Anyone Else Disappointed in NRA Lack of Eloquence?

Status
Not open for further replies.
not advocating a more gentle but rather a more rational, civil approach...

there are more gun nuts than wants to be admitted to...

there too many wannabe soldiers in gun stores..what can be done..perhaps nothing

here is a trend i see and hear too often in hunter groups. this is switching topics a little.
when the wolf issue in the rockies got hot a year or so ago, some hunters made themselves prominent in the fight and produced videos that were in the least too much like propaganda...one would get on a radio interview and call non hunters who venture in the wild lands, leeches and hitchikers, then too many hunters get on blogs and can only say kill all the wolves, shoot shovel and shut up, smoke a pack a day, etc. some hunters would denounce such comments but they seem to be very few. they make hunters look like a special interest group which they are, but also like elitists that are entitled to americas wildlife because they hunt. some serious policing is needed or the hunters and shooters image will tarnish.
 
There is tons of stupid marketing out there that all of us can point to as examples, but that doesn't mean that an entire industry is stupid or that everyone interested in their products are. Just picking the example of Bushmaster's "man card" add and ignoring the scores of other ads that represent us well isn't a balanced argument, but none of that has anything to do with the NRA and their public image.
 
Aside from collecting odd military Curios and Relics (which I'm federally licensed to do), being an Internet wise-guy, and posing for goofy pictures, I also teach.

MJ7KQLJ.png

(Also have Range Safety Officer and recently added pistol instructor.)

One of the really great things about the NRA - not to be confused with the "NRA-ILA" - is the NRA is a first and foremost, a training organization. It was created to train people. And over a hundred years later, the primary mission is to train people.

Important not to lose sight of that. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is an another important facet, but not the only one. (There are other gun lobbying / legal organizations I like more, namely this one http://gunowners.org/ and this one http://www.saf.org/).

My point is, don't judge a book by it's cover.

You might see the picture I posted above, and say "that guy is a nutball."

You might see the NRA advertisements and (not being educated about their mission) think "The NRA is only a gun lobbying organization."

Ask anyone on the street "What is the NRA?"

They'll say "That place that forces/bribes/cajoles all those senators and representatives to vote down anti-gun legislation" (or some derivative thereof, depending on their political affiliations).

They have no clue that the NRA is a training organization.

Just as they have no clue, based on one picture of me, that I'm a federally licensed collector, or that I designate a LOT of my free time to teaching people young, old, new, and experienced, how to shoot, or how to shoot better.
 
here is an example...do you think that 'man card' bushmaster marketing was in good taste..

Not at all sure WHAT that has to do with NRA. It has NOTHING to do with the NRA. Again - if you want to properly influence the NRA, then join the NRA!

Listen, I know what you are saying. But the way you write makes it sound like you are allowing the anti-gun nuts to have their way with describing all the innocent gun owners. I for one refuse to allow them this luxury. One of the first things I said to Obama/Biden and the other haters is: You are now calling all gun owners guilty and treating us as such with your labels. The anti-2nd groups seek to divide an conquer. One goal is to make sure the US voting public sees the NRA as a radical nut group. And you seem to be saying this is a good thing! Evidence #1: You haven't joined the NRA!!! (Why? because you say they are gun nuts and kooks, and give a Bushmaster ad as an example). I rest my case.

I suggest you immediately join not only the NRA (then you can help influence them), but also join GOA, CCFTRTKBA, and SAF. I am a member of all these (Life Member of the NRA). Get off your duff and do the right thing.
 
I see a lot of rhetoric, and bashing of the NRA, and very few suggestions on how these people plan to fix what they see as being wrong with it. Love them or hate them, there is no other gun organization that comes close to the NRA's influence, and I for one truly appreciate what they have stood for throughout time, including today. I may not agree with every move or every statement, but I don't always agree with anyone ever, including my wife who I made a lifelong commitment to. When the people bashing the NRA form a better alternative that has a wider range of influence, maybe I'll sign on. Until then, I hear a lot of talking, but no real ideas on how to replace it. When you can do more than talk, c'mon back and give us your pitch

As far as the image on hunters being tarnished....To the groups like PETA and such, our very existence is offensive. I don't think a few internet blowhards are going to to change much as far as public opinion goes as far as the rest of the people. Regardless, even if they are doing damage, they have as much right to free speech in their opinions as I do in expressing mine here. Not liking something doesn't mean its necessarily "wrong". Theres plenty of opinions I don't like out there, but I'd fight to my dying breath to defend their right to express them, no matter how offensive I may find them to be. How do you exactly plan on "policing" free speech ? How do you suggest others go about it? When it comes to free speech, I find terms like "policing" it offensive to the core of my being. Are you personally going to "police" who gets to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights? What about the 4th? You do realize how people can take talk of someone "policing" aspects of the Constitution to their own liking as pretty offensive, right? That offends me far more than talk of shooting a few wolves.....
 
