Thoughts on NRA

[antsi]

That is what they do. In order to protect their hunting guns they do as they've done since 1934, they throw the Rights of many gun owners under the bus so they can have the privilege to own their 'deer guns'

Can you give a specific policy example, or legislation that has been supported by the NRA?

 

[Prometheus]

Can you give a specific policy example, or legislation that has been supported by the NRA?

I already have. 1934, 1968, the 1986 regan ban, the 1989 bush ban, the 1994 clinton ban that wound up getting the support of the nra until it was time for them to raise money again, the attempted sabotage of the Heller vs DC case....

Lets not forget the thousands of vets still fighting to get back their RKBA thanks to the nra joining forces with the brady bunch on the nics "improvement" act.

Have you not read the past several pages? I'm not the only one citing this evidence.

 

[Fenway]

This thread reminded me of Yeager's video. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with Yeager. Just putting this out there for those who have not seen it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld3TYZmnuyc"]YouTube - Gun Rights[/ame]

 

[Bigum1969]

I think its obvious that a lot of folks who see life in black and white have never spent any time trying to build a coalition or bring divergent people together.

Have these folks ever spent time trying to work through the political process? Have they ever had to handle high level negotiations?

The luxury of being stubborn and seeing things in a "my way or the highway" view is afforded mostly to people who have never spent an ounce of time working through complex issues or doing anything to lead people to a position.

Just like so many causes in this country, gun owners can be our own worse enemy.

 

[antsi]

1986 regan ban, the 1989 bush ban, the 1994 clinton b

What exactly did the NRA do to support these bans?

Regarding the Clinton AWB, I certainly remember the NRA lobbying to get the "sunset provision" included, and lobbying to see that it did in fact sunset in 2004. I don't remember them ever doing any lobbying in favor of the 1994 AWB.

Have you not read the past several pages? I'm not the only one citing this evidence.

I haven't seen a lot of evidence. I've seen a lot of innuendoes. However, if there is another post in this thread with links to credible/neutral sources on these issues, I would appreciate a link or a post number.

Lets not forget the thousands of vets still fighting to get back their RKBA

Everything I have read on this from any responsible source suggests this is a totally overblown non-issue. Before the NICS law was changed, anyone (not just vets) could have their gun rights taken away if they were "adjudicated mentally defective." That is still true: that aspect of the law didn't change. The only thing that changed is now there is a mechanism to challenge and/or reverse such adjudications. Also, the law now specifies that there has to be a court determination that a person is mentally incompetent (ie, you cannot have your rights taken away merely for a medical diagnosis).

the attempted sabotage of the Heller vs DC case....

Overblown language much? The NRA was lobbying to have the DC gun ban overturned legislatively, which would have rendered Heller moot. They weren't campaigning for a gun ban, they were taking a different approach to ending a gun ban.

I do believe this was a misjudgement. Heller was a big risk, but a big victory. The NRA went the legislative route because they thought it was the safer way to end the DC gun ban. They were afraid Heller would go against us. It was a legit fear, the decision was 5-4 and depended on Kennedy - wiffle-waffle Kennedy of all people, to side with us. Hardly a slam dunk. At the time, I could see the NRA's point - a loss in Heller with a "collective right" interpretation would have been a major setback - but I tended to believe the risk was worth taking and the court was probably as favorable as it ever would be.

At the time of Heller, the NRA was trying to lay down a bunt when the GOA was swinging for the fences. In this case, the GOA was right, and hit a home run. But a home run one time doesn't mean it is always wrong to bunt, either. And a manager who decides to bunt isn't "sabotaging" his team, he's making a tactical decision that will either turn out smart or dumb based on subsequent events.

I agree with you as far as saying sometimes I disagree with the NRAs tactics. Sometimes they work for our rights too timidly, yes. Actively working against us? No.

 

[Ogre]

I think its obvious that a lot of folks who see life in black and white have never spent any time trying to build a coalition or bring divergent people together.

Have these folks ever spent time trying to work through the political process? Have they ever had to handle high level negotiations?

The luxury of being stubborn and seeing things in a "my way or the highway" view is afforded mostly to people who have never spent an ounce of time working through complex issues or doing anything to lead people to a position.

