The NRA.....lets talk!

[Charles L. Cotton]

BTW, your dodging the LP Platform is most enlightening.

As for the "unlike yourself . . ." comment I highlighted below, knock it off. I've warned you before; talk about the issue not the poster. You said you're a dedicated member of the Libertarian Party and I suspect like most LP members, you are mad at the NRA for not listing your candidates in the Voters Guides. I get it; I've heard it from other sources including Liberty who is a strong Libertarian that is always respectful to others who don't share his views on some issues. Express your views without the insults or express them elsewhere.

I'd be glad to meet you online for some intelligent debate about the LP platform. As I explained to you, this isn't the time or place for that debate.

I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. Your forum, your rules. When someone steps up to the plate with valid counterarguments to your position, you shut them down. You've done it with me previously, and you're doing it now.

There were no insults, explicit or otherwise, and I believe the readers of this forum know full well that this is the case. This is the very intolerance for alternative viewpoints that makes me leery of the NRA. As previous posters have indicated, the NRA's plan of action excludes segments of the population (non-hunters, liberals, etc.) who would otherwise support the fight for our 2A rights. This position has an uncanny parallel some of the statements that have been made right here in this thread by NRA supporters.

PM sent; yet another one.

[flintknapper]

BTW, your dodging the LP Platform is most enlightening.

As for the "unlike yourself . . ." comment I highlighted below, knock it off. I've warned you before; talk about the issue not the poster. You said you're a dedicated member of the Libertarian Party and I suspect like most LP members, you are mad at the NRA for not listing your candidates in the Voters Guides. I get it; I've heard it from other sources including Liberty who is a strong Libertarian that is always respectful to others who don't share his views on some issues. Express your views without the insults or express them elsewhere.

I'd be glad to meet you online for some intelligent debate about the LP platform. As I explained to you, this isn't the time or place for that debate.

I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. Your forum, your rules. When someone steps up to the plate with valid counterarguments to your position, you shut them down. You've done it with me previously, and you're doing it now.

There were no insults, explicit or otherwise, and I believe the readers of this forum know full well that this is the case. This is the very intolerance for alternative viewpoints that makes me leery of the NRA. As previous posters have indicated, the NRA's plan of action excludes segments of the population (non-hunters, liberals, etc.) who would otherwise support the fight for our 2A rights. This position has an uncanny parallel some of the statements that have been made right here in this thread by NRA supporters.

"Support the fight" IF WHAT??????

I started this thread to help explore areas of objection to the NRA (large or small) . I fully intended this to include members and non-members alike. I am happy to see so many participate and I genuinely appreciate all viewpoints.

However, I get the feeling that some folks would never be placated no matter how many changes or concessions were made. IMO, the NRA does a pretty darn good job.....but they can not reach everyone (especially those who wear their feelings on their shirt sleeves, or must be constantly coddled and stroked).

Come on folks, if you are not an NRA member (for other than monetary reasons), then please take an honest look at the organization and make a decision. If you easily find more areas of disagreement than agreement, then by all means...do not join. Support the 2nd/RKBA in some other way...and everyone is happy.

OTOH, if you find that you basically agree with the tenets of the NRA and what they are currently doing...then please consider membership. It will help us greatly and we can discuss our petty differences later.

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

[mr.72]

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]

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.

The membership of the NRA determines their mission, strategies, priorities and actions. Since you are not a member, your "wants" don't count.

[mr.72]

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.

[WildBill]

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.

The NRA has it's mission. If you don't support it don't join. They are not going to change it to get more members. The mission is was it is.

I think you misunderstand the desire to get more members. The drive is to get more members that support the mission of the NRA, not to change their mission to get more members. It's just like a politician changing their platform to get more votes. When you try to accomodate everyone you lose your focus and values.

[nitrogen]

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.

I support their mission, so I support them.
I think they could do a whole lot better, so I speak up. I send 'em a letter every time they ask for more money.

I've got serious issues with how the NRA does some things, but I care about my RKBA enough that I'll support anyone that is doing something to help, and isn't making things worse.

I really do think that the NRA could double it's membership this year if they made some fundamental changes, but again, what do I know. For all I know, the NRA would lose whatever clout it has if it wasn't so brash and harsh.

I care about my RKBA more than any squabble I might have with the NRA.

