Saying NRA isn't imaginative, splinter groups seek more aggressive tactic.

[usmarine0352_2005]

.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/19/gun-rights-advocates-open-new/


Gun-Rights Advocates Open a New Front

Updated April 19, 2010

The Wall Street Journal

Saying NRA isn't imaginative, splinter groups seek more aggressive tactic.


Some gun owners, saying that the National Rifle Association isn't battling hard enough for their rights, are taking the fight into their own hands.

The 4.3 million-member NRA, one of the most powerful and well-funded lobbying groups in Washington, has for 35 years dominated the push to expand gun rights.

But its strategies aren't aggressive or imaginative enough for some gun owners who want to openly carry holstered pistols in public places, or to exploit loopholes in state gun laws to purchase semi-automatic rifles.

They are coming together in smaller, loosely organized groups that recruit on the Internet and find inspiration from the tea party movement.

On Monday, several thousand gun owners plan to mount two protests—a march in Washington and an "open-carry" rally in Mount Vernon, Va.

"More and more the gun-rights movement is moving toward a stand-up-and-shout approach," said Jeff Knox, director of the Firearms Coalition, a for-profit, loose-knit coalition of activists. "There's a lot of general frustration with NRA not taking a hard enough line."

Data on how many owners are joining the splinter groups are scant, because many are newly organized, and tend to seek contributions over formal memberships. In addition, some gun owners join more than one group. Mr. Knox estimated that the splinter groups had one million to 1.5 million members or regular contributors.

The NRA is "no longer absolutely the 800-pound gorilla" in the pro-gun movement, said Gary Marbut, a life member of the NRA and president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, an NRA affiliate. "The NRA is running the risk of becoming insignificant, of fading into the background."
.

 

[JohnBT]

"The NRA is running the risk of becoming insignificant, of fading into the background."


Really? Do tell.

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks can't contribute something to a cause without tearing something, or somebody, else down while they do it.

John

 

[cavman]

or to exploit loopholes in state gun laws to purchase semi-automatic rifles.

the horror!

 

[Zack]

or to exploit loopholes in state gun laws to purchase semi-automatic rifles.

do tell..........?

Is the loophole buying a ruger mini 14?
Is the loophole buying a saiga and converting it with pistol grip?
Is the loophole allowing someone to buy a gun legaly? and liberals just hate guns? lol

 

[Manco]

or to exploit loopholes in state gun laws to purchase semi-automatic rifles.

Loopholes in the letter of the law that circumvent the true spirit of the law: that no subject under the elite ruling class may own any semi-automatic weapon at all. Obviously such laws are meant to close another "loophole" known as the Second Amendment.

 

[alsaqr]

Really? Do tell.

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks can't contribute something to a cause without tearing something, or somebody, else down while they do it.

+1

Yep, we have a dozen or so pro-gun wannabee bunches out there that can only whine: Sad that they rail and whine about the NRA.

 

[MisterMike]

I've got some quibbles with the NRA, but no organization representing millions of people will ever match any one person's agenda exactly.

There is some benefit to having a smaller, more aggressive group of gun rights advocates out there--this kind of competition keeps the NRA dedicated to pushing the gun rights agenda aggressively, rather than compromising unnecessarily.

 

[alsaqr]

Really? Do tell.

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks can't contribute something to a cause without tearing something, or somebody, else down while they do it.

+1

Yep, we have a dozen or so pro-gun wannabee bunches out there that can only whine: Sad that they whine about the NRA.

 

[Zack]

Loopholes in the letter of the law that circumvent the true spirit of the law: that no subject under the elite ruling class may own any semi-automatic weapon at all. Obviously such laws are meant to close another "loophole" known as the Second Amendment.

My first rifle was a semi auto .22

No gun should be limited from the 2nd but full autos with class 3, I see no reason to with hold semi auto rifles/pistols from anyone under 21. Thats a loophole it self... You can buy a big rifle at 18 but not a pistol? loophole IMO

 

[shockwave]

I don't see any positive developments resulting from today's rallies. In fact, they could be counterproductive. Firearm ownership should, I contend, be a calm, rational choice of conduct and not a loud, "in your face" kind of thing.

 

[wishin]

"The NRA is running the risk of becoming insignificant, of fading into the background."


Really? Do tell.

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks can't contribute something to a cause without tearing something, or somebody, else down while they do it.

John

+1

Well said...

 

[MagnumDweeb]

I'm a member of the NRA and will always be. But if there was a strong and good Florida state group focused on Florida firearm rights like Open Carry I would join them as well and work with them as well so long as they were made up of rational, intelligent, law abiding folks. People are feeling the momentum and don't have the patience the NRA does, some folks remember the pre-Heston days when the NRA sat on its duft and lost major ground. Others just have that "I want it now" mentality which is not so bad given we are discussing constituionally guaranteed rights that have been hijacked, molested, and warped by the anti crowd since the 1930s. Having the stalwart slow and easy crowd that's polite that'll slowly win over the center and fence sitters, and the crowd that won't stand for excuses from the cowards, fools, and antis, that'll stand up and refuse to be quilted or quieted by idiotic and illegitimate rantings and false statistics given by folks like the Bradys, is also good too.

The more that stand up, the greater the reality is that antis are a small, worthless, fit only to be ostracized number of cowards, fools, and what have you.

 

[Phatty]

I've got some quibbles with the NRA, but no organization representing millions of people will ever match any one person's agenda exactly.

This is right on point. The NRA can't please everyone. If they pushed really hard to overturn a machine gun ban, for example, I'm certain they would anger a large number of members who don't believe machine guns should be legal. Not all members of the NRA are hyper-gun-rights advocates. In fact, I guarantee you there are a lot of members who are pro gun control to a certain extent.

