Why so many anti-NRA?

[PRM]

Life Member ~ Nuff Said

 

[JohnKSa]

But, hey, it's right there in their name, right? National Rifle Association. So, at least they aren't lying about it. So, in reality, my complaints about the NRA are unfounded. They do look out for the rights of rifle owners. They are such a huge success because they are willing to compromise to obtain that "success."

Not this crap again.

The NRA was named in the late 1800s. Well over 100 years ago. When it was started it WAS centered on rifle marksmanship. Things have changed in the last 140 years but they have kept the same name. Not because they are still focused mainly on rifles or long guns but because everyone knows them by that name.

The NRA has been looking out for the rights of handgun and long gun owners for many decades now and it would definitely be accurate to say that the majority of their recent efforts and successes have been more focused on handguns than long guns.

 

[JTHunter]

It seems that one of the main problems people have with the NRA is that they seem to have a selective nature in what fights they try. There has also been some accusations about how they seem to try and grab the spotlight in cases where they weren't the primary legal team (McDonald vs. Chicago and the 2nd Amend. Found.) without providing substantiation in their publications.
Or maybe it is their unending requests for funds.

 

[fireside44]

The NRA will be there to capitulate to every major piece of anti gun legislation that stands a chance at getting passed. Eventually their compromises will bite us all in the backside in a way not seen since 1968.

If I wanted McGunrights, I'd send my money to the NRA. The 2nd speaks pretty clearly on the subject and it seems only anti gunners and NRA members are willing to see it differently than those versed in the Constitution.

 

[lloveless]

Fireside44,
You are sooo vague. Which side of the fence are you on? I hope you send your money to one or more of the many gun rights organizations. Other wise your rant is worthless.
ll

 

[GBExpat]

Whether or not you agree 100% with the NRA they are the largest organization out their and they fight everyday for our rights. ...

<nodding>

I just wish they would stop (seemingly) spending all of the money that I have sent them by mailing pounds of crap to me in an effort to get more money, y'know?

They have become almost as bad as AOL in the mid-'90s with those diskettes & CDs.

Perhaps if they offered an option that for an additional, say, $10 a year, you would be left off of their solicitation mailing list ... hmmm ...

 

[Sam1911]

Perhaps if they offered an option that for an additional, say, $10 a year, you would be left off of their solicitation mailing list ... hmmm ...

GOOD GRIEF! :banghead: How many times does it have to be said? You don't have to pay more, crawl, beg, plead, or sacrifice a goat. Just call, send an email, or even a letter and they'll remove you from their mailing list. You're still supporting the Association, still getting your magazine, but no more "junk" mail.

If anyone read stickies (ever ... once) I'd say this must become a sticky.

Opt Out
We also use your membership information to send you notices in the mail or by email about special member benefits, discounts, and offers. If you do not wish to receive these mailings, you can: (1) opt-out of email lists immediately by following the instructions at the bottom of the email, (2) email us using our Contact Us page, (3) call us at 1-800-672-3888, (4) write to us at National Rifle Association of America, 11250 Waples Mill Road; Fairfax, VA 22030.

From their privacy page right here: http://www.nra.org/privacy.aspx

 

[GBExpat]

How many times does it have to be said?

Only once for me ...

Thank you for for the info!

==============

Using a form-generated email from their Contact Us link I have just requested that they take me off of their mailing list.

 

[Sam1911]

Only once for me ...

Thank you for for the info!

Glad to spread the good word!

 

[MikeNice]

Then you are clearly not following the discussion. NRA News has covered every state that has offered concealed carry into establishments that sell alcohol for the past several years. I've heard many interviews with advocates for the laws on their program over the past few years. They're aired on both satellite radio networks, and you can listen (actually view) the nightly shows on line.

Satellite radio has such a small audience that it basicly is pointless. I have recieved three free month long previews in the last year. Their audience really is miniscule.

According to Journalism.org's state of the media 2008

Car radio audiences still favor the AM/FM dial (93%), but growing numbers are also using MP3 players (19%) and satellite radio (4%) while they drive

Do you really think that if the editor of a paper writes a commentary slamming the proposed law people are running to the NRA website to check their stance? No they are not. If you are being kicked in the teeth on a local level you have to have people countering the arguments in the same places.

Preaching to the choir on NRA's website does very little to really help.

 

[Sky]

We as gun owners and 2d amendment believers need all the help we can get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VokyDZYHUgQ

 

[Archie]

First off, I am an NRA Life Member. I support the NRA in various functions including monetary support and have a license plate bracket and cuff links I wear regularly.

However; They do things to which I object.

When I complained in writing regarding the multitude of mailers I got, they ignored me. I got the feeling if I wasn't sending money, they weren't reading anything. Probably weren't reading what I said if I did send money.

