doubleh
Member
I have no argument with your thinking. I was just pointing out the NRA is still the 800# gorilla to the gun grabbers and we need it if only to keep their focus on them while others are chipping away against them.
Don't "Cotton" to the Old Guard
- Thread starter hso
- Start date
nettlle
Contributing Member
Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. The NRA's strength is in it's members and their dedication to gun rights. Always has been. So there is/has been some questionable leadership. Not the fault of the members. Those that stick with the NRA through these tough times are the one's that are keeping the NRA alive. And those that are criticizing? I am truly not sure what they are hoping to gain from that. I'm thinking they will claim they straightened out the NRA by their complaining and non-membership. If you won't help the NRA the least you could do is not hinder them.
LV Gun
Member
I still give to the NRA but not as much as I used to I have increased my donation to NAGR and our state association NVFC . I don’t want to stop giving to them completely but I am watching what goes on there a lot more than I used to.
Last edited:
Atavar
Member
Read the bylaws. Membership is impotent to control the board by voting.
And were going to pay for a $6.5 million dollar house for Wayne's security issues. It is not alive as a functioning institution. Here's a point. In the good ol' days - Wayne could go on Meet the Press for example and defend the 2nd Amendment. He couldn't do that for the past few years. Can any of the current 'leadership' do that? It's a shame as I met some of those folks and they seemed decent to naive ol' me. Even bought me lunch.
As I said and others have - a totally outside crew of gun knowledgeable, business and non-profit savvy and impeccable histories need to take over with a reduced board, a non PR BS chief executive and CFO. Only an outside agency could put that in place. Not holding my breath.
nettlle
Contributing Member
I am not obsessed with Wayne. I am obsessed with the NRA. From the good old days. And if you think for a minute there is another org than take up the fight like the NRA has you are mistaken. Although I am a GOA member and like the GOA they are not even a close second to the NRA membership. Meeting with the press (CNN, MSN, etc.) by any leader of gun rights these days would be pretty much suicidal. Anything they would say would be so twisted by these news organizations that we would never know what was truly said. Certainly agree there is definitely some naivety going on here but not from the NRA membership. To me, as a NRA member, the anti-NRA folks are a bit of a curiosity. They contribute nothing to the gun cause. They are just noise.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Two words for voting members:
N O M I N A T I N G C O M M I T T E E (Exclamation point.)
Long term solution, but anyone can write and bitch to the Nominating Committee members.
It might help voting members to use clenched teeth to remind them that they are voted in by the whole membership and not just members from their local area. (And if you're staying away from renewal, keep that "voting members" in mind.)
Last edited:
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 380
From the article:
Cotton is a Texas attorney who has served as the NRA’s Audit Committee Chairman for over the past decade.
...
During sworn testimony in the NRA’s failed bankruptcy case and the current New York lawsuit against the NRA, Cotton admitted that he had never reviewed New York laws regarding the legal responsibilities and obligations of members of a nonprofit’s audit committee.
This isn't a fox making a move. It's illustrative of utter incompetence and by attempting to promote him to fill Wayne's vacancy, an act of total contempt for running a clean organization. As I said on the other thread, sorting this all out is five years behind schedule and the only smart decision to come in the past couple weeks is too little too late.
Cotton is a Texas attorney who has served as the NRA’s Audit Committee Chairman for over the past decade.
...
During sworn testimony in the NRA’s failed bankruptcy case and the current New York lawsuit against the NRA, Cotton admitted that he had never reviewed New York laws regarding the legal responsibilities and obligations of members of a nonprofit’s audit committee.
This isn't a fox making a move. It's illustrative of utter incompetence and by attempting to promote him to fill Wayne's vacancy, an act of total contempt for running a clean organization. As I said on the other thread, sorting this all out is five years behind schedule and the only smart decision to come in the past couple weeks is too little too late.
nettlle
Contributing Member
...for heavens sake.
Doc Samson
Member
Sorry, but sometimes the baby does need to go, along with the bathwater. Sure seems like a serious gutting is needed, at the very least...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
As for other organizations and their effectiveness vs. the NRA? Perhaps if they had an influx of members who wanted to support a "clean" organization, their effectiveness might grow significantly.
