NRA: Chris Cox Resigns

Status
Not open for further replies.
labnoti said:
If these lobby groups are so important to our society, what is the "group," the 501(c)4 that speaks for the church? The evangelicals? The "religious right?" Because they seem to be doing a lot better than the NRA with their agenda. So which one group holds that power for the church, that is "the only game in town," without which the church would be in peril, that boasts the numbers and the financial weight?
Click to expand...
Actually there are several such. Alliance Defending Freedom and My Faith Votes come to mind. The ACLJ does good work protecting the Constitution, maybe we could get them to include the 2nd Amendment in their portfolio.
 
This is a hoot. Defend the NRA to the death. Then right in the middle of this thread it becomes evident that members have no say in anything in the NRA. From the outside it looks like the power holders are safe and sound in a protected shell. How much money did the NRA actually spend on programs. How much did the NRA actually spend on lawsuits? Powerless with no voice? The only alternative is to withhold money. What does the intern look like. It's as if the gender is a "need to know" issue. What a pile!

Addendum: Is Chris being thrown to the wolves? MPR, this morning, announced that Chris had resigned from the NRA. No comments from the Association or Mr. Cox.
 
Last edited:
labnoti said:
. . . It is unlawful for them to legislate away these rights. Unless they repeal the 2nd, their infringements are unlawful.
. . . etc .
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying, but I disagree. In a relatively peaceful society, there needs to be an intermediate response to infringement between 'do nothing' and 'begin the civil war'. Legal action, lawsuits, legislative lobbying, etc, are that intermediate response.

Believe me, I am very clear that the appropriate, constitutional, ultimate response to infringement is (another) civil war to re-establish bounds on government power. We did it once in the 1770s, we might have to do it again. I don't agree that a measured intermediate response negates that.
 
AlexanderA said:
Hmmm... Chris was forced out by Wayne. Chris leaving makes it less likely that Wayne will be leaving.
Click to expand...

If those allegations are true, the NRA is probably in worse shape than we think. Chris and some other NRA leadership probably realize that the NRA needs an internal shakeup, and Wayne is holding on for dear life. LaPierre is going to go into dictator mode, purging all who disagree with him. Those kind of actions are what will eventually lead to the fall of the NRA.
 
bassjam said:
If those allegations are true, the NRA is probably in worse shape than we think. Chris and some other NRA leadership probably realize that the NRA needs an internal shakeup, and Wayne is holding on for dear life. LaPierre is going to go into dictator mode, purging all who disagree with him. Those kind of actions are what will eventually lead to the fall of the NRA.
Click to expand...

Which is why the funding needs to be cut until LaPierre is gone. There is never going to be a good time to have the NRA not effective, I get that. But to go on feeding a dictator type administrator is poor judgement in my opinion. No time like the present fix the issue with the NRA administration and have a rebirth with patriots to the 2A, I think there are plenty of well seasoned, and very qualified candidates out there that would take up the torch to rightfully defend the 2A.
 
Last edited:
IDK How many repetitive threads we have to have on this issue but:

I will still support the NRA along with the GOA and SAF and anyone else that will assist in the fight for my RKBA. Period.
 
The great strategic mistake of the pro-gun side has been to concentrate its advocacy in a single organization (the NRA). (This was partially due to laziness by individual gun owners.) Therefore, the collapse of the NRA is hurting the cause disproportionately.

Most successful social movements have a diffuse advocacy structure, with many organizations pulling for the cause.

The disappearance of the NRA might actually be a good thing, in the long run. The vacuum can then be filled by a host of organizations, including state-level associations and nationwide coordinating groups specializing in particular fields (such as the Second Amendment Foundation in the judicial field). The effectiveness of the Virginia Citizens Defense League comes to mind. Something like this can be replicated all over the country.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, lest the rot take hold in that basket.
 
labnoti said:
And no doubt hundreds or thousands more. And if any of them were gone tomorrow, nobody would notice and nothing would change.
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about what's going on in the NRA to comment on it, but you could not be more wrong regarding the need for organizations to fight for our rights. We currently have anti's who are well organized and funded by the likes of Soros and Bloomberg who are doing everything in their power to do away with our 2A rights. If we aren't as organized and well funded as they are we're going to lose those rights. Whether it's the NRA or another organization, they are desperately needed. I live in Illinois for now and we're experiencing first hand what the anti's will do if given the opportunity.
 
