Why so many anti-NRA?

[fireside44]

O.k. So they're gaining -- a little -- steam, NOW. Where were they in 1968, 1986, 1994, etc. What good did they do? It's easy to criticize the NRA for decades of hard and productive work when the organizations you'd rather support were non-existent, or were, and largely still are, wholly ineffective.

Wait, now you admit "they are gaining a little steam" but then go on to say they are "wholly ineffective"? More gun owners the better. More gun rights organizations the better. More members the better. More constitutional reading the better. I don't know how you manage to view this as bad.

Yes, now that the goals seem MUCH closer, there's growing talk about strict Constitutionalist interpretations and "No Compromise."

Some of us have always been of that viewpoint or came to to the conclusion after we read the 2nd. I'd say we are the fastest growing minority among gun owners. The profile of groups less willing to compromise, such as GOA and Jews for preservation of firearms ownership, is rising whether you think it's a good thing or not.

And there is ALWAYS dissention in the ranks of such a huge organization.

That's the great thing about the no compromise movement, there is very little dissension if any coming from within.

Yup. The BATFE still needs reforms, and some of their rules should be revised or done-away with. But if you look at what the ATF did to dealers before FOPA'86, things have been a lot better since then.

No disagreement on reforming or disbanding the ATF. As for it being better for dealers nowadays than before 86, I would disagree. Same if not worse. If it was easier now to sell guns and deal with the ATF there would be more FFL holders. The fact is there are far fewer FFLs now than in 1985-1986.

Standing on a tree stump hollering that you WON'T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS, hasn't moved us and won't move us another inch.

Whether you like it or not, the no compromise movement will play an important part of the future of the gun rights movement. If we don't have a group defending a literal 2nd amendment reading we have lost our footing as gun owners and wind up with a bunch of ducks unlimited black rifle haters dividing and conquering from within.

How, exactly do you draw a "line in the sand" in a political struggle over rights? Explain to me what this means in literal, exact terms?

Ask a Canadian who didn't register his weapons in accordance with current Canadian law.

Seriously, what is this vauted "LINE IN THE SAND" so many talk about?

Something the British, the Australians, law abiding Canadians, and most every country that once had some form of gun "rights" didn't bother to lay out. They were more worried about compromising just to hang on to what they had. Look where it got them.

And what happens when the other side gleefully steps right over it and says, "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

The same thing that happens when they step over the NRA and say "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

Do you think the NRA is impervious to that kind of thing simply because they are more willing to compromise? It's pretty clear our friends in Washington and at the UN won't mind your compromises because if they have their way, there won't be anything to compromise anyhow. I must say I feel the same way as they do. No compromise.

 

[Sam1911]

Wait, now you admit "they are gaining a little steam" but then go on to say they are "wholly ineffective"? More gun owners the better. More gun rights organizations the better. More members the better. More constitutional reading the better. I don't know how you manage to view this as bad.

I don't view it as bad, at all! I view the bitter complaining about what the NRA has done over the decades as bad. Very bad.

More gun owners is awesome! More gun rights groups is terrific! These same groups harpooning the NRA as destructive element of compromise is just despicable.

Some of us have always been of that viewpoint or came to to the conclusion after we read the 2nd.

Yes. In fact a great MANY of us! Me and the leadership of the NRA included! That's what is so wrong-headed about these attacks from other gun-groups! They're claiming that those who've accomplished something in the last four decades must not be "true beleivers" simply because they knew how to, and did, work with the political system to make slow changes in the right direction -- instead of crying on the sidelines as society ignored them.

The profile of groups less willing to compromise, such as GOA and Jews for preservation of firearms ownership, is rising whether you think it's a good thing or not.

I believe it's a GREAT thing. In fact, I even think it's positive to have them out there on the flank pushing the NRA away from "centrist" viewpoints. Like I said before, the NRA also gets a lot of pressure from within to NOT be so hard-line. Glad to have those groups out there showing the NRA how much support there really is for a strong Constutionalist RKBA movement.