Just like so many causes in this country, gun owners can be our own worse enemy.

I don't see life in black and white, there are many shades of gray. However, the second amendment isn't one of them. If the NRA thinks they are right in their fight for 2nd amend. rights, then why is there any compromise? Either we have a right to bear arms or we don't. IMO, there are no exceptions or compromises or special taxes to have this right. period.

 

[Michiana]

Don't have that problem anymore

I picked up a free one year membership last year, but honestly I wouldn't pay for one. Last go round I got so much junk mail I felt that I would have to double my contributions just to make up for all the money they waste sending out requests for money throughout the year. This time around it doesn't seems as bad, but I have a feeling once the year is up I will be getting "hit up" once or twice a week again.

If you want to contribute to an organization defending 2nd amendment rights, check out GOA
Gun Owners of America

You can opted out of that mail, I used to have the same issue with them and quit because of that same issue. I rejoined last year after Obama got elected and now might get one mailing every couple months. I do get emails but I just hit delete and they don't waste my money like the USPS.

 

[Shoots4Fun]

I joined this year with the "free" membership as well. Their publications aren't as good as I might like, but I have to admit, I love having that card in my wallet. I can't really speak to whether or not they've help or hurt our cause, but I like the thought of having someone watching what's going on with regard to gun rights, and summarizing it for me.

I'll probably join this next year when my membership is due and try it out for another year. I think the benefit outweighs the risk for me.

 

[SirRealism]

Overblown language much? The NRA was lobbying to have the DC gun ban overturned legislatively, which would have rendered Heller moot. They weren't campaigning for a gun ban, they were taking a different approach to ending a gun ban.

I do believe this was a misjudgement. Heller was a big risk, but a big victory. The NRA went the legislative route because they thought it was the safer way to end the DC gun ban. They were afraid Heller would go against us. It was a legit fear, the decision was 5-4 and depended on Kennedy - wiffle-waffle Kennedy of all people, to side with us. Hardly a slam dunk. At the time, I could see the NRA's point - a loss in Heller with a "collective right" interpretation would have been a major setback - but I tended to believe the risk was worth taking and the court was probably as favorable as it ever would be.

Thanks for that info. That was my general feeling about what they did in the Heller case, but I hadn't read enough to comment on it. If the NRA had joined Heller from the outset, and we had lost, there would have been lots of people saying they just set us back 20 years. From what I've read, it sounds as though they acted prudently. Not every situation is best handled with guns a-blazing.

 

[kingnereli]

So the complaints leveled against the NRA are compromise and too much stuff in the mail.

 

[Bigum1969]

I don't see life in black and white, there are many shades of gray. However, the second amendment isn't one of them. If the NRA thinks they are right in their fight for 2nd amend. rights, then why is there any compromise? Either we have a right to bear arms or we don't. IMO, there are no exceptions or compromises or special taxes to have this right. period.

Well then, what is your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment? I've seen a lot of different views on it in this forum.

Should anyone be able to have a gun?

Felons?

Violent felons?

No laws at all?

I'm not saying how I feel about these issues, but I'm pointing out that even gun owners themselves disagree about the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

And figuring out the best way to maintain and grow gun rights is a difficult maze both legislatively and politically.

 

[antsi]

Should anyone be able to have a gun?

Felons?

Violent felons?

For me, the hardest one to answer on this question isn't on your list.

You see, I so want to say that it's an absolute right, and applies to everyone.

Here's the example that gets hard for me. Have you ever been to a total care Alzheimer's nursing facility? I have a grandparent in one. She has no idea who she is or who I am any more. For years, she has had the delusion that people are trying to kill her. She frequently gets hostile and aggressive with the staff there. She has been declared, in a court of law, to be mentally incompetent and not responsible for her actions.

If she somehow wandered off the premises of the nursing home and in to a gun store, I would not want them selling her a gun. If she got a lawyer and tried to sue for the right to keep a gun in her room in the nursing home, I'd consider it a dumb court decision to uphold her right.

If someone can explain to me how my demented, hostile, not-responsible-for-her-own-actions grandmother has an absolute right to keep and bear firearms in her total care Alzheimer's facility, I'd like to hear it.