I'll still talk till I'm blue in the face as long as someone will listen, though.

The NRA is like a really slimy defense lawyer in my eyes. I might be disgusted with them, but if I ever needed a defense lawyer, I'd want the best, slimy or not. (Again, sorry Chas and other lawyers!)

[flintknapper]

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.

Huh?

Since when is "change" a bad thing? I am sure you would agree...it depends upon what kind of change is wanted.

I can't imagine anyone not wanting the NRA to adjust/refine/change itself as conditions warrant.

Naturally, "change" from within makes sense. Those who are not members do not have a voice in the organization, how do you expect their wishes to be heard or considered? Unless they come together as some large group and approach the NRA... their wants will most likely go unheard.

Add to that, most folks that are gun owners (but NOT members of the NRA or other organizations) are most likely a complacent group anyway. Not much chance of those folks changing anything.

My advice (and plea): If you own a firearm and want to keep your 2A rights , get on board and help out!

Stop finding little reasons NOT to join pro-gun organizations (especially the NRA).

[anygunanywhere]

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.

Mr.72, if you have the better mouse trap.......

Like Ned Pepper (Robert Duvall) said in True Grit, "That is awful bold talk for a one-eyed fat man."

In all honesty, Mr.72, I have really liked some of the positions you have taken on a few topics and heve learned a few things since you joined us here, but I think this one is a stretch.

Monday-morning quarterbacking is all well and good for the sports guys, but that is just entertainment. We need workers to join in the fray that have passion and tact.

You have both.

Come on over to the good side of the force.

Anygunanywhere

[Charles L. Cotton]

I was at NRA HQ last Friday and Saturday for a budget meeting of the Finance Committee. It was a very busy meeting, but I did have the opportunity to voice some of the concerns and complaints that were posted in this thread. I'll be going to a full board meeting next month and I'll have more time and more people to talk to about these issues. Thanks again Flint for starting this topic.

The NRA does try to address complaints and concerns of its members. The biggest single complaint we have is that people don't like getting numerous letters soliciting donations. A very close second was the complaint that people were getting letters asking them to join the NRA and they were already members! The NRA addressed both of those complaints. All anyone has to do to get off the solicitation list is ask. With millions of members mistakes can happen, but we've done a very good job of honoring requests to be removed, or to be contacted less often.

The membership solicitation issue has been very difficult to deal with because of the way many people join, expire and then join again. For example, it is very common to join as John Smith at 1111 Anywhere St., Houston, TX, let the membership expire, then rejoin as J.A. Smith. There is no way for us to know that these are the same people, so we send a "please join letter" to John Smith. If John Smith moved to a new address, it's even more difficult to identify him as a current member.

To address members' complaints, the NRA had software developed to help "scrub" the database and try to prevent multiple entries for the same person. We also did some other things with the databases that I won't go into. Overall, the efforts have greatly reduced this problem, although sometimes it is not possible to identify two different entries as being the same person.

I also discussed the "hyperbole" issue as Kevin calls it. (I think it was Kevin.) It may come as a surprise to people here, but this is not an issue that is often raised by a significant percentage of the membership. (As noted, there are complaints about fundraising letters, but not the wording thereof.) The short answer is that there is no "fix." The NRA has to raise money to operate and some messages are more effective with some audiences than with others. With some members it is sufficient to say something like "we need X millions of dollars for the Heller case, so please contribute what you can." With other members, it may be necessary to say something like, "if we lose the Heller case, then draconian gun laws will be passed all over the country." Both statements are true, but one is presented more casually while the other is stronger on emotion. Every mailing is tested and only those that are proven effective are used. I don't know for certain, but I suspect people who are interested enough in Second Amendment issues to frequent TexasCHLforum and other gun boards certainly don't need the more "serious" message. However, the vast majority of NRA members probably are not as invested in the issue and they tend to respond better to ad campaigns that you and I may not like.

The concept of the right message for the right audience is well known to trial lawyers. After a jury is seated, I thoroughly study the jury information sheets and jury questionnaire, if one was used for that case. I'm trying to get some information about the members of the jury so I can phrase some of my open argument comments, witness questions, and closing arguments in a manner likely to appeal to them and sway them to my side of the case. You have to be careful, because it is highly likely that comments that appeal to some jurors might not impress other jurors, or worse yet, they might be offended. So you just do the best you can with the jury you drew. The NRA is in much the same position, but with a heck of a lot bigger jury panel!