But the picking and whining about what awful things the NRA has done are just stupid and decitful. Cheap ways to improve their own image by denigrating the success of the more successful organization.

That's the great thing about the no compromise movement, there is very little dissension if any coming from within.

Yup. That's the great thing about them. As I said, their contribution can be valuable -- mostly as a prod to keep the big dog moving in the right direction.

Whether you like it or not

Let's stop with this right now. I LOVE it when ANYONE promotes or improves our RKBA. That's not the same as having some understanding of the role politics plays in how those improvements really happen.

the no compromise movement will play an important part of the future of the gun rights movement. If we don't have a group defending a literal 2nd amendment reading we have lost our footing as gun owners and wind up with a bunch of ducks unlimited black rifle haters dividing and conquering from within.

Oh, agreed. (See my last few paragraphs.) But that's not the same thing as saying that these groups could have, are, or will ever be able to "draw a line in the sand" and dictate terms to the law-making bodies in this nation!

It's also a long way from saying that the NRA has capitulated and compromised our rights away and we'd have been in great shape if just had yelled "No Compromise" while shaking our fists!

Ask a Canadian who didn't register his weapons in accordance with current Canadian law.

Oh. THAT's your "line in the sand?" Oh yaay. Yes, we've tried a bit of that here with folks not registering their MGs and SBSs. They get the great choice of never using their guns 'cause they've got to keep them hidden away -- or enjoying 10 years and $250,000 in fines for NFA violations. Or folks illegally carrying defensive handguns when their local laws don't permit it. That's not really "drawing a line in the sand." That's surruptitiously (though righteously, IMHO) breaking the law and praying never to get caught. That doesn't count as activism.

There really haven't been the massive round-ups and registrations here that could have spurred a mass civil-disobedience movement.

So, again, what "L.I.T.S." are you saying we should draw? Not registering our guns? Yeah...I couldn't if I WANTED to! So what, then?

Seriously, what is this vauted "LINE IN THE SAND" so many talk about?

Something the British, the Australians, law abiding Canadians, and most every country that once had some form of gun "rights" didn't bother to lay out. They were more worried about compromising just to hang on to what they had. Look where it got them.

Oh. So if they'd have REFUSED to compromise then they could have kept their guns? Go tell them that. Go tell them how "willing" they were to "compromise" on having their guns confiscated and distroyed. Their responses will likely be unpleasant. I'd wear a cup if I were you...

And what happens when the other side gleefully steps right over it and says, "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

The same thing that happens when they step over the NRA and say "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

But they usually DON'T. They usually talk things out and come up with compromises -- compromises that mean they don't get everything they wanted, either. (Like a ban on assault weapons that has a sunset clause, for instance, and just dies with a whimper in 2004?)

Do you think the NRA is impervious to that kind of thing simply because they are more willing to compromise?

Well, it has been working pretty well of late! We live in the best RKBA environment that has existed in my life time. Something is working. The "anti's" seem to think it's all the NRA's fault. Somehow I believe them.

 

[fireside44]

I view the bitter complaining about what the NRA has done over the decades as bad. Very bad.

Most people who are gun owners and not NRA members will still agree with this. But the thread was a question about why so many are anti NRA, and so you are bound to get some repeated complaints.

Like I said before, the NRA also gets a lot of pressure from within to NOT be so hard-line. Glad to have those groups out there showing the NRA how much support there really is for a strong Constutionalist RKBA movement.

Indeed. I think more groups is better than a single one in some ways because it keeps the other groups more honest.

That's not really "drawing a line in the sand." That's surruptitiously (though righteously, IMHO) breaking the law and praying never to get caught. That doesn't count as activism.

If one or two people do it, it's a crime, if a million or two do it, it's activism.

So, again, what "L.I.T.S." are you saying we should draw?

Conceding any more losses of gun rights.