 

[Rollo]

I think its obvious that a lot of folks who see life in black and white have never spent any time trying to build a coalition or bring divergent people together.

Have these folks ever spent time trying to work through the political process? Have they ever had to handle high level negotiations?

The luxury of being stubborn and seeing things in a "my way or the highway" view is afforded mostly to people who have never spent an ounce of time working through complex issues or doing anything to lead people to a position.

Just like so many causes in this country, gun owners can be our own worse enemy.

This was more or less what I was getting at with my post. When dealing with political issues (or any issue that a person feels strongly one way or the other) you generally have people that are extremely far to one side or the other. What a lot of people that see issues that way fail to realize is that the majority of the voting power comes from people that aren't extremely far to one side or the other, it comes from those in the middle. And in my oppinion the best way to persuade the middle to see your point of view is a arguement that is, much like they are, in the middle and NOT extreme. Hence why I HATE the NRA slogan of "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand." When the average (in the middle) voting citizen hears that it makes them cringe. Hell, it makes ME cringe.

 

[wag1911]

I picked up a free one year membership last year, but honestly I wouldn't pay for one. Last go round I got so much junk mail I felt that I would have to double my contributions just to make up for all the money they waste sending out requests for money throughout the year. This time around it doesn't seems as bad, but I have a feeling once the year is up I will be getting "hit up" once or twice a week again.

If you want to contribute to an organization defending 2nd amendment rights, check out GOA
Gun Owners of America

GOA is also a good organization also, but why not just call the NRA and opt-out of the mailings? It's a 5 minute phone call away (800) 672-3888

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Thanks for the opt out info guys, and the phone # to do so...
Gives me some food for thought....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Prometheus]

I can't really speak to whether or not they've help or hurt our cause, but I like the thought of having someone watching what's going on with regard to gun rights, and summarizing it for me.

We routinely complain about the "driveby media" and their sound bytes.

This is yet another problems with gun owners (please don't take this personally)... laziness.

Unless you actively follow this issue, you are at the mercy of whatever the NRA emails you or sends in your magazine. Like any other corporation the NRA isn't going to put out the down sides of their compromises and they will sugar coat everything to favor them.

As an aside, the "media" says the NRA is the best.... you people usually say everything the media says is a lie... so why do you believe them when it comes to the NRA?

The hypocrisy shown in this thread and the blatant disregard for the wording of the Second Amendment makes me sick.

The same tactics AND LANGUAGE used by the brady group are being displayed here.

Someone said the word traitor gets thrown around too much... If you took and oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and then violate it or try to subvert it, you are a traitor. Period.

 

[Indecision]

Although I don't agree with everything about the NRA, I think it's one of the best options we have.

 

[Adrenaline]

Although I don't agree with everything about the NRA, I think it's one of the best options we have.

+1

 

[GMack_1]

You need to join the NRA..., ASAP!

You need to join the NRA. It is clearly the biggest, most effective, and powerful organization protecting your gun rights in Washington (it's just not guns, either. It's ammo, knives..., etc...).

Believe me, those in control in Washington are very "anti-gun"..., or "very" anti-gun. Do your own research if you don't believe me. For example, Nancy Pelosi and her ilk would take our gun-rights away tomorrow if they could (and everyone knows it). A simple majority in congress, then 60 senators agreeing to close debate, then 5 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices agreeing (we're talking 2nd Amendment stuff here). Logistically, logically, rationally..., it could start happening tomorrow.

The sad part is, it may have already been decided. No one knows what's going on behind the closed doors in Congress these day. I have'nt heard of any anti-gun legislation in the pipeline of late, but that doesn't mean it isn't on a further agenda.

The NRA is banging, knocking, and kicking on those closed doors.

Below is NRA's mission statement. If you agree with what they are doing, join. If you don't join, don't be surprised if some day the local sheriff knocks on your front door asking for your guns. Again, if you do the math, this could happen.

Or, do your own research and find out yourself what the NRA does.

Established in 1990, the NRA Foundation, Inc., is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that raises tax-deductible contributions in support of a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. These activities are designed to promote firearms and hunting safety, to enhance marksmanship skills of those participating in the shooting sports, and to educate the general public about firearms in their historic, technological and artistic context.