NRA to expand lobbying to other conservative causes

[Old krow]

None of this happened though because of "conservative values" and the NRA becoming more and more right wing.

That's only partially true. The truth is, the country is becoming more and more polarized. Everything is moving more and more toward one side or the other. The compass is spinning and there's no real way to tell "true north" these days.

As bipartisan as I possibly can, I will say this (or attempt to do so) without venturing too far into politics or partisanship as I can. You Libs are more than welcome to jump into the fight any time you're ready. Of course the NRA leans a little Right, that's because it's primarily made up of the Right atm. Change it. It's difficult at best to complain about the direction the NRA is going if you're not helping steer it.

 

[BaltimoreBoy]

Why would anyone assume that NRA would abandon a sound tactical doctrine that has served them well for decades, since old Harlon Carter was in the saddle, based on a single unreliable source?

 

[jahwarrior]

One more reason NOT to support the NRA.

 

[Nushif]

Remember. This isn't exactly confirmed. It's likely an overhyped sound-bite.

 

[jj1962hemi]

I think any left-of-political-center gun rights supporters are perfectly welcome in my NRA and in The NRA. The story's overblown. The truth is that, generally, pro-gun, pro-hunting, etc. is much more often a position held by people that are more conservative. Traditional, constitutional (more strictly so) values are the hallmark of conservatism which doesn't necessarily mean "Republican" as much as it means a preference toward measured change. The polarization of our times has coopted some of this, but the two parties have also embraced the competing sides of this issue. The only Democrats (besides the odd Harry Reid or Tom Daschle type) that embrace gun rights tend to be people like Heath Shuler or other "Blue Dogs" (which used to be moderative-to-conservative Democrats)...and they are viewed negatively within their party's central organization. Gerrymandering (by both parties) has exacerbated this polarization by allowing more extreme politicians to remain electable by both parties.

Don't get me wrong, my views are pretty conservative, but our issue (2A) has become my main issue because it speaks to many other values I hold dear. Generally, somebody that supports gun control/elimination is also a fan of bigger government, more government intervention in our lives, less self-determination, etc. I would love to see this one get de-coupled from party issues.

As for the NRA supporting ALEC, since there are only 4MM NRA members, and probably 20 times that in people that are pretty conservative but don't join up, it makes sense for the NRA to chase as much low hanging fruit as possible. Thankfully, we have also seen the beginnings of some nice outreach to the African American community (Otis MacDonald was great here) and some other growing constituencies should be on the NRA's radar. I imagine retirees, handicapped people, gay people,....I can see lots and lots of potential value in CC for people that historically wouldn't align with the average hunter.

We need to do more outreach, but I think the NRA should be "A Big Tent" and I have been supportive of that.

 

[browningguy]

I belong to the NRA only to support 2A issues.

I do not support "conservative" social issues so if they are moving that way I will unfortunately have to get out.

 

[jj1962hemi]

I think it would be worthwhile to read the monthly magazines, websites, etc. and judge for ourselves. The people at CNN have a view that is so far different from my own that they misunderstand these issues, and they have an agenda (IMO). I don't notice any issues, other than gun-related or pro-armed forces related ones in The American Rifleman.

 

[mortablunt]

I'm starting to rethink the NRA. I joined them to have my gun rights protected and expanded and NOTHING ELSE.

 

[we are not amused]

First of all, you have to consider the source. It was CNN, and just a ticker in the bottom of the screen. While CNN may not be as bad as NBC, MSNBC, or ABC, they are still an extreme Left-wing, agenda driven propaganda source.

I keep hearing from all the Left-wing pro-gun people on this site, about how you support gun rights, and I have to ask. Why is all the anti-gun legislation coming from the Left? Why don't you put a stop to it? Why is Sen. Harry Reid the only pro-gun National Democratic leader that I can name? I know that there are a lot of lesser known Democrats who support gun rights, but Harry Reid is the only one on the National stage. Why?

Perhaps the Liberals ought to do a little house cleaning. If they are unable to, perhaps they ought to rethink their position on why they support Progressive Liberals.

Since all we have is a bunch of Liberals claiming that the NRA is now actively promoting other causes beyond that of gun rights, I am going to put the rumor in the definite NRA bashing category.

If you don't support the NRA, then you don't support gun rights.

It is pretty much as simple as that. While they aren't the only pro gun organization around, they are the largest and most influential. If you don't belong to the NRA, just who do you support? The Brady bunch?

 

[JohnBT]

"Let's try to stick to the issue, and not devolve into an NRA-bashing thread"

Devolve? You post an unsubstantiated story and no facts and you're afraid the thread will devolve into bashing the NRA? Man, you started the bashing when you titled the thread. Sheesh.

Fwiw, I read a article on this in the paper the other day. It is almost entirely about the organizations sharing directors (as was mentioned earlier.)

John

P.S. - Can't find the newspaper story, but here's the CNN story. Mountain out of a molehill.

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-04-06/..._nra-officials-alec-gun-rights?_s=PM:POLITICS

 

[mortablunt]

I keep hearing from all the Left-wing pro-gun people on this site, about how you support gun rights, and I have to ask. Why is all the anti-gun legislation coming from the Left? Why don't you put a stop to it? Why is Sen. Harry Reid the only pro-gun National Democratic leader that I can name? I know that there are a lot of lesser known Democrats who support gun rights, but Harry Reid is the only one on the National stage. Why?