Oh. So if they'd have REFUSED to compromise then they could have kept their guns?

If you refuse to turn in your guns you will still keep your guns, yes, unless authorities or criminals steal them from you.

Go tell them how "willing" they were to "compromise" on having their guns confiscated and distroyed. Their responses will likely be unpleasant.

Willing enough to hand them all over. I'm sure there are a more than a few hardy souls who hid their stash hoping for better times. I would choose to cast them in a more positive light than those who voluntarily cooperated with unjust laws. To turn them over was to enable the law in that regards.

There really haven't been the massive round-ups and registrations here that could have spurred a mass civil-disobedience movement.

I suspect the potential for chaos resulting from such a law prevents them from playing their version of "no compromise" when it comes to gun control. I feel that the no compromise mindset that runs through much of US gun culture has much to do with that. Even Heston had his cold dead hands speech.

We live in the best RKBA environment that has existed in my life time.

True. But in my grandfather's lifetime I could mail order a select fire weapon to my doorstep and purchase sticks of dynamite at the hardware store. We have a long way to go my friend.

 

[daorhgih]

A Libertarian's 2d amendment (TIC)

"A well regulated population being necessary to the security of the liberty of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, pot-plants, recreational drug manufacturing facilities, and personally-owned abortion-paraphernalia shall not be infringed." BTW, I was Tea Party when it meant dressing as Indians in war-paint, and boarding the Kings ships in Boston harbor. When it comes right down to it, we should not need any group of $2000-suits pleading our case. IF -- I repeat IF -- we had all been doing our homework, and passing each test, there would not be any need for NRA-like organizations to front and fend for us. Maybe every State would have its own Org., and have regular meetings of all 50. We KNOW we have the numbers, sans any alphabet organization. But we got lazy and took 2A for granted. When it comes to defending the 2A, by force when necessary, our mantra should be, "I am Spartacus." And live, or die, or kill to defend The Constitution, as our forebears did. D.A.O.

 

[Sam1911]

We have a long way to go my friend.

Well we have no argument there! Hopefully some combination of savvy political animals and lots of strong (no-compromise!) support behind them will make it happen.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is always the Second Amendment, too, don't forget. It says something about not infringing upon the right. So, tell me: When does it make anyone who simply wishes to abide the supreme law of the land into a demean-able and defile-able person for taking a no compromise stand? Me thinks the righteous defamation belongs on the purveyors of compromise. ANY compromise allowing infringements of any degree upon the right to keep and bear arms is a loss for the people and a win for the anti-gun-rights cabal. So, let us no longer call "striking a deal" with the anti-gun-rights crowd a compromise. IT'S AN INFRINGEMENT. IT'S A LOSS FOR WE THE PEOPLE AND A WIN FOR THE INFRINGERS. IT'S A THROAT-SLITTING STROKE ACROSS THE CONSTITUTION.

The NRA, for all its bluster - some of it grossly, falsely ascribed to itself - has never taken a no compromise stand. It claims it has a single issue platform, but that platform is nothing close to being flat. It appears to me to be more of a job security plan than a full blown take-no-prisoners battle to get government off our RKBA.

I'm doing my best to discover how each board member votes so that the compromisers and those willing to sacrifice some portion of the exercise of our RKBA in the name of comity and "good will" can be exposed, removed and replaced by us at election time with true supporters of our RKBA. It is the stated goal of the NRA to protect our RKBA and it is up to us to hold their feet to the fire. We need to assure that those feet belong to supporters of the RKBA.

Woody

 

[daorhgih]

Here's a new thought:

IMHO: Audit the NRA for the past 5 years. Apply penalties where needed. Cut dues in half (refund Life Members their proper due), and cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms, and then open the election of all offices to terms of two years; Wayne LaP. to NEVER hold office or acquire any benefits again. New elections to be held in 2011, and bi-annually thereafter. Absolutely restrict NRA from endorsing or not endorsing any political office. We do not need to be told for whom we should vote. Opinions please?