As a large organization, the NRA has to balance a line, and I think it does a good job doing that. I have no problem with other organizations forming with a more focused purpose, but I don't really consider those organizations to be competitors of the NRA. It's actually really common for a person to be a member of a large, broad based organization and also a member of a smaller, more focused organization.

 

[CajunBass]

It never ceases to amaze me how some folks can't contribute something to a cause without tearing something, or somebody, else down while they do it.

John

Well said John. +1

 

[hanno]

This is right on point. The NRA can't please everyone. If they pushed really hard to overturn a machine gun ban, for example, I'm certain they would anger a large number of members who don't believe machine guns should be legal. Not all members of the NRA are hyper-gun-rights advocates. In fact, I guarantee you there are a lot of members who are pro gun control to a certain extent.

As a large organization, the NRA has to balance a line, and I think it does a good job doing that. I have no problem with other organizations forming with a more focused purpose, but I don't really consider those organizations to be competitors of the NRA. It's actually really common for a person to be a member of a large, broad based organization and also a member of a smaller, more focused organization.

Agreed.
+1

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

and lets not overlook these new "for profit" groups. maybe they saw what a nice biz goa was and want a slice of the pie

 

[mnrivrat]

But its strategies aren't aggressive or imaginative enough for some gun owners who want to openly carry holstered pistols in public places, or to exploit loopholes in state gun laws to purchase semi-automatic rifles.

Wall Street Journals way of trying to scare the public and make the groups look extreme. I would bet a weeks pay that they meant to imply full-auto rifles, but as usual do not understand the difference.

The NRA is not going away anytime soon, and the anti's would like to minumize the NRA's effect, and maximize media coverage of what they consider the more radical eliments . It's easier for them to make the smaller groups look more scary.

The smaller groups who play against the NRA to try to get memberships are not always serving the cause well . They would do more good if they simply pointed out why one should join them, and the NRA , rather than trying to drive a wedge between them, and to take members away rather than to share them. IMHO

 

[Salty1]

The main problem I see with these so called small splinter groups is that the Liberal Press will demonize them and have video that will portray guns owners as radical anti-establishment types. All it takes is one person at a "rally" to speak withpout thinking and those on the fence about gun rights could lean the other way.

Although I do not always agree with the NRA I will remain a member knowing that what they do is very important for us and all their positions are well thought out and planned to give us the best shot at success. I truly feel they accomplish what they can, one legislative vote at a time. This fight is one small step at a time and I truly appreciate what they are doing for all of us.

 

[armoredman]

Some smaller local groups are very well organized and very effective, case in point, Arizona Citizens Defense League, the outfit that spearheaded many of the god gun law changes in AZ, including the Constitutional Carry, which they don't recieve enough credit for, since the NRA decided to step in at the end.
the NRA does a great job, and I have no issues, but some of the smaller outfits doing things locally are winning great battles.

 

[Fremmer]

I wish them the best of luck.

I'll stick with the NRA. To each his own.

 

[Ronsch]

No such thing as a loophole.

 

[Sam1911]

I think these groups, taken as a whole, are a very good thing. Just like GOA, JFPO, etc, it is important to have a set of small bulldogs nipping at the heels of the big, old, much more powerful dog to keep it fighting in the right direction.

Further these give the more extreme or rational of us a place to go to get BETTER representation of our views than what the NRA is willing to push (or can afford to push without ostracizing it's more "mainstream" membership).

It is NEVER a bad thing for your huge, powerful, effective political lobbying arm to have a foil out to it's "right" flank that makes it's views look "centrist." If the NRA was the most extreme organization out there, it would be a lot easier to dismiss the NRA as the 'fringe."

Are these guys tearing down or denigrating the NRA? I don't think so, for the most part. Aside from a few overreaching statements, most of them just have to explain WHY someone should support them when the NRA is so present and active. They HAVE to explain the differences in approach and/or opinion, and why they thing their way is better. Anytime you say, "my way is better," you're suggesting that the other guy's way is worse. Hard to avoid an adversarial appearance, even if it isn't really there. After all, most of them say up front that they are, themselves, NRA members!

 

[HGUNHNTR]

^ Agreed, the stand up and shout method makes gun owners look like a bunch of uneducated, government hating loons. That is definitley not helping the cause I believe in.

 

[Sam1911]

Agreed, the stand up and shout method makes gun owners look like a bunch of uneducated, government hating loons. That is definitley not helping the cause I believe in.

That certainly may be. However, we all (hopefully) have a point at which we will stand up and shout about our rights. (You know, while we can still do so, and hopefully before we have to start shooting for them.)

Some of these folks have reached their "shouting" point already. And you haven't. Yet.

That's o.k. That moment won't come for every one of us at the same time.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

I think these groups, taken as a whole, are a very good thing. Just like GOA, JFPO, etc, it is important to have a set of small bulldogs nipping at the heels of the big, old, much more powerful dog to keep it fighting in the right direction.

Further these give the more extreme or rational of us a place to go to get BETTER representation of our views than what the NRA is willing to push (or can afford to push without ostracizing it's more "mainstream" membership).

It is NEVER a bad thing for your huge, powerful, effective political lobbying arm to have a foil out to it's "right" flank that makes it's views look "centrist." If the NRA was the most extreme organization out there, it would be a lot easier to dismiss the NRA as the 'fringe."

Are these guys tearing down or denigrating the NRA? I don't think so, for the most part. Aside from a few overreaching statements, most of them just have to explain WHY someone should support them when the NRA is so present and active. They HAVE to explain the differences in approach and/or opinion, and why they thing their way is better. Anytime you say, "my way is better," you're suggesting that the other guy's way is worse. Hard to avoid an adversarial appearance, even if it isn't really there. After all, most of them say up front that they are, themselves, NRA members!

True