So when you hear or read a fundraising letter that is worded in a way you don't particularly like, please understand that the NRA is doing what it has to do to thrive. And please remember, the threat to the Second Amendment is very real and if our only complaint is the way it is portrayed, then let's just take a collective breath and and accept that "it's for the cause." We all have to do that in many other areas of our lives (wives and kids come to mind ) and we do so because the mission is critically important.

This is all I had time to discuss during this trip, but as I said, I'll be going back next month for a full week. I'll try to address other concerns that have been presented in this thread.

Chas.

[WildBill]

Thanks for the input, Charles.

[brianko]

PM sent; yet another one.

Don't worry, your PM was received loud and clear. In fact, it was quite the motivator I needed to cut two checks this weekend: One to the GOA, and one to the JPFO. Thanks for helping me make up my mind!

[nitrogen]

So when you hear or read a fundraising letter that is worded in a way you don't particularly like, please understand that the NRA is doing what it has to do to thrive. And please remember, the threat to the Second Amendment is very real and if our only complaint is the way it is portrayed, then let's just take a collective breath and and accept that "it's for the cause." We all have to do that in many other areas of our lives (wives and kids come to mind ) and we do so because the mission is critically important.

I can't help but feel this was nothing but a "Shut up, we know better than you" response.

I must say, I'm dissapointed, but not surprised. I also won't shut up.

I'm attending a meeting of very liberal gun owners, CCW holders, and general shooters in January. I hope to have some other detailed data then.

If the NRA keeps up this attitude, it does so at not only it's own peril, but the peril of the 2nd amendment as a whole. We all know that the deck is stacked against us starting in January.

I've spoken to over 40 people in the past week alone, trying to get them to join the NRA. Only 10 of them said they will. Nearly 30 of them, that are avid firearms users, are totally turned off by the way the NRA puts its message out there, and refuse to join.

I wonder how many more there are outside of just my area that feel the same way?

I'm disappointed, but not surprised. I'm still hopeful that the NRA will realize their über-partisan tone turns off gun owners, limiting their membership and their effectiveness.

As someone I know wrote:
"Now that the campaign is over, I don't really see what the NRA gains from antagonizing his incoming administration. When the NRA makes it clear that they're going to go after him no matter what he does, Obama and his administration will realize that it makes no difference to their political future whether or not they pursue gun control. On the other hand, if the NRA would lay off the rhetoric and take an open approach until gun control comes up as an issue the Obama administration might think twice about stirring up a hornets' nest of NRA members."

[John]

Obama and his administration will realize that it makes no difference to their political future whether or not they pursue gun control.

Personnaly, I think that is a true statement no matter what the NRA does. I'm 180 degrees from you on this nitrogen. I still say they ought to go to strong NRA states and build up the base. If they take an open approach, they'll be accused of compromise and drive more people away. We do indeed have the most anti-gun administration ever, and we need to respond in kind.

[nitrogen]

Look at it this way: What does Obama get if he goes with the NRA on something?
Absolutely nothing but more grief.

What does Obama get if he goes against the NRA on something?
Absolutely nothing but more grief.

The NRA already played out their hand. "We already made up our mind about you. We hate you based on your previous record. Nothing you can do will ever change that."

How would you react if you were the CEO of a large company, and a contigant of workers started chatter like, "John is the most anti-worker CEO we've ever had! At his last company, he cut worker compensation 30%! WE HAVE GOT TO STOP HIM! HE'S ATTACKING THE WORKERS" before you even started your job?

You'd probably fire 'em.

That's my fear; that the NRA is marginalizing itself right out of the gate. "They already hate my administration no matter what I do, so I might as well push for an AWB. The NRA already hates me, and if I don't sign one, they'll still hate me. At least I can get some Brady voters, so I'll sign the AWB, ban gun shows, and whatever else they want."

Let me ask you a question. What could Obama do to win? Nothing. There's no endgame. There's no, "Say you aren't going to pass an AWB and you'l get our grudging support."

There's no, "Say you aren't going to ban gunshows, and we'll help you support other anti-crime measures."

All there is is, "OBAMA IS ATTACKING YOU BECAUSE HE HATES YOU!"

If the NRA can't give Obama an out, what's the point for him?