 

[jimmyraythomason]

Here's a new thought:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO: Audit the NRA for the past 5 years. Apply penalties where needed. Cut dues in half (refund Life Members their proper due), and cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms, and then open the election of all offices to terms of two years; Wayne LaP. to NEVER hold office or acquire any benefits again. New elections to be held in 2011, and bi-annually thereafter. Absolutely restrict NRA from endorsing or not endorsing any political office. We do not need to be told for whom we should vote. Opinions please?

What I think of that ain't fit to print!

 

[Old krow]

IMHO: Audit the NRA for the past 5 years. Apply penalties where needed. Cut dues in half (refund Life Members their proper due), and cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms, and then open the election of all offices to terms of two years; Wayne LaP.

How about, leave the dues where there at? I have no problems paying at all if they serve their intended purpose. Leave the salaries alone, because they need competitive lawyers that are on par with the ones opposing us. Fine, audit them. Ensure that our money is doing what we want. And to save money, quit sending me stuff in the mail, use that money to fight for our cause? I'll even buy my own hat! Next, NRA members voice their opinions to the NRA. They would not exist without us and they know it.

Essentially they're just doing homework for us and endorsing the candidates that would suit this agenda the best, if you would call it an agenda. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but I am glad that someone is doing their homework.

I'll again say this, mostly because I believe it. The NRA should NOT be our Maginot Line. They serve their purpose, to keep the politicians at bay. There are other groups out there that are worthy of our support as well. WE as gun owner's and supporters of T2A have a responsibility as well.

IF -- I repeat IF -- we had all been doing our homework, and passing each test, there would not be any need for NRA-like organizations to front and fend for us.

I agree 100%, but that is not the case. That is not the battle we face. We have multiple opponents and we have a line in the sand, it's The Bill of Rights. W

Would we even be having these conversations if +50% of the registered voters owned firearms?

 

[jcwit]

I wish people were this passionate when it came to national elections and voting.

 

[jcwit]

It's my understanding all the fund raising mailings we get from the "NRA" cost them nothing. All the cost is funded by the companies doing the mailings and the NRA gets a portion of the money raised.

Whether this is a fact or not I do not know but it sure makes sense.

 

[jcwit]

cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms

Yup, thats a sure way to get and keep quality people and leadership. Where did you study management at?

 

[Old krow]

It's my understanding all the fund raising mailings we get from the "NRA" cost them nothing. All the cost is funded by the companies doing the mailings and the NRA gets a portion of the money raised.

That could be the case, I couldn't tell you for sure. But, I do think that they should spend less time trying to convince me the Second Amendment is under attack and maybe a little more elsewhere is all. No matter who is eating the costs it still cost somebody something. Maybe expand their TV and radio commercial to raise public awareness?

Maybe take a portion of that money that could be saved to hold more local functions? It really is more of a grass roots issue. Maybe they (we) could hold a "take gun grabber to the range day" or something.

 

[Snakum]

My issues with the NRA are ...

* the large salaries paid to upper management staff and overall admin expenses that could be put to to better use
* the truckloads of mail I get, spending money that could be put to to better use
* sending me stuff I never ordered (and never received) then sending me nasty-grams about paying for it, thus spending money that could be put to to better use
* allowing The American Rifleman to be used as one large gun manufacturers ad campaign with no honest reviews of equipment (the NRA should be above that crap)

But all in all, they are the folks who are in the best position to defend our rights as gun owners. They know Washington. They can get things done. If any other organization came close to accomplishing what the NRA has I'd change. But no one has, so far. So I'll send them money every year even if I don't like how they do business nowadays. Every gun owner should send them money. We might not like everything about how they do business, but they're the best thing going and should be supported.

 

[jcwit]

No matter who is eating the costs it still cost somebody something.