What about all the antigun stuff from Romney (The guy who approve a permanent AWB in Massachusetts saying that it was a good thing, and approved other antigun bills), your heir apparent to the presidential nomination? About Reid, it's difficult to become a famous prominent Democrat if you differ so strongly from Party doctrine. My VA Senators are Democrats Mark Warner and Jim Webb. They're both definitely pro gun and have records of voting in favor of guns rights.

P.S.: Let's not devolve this into partisan hackery or the thread will have to be closed.

 

[Scimmia]

Read the article before getting pissed off. This "headline" is purely speculation based on the fact that one lobbyist that works with the NRA has also lobbied for other causes. Nothing else. Inventing a conspiracy where none exists.

 

[youngda9]

I've seen no links or supporting info on this. NOthing credible. Amazed at all of the people passing judgement without the facts.

I've got some swampland in FL if anyone's interested We are a gullible bunch, so sad.

 

[ChuteTheMall]

I don't believe in pro-gun Democrats anyway; they are wolves in sheep's clothing using some token pro-gun votes to fool their constituents at re-election time while still supporting in all other ways the anti-gun liberals who own the Democrat party.

Al Gore Jr started his career as one of those mythical pro-gun Democrats, until he came out of the closet.

Gotta defeat any anti-gun republicans in the primaries.:banghead:

 

[alsaqr]

I think it would be worthwhile to read the monthly magazines, websites, etc. and judge for ourselves.

[/QUOTE]

i read my NRA magazine faithfully every month and stay abreast of real threats to our Second Amendment rights. The NRA became involved in "conservative" causes outside its charter when NRA president David Keene came aboard. Keene is a long time political operative who began his career in politics with vice president Spiro Agnew. From 1984-2011 Keene was president of the American Conservative Union.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/keene.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Keene

i have espoused real conservatism for over 50 years. i don't need Keene and the NRA to educate me in the gaggle of feel good stuff they call "conservatism". The NRA will rue the day they got involved in political issues outside of gun advocacy.

 

[we are not amused]

Yawn!

This has just turned into a NRA bash!

 

[SARDiver]

HEY! Looks like CNN was going for exactly the kind of reaction they got from left-of-center gun owners.

Well done!

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

If this were true, it would not be a step forward.

That said, I have detected a recent trend in which certain people on the political left have been targeting the NRA leadership. It's true (and not unexpected) that the NRA leadership trends rightward. That, by itself, does not disqualify any good work that they do to defend the right to keep and bear arms. But this website recently hit my Google 'radar', and ever since I noticed it, I noticed an increase in the number of articles of the sort mentioned in the original post: http://www.meetthenra.org/

 

[JohnBT]

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/keene.html

That's a link to a 2004 article. And wikipedia? PBS and wikipedia. That's not what I call staying abreast.

You aren't the only one with 50+ years invested.

 

[jj1962hemi]

Interesting how the "Meet the NRA" people don't talk about where their support comes from. What a bunch of ridiculous slander.

 

[alsaqr]

That's not what I call staying abreast.

Sorry its not more to your liking: wnd or examiner.com; that is. David A. Keene:

http://www.conservative.org/about-acu/board-of-directorsstaff/david-a-keene/

 

[valnar]

If there are so many Pro 2A liberals, why are only the most blue states anti 2A? The NRA is only one outlet. If the pro-gun liberals truly wanted to make a difference, get working on California, Illinois and D.C. The Republicans have no chance to change those places - we lack representation.

 

[mrvco]

Such a move would be a big mistake.

Whatever good and wholesome "American" meaning that "conservative values" had has been hopelessly co-opted by the neocons and the religious right.

 

[jj1962hemi]

I don't get the point about people like David Keene or Tara Mica. If you work for a special interest organization and you're effective, you may move to another one. These people are good at building support, so they get hired. Plenty of lobbyists work for one group after another. David Keene may be a huge conservative, but the NRA is fairly mainstream....except for its views on gun rights. It makes sense that a higher % of conservatives would be involved with and targeted by the NRA. If the people in the ACLU could be "turned" toward supporting gun rights, the NRA would go after them too. The NRA should use the most effective means possible to expand membership and get the message out. I've never read about pro-life or traditional marriage issues in any of my NRA magazines. If you don't like the NRA, fine. But don't attribute behaviors to them inaccurately.

 

[buckeye8]

Firstly, I seriously doubt this is true. Sounds like media distortion. The NRA has, for years, touted the fact that they are a 'single-issue' organization. To move away from this ideal would be a monumental reversal of philosophy, and one that would make little sense for an already growing and successful organization.

The NRA knows where its bread is buttered. The solidarity that comes with being a single-issue organization would be permanently and irreversibly shattered if they adopted any cause that was not directly related to the Second Amendment. People trust that their NRA donations are an investment which will protect and expand their gun rights. Messing with that trust would be a very, very dangerous step for the NRA.

Wayne LaPierre and company are many things, but they are almost certainly not stupid enough to take the organization in such a direction as described by the OP.