerous and I have no use for it". To take those people out shooting for fun informs them of the idea "I might need a gun because they are fun to shoot", which to me, completely misses the point!

My car is a useful tool to get me where I need to go. The fact that it is fun to drive is a bonus but it is not the reason I own it. Same for my guns. I enjoy shooting my .22LR rifle and in point of fact, it really has no other use. But my handguns are definitely tools that I may one day have to use and whether I enjoy shooting them or not does not change the fact that they are essential tools for living for free men.

Once you have decided that guns are useful to own, then you are no longer in the "needs to be converted" camp.

seamusTX wrote: The rest of firearms owners who are not members think that there is no threat to the RKBA, or at least not to their preferred sport, such as skeet or hunting.

... or, maybe at least some of them don't realize that the NRA is active in protecting their RKBA ...

WildBill wrote: During recent NRA Life membership drives the question most frequently asked by the people who decided not to join was: "what do I get for my $XXX." Nobody ever told me that they didn't want to join because they had a problem with the mission, politics or "image" of the NRA.

Actually, I think one way to interpret that answer is that many people don't know what the mission, politics, or image of the NRA is to begin with. If they did, then they would not question what they "get" for their fee, they would know that they are contributing to a political organization.

BTW to make it clear, I don't have a problem with the NRA's mission or politics really. I kind of think of it like when Garth Brooks tried to make a rock record. He changed his name but everyone still knew it was Garth Brooks and whether the record was any good or not was a moot point... most of the potential audience of any rock record didn't even consider listening to it once they heard it was really Garth Brooks. Likewise I think that even though the NRA may be doing the world's greatest possible job at supporting RKBA legislation, recovery of our rights, etc., many people don't bother even checking into that because they think NRA = hunters.

In the case that I might be right, at least for part of the people (I know it applied to me a year ago before I was a gun owner), then even if NRA membership were free, many gun owners wouldn't join because they are not hunters and they equate the NRA with hunters.

I wonder what percentage of NRA members are made up by hunters?

Why is it hard to find accurate statistics like this about NRA members? I'm pretty good at doing internet research but I have not been able to uncover what should be fairly easy-to-find answers regarding the NRA.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The NRA doesn't have an image problem, except with a very small percentage of gun owners who choose not to join for one reason or another. The recent Zogby polls prove that beyond a doubt. Even though some members may not support all aspects of the Second Amendment, as long as they are members and contribute money, then the organization will continue to be the strongest, most powerful civil rights lobby in the world.

Chas.

Charles, I am very interested in this Zogby poll. I tried to google it and couldn't find anything like this. I guess I am looking for the wrong thing.

As far as a "very small percentage of gun owners who choose not to join for one reason or another", well I read one statistic that suggests there are 40-80 million gun owners in the USA, and only 4 million or so of them are members of the NRA. Are these the right numbers? If so then it suggests that 90-95% of gun owners have chosen not to join for one reason or another. I don't have any idea what those reasons might be, but I think that if it is true that the NRA is only attracting 10% of gun owners to join, that represents a great opportunity for the NRA to grow, or for another organization to fill the void.

I don't really fault the NRA for their current image problem. I don't think they can change it, not reasonably anyway. The problem is that historically, the NRA has not been focused on RKBA. So there is a very old image of the NRA that still endures, which clouds the issue of RKBA.

I think it's the NRA that's sitting on the fence. They are divided because they have multiple goals that are related but nevertheless separate. So the sportsmen NRA members may not really support the RKBA and the 2A guys might not care about hunting. It would be better to split the organization into the old NRA, promoting shooting safety, hunter education, marksmanship etc., and some new organization with a clearly defined goal of only defending the RKBA, without the NRA's name attached.

That's my opinion as an outsider.