Well at least someone is providing more jobs in the printing industry, thats a good thing. I could elaborate more on this but then it gets political.

 

[leVieux]

Let me try to answer this. I am a long time NRA & TSRA Life member, NRA-ILA donor, FoNRA committeeman, etc.

After the Neal Knox mutiny, Wayne LaPierre took absolute control of the NRA by changing the bylaws, rigging a ponderously large board of directors, and controlling the nominating committee.

Wayne has had absolute power for a couple decades now and has become a dilettante
"rock star" of civil rights in his own mind. There is no longer any "democracy" in the NRA. It is all about Wayne.

The ILA needs to stay out of LOCAL elections. James J. Baker is a LaPierre marionette.

Wayne needs to go. He has been poisoned by the DC "Beltway" power atmosphere, just like the politicians. Wayne recently had the ILA send out a notice about how the NRA had to support Reid, without naming him. This started a torrent of member and donation defections to the GOA. Then, Wayne & Baker reversed on Reid.

Therefore, lots of folks like me will not send them any more money,

The NRA needs an airing-out and a big dose of transparency. LaPierre has got to go.
We still donate and support our "side", just not through NRA. The problem is Wayne, not the NRA itself. The only way to get rid of Wayne now is to starve him out.

So, it is not the NRA that we are against; it is the dictatorship of Wayne LaPierre.

leVieux

 

[radar721]

With or without the NRA no one is going to take away my guns. Did an organization like the NRA exist before the american revolution? NO! The colonists weapons were not taken away. The reason why is they were willing to take a stand and fight and die for what they believed and not let some organization "protect their rights". If our representatives would vote their constituency then we would not be discussing this. Lobbyists no matter who pays them are a slap in the face of the American voters. I should have more influence with my congressman than any person not in their district. Thus the foundation of a republic. I say if your elected officials do not vote as you wish then vote them out. It is high time that we take a stand and defend the constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. I took an oath many years ago. I meant it then and I mean it now. I have been a member of the NRA but not now due to my opinion on all lobbyists.

 

[jcwit]

With or without the NRA no one is going to take away my guns.

This begining statement will not hold water. Hasn't worked in any country yet where bans were imposed. The opposing side has much greater firepower.

I Pray it never ever comes to this.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It's my understanding all the fund raising mailings we get from the "NRA" cost them nothing. All the cost is funded by the companies doing the mailings and the NRA gets a portion of the money raised.

If this is true, refuse to send in any "donations" in response to these mailings. Take what you would normally send in and send it directly to the NRA. That way, you're not supporting a letter writing boiler room, and the NRA will receive 100% of what you send in.

If this is the case - with an outside interest doing the mailings - it might be interesting to find out who they are and who has an interest in that mailing business. It might uncover a plethora of dirt and explain much of the goofy goings-on.

There is always an air of urgency and doom and gloom in those mailings and a curious lack of action on the part of the Board's agenda to address those doom and gloom issues. It would seem to me if all the goings-on were above board and made some sense there would be little question and much less doubt about the actions of the Board. There has been too many nonsensical actions of late, and it has tripped too many members' BS alarms for this stuff to be ignored. You have to ask yourself: Why all of a sudden?

Woody

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

This begining statement will not hold water. Hasn't worked in any country yet where bans were imposed. The opposing side has much greater firepower.

And what makes you think that a .223 or a 7.62 round will kill an enemy of the people any less dead than a 20mm round or an RPG fired upon us by that better armed government would kill any one of us? What makes you think we in this country have no more will to be free than those oppressed people in those other countries who surrendered their arms? As for myself, I'd rather die defending my freedom than to live in tyranny. Lately, the NRA hasn't done much to comfort me.

If the NRA truly cared, it would have been defending our rights from day one and we'd be just as well armed as any soldier or sailor in our armed forces. It appears we've relied upon people who do not have our best interests at heart. That said, I am aware there are people on that board who understand the gravity of the situation, but majority rules and it's clear where the majority on that board refuses to go.

