The NRA.....lets talk!

[brianko]

Brian, at what level would Mr. LaPierre's salary not be an issue? $500,000? $100,000.

I'm going to abide by Charles' request and remove myself from this discussion. It's obvious to me what I have to say isn't exactly welcome in this thread. Maybe the thread topic should be changed to "The NRA...Dissenters Need Not Participate."

[Charles L. Cotton]

Brian, at what level would Mr. LaPierre's salary not be an issue? $500,000? $100,000.

I'm going to abide by Charles' request and remove myself from this discussion. It's obvious to me what I have to say isn't exactly welcome in this thread. Maybe the thread topic should be changed to "The NRA...Dissenters Need Not Participate."

Not true Brian. I'm open to criticism about the NRA; I've expressed it myself in committee and board meetings. I don't agree with or like everything we do or refrain from doing. I didn't take issue with your first post about the content of NRA fund-raising literature, I just responded to Williams' and Feldman's false allegations.

I do have a problem with unfounded criticism from other organizations and their leaders that work to the detriment of the NRA and its mission. Feldman and Larry Pratt have never expressed constructive criticism, their goal is to damage the NRA as an organization. Unfortunately, some people who don't know much about the NRA tend to believe their lies. A weakened NRA is the last thing we need at this point.

Chas.

[nitrogen]

Brian, at what level would Mr. LaPierre's salary not be an issue? $500,000? $100,000.

I'm going to abide by Charles' request and remove myself from this discussion. It's obvious to me what I have to say isn't exactly welcome in this thread. Maybe the thread topic should be changed to "The NRA...Dissenters Need Not Participate."

I see plenty of people with beefs against the NRA participating in this thread.
That's part of the discussion; listening to ALL SIDES.

Go back and read through the thread, I have some serious issues with the NRA as well, but I choose to do what little I can from the inside. If you feel the NRA is too far gone to help, that's your right. I think it's perfectly fair to listen to someone else explain why they don't share your concerns.

I certainly cannot point to any real good that GOA has done like the NRA has throughout the years, problematic or not.

The NRA is a good org. I think it could be 200x better than it is, but it's still very good.

[seamusTX]

Another thing: The antis don't seem to have this problem. They don't criticize each other in public, and they don't have visible disagreements.

They are also patient. The Bradys have been at this for 27 years. Our opponents in the House and Senate have been at it longer.

I get the feeling that some supporters of the RKBA want results yesterday, and they blame the NRA for not producing those results.

- Jim

[TxD]

I get the feeling that some supporters of the RKBA want results yesterday, and they blame the NRA for not producing those results.
- Jim

Jim,
I agree and most can not define the results they seek.
It goes something like I want to keep the right to bear arms.
And, Oh Yeah, just leave me alone.

[flintknapper]

I'm going to abide by Charles' request and remove myself from this discussion. It's obvious to me what I have to say isn't exactly welcome in this thread.

Quite the contrary. The very reason I started this thread was to explore and address what different folks perceive to be "problems" with the NRA (and specifically why they choose not to join). Naturally, I would expect the subject to drift a little...but your perspective (and that of others) is exactly what I am after.

Flintknapper wrote:

The vast majority of America's gun owners do not belong to any large scale pro-gun organization.

The NRA is chief among several organizations that actually take legislative actions to promote and secure our gun rights/freedoms.

Still, the NRA is not without it's faults. We have members here that represent a broad spectrum of gun owners across this state. Some, have specific reasons they will not join the NRA. I wholeheartedly support their decisions, but I am curious what some of the objections are.

WARNING: If this thread degenerates into a " NRA members" vs. "non-members" war, I will ask the moderators to lock and delete it. It is NOT my intention to single out, expose, chastise, or belittle anyone for their sincerely held beliefs/convictions.

I believe the best way to increase NRA membership is to address the problems so many people seem to have with it. It will never be perfect, but we should never stop striving to make the organization as strong and respectable as possible.

brianko wrote:

Maybe the thread topic should be changed to "The NRA...Dissenters Need Not Participate."

The thread topic is just fine IMO. So lets continue to "talk about it".

[WildBill]

There are presently a lot of mommies "educated" only by the media, etc. that don't want their boys "playing with guns". Guns are evil. Everybody except that "NRA Kook" down the street says so.

Women are an important part of any permanent solution and will only be "won over" in a grass roots campaign.

I am far from being an expert on women. However, I don't think "guns are fun, hunting is fun, let's go shoot some targets" is the way to get women to support the Constitutionally-guaranteed RKBA.

I don't think these "NRA kooks" really understand the first thing about how to communicate with those on the other side. The whole shooting sports, hunting, gun collecting and hobbyist angle is, IMHO, destined to ruin the chances of a real support for the meaningful RKBA in America.

I think an angle more like "guns are dangerous, even deadly, and that's the whole point" will do the cause much more good.

I think that most anti-gun feelings in people [including woman] are caused by fear. The best way to reduce fear is to have them confront their fear. Their fears will be assuaged if you have the person actually see and hold and shoot a firearm in a non-threatening situation. When they get through their initial trauma and realize that nobody got hurt or died they might realize that guns may not really be so evil.

If getting a person to handle and shoot a gun is done under the guise of "hunting is good for you" or "let's shoot some targets" I don't care. Once the person gets more comfortable with the whole idea of being around, handling and shooting firearms, they can be educated in the RKBA.

If your initial approach is the "guns are dangerous" position then you will fail. Their fear has already taught them that guns are dangerous.