Former NRA Officials Admit In Court What They Denied For Years; NRA Board Member Calls for New Leadership - The Truth About Guns
◀Previous Post Next Post▶ For most folks, the threat of felony criminal perjury charges tends to encourage honesty, even from those who dismiss or ignore their fiduciary responsibility to act honorably and truthfully to an organization’s members. Hence, why as the New York corruption trial...
www.thetruthaboutguns.com
As for other organizations and their effectiveness vs. the NRA? Perhaps if they had an influx of members who wanted to support a "clean" organization, their effectiveness might grow significantly.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
An outstanding way of putting it!
RetiredUSNChief
Member
A case of "too big to fail", in other words?
Well, this is a problem with corruption, especially in large organizations which are touted to be a tool for the common people to safeguard specific rights important to them.
When such organizations have gone corrupt, they harm the people because that corruption directly impacts their credibility. It violates important core values, such as honesty, integrity, honor, professionalism, etc. But then they're put between a rock and a hard place because "who else is going to take up the fight?", right?
When ANY organization gets "too big to fail", that quite honestly is another way of saying "we don't care how bad it is, we're going to reward them by throwing everything we have into bailing out those who got themselves into this mess".
Well, if people REALLY WANT TO SAVE THE NRA, then those still in the NRA need to start making heads roll! If the current 4.3 million members aren't willing to step up to the plate and take on what...less than a hundred in leadership positions? Heck, let's just expand that to a nice, even 1,000 people to include a chunk of support staff as well, just for giggles.
That's a 4,300:1 ratio. 43,000:1 if you just go back to a nice, round 100 top dogs.
Tell me...if great changes can't be made with those kinds of ratios, THEN WHAT'S WORTH SAVING AT ALL?
I already vote for politicians, which include some who seem to insist on stabbing me in the back. Why should I PAY MONEY to the NRA for the PRIVILEGE of casting my vote for change when the people making up these overwhelming numerical odds ALREADY aren't doing so?
I WAS an NRA member. I LEFT because the corruption in the NRA was rampant and change was NOT on the horizon, no matter what I did or said.
So I became part of the wake up call that became a 21% drop in their peak membership. A 21% drop in membership is HUGE. It's a FAR more powerful indicator that meaningful change needs to happen because that number is out in the open for everybody to see...NRA members as well as the world. It's not hidden in votes nobody looks at or audits, away from curious eyes.
I voted when I was an NRA member. When my member vote apparently wasn't loud enough, I voted with my checkbook and my feet, took my money and walked away.
"Too big to fail"? Don't lay that at my feet. I've been watching this philosophy at work for a long, long time now and it hasn't been working out well elsewhere. I've no reason to expect it to work out well here, either.
Well, this is a problem with corruption, especially in large organizations which are touted to be a tool for the common people to safeguard specific rights important to them.
When such organizations have gone corrupt, they harm the people because that corruption directly impacts their credibility. It violates important core values, such as honesty, integrity, honor, professionalism, etc. But then they're put between a rock and a hard place because "who else is going to take up the fight?", right?
When ANY organization gets "too big to fail", that quite honestly is another way of saying "we don't care how bad it is, we're going to reward them by throwing everything we have into bailing out those who got themselves into this mess".
Well, if people REALLY WANT TO SAVE THE NRA, then those still in the NRA need to start making heads roll! If the current 4.3 million members aren't willing to step up to the plate and take on what...less than a hundred in leadership positions? Heck, let's just expand that to a nice, even 1,000 people to include a chunk of support staff as well, just for giggles.
That's a 4,300:1 ratio. 43,000:1 if you just go back to a nice, round 100 top dogs.
Tell me...if great changes can't be made with those kinds of ratios, THEN WHAT'S WORTH SAVING AT ALL?
I already vote for politicians, which include some who seem to insist on stabbing me in the back. Why should I PAY MONEY to the NRA for the PRIVILEGE of casting my vote for change when the people making up these overwhelming numerical odds ALREADY aren't doing so?
I WAS an NRA member. I LEFT because the corruption in the NRA was rampant and change was NOT on the horizon, no matter what I did or said.
So I became part of the wake up call that became a 21% drop in their peak membership. A 21% drop in membership is HUGE. It's a FAR more powerful indicator that meaningful change needs to happen because that number is out in the open for everybody to see...NRA members as well as the world. It's not hidden in votes nobody looks at or audits, away from curious eyes.