After two or three phone calls, one young man told me he could take me off the mailing list and in fact did. But it wasn't the first time I objected. Perhaps they've gotten better about things lately.

The biggest problems I have with the NRA is their inability to look at the big picture. For instance, the NRA has supported Senator Harry Reid (Rabid Leftist Democrat) of Nevada in the past because Sen Reid supported a shooting range in Nevada. In supporting Sen Reid, the NRA completely missed the fact that a Democrat controlled Congress is the most dangerous to gun ownership. The NRA also missed the fact that Sen Reid as part of the Leftist Democrat party is a major threat to the U. S. as a whole.

Also, has anyone noticed the NRA's stance on the "Disclose Act"? The Disclose Act, currently in Congress, would require any sort of 'lobbyist' group to list membership roles to the government and general public. This would include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizen's Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, the National Rifle Association, any State wide pro-gun group, any local pro-gun group and for that matter, any group of regular citizens who deal with political issues and legislation. So, churches, the Masonic Lodge, the Knights of Columbus - litterally any group who write letters to Congress in favor or opposition to any pending legislation would be forced to publish member roles.

The NRA opposed this law, UNTIL, the Democrat party offered the NRA an exemption. The NRA is now 'neutral' on the law. That's a bad bit of perspective.

I was also personally offended some years ago when I wrote a letter to the NRA directors, requesting a particular stand on a certain bit of legislation. I got responses, most polite and informing me of facts I did not have prior to my input. However, several simply ignored me, and one scolded me for questioning his superior knowledge and intellect. I've since forgotten (or supressed) his name, but I would probably recognize it; I found his tone and wording to be particularly offensive and arrogant.

So - while I am not anti NRA, I have some gripes with the way they do things. All in all, I still support the NRA.

For the record, I also contribute money to the CCRKBA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, the California Rifle and Pistol Assn, and will shortly be joining one or more local groups in Nebraska (I just moved here).

In closing, I understand why some folks are disenchanted with the NRA. There are reasons to be so. However, in full, I think the folks who write off the NRA are not aware of the fuller picture either.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

The NRA is great for keeping politicians in line. Without them the RTKBA would have died a death of a thousand cuts years ago. Politicians know that any votes to control bayo lugs or barrel shrouds will cost them votes - especially in semi-rural swing states like PA. I think everyone agrees with this.

There are two types of problems people have with the NRA - (1). The NRAs positions are not 100% aligned with that individuals. It's politics, I doubt that anyone's personal political beliefs are 100% aligned with the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians or whatever political party they consider themselves a member. This is a silly reason to not support an organization. (2). The second reason is that the NRA can be very heavy handed with other RTKBA groups. A great law review article could be written about the NRA's beefs with Alan Gura and their active attempts to hijack and derail Heller and McDonald. I personally believe this is a flaw of with the NRA, they should be coordinating with other like minded groups - not stabbing them in the back. The only way they are going to change is if the membership complains about it.

Nevertheless, the NRA's supervision of politicians is absolutely fundamental to the RTKBA and that alone is why every gun owner should support the NRA, even if it is with reservations.

 

[flbadger]

N r a

-
I don't get into or even know or understand the politiks of NRA -
all I know is they are the most effective and capable organization
protecing our gun rights. I support NRA Totally and completely ! !

 

[JohnBT]

"The 2nd speaks pretty clearly on the subject and it seems only anti gunners and NRA members are willing to see it differently than those versed in the Constitution."

BS.

 

[oldbanjo]

I support the NRA, I'm not a follower, so I vote for who I think is right for this Country. Anyone that fights for gun right's I support. I will never vote for anyone from Alaska or for anyone that supports them.

 

[jcwit]

I will never vote for anyone from Alaska or for anyone that supports them.

Why?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Without the NRA, only police, military, and criminals would have guns! Why is this so hard to understand?

To begin with, it isn't true. If the NRA hadn't been formed, some other group would have. In fact, the NRA isn't the only group out there!

Don't sell the American people short, either. We've been known to step up to the plate from time to time when needed.

If the NRA is getting bashed, look to those in the NRA leadership who are calling the shots.

It's election time boys---at least send them a dollar.
You may not like them but they have done a lot for us.................

THEY'VE done for US? You've got to remember who they WORK for and get PAID by!

The 'problem' with the NRA is, IMO, their eagerness to compromise. A necessity when dealing in politics, but it's not surprising some don't like it.

If it were just politics, yeah, fine. THIS IS ABOUT OUR RIGHTS! There is not compromising when it comes to inalienable rights.

THAT is how things get done! I spent 8 years as an elected official in city government and know that you either compromise or you learn to take accept defeat graciously.

