NRA Inflammatory Language @ concerns from pro-gunners

[terryg]

(This is just me venting - It doesn't have to be fixed or anything ...)

[rant on]

It can be very hard to read NRA material sometimes, especially the NRA-ILA generated text, because of the inflammatory language. I don't like it and probably 80% of time, I think the same message could be conveyed - and done so more effectively - by lowering the rhetoric. But I do understand (at least somewhat) that this is how you play the game.

To give a bit of history, there are a few non-gun related legislative action type organizations that I supported in years past that I ended up dropping because of the endless hard-line language used. It wasn't that I didn't support the group or that I didn't think what they were doing was important. It's just that the style used to communicate these bulletins gets under my skin and I end up not wanting the group to represent me.

But, in spite of knowing this and in spite of other concerns I have had about the NRA, I did join earlier this year. Many here convinced me that regardless of their methods, they have been the single most effective organization at getting our rights restored. And it is true, without them we would still be hiding our guns in our homes, etc. You also convinced me that, one should join first and then complain as a member rather than a outsider.

So I did - and I am glad I did. But it can still be hard to read the NRA-ILA stuff sometimes. I have gotten better at reading past the rhetoric, but the following article on H.R. 822 really got to me:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=7106" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In it, they really take pot-shots at pro-gun supporters because they have expressed concerns about potential negative repercussions from this bill. Some of these concerns have been discussed right here on our forum by people we all know to be the strongest of 2A supporters.

Here are some quotes:

Unfortunately, but predictably, H.R. 822 continues to be attacked in some quarters, namely the anti-gun media, like the New York Times and the Washington Post; anti-gun organizations, like the Brady Campaign, and New York City Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns; and, regrettably, even some so-called pro-gun organizations.

Next, despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit.

So if the activists who are concerned about this possibility are "pro-gun" (with quotes) instead of being truly pro-gun, then anybody who shares these concerns would also be labeled "pro-gun" (with quotes). That's you and me folks.

They go on to refute those claims and do so in a fairly convincing manner.

But why can't they simply say: "We understand why many true pro-gun supporters might be concerned about this bill opening the door to future federal meddling in individual state's licencing programs - but let us take a moment to explain why this will not occur." Wouldn't that work just as well if not better than "despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, blah blah" without alienating large groups of people who generally support the same goals?

I just don't understand why the inflammatory language knob has to be set to 11 at all times.

[rant off]

[RoyGBiv]

why can't they simply say: "We understand why many true pro-gun supporters might be concerned about this bill opening the door to future federal meddling in individual state's licencing programs - but let us take a moment to explain why this will not occur." Wouldn't that work just as well if not better than "despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, blah blah" without alienating large groups of people who generally support the same goals?

I just don't understand why the inflammatory language knob has to be set to 11 at all times.

I think so... All the legislative information I get from NRA comes across like a cheesy infomercial.

Another downside to screaming about everything with the same intensity is that when something EXTRA special comes up that really is important, it's impossible to discern that because they can't communicate any louder than 11 (Love the spinal tap reference BTW )

[OldCannon]

I think their article isn't very inflammatory, actually. Certainly nowhere near the "Watch Us Outperform Chicken Little" organization called Gun Owners of America.

I _do_ think this is a win for us, basically affirming that if the Supreme Court says that something is a right for an individual, then the 14th amendment guarantees that right won't be infringed in any state.

[Heartland Patriot]

I admit I am one of those folks with concerns. And yes, I read that article; it could have been handled a little more tactfully. But, they more I think about it, the more I also believe that bill is simply wishful thinking, even if it passes. Does anyone think, even for one minute, that Kalifornia is just going to let permit holders from Nevada, Arizona, Texas, etc. simply walk around in their state armed and able to defend themselves without at least getting hassled about it? (Yes, I know concealed means concealed, but things are bound to happen, especially if you are forced to use said weapon there.) Or what about Bloomjerg's NYC? Yeah, once the law is amended, he'll just welcome all those ex-New Yorkers-turned-Floridians with concealed weapons when they come up to visit relatives...in the end, the states with very small issues with each other might set aside their differences due to the passage of this thing, which would be good, but the hard-core anti-gunners will find ways of making sure you and your concealed weapon are not welcome in their state and/or city. And they will get away with it, too. I hate to be a pessimist, but the reality of politics and the blatant and successful disregard for the law by any number of politicians made me the cynic I am today. I believe the NRA has the best of intentions, that they do work hard to further the rights of firearms owners, and that the language in those articles is often backblast due to certain hyper groups out there...but I wish the NRA would take a more realistic look at things sometimes and they would think about how their message might be received by firearms owners, as well.

[Beiruty]

If we do not trust NRA that they know what they are doing, we are doomed!