Woody


Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

 

[jcwit]

And what makes you think that a .223 or a 7.62 round will kill an enemy of the people any less dead than a 20mm round or an RPG fired upon us by that better armed government would kill any one of us? What makes you think we in this country have no more will to be free than those oppressed people in those other countries who surrendered their arms? As for myself, I'd rather die defending my freedom than to live in tyranny. Lately, the NRA hasn't done much to comfort me.

What makes me feel that way? Its very simple, one word History. Another thing you may wish to consider is your family and their well being. This is similar to the old argument, is better to be dead than red, or better to be red than dead?

Both are a looser.

Now then back to the topic at hand, personnally I'll support the NRA, if for no other reason they ARE the Alpha Wolf in the pack.

 

[whalerman]

I've heard about this LaPierre/Knox war within the NRA. As a Life Member, how can I know the inner workings of the organization? I read everything I can get my hands on, from material put out by the NRA as well as private blogs such as this. There are no easy answers to the question as to how to proceed and who to support.

But the NRA is not any one person's property. Mr LaPierre doesn't own it, just as Mr Heston did not. It's all of ours. The real question is why, when there are tens of millions of gun owners and citizens who respect individual rights, are there so few members of the NRA! It's time we started talking to our fellow shooters and asked them this question. We can change an NRA that doesn't fight the way we want it to, but we have to get on board. It's like bitchin' about The Great One and not voting! Not a good argument. I don't shoot with people who don't belong to the NRA. I'm not nasty about it, but I don't do it. If a guy wants to buy a gun from me and he's not NRA, I tell him no. Pisses people off but I don't care. I don't hunt with non NRA folks either. I won't buy firearms from a dealer who isn't one of us. I view it as a brotherhood and sisterhood and a duty. That's just me. That's the way I see it. You better vote and you better join the NRA. Or I don't want to hear from you.

 

[Old krow]

Did an organization like the NRA exist before the american revolution? NO!

I agree with much of what you said about voting the politicians out, but that statement isn't necessarily true. The Sons of Liberty was a group of political activists (lobbyists at first), what we now call "Patriots" were also a very diverse group of activists. The common theme was that they united under one banner. When the war was over they split back into their political camps. However, during the campaign for freedom they did stand up to Britain for rights (the same way lobbyists do now sans the violence) and they weren't the largest percentage of people either... just the most determined.

How in the world are we going to change a nation, or preserve one if we can't even change (or preserve) one little organization that not only accepts us, but depends on us for its survival??

By my calculations there are close to 75 million gun owners in the US (going off the 1 in 4 Americans own a gun and 300 million Americans) yet 4 million belong to the NRA. That's a tad over 5%

 

[JohnKSa]

Conceding any more losses of gun rights.

Let's say that tomorrow there were a bill in Congress that had a real chance of being passed.

This bill would limit magazine capacities of full-auto machineguns to no more than 50 rounds any time the machinegun is equipped with a silencer. (Currently there is no such restriction so this would be a loss of a gun right.)

In return this bill would allow complete freedom to purchase and own all other types of firearms with absolutely no legal restrictions. It would cause the total elimination of the "F" in ATF and would abolish all laws that apply or pertain to FFL holders in any way.

Support for the first measure of the bill is unanimous in Congress. There is absolutely no way to eliminate that provision from the law. To get the second provision you must accept the first one. You would have to concede a gun right that previously existed. You would have to compromise.

Your line in the sand says that such a law would be unacceptable because it will result in losing a previously existing gun right. And that even though the net effect on gun rights is extremely positive, any RKBA organization that supports it would be in the wrong.

Is that really where you would draw your line in the sand? No concessions at all regardless of what might be gained by those concessions?

 

[General Tso]

Please lock and close this thread. You say "we don't do politics". When I posted my reason for not supporting the NRA, you deleted it. How can we comment on this when the NRA IS a political organization?