AlexanderA said:
The great strategic mistake of the pro-gun side has been to concentrate its advocacy in a single organization (the NRA). (This was partially due to laziness by individual gun owners.) Therefore, the collapse of the NRA is hurting the cause disproportionately.

Most successful social movements have a diffuse advocacy structure, with many organizations pulling for the cause.

The disappearance of the NRA might actually be a good thing, in the long run. The vacuum can then be filled by a host of organizations, including state-level associations and nationwide coordinating groups specializing in particular fields (such as the Second Amendment Foundation in the judicial field). The effectiveness of the Virginia Citizens Defense League comes to mind. Something like this can be replicated all over the country.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, lest the rot take hold in that basket.
Click to expand...

My eggs are actually in four baskets, NRA, SAF, GOA and TFA and I would like to keep ALL my baskets, thank you.
 
SharpDog said:
My eggs are actually in four baskets, NRA, SAF, GOA and TFA and I would like to keep ALL my baskets, thank you.
Click to expand...
What is TFA please? Google returns "Teach for America", I didn't go to their website but from squibs on google does not appear to be a 2A organization.
 
Well, the bigger problem with the NRA today is that the more time they spend on ingroup political fights and misspending funds for personal gain. The less time they spend fixing their image (which let’s be honest, their current image isn’t so good right to several people) and less funds going towards gun rights/training/ect.
 
SharpDog said:
My eggs are actually in four baskets, NRA, SAF, GOA and TFA and I would like to keep ALL my baskets, thank you.
Click to expand...
It's good to diversify. However, the NRA is on the verge of collapse, and is ineffective as things stand right now. It must either reform, to regain its effectiveness, or else disappear so that other organizations can take its place. Withholding funds is about the only way that rank-and-file members can hasten either its reformation or disappearance. Sending money blindly, under current conditions, just means that the money will be wasted or misappropriated by the corrupt management. Don't be a sucker.
 
SharpDog said:
I'm sorry but I cannot agree that killing the NRA is good for our RKBA. I don't want to rehash the other thread that pointed out the NRA is the only place to go for youth training and introduction to shooting. That thread IMHO was prematurely closed by the mods.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/nra-suspends-top-lobbyist-chris-cox-after-‘failed-coup-attempt’.852859/page-5#post-11162255
Click to expand...

I've never promoted or desired for the killing of the NRA. It needs a serious coming to terms with itself, which includes a purge of a majority of the management and board of directors. It is my hope it is only a speed bump in the road to an efficient and highly effective NRA for the future generations. As of right now its a bloat of an organization that is misappropriating funds left and right, all the while passing on KEY precedents that are being set against the 2A, the most recent being bump stocks and red flag laws.

Continuing to give to the NRA in it's current state is akin to giving a spoiled child with poor choice of friends their allowance just because we support the same sports team. How about we take away the allowance temporarily, provide some discipline to the spoiled child, and cut ties with poor choices in friends so we can in the future continue to support the ideals we share.

What's the other option here, keep pouring money into Wayne LaPierre? Is Wayne ever going to give up power as long as the money keeps on coming in?

How is the NRA ever going to get back to being lean and mean for 2A advocacy?

What does it say about gun owners, that we are ok with corruption as long as the 2A is safe; here I thought that part of the 2A was to defend against tyrannical corruption?

I really want to understand what the end game is in supporting corruption and mismanagement of funds?
 
AlexanderA said:
The great strategic mistake of the pro-gun side has been to concentrate its advocacy in a single organization (the NRA). (This was partially due to laziness by individual gun owners.) Therefore, the collapse of the NRA is hurting the cause disproportionately.

Most successful social movements have a diffuse advocacy structure, with many organizations pulling for the cause.

The disappearance of the NRA might actually be a good thing, in the long run. The vacuum can then be filled by a host of organizations, including state-level associations and nationwide coordinating groups specializing in particular fields (such as the Second Amendment Foundation in the judicial field). The effectiveness of the Virginia Citizens Defense League comes to mind. Something like this can be replicated all over the country.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket, lest the rot take hold in that basket.
Click to expand...

AlexanderA said:
It's good to diversify. However, the NRA is on the verge of collapse, and is ineffective as things stand right now. It must either reform, to regain its effectiveness, or else disappear so that other organizations can take its place. Withholding funds is about the only way that rank-and-file members can hasten either its reformation or disappearance. Sending money blindly, under current conditions, just means that the money will be wasted or misappropriated by the corrupt management. Don't be a sucker.
Click to expand...

