The Day I’ll Join The NRA – An Open Letter To Ted Nugent

[Purplehood]

I would have to say that I agree with almost all of the points made, but almost none of the methodology suggested.

[pbwalker]

P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."

I agree. But, as uncomfortable as the truth might be, the NRA had a hand in crafting every major piece of federal gun control legislation. Starting with NFA '34, through GCA '68, to the Brady Acts.

Not all of it is negative: the AWB had a built-in sunset clause (I wish all federal legislation did!), and NICS/Brady II is better than Brady I (and its waiting period). But, that's akin to arguing whether it's better to be slapped with the left hand, or the right: both sting, and free people should suffer neither.

Nobody in the current NRA hierarchy can be blamed for NFA '34 or GCA '68, but the proper roll of the NRA at that time would have been to throw a huge fit in opposition to either.

That old attitude of "damage control" rather than reversing course, seems to continue to this day.

Well said chabouk!

[glbedd53]

I've been an NRA member for 35 years. I believe what they do in Washington as lobbyists is effective and probably just about the way I would want it done. On the public relations part, I'm not so sure. Far too much preaching to the choir and not nearly enough info reaching people that might vote differently if they were exposed to something besides CNN and NBC. I'm sure airtime is for sale if from FNC if nothing else. I'm sure they're smarter than me on this subject but that's my opinion.

[seamusTX]

I agree that if the NRA promoted the "duty of police is not to protect" issue that a lot of people would change their minds. A common defense to gun control I've heard is that you can always call the police. What do you gentlemen in disagreement think about this?

I agree that it is a fact that the police have no explicit duty to protect. The Supreme Court decided that in several cases, starting in the 1970s.

We could also add that police response times are often shockingly long. I saw a case recently where the police showed up hours after a 911 call about an emergency.

However, it is very difficult to present people with a fact that is contrary to what they want to believe. They blank it out; and if they can't do that, they argue that it cannot be true.

Most people think they will never be the victim of a home invasion or burglary. They don't take any of the precautions that police departments publish as a public service, including locking their doors at night. They go through life in condition white.

I ask you, sincerely, how do you get the message out that you are not safe in your home, vehicle, or workplace unless you take precautions (including but not limited to owning appropriate weapons)? Mass advertising is expensive and difficult to do effectively. Companies and political candidates waste billions on ads that don't work.

As an example that has been tried, everywhere you look public health officials, health insurance companies, and companies like Weight Watchers and gyms have been telling us to eat right and get moderate exercise. It hasn't happened. Obesity is worse than ever and threatens to pass smoking as a threat to health.

- Jim

[The Annoyed Man]

P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."

I agree. But, as uncomfortable as the truth might be, the NRA had a hand in crafting every major piece of federal gun control legislation. Starting with NFA '34, through GCA '68, to the Brady Acts.

Is it conceivable to you that NRA's part in those things was to be a moderating influence on the crazies, and that without the NRA's participation, those laws would have been more poisonous than they already are?

Sometimes, participation is the responsible thing to do, because the result of not participating is even worse.

My only criticism of the NRA is that they spend too much on mailings to active members. We live in an increasingly digitized world. It would be far more efficient, and give members more control over what arrives in their "mailbox," if more were done using emails and the web. Save a tree and do it for the chirren, and all that...

But other than that, I am a proud life member. So is my wife. So is my son. We are grateful for the NRA's advocacy in D.C.

[pbwalker]

However, it is very difficult to present people with a fact that is contrary to what they want to believe. They blank it out; and if they can't do that, they argue that it cannot be true.

So do we just give up? Or maybe reevaluate the means in which the message is conveyed?

[pbwalker]

P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."

I agree. But, as uncomfortable as the truth might be, the NRA had a hand in crafting every major piece of federal gun control legislation. Starting with NFA '34, through GCA '68, to the Brady Acts.

Is it conceivable to you that NRA's part in those things was to be a moderating influence on the crazies, and that without the NRA's participation, those laws would have been more poisonous than they already are?

Sometimes, participation is the responsible thing to do, because the result of not participating is even worse.

My only criticism of the NRA is that they spend too much on mailings to active members. We live in an increasingly digitized world. It would be far more efficient, and give members more control over what arrives in their "mailbox," if more were done using emails and the web. Save a tree and do it for the chirren, and all that...

But other than that, I am a proud life member. So is my wife. So is my son. We are grateful for the NRA's advocacy in D.C.

I don't think anyone is denying that the NRA is a valuable resource for gun owners. But what I see (not you specifically TAM, just in general) is that if you critique the NRA or question anything, the venom pours out. Not really on this forum, but others that I have seen. It's really a "Wizard of Oz - Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" type of situation.

