The NRA.....lets talk!

[boomerang]

NRA board member Joaquin Jackson argued for a 5 round magazine limit. He said homeland defense rifles should be allowed for the police but kept out of the hands of The People. I haven't heard Obama push for anything more restrictive than that.

I think we should be very vocal if Obama or other politicians (or NRA board members) push more civil rights violations but we should be gracious winners if they choose to avoid that fight. I don't mind letting politicians save face if it means they don't get in the way of the effort to roll back restrictions on the basic human right to keep and bear arms.

[flintknapper]

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."


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

The "point" for Obama is simply this: He needs to figure out which dog has the "bigger bite" and stay away from that one. If he thinks the Brady Bunch is the "big dog", by all means go with them. I happen to think the NRA (and others) are currently the BD, and Obama would be wise NOT to rattle our cage.

Obama and Biden have clearly shown us (by past actions) what their posture is on gun control. Don't be fooled, a leopard doesn't change his spots.

[boomerang]

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

The "point" for Obama is simply this: He needs to figure out which dog has the "bigger bite" and stay away from that one. If he thinks the Brady Bunch is the "big dog", by all means go with them. I happen to think the NRA (and others) are currently the BD, and Obama would be wise NOT to rattle our cage.

Obama and Biden have clearly shown us (by past actions) what their posture is on gun control. Don't be fooled, a leopard doesn't change his spots.

I think that's the point nitrogen was trying to make. If the NRA is going to "bite" Obama no matter what he does, then it's not a question of which dog has the "bigger bite" it a question of being bitten by two dogs or one. In that situation why shouldn't he choose fewer bites? To make the "big dog" decision meaningful, we have to call off the attack dogs when the subject does what we want.

Obama and Biden have clearly shown us (by past actions) what their posture is on gun control. Don't be fooled, a leopard doesn't change his spots.

People can change. Charlton Heston enthusiastically supported President Johnson's infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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

That's simply not true. He could take two courses of action that would have a significant impact on how the NRA responds. He could simply do nothing; i.e. not support any anti-gun bills, not say "if you pass them, I'll sign them," not support them behind the scenes. He could also privately discourage the filing of anti-gun bills. If he takes those actions and let's us know, then we probably won't be going directly after him, but we will continue to oppose other anti-gunners. I say probably, as he has already betrayed many of his supporters, he is part of the chronically corrupt Chicago/Illinois political establishment, he has publicly taken anti-gun stands even as a Presidential candidate, and he has insulted and figuratively spit in gun owners' eyes with the "religion and guns" comment.

The other option he has to ease the pressure on the gun issue is to come out and flatly say he was wrong, he won't sign any anti-gun bills that may hit his desk and take other action that proves he is sincere. He'll never do that.

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

You bet more grief, as well as a history lesson -- 1994, 1996, and 2000.

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."

Again not true. We haven't "played out" anything; we have a lot more "grief" we can apply to the problem. As I said, he can change our opinion of him, but we aren't going to buy his lies. (Wright, Ayers, Heller, "religion & guns," etc.) What we won't do is sit back and wait for him to continue a long history of supporting anti-gun legislation. To do that would be irresponsible.

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 can't seriously be arguing that his long history of supporting anti-gun measures is irrelevant. NRA/TSRA Questionnaires are good (Obama didn't fill one out), but an actual voting record is a far more accurate tool for predicting how an elected official will vote. While it is true that people can change their positions on issues, such a change is more believable when they candidate has actually taken some action to prove their change of heart. However, when you combine a candidate's voting record with anti-gun statements and positions taken during the current campaign, it would be foolhardy to accept their claim at face value.

That's my fear; that the NRA is marginalizing itself right out of the gate.

Not at all. The same could have been said for President Clinton, but the NRA was hardly marginalized. We grew in terms of members, money and strength and were largely responsible for the Republicans taking the House and Senate. We absolutely cost Gore and Kerry the Presidency. Even Bill Clinton admits in his book and during interviews that the NRA cost Gore the election. The NRA cost Gore his home State of Tennessee! I don't know if that's every happened before.

Obama has proven himself to be as anti-gun as Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, McCarthy and Pelosi and he has not said or done one thing to indicate a change of heart. To sit back and take a "wait and see" approach would be to repeat Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's folly and this we will not do.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

People can change. Charlton Heston enthusiastically supported President Johnson's infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

Please explain, I'm not aware of this.

Chas.

[kitty]

I just noticed this thread, and thought I would give my thoughts on the NRA.

I believe the NRA is an important organization and they have done a lot of good. The problem I have is mostly with the annoying mail I get almost daily from them. We joined for the first time last year and only signed up for an annual membership. Almost immediately after joining we were already getting renewal notices in the mail; we just joined for crying out loud. For the $35 or $40 we spent to join, they probably spend two or three times that on all the junk mail they send me asking me to contribute more money or to renew.