[Skiprr]

I think their article isn't very inflammatory, actually. Certainly nowhere near the "Watch Us Outperform Chicken Little" organization called Gun Owners of America.

To me, that's part of the backstory for the September 23 NRA-ILA article: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=7106.

Next, despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit.

Let's fill-in some of the remainder of that paragraph:

Next, despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed "gun rights" supporters, who have no active lobbying presence in any legislature, have an agenda that has very little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners.

The emphasis is mine. I'm not going to name names, but there are multiple "pro-gun" organizations that have sprung up in the past decade that, as the NRA implies above, have their own, singular agendas. And those agendas care little about what may be best for gun owners in the big picture: if a proposed legislation does not directly support one of these organization's narrowly-focused objectives, it will argue against the legislation with rhetoric that is stronger than anything the NRA-ILA employs.

Some of these organizations are, in fact, stealth entities created by anti-gun money and proponents. The majority, however, simply don't care about any firearms-related issues but their own. If proposed legislation doesn't affect their objectives, they leave it alone and could care less. If a piece of legislation would seem to reduce their influence--and thereby slow their revenue stream--they come out vehemently against it, and against all those who support it.

It really is a baby and bathwater issue, but they don't see it that way. They seem--my opinion only--to have little concept of incremental, additive change. It's all or nothing: if legislation doesn't speak directly to their singular objective, then it's bad legislation and should be thrown out. However, change--in any political, business, or social sense--seldom works that way.

I personally have no issues with the NRA writing, given that context, "...a handful of 'pro-gun' activists..." or "...self-proclaimed 'gun rights' supporters..."

If H.R. 822 had been about national hunting license reciprocity, I don't think you would have heard a single peep out of the "splinter" gun rights organizations. But as it is, you have confusing rhetoric roiling all over the Web about this bill. It has these splinter organizations shouting for more monetary contributions (naturally) to fight this "terrible", "misguided," "Trojan Horse" bill, and for voters to contact their Representatives to stop H.R. 822. Some of the claims being made about the bill are truly incredible. NRA-ILA's myth-and-fact section of that September 23 article barely scratches the surface. Others include things like, "Only FBI agents will be able to pass muster and get a carry permit"; "All shall-issue state permits will revert to may-issue"; "It creates the national gun registry that the left has wanted for decades"; "Extensive, federally-created gun-free zones will be added and people who now carry will have few places remaining where they can carry and be legal."

In short, a number of these splinter organizations have chimed in trying to defeat this bill as one that means, falsely, far more federal control and far fewer individual liberties. The NRA didn't initiate a battle with these organizations. They are responding--IMHO as they need to--to a variety of attacks that are trying to derail H.R. 822 because, as an incremental step forward in national gun rights, the bill would ultimately reduce the funding and influence (ergo, the life expectancy) of the attacking organizations.

[Beiruty]

Those who are attacking HR 822, on what basis? What are there claims and where in the language of HR822 they can support their claims? When people driver their cars and cross the state lines, no one is freaking out, no?

[OldCannon]

Those who are attacking HR 822, on what basis? What are there claims and where in the language of HR822 they can support their claims? When people driver their cars and cross the state lines, no one is freaking out, no?

NAGR: National Association for Gun Rights. If the GOA was the paranoid guy down the street, NAGR is the hermit in the remote cave wearing nothing but a loincloth and a tinfoil hat.

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/h-r-82 ... jan-horse/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Heartland Patriot]

For the record, I am NOT a member of GOA nor of NAGR. I AM an NRA member. I read the text of the (mercifully short) bill and I think I understand what the NRA is hoping to accomplish with this bill; it is an admirable goal. I know they have a LOT of smart, smart folks working for them. I simply think that ANYTHING that goes on in Washington is subject to being turned into a pile of manure by certain folks. Not to mention, as I stated above, that some jurisdictions will still de facto prevent you from carrying in their areas, law or not. Maybe that is what the NRA is looking for, to back those folks into a corner. If it works, kudos. I'm not hating on the bill, I just don't expect a miracle cure from it, either.

[jimlongley]

I, for one, think that NRA-ILA's language is not anywhere near inflammatory and could actually be stronger.

[terryg]

Skiprr, thank you for that additional information. That does help shed some light on the situation.

Thank you to those who replied and to those who sent PM's as well. It is comforting to know that I am not alone. There can be no question that the NRA is extremely effective, and so we have to give them so slack even in this area. But I still don't have to like it.

It kind of makes me think of Col Jessep in A Few Good Men. Although in some ways the movie was anti-military, I have always loved his monologue on the witness stand:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way.

But, that is a reason to be an NRA member, so that we can question the manner in which they work to defend our rights.

[boba]

I wish they would use similar inflammatory language about "pro gun" people who oppose open carry.