Other folks have suggested this. And how else will Wayne leave if he's as crooked as you say unless the NRA falls ?
 
<sarcasm> Yes, withholding contributions to gun rights organizations seems like a wise decision just before elections which feature prominent 2A opponents </sarcasm>

btw I'm going to increase my contributions to the NRA just because of all of these NRA-bashing threads.
 
"It is unlawful for them to legislate away these rights. Unless they repeal the 2nd, their infringements are unlawful."

If I may, here...

We need to eliminate the mindset that says anything of the like, because that demonstrates a TOTAL misunderstanding of the issue of rights and where they come from.


The enumeration of specific rights, to wit, those in the Bill of Rights (since that's what we're talking about, here) does NOT constitute the "granting of rights".

Those rights PRE- EXIST. In fact, you'll note the specific wording in those particular amendments constitutes proscriptions AGAINST the government with respect to those rights.

Here are some examples of specific wording:

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law..."

Second Amendment: "...shall not be infringed."

Third Amendment: "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quarted in any house..."

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their...shall not be violated..."

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless..."

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


These are all restrictions AGAINST the GOVERNMENT in protection of rights the people ALREADY HAVE.

What this means is that EVEN IF the Second Amendment were to be abolished, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would STILL EXIST.


The Legislative Branch was long recognized as the most powerful, and therefore most dangerous, aspect of our government for the simple fact that THEY WRITE THE LAWS. The Bill of Rights was, essentially, a re-enforcement of the "We the People of the United States" aspect which states that the power of the government rightfully comes from the people themselves, and not the other way around.
 
While reasonable people can differ, I view giving money to the NRA in its current state as being equivalent to giving money to a loved one who is on a substance abuse bender. As long as people keep pumping them money, they have no reason to change. Cut off the money, and maybe they'll get right with the lord.

We cannot afford, as a group of people interested in a particular political right, to have the lead organization that is (supposed to be) dedicated to the protection of that right be run with gross ineptitude.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
"It is unlawful for them to legislate away these rights. Unless they repeal the 2nd, their infringements are unlawful."

If I may, here...

We need to eliminate the mindset that says anything of the like, because that demonstrates a TOTAL misunderstanding of the issue of rights and where they come from.


The enumeration of specific rights, to wit, those in the Bill of Rights (since that's what we're talking about, here) does NOT constitute the "granting of rights".

Those rights PRE- EXIST. In fact, you'll note the specific wording in those particular amendments constitutes proscriptions AGAINST the government with respect to those rights.

Here are some examples of specific wording:

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law..."

Second Amendment: "...shall not be infringed."

Third Amendment: "No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quarted in any house..."

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their...shall not be violated..."

Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless..."

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


These are all restrictions AGAINST the GOVERNMENT in protection of rights the people ALREADY HAVE.

What this means is that EVEN IF the Second Amendment were to be abolished, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would STILL EXIST.


The Legislative Branch was long recognized as the most powerful, and therefore most dangerous, aspect of our government for the simple fact that THEY WRITE THE LAWS. The Bill of Rights was, essentially, a re-enforcement of the "We the People of the United States" aspect which states that the power of the government rightfully comes from the people themselves, and not the other way around.
Click to expand...


Why then can't we have .51 caliber select-fire weapons ? Mortars ? ...


The problem is that there is nothing stopping THEM from legislating us back to flintlocks if THEY get enough power.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSNChief said:
What this means is that EVEN IF the Second Amendment were to be abolished, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would STILL EXIST.
Click to expand...

The problem is that all the natural rights theory in the world won't help you in the real world. Since people don't agree on what natural rights exist, it's like arguing that you should win your legal case because God is on your side. I mean... maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but unless he's going to appear and testify, the judge is going to have to look at more concrete sources of law.

If your lawyer starts arguing natural law/inherent rights in your case, get ready to go to jail/write a big check, 'cause you're finna' lose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Nra On The Ground In Louisiana
Replies
0
Views
328
MudPuppy
M
M
  • Locked
Glenn Beck Interviews Chris Cox of the NRA [TRANSCRIPT]
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
UhKlem
U
S
  • Locked
Interview with Chris Cox of the NRA
Replies
2
Views
426
SoonerSP101
S
A
  • Locked
Nra myths (you're not going to like this)
Replies
11
Views
1K
Standing Wolf
S
G
  • Locked
NRA Wins Restraining Order Against Confiscations
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top