We will probably renew our membership, since it's expired, I just wish they would not bother me with a bunch of useless mail.

[anygunanywhere]

I just noticed this thread, and thought I would give my thoughts on the NRA.

I believe the NRA is an important organization and they have done a lot of good. The problem I have is mostly with the annoying mail I get almost daily from them. We joined for the first time last year and only signed up for an annual membership. Almost immediately after joining we were already getting renewal notices in the mail; we just joined for crying out loud. For the $35 or $40 we spent to join, they probably spend two or three times that on all the junk mail they send me asking me to contribute more money or to renew.

We will probably renew our membership, since it's expired, I just wish they would not bother me with a bunch of useless mail.

As has been pointed out in this thread, you can go to their website and opt out of the mail.

Anygunanywhere

[brianko]

People can change. Charlton Heston enthusiastically supported President Johnson's infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.

Please explain, I'm not aware of this.

Chas.

This is fascinating, a factoid I was unaware of:

The 1960s marked the first time Heston became overtly political, but in ways that now surprise. Having supported Adlai Stevenson for president and then John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election, he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and appeared with other actors on national television after Robert Kennedy's assassination, urging public support for President Lyndon B. Johnson's Gun Control Act of 1968.

Source: USA Today, updated 4/7/2008

Heston has even had moderate instincts about gun rights. Until recently, he hasn't spent much time pushing the Second Amendment. After Robert Kennedy's assassination in 1968, he endorsed strong gun control legislation, and as recently as last year he declared that AK-47s are "inappropriate for private use." (Heston's "softness" on gun rights was an issue in his NRA election, but he has quieted critics by backing off his earlier statements and hewing to the NRA's official line. He recently said that a Washington state initiative to require trigger locks was "written by Satan.")

Source: Slate, 6/4/1998 (http://www.slate.com/id/1869/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Additonal commentary here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2143134/entry/0/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Google search for "charlton heston president johnson" turns up many more hits for your perusing pleasure.

[03Lightningrocks]

I am a member of the NRA and I agree that the junk mail is out of control. Yeah....I know, I can go to the web sight and blah blah blah...but that is not the point. The NRA, it seems, is wasting a ridiculous amount of money sending spam mailers. I suppose they have statistics to support the return on investment. I hope they do anyway. I just recieved an offer to become a life member for 500 bucks, so I am going to do this.

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.

Nobody is going to turn some anti-gun, Jesus hating nut job liberal into a pro-gun NRA member. Why waste time trying. Heck, I have to work hard just to resist punching them. I sure don't want to tempt fate by starting a debate with them. I know I would end up in jail... .

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 do something else that seems to help introduce the NRA. I take my American Rifleman magazines to the office after I get done with them. I just leave them laying out for other folks to pick up and read. I also leave them at the doctors office and other places I visit.

[flintknapper]

I am a member of the NRA and I agree that the junk mail is out of control. Yeah....I know, I can go to the web sight and blah blah blah...but that is not the point. The NRA, it seems, is wasting a ridiculous amount of money sending spam mailers. I suppose they have statistics to support the return on investment. I hope they do anyway. I just recieved an offer to become a life member for 500 bucks, so I am going to do this.

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.

Nobody is going to turn some anti-gun, Jesus hating nut job liberal into a pro-gun NRA member. Why waste time trying. Heck, I have to work hard just to resist punching them. I sure don't want to tempt fate by starting a debate with them. I know I would end up in jail... .

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 do something else that seems to help introduce the NRA. I take my American Rifleman magazines to the office after I get done with them. I just leave them laying out for other folks to pick up and read. I also leave them at the doctors office and other places I visit.

Good Job!

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . 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.

[mr.72]

. . . 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.

[nitrogen]

. . . 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.

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.

If you care about your 2a rights, wether you think guns are just for hunters, or you think every man and woman in the USA should be able to own gatling guns, the NRA is the most effective org for protecting your 2a rights.

Sure, GOA and JPFO might be more ideologically pure, but they don't have 1/10 of an effect on the national debate that the NRA does. Even though I think the NRA Lee Paiges itself quite a bit, they are still our best bet, espically now.

Having said that, people also need to be active individually. Imagine if only 1/10 of them cared enough to speak out about their rights to use and carry firearms? That'd be double the current membership in the NRA. IT'd be powerful indeed.

[mr.72]

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.

[flintknapper]

. . . 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.

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

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.

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.

SAYING "I support the 2nd amendment and RKBA" is very different from ACTING upon it. If we can't introduce them to the shooting sports/society...or show them the importance of the 2nd amendment, then there is little hope of getting them to participate beyond "lip service".

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