[mr.72]

If getting a person to handle and shoot a gun is done under the guise of "hunting is good for you" or "let's shoot some targets" I don't care. Once the person gets more comfortable with the whole idea of being around, handling and shooting firearms, they can be educated in the RKBA.

If your initial approach is the "guns are dangerous" position then you will fail. Their fear has already taught them that guns are dangerous.

Sorry WildBill, but I disagree with you 100% and I think the lack of success of the normal "guns are fun" tactic of "converting" especially women will support my position very effectively.

I am not in the mood to argue it though. I feel kind of like Malcolm X at a KKK rally. You guys go on and think whatever you want to think. It's not going to work though.

[seamusTX]

I don't think "Malcolm X at a KKK rally" is an accurate assessment of this thread.

I think it has been remarkably civilized, for a debate about an emotional subject among mostly anonymous posters.

I have not seen threats, hatred, or (for the most part) the kind of silly meta-arguments that plague Internet debates. If I had, I would not have participated.

I have presented evidence that the NRA's strategy is succeeding. Firearms sales to first-time buyers are up. CHL applications are up. More states have passed concealed-carry and Castle Doctrine bills. This is undeniable progress.

The NRA has a multi-front strategy:

• defeat the worst proposed legislation
• promote legislation in our favor
• back candidates who are on our side
• promote firearms safety education
• promote the shooting sports
• promote police training

I think it has had more successes than failures.

The Million Mom March fizzled down to the three-mom march or something like that. The "gun-control" movement consists of a handful of (unfortunately) senior legislators and a few fanatical propagandists who (unfortunately) get an audience in the press and on TV.

- Jim

[John]

I think that most anti-gun feelings in people [including woman] are caused by fear. The best way to reduce fear is to have them confront their fear.

I think you are right about fear, but one of the problems is fear has been directed not only to guns, but gun owners. You and I are thought of as criminals by our very associations. Our own government treats us as such with "criminal" back ground checks and "fingerprinting". News media across the nation prints lists of CHL holders to "out" or shame them. The left, anti's, brady bunch or whatever you want to call the other side, has been successful in demonizing not only guns, but anyone who owns guns and supports the second amendment. For the most part, in public places, if one wears a 2A shirt, he's not supporting our constitution in the eyes of many; he is inciting fear.

My fear today is that we've let their "fear" of "us" get to the point that it might be too late to turn it around before we have significant losses, I.E. a new AWB or ban on concealed carry at the federal level.

I do plan on doing my part as stated earlier in this thread, but we really need the NRA to be as strong as possible in their lobbying of congress. We need to be strong in our support of the NRA as they are the largest lobbing group on our side. We do need to dispel fear in our fellow citizens, but it has to be in addition too, and not instead of lobbing political leaders. I guess I am saying everyone on this thread is right; we need to do it all.

[mr.72]

I don't think "Malcolm X at a KKK rally" is an accurate assessment of this thread.

I think it has been remarkably civilized, for a debate about an emotional subject among mostly anonymous posters.

You're right. That's not what I meant. What I meant was more like, I feel as if I am the only one who has not already been conditioned to believe a certain way. It's just not worth arguing about though. Clearly the NRA is not the right organization to change.

[seamusTX]

Then do what you think best. This is still pretty much a free country, especially when it comes to freedom of speech and religion.

You can try. Congratulations if you succeed. You usually get another chance if not.

- Jim

[Liberty]

The Million Mom March fizzled down to the three-mom march or something like that. The "gun-control" movement consists of a handful of (unfortunately) senior legislators and a few fanatical propagandists who (unfortunately) get an audience in the press and on TV.

- Jim

You remind me of the big difference between the Brady's and the NRA / TSRA. The Bradys are a few activist who work hard and are financed by grants. The Bradys don't have the money nor the manpower we do. yet the media treats us as equals. What Are they doing right that we aren't? If we were as effective for our size as they are there wouldn't be a Brady bunch.

[John]

The Million Mom March fizzled down to the three-mom march or something like that. The "gun-control" movement consists of a handful of (unfortunately) senior legislators and a few fanatical propagandists who (unfortunately) get an audience in the press and on TV.

- Jim

You remind me of the big difference between the Brady's and the NRA / TSRA. The Bradys are a few activist who work hard and are financed by grants. The Bradys don't have the money nor the manpower we do. yet the media treats us as equals. What Are they doing right that we aren't? If we were as effective for our size as they are there wouldn't be a Brady bunch.

Liberty... Do you really see the media treating us as equals? I see articles written that favor Bradys with maybe a quote at the bottom with a single comment from the NRA. Maybe i am filtering though, will have to try to research the concept.

[John]

will have to try to research the concept.

news.google.com

Search 1: Brady Campaign
Top Five Headlines (- any unrelated related articles)
-OPINION: Politics of Gun Prevention Shifing to Middle
-Brady-Backed Challengers Help Dems Regain maority in New York
-Brady Post Election Report: Supporters of Sensible Gun Laws Won
-Some gun owners give in to fear mongering
-Obama win spurring firearm sales

Search 2: National Rifle Association
Top Five Headlines
-The Woman Who Might Take Hilary's Senate Seat
-Shoot victim, "Dude" buried with his NRA hat on
-Gun Sales Increase in Fear of Gun Control Laws Under Obama
-City's gun-reporting bill clears 1st hurdle
-Palin to Campaign for Saxby

Not quite what i expected to find, but interesting comparison. Maybe i'll do yahoo news next.