When it comes to our rights, you NEVER accept defeat. You fight harder.

From what I understand, the NRA was quite powerful back in 1968. Where were they when congress passed the GCA? Yeah. They had their chance. If the NRA changes their tune and starts trying to repeal the GCA or NFA, I'll gladly plunk down cash for membership.

Right on, General! I'm a member using my membership trying to fix it from within. But try as I might, the NRA will never draw the loot they need to be truly successful until they do take on the big tasks. If the Board of Directors were to actually take that "single issue" they tout as their focus, money would flow in faster than they could count it, let alone spend it! I fear, however, with the crew we have at the top of the NRA right now, we'll never see it happen.

Tom Gresham is right. It's time for the members of the NRA to replace the leadership. A majority of those there now have either gone soft, lost their way, or have corrupted themselves. I can see no other apparent reason for the failures, ineptitude, cold feet and pretense of the Board.

Woody

 

[Shadow 7D]

Because they are a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

And some people don't like guns mixed in their politics (our left leaning people) and many others don't like politics mixed with their guns. Not saying they don't have a place, but much like prostitutes, they may be useful but not everybody is going to like it.

 

[fireside44]

BS.

Mighty strong argument.

I stand by my statement.

 

[Sam1911]

Mighty strong argument.

I stand by my statement.

Actually it was a false statement. You said:

...it seems only anti gunners and NRA members are willing to see it differently than those versed in the Constitution

That's wrong at least two different ways. First of all, many people who aren't necessarily "anti-gunners" don't read the 2nd Amendment literally. Maybe that MAKES them anti-gunners, in your opinion, but I'm not talking about motivated, active HCI, Brady Bunch, IANSA types. Just average folks who follow the "interpretation" and/or "living document" version of Constitutional thought.

Second, to say that NRA members are willing to accept a less-than-Constitutional reading of the 2nd, ... well that's just absurd. I'm an NRA member and -- like many members who've spoken up in this thread -- I believe in a STRONGER, more literal, LESS ABRIDGED version of the 2nd Amendment than what the Association is currently able to fight to support. Sure, I've met the (very) occasional NRA member who might seek compromise, but I've met a LOT more "gun owners" who weren't NRA members, never did squat to promote rights, and didn't care about the Constitution.

So it's just a bizarre and divisive thing to say. I don't think "BS" is too strong a statement.

 

[MinnMooney]

from O.P :

[For instance, on these gun boards, if the title of the thread has "NRA" in it , regardless of the subject, it wont be but 3 or 4 replies before the bashers will come crawling out of the woodwork.

Took longer than you expected but there it was in all of it's glory :

post #15 (General Geoff) :

don't like the NRA because they compromise too much. They do not represent my political views. They are not working to repeal the 1968 GCA or the 1934 NFA.

The NRA is not particularly pro-gun; they are very pro-status quo.

I may not agree 100% with the NRA but they, more than any other organization, protects our 2nd amendment rights.... & THAT's why I'm a member and support them.

 

[fireside44]

First of all, many people who aren't necessarily "anti-gunners" don't read the 2nd Amendment literally. Maybe that MAKES them anti-gunners, in your opinion, but I'm not talking about motivated, active HCI, Brady Bunch, IANSA types.

Yes, in my opinion that makes them anti gunners. Perhaps not active anti gunners, but misled enough to believe in "common sense" gun regulations or support those who craft that legislation.

I'm an NRA member and -- like many members who've spoken up in this thread -- I believe in a STRONGER, more literal, LESS ABRIDGED version of the 2nd Amendment than what the Association is currently able to fight to support.

Sure, you personally might believe in a more literal 2nd amendment, but your dollars go towards an outfit that hasn't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading.

Anyone who can sit there and look me in the face and say that the 68 GCA had some positive aspects or aspects he/she can agree with is an anti gunner in my book.

A quick show of hands as to who agrees felons shouldn't have firearms will prove my point. I recall a very heated thread on just that not so long ago.

Plenty here believe preventing felons from owning weapons is a good idea. They are anti gun rights and they don't even know it, yet somehow assume they are pro-Constitution and pro gun because they tossed the NRA a bone? I don't think so.

 

[BlkHawk73]

A week after joining they start the barrage of "give us money, give us money" mail on a weekly basis. Then the phone solicitations started. Then they built their huge fancy headquarters. Put that membership money towards more worthwhile causes and I'd reconsider. I know others feel the same.

 

[MikeNice]

Plenty here believe preventing felons from owning weapons is a good idea. They are anti gun rights and they don't even know it, yet somehow assume they are pro-Constitution and pro gun because they tossed the NRA a bone? I don't think so.

Do you think it should be fine to run in to a crowded theatre and yell fire? How about screaming bomb instead?