I'd love to hear more on the NRA's involvement on the GCA of 68...what they did to temper the legislation. Does anyone know?

[glbedd53]

I think most ads do work. If they didn't you wouldn't see the billions being spent on them. Most folks only know of the NRA because of references by liberals in the media and we know these are all negative. Most LEO's I know will admit that there job is really to catch the person that raped or killed your wife or daughter. How could they have prevented it? Too many don't understand this because it's not what Barack and Oprah told them. And yes, I think the NRA spends more on the trash mail they send me every year than I send them.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I would have to say that I agree with almost all of the points made, but almost none of the methodology suggested.

All of those reasons are why I am no longer a member of the NRA.

[seamusTX]

I'll pick the CCW Laws for grins...

I think we'd all agree that the NRA stands for the 2A. If they do, why are they not vocal about the CCW laws. It does not say that we have the rights, but with a license. It says we have the right regardless.

You have seen how hard it is to get even small changes in licensed concealed carry laws. Several state legislatures recently have tried and failed to get carry in restaurants that serve alcohol or in churches (both which we already have in Texas). It literally took an act of Congress to get legal carry in national parks.

The fact that 48 states have some kind of legal concealed carry is often repeated, but not the fact that in many of them, it is expensive and difficult to impossible to get a license.

I don't know how Arizona achieved what they did. I congratulate them, but let's see how it works out. Public opinion is fickle, and political offices change hands.

There is recent thread in this forum where people who supposedly have a CHL and carry were talking about calling down the law on someone who "printed." If someone who is supposedly 100% behind the RKBA suggests that, how are we going to change the minds of the 98% of the adult population that is not interested in carrying or thinks it is paranoid or dangerous?

- Jim

[pbwalker]

how are we going to change the minds of the 98% of the adult population that is not interested in carrying or thinks it is paranoid or dangerous?

But that's my point...do we just give up or tone it down? No! We draw attention to the fact that it has worked in VT and AK. We (the NRA) need to be more vocal about these things. Like it was mentioned by another forum member, the NRA seems to be preaching to the choir most of the time. We (again, the NRA) need to work on drawing in the moderates and bringing to light the facts. Stop soliciting me and go after the "Harry the Hunter" types who are on the fence...

My $0.02 at least...and take it with a grain of salt. I'm only 31 and have not been apart of any legislative process...I only offer the perspective of the 'everyday guy'.

[seamusTX]

P.S.: For the record, I think the U.S. should never have started down the road of "gun control."

Nobody in the current NRA hierarchy can be blamed for NFA '34 or GCA '68, but the proper roll of the NRA at that time would have been to throw a huge fit in opposition to either.

I agree that what happened in 1934 or 1968 cannot be laid at the door of the current NRA leadership.

The people who were running things then were products of their time and subject to the prejudices of their time. Nearly everyone thought "gun control" was a good idea to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and lunatics. No one was thoughtful enough to see the consequences.

If the NRA had thrown a huge fit in either case, the NRA might have been marginalized and had less influence.

BTW, the bill that became NFA34 originally put handguns on the same terms as machine guns. Where would we be today if some brave soul hadn't dug in heels to keep that from happening?

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=17481" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

[glbedd53]

By my previous post you can tell I'm not 100 percent with everything the NRA does. But I will always be a member because they are all we have. Not much different than voting for a 3rd party candidate as a protest. Sure fire way to get 4 more years of what we have now. Doesn't make us look smart and the other side sees it. It tickles Rosie O'Donnel to death when gun owners get mad and quit the NRA because they're not perfect.

[seamusTX]

But that's my point...do we just give up or tone it down? No! We draw attention to the fact that it has worked in VT and AK. We (the NRA) need to be more vocal about these things. Like it was mentioned by another forum member, the NRA seems to be preaching to the choir most of the time.

I'll make a prediction: If you buttonhole any casual acquaintance who is not already interested in this issue and tell him that it is legal in Vermont and Alaska to carry just about any weapon anywhere without a license, first, he won't believe you. Then he will say that those states have different circumstance, like being more rural and having animal predators (bears, etc.).

If you continue the conversation, it will lead to Texas having more criminals and crime, and often race and ethnic prejudice enter the discussion.

That is how we got to where we are today.

I'm not saying not to try. I asking how to achieve it. The tactics used by JPFO and GOA haven't worked. I don't see people giving them more than the price of a box of ammo once a year, either.

- Jim
[Edited to correct typo]

[glbedd53]

If the NRA had better PR and got the message out to the public and not just NRA members I think more money would come in. I promise you I would give them more.