I voted when I was an NRA member. When my member vote apparently wasn't loud enough, I voted with my checkbook and my feet, took my money and walked away.
"Too big to fail"? Don't lay that at my feet. I've been watching this philosophy at work for a long, long time now and it hasn't been working out well elsewhere. I've no reason to expect it to work out well here, either.
Basura Blanca
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 380
If this was the Brady group (whatever they call themselves these days) defending their own internal impropriety, wouldn't we be beating them up to clean their own house, etc?
The longer the NRA fights this, the longer it lingers in the press. That pleases our detractors to no end.
The NRA is corrupt. The dirty secret is that gun rights is a potent political issue and any number of different groups can activate gun rights voters. Sadly the NRA tended to hurt gun rights by NOT going after establishment politicians in primaries. Worse they often covered for them.
bdickens
Member
FWIW: Cotton also owns/ runs the Texas CHL Forum. Lemme tell you how it is over there: If you disagree, however politely and delicately, with one of the moderators, you get shut down. If you disagree, however politely and delicately, with one of the Good ol' Boy network, you get shut down. If you say anything even slightly critical of the NRA, you get shut down
Also, for an attorney who has supposedly had a major role in crafting the LTC and related
tolerates an awful lot of advice that I have since learned is questionable from a legal standpoint. Some of it he doles out himself.
Also, for an attorney who has supposedly had a major role in crafting the LTC and related
tolerates an awful lot of advice that I have since learned is questionable from a legal standpoint. Some of it he doles out himself.
unspellable
Member
I have a gripe I've not heard mentioned. If I donate a dollar to the NRA they spend 90 cents trying to get another dollar out of me. I don't need a solicitation three times a week to donate once or twice a year. How much are they spending on this?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
A valid, and important, consideration.
How much of a charity donation do you (or anybody else) find to be an acceptable amount for administrative costs?
When looking through the Combined Federal Campaign Charity List, you can find tons of charitable organizations, a brief description of their purpose, and (importantly) a percentage number which represents how much of every donation goes towards the administrative costs of running the organization.
In general, whenever I donate, part of my criteria is a low (low single digit) percentage, if not zero. Other criteria is whether it's a local charity or not, if it's an organization which addresses a specific cause or group I find important, etc.
For example, there is an entry for PETA, which shows 11.7%. Almost 12 cents of every dollar goes towards the administrative costs of what PETA does. Many of the society for the prevention of cruelty to animals are close to this. But there are plenty of animal societies, rescues, etc. which are less than this, especially local ones. Independent Animal Rescue Inc, listed on the Carolinas portion of the CFC list, is 8.5%
There are two NRA entries I found in the CFC Charity List for 2023:
10006 NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund (4.4%)
11872 The NRA Foundation Inc (27.4%)
I find 27.4% to be WAY too much for me. Understandable, given what the NRA does, because they have to have people administratively capable of performing all the things the NRA does and provides. That isn't a volunteer only type of thing at that level.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
"Membership dues totaling $83,274,950 contributed the largest percentage (39.4%) of the NRA’s total revenue of $211,332,026 in 2022, the most recent year for which data is available (as of January 2024). The next biggest sources were $71.8 million from private contributions and grants (34%), $21 million from advertising income (9.9%), $18.5 million from program fees (8.8%), and $10.9 million from royalties (5.2%)"
A lot of this is log rolling. Ex-NRA insiders start up companies that the NRA then uses for mailings & other services - often these people are incompetent and the mailings go out after the election or they other wise screw stuff up.,
The problem with looking at raw numbers for administrative costs for charities is it does not always tell the whole story.
It is not unusual for organizations that rely heavily on volunteers to not have a lot of donations so the total donation amount is lower so the part that is administrative is higher. But the organization is still cost effective.
It is not unusual for organizations that rely heavily on volunteers to not have a lot of donations so the total donation amount is lower so the part that is administrative is higher. But the organization is still cost effective.
mcb
Member
So are we supposed to let the NRA leadership steal from the membership just to spite the anti-gunners? Sure anti-gunners are cheering but it's not like we have a choice, WLP and his cronies broke our trust and are long overdue from being held accountable.
Until Harlon Carter turned it around, the NRA did not much give a rat's a$$ about gun rights at all.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
Heh!
I suspect most anti-gunners spend far more time watching threads designed conform to, and reinforce, their anti-gun worldview.