Last edited:
I guess saying that I was a fan of the "Jack Booted Thug" days would be a no?
 
I guess saying that I was a fan of the "Jack Booted Thug" days would be a no?

Ironically, the originator of that remark was former NRA Board of Directors Rep. John Dingell (D-MI).

Frankly, I've seen enough of "the NRA is so unreasonable" whining followed immediately by unreasonable demands for gun control over the past decades that I assume anyone who makes that statement is either ignorant or malevolent. I've rarely had reason to question that decision.
 
Frankly, I've seen enough of "the NRA is so unreasonable" whining followed immediately by unreasonable demands for gun control over the past decades that I assume anyone who makes that statement is either ignorant or malevolent.

Thank YOU!!
 
Frankly, I've seen enough of "the NRA is so unreasonable" whining followed immediately by unreasonable demands for gun control over the past decades that I assume anyone who makes that statement is either ignorant or malevolent. I've rarely had reason to question that decision.

That ultimately sums up my feelings on the issue as well.
 
I've always been a supporter of the NRA and the Institute for Legislative Action, but lately, as more and greater backing of gun control is discussed in the media, I've frankly been disappointed by the NRA's lack of eloquence in defending American gun owners. Also, their lack of alacrity in engaging those with anti-gun agendas.

The only one showing any eagerness in engaging these pinheads was Larry Pratt, of the Second Amendment Foundation!

Why can't the NRA get off its butt and hire someone who can represent us with passion and common sense? Very few of our guys brought up the fact that no gun law presently on the books would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting, and that no law being proposed would have prevented it, or even slowed it down!

Wayne LaPierre does okay writing books; but his quickness of wits in engaging our enemies leaves a lot to be desired. His exchanges are always quite forgettable. Anyone else notice this? All I'm saying is that we ought to be getting a lot more for our $$$.
The media is overwhelming antigun and is always looking for an opportunity (verbal misstep) on the part of the NRA.

A lot of public speaking is a two-edged sword for the NRA. It could work just as easily against them as for us. I think they prefer to work behind the scene, exposing politicians, and lobbying for our rights.
 
5280 The Denver Magazine did a hit piece on Dudley Brown and RMGO's and how he has ruined the conservatives chances in CO. Brown in turn dislikes the NRA because they are to willing to compromise. I can't believe anyone would seriously take the word of the leftist media on any conservative issue. Do you really think that they want to help us further our agenda so they are giving us these little hints as to how to win over the antis?
 
I wish people would quit referring to gun ownership as a "hobby". Exercising our Constitutionally protected rights by participating in firearm related activities is no more a hobby than is participating in religious activities.
 
1. I am satisfied with the value that the NRA provides me.
2. I do feel that I have a voice in the direction of the NRA by voting in annual board of directors' elections and answering surveys and questionnaires that I receive.
3. If and when the NRA or NRA-ILA solicit for contributions (and they will), I am man enough to say NO if I am not in the mood, tapped out, or don't consider the cause of the month to warrant.
4. When considering where I can get the most "Bang for My Buck" (pun intended) in lobbying and persuading my elected representatives of government, I have been convinced that the most effective is also the most criticized and demeaned by our idealogical enemies for a reason.
5. Yes, there are times when I wish Wayne had said something else or responded quicker, but as I've asked before; "if you think the NRA is handicapped by Wayne La Pierre, how do you think our enemies feel when they hear Joe Biden spew their side of the story?"
 
I like the recent videos with Natalia Foster. She does a good job and should appeal to the people in the middle. Probably will never get the low information people to think about the issue past what they hear on CBS/ABC/NBC/PBS.
 
Ohhhh, I don't think Wayne, or hardly anyone else, is a bad as Biden for public misstatements, but Joe presents publically on TV/Vid better than LaPierre and that "beauty pageant" aspect is important in today's world where appearance is even more important than substance.
 
And while I certainly agree that we have better speakers than LaPierre, have you heard the other side? They are literally horrible at public speaking and completely tone deaf when it comes to not upsetting their opponents more than they stir up their own base. Look at Heidi Yewman's recent piece de la ignorance for an example. She sits on the Board of the Brady campaign, even with writing and reasoning skills a high school teen could destroy.

Bloomberg is busy reading off the names of the Boston Bombers as "victims of gun violence" and signing the names of dead mayors to his propaganda.

Whatever room for improvement there may be at the NRA, we are extremely fortunate that there is nobody on the other side yet who is even 1/10 as competent as the NRA.
 
For those who think the NRA is weak and has lost its usefulness and voice I would direct you to look at what our enemy's say.

http://www.meetthenra.org/about

After reading through a few of the leadership profiles I am as proud as ever to be a Life Member.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top