PDA

View Full Version : NRA- More damage than good?


johnwilliamson062
January 13, 2009, 04:49 PM
In another thread someone said the NRA should be renamed the NHA. The NRA has certainly protected our rights to keep and bear hunting rifles, but in order to do so they have destroyed the second amendment by limiting it to a hobby. Many Americans honestly believe the second amendment is meant to protect hunting and that if all hunting can be accomplished with a single shot rifle then there is no reason for American civilians to have any other sort of firearm. The idea of the Second amendment protecting the right of American citizens to hold in their possession the tools of rebellion and national defense, both equally important, is lost upon the majority of Americans. Whether the NRA did this or not I do not know, but they certainly seem to have played the "that rifle is used for hunting card" a few times.

Would you join and support an organization that worked to drastically reduce firearms legislation as it's one and only goal. No attacking one party or the other in blanket statements, magazine with rifle reviews, or firearms classes, just a group to restore the second amendment to what it was in 1791? Maybe I am off my rocker, would not be the first time.

azredhawk44
January 13, 2009, 04:56 PM
Would you join and support an organization that worked to drastically reduce firearms legislation as it's one and only goal.

I'm a member of several.

GOA
JPFO
SAF
RWVA
Cato Institute
AZCDL

Oh, yeah. And the NRA. The value of which I relegate to below that of the Tonto Rim Sportsman's Club, but above the Harkins Theatres 2009 soda refill cup.:rolleyes:

ETA: No disrespect intended towards either TRSC or Harkins theaters. ;)

Bartholomew Roberts
January 13, 2009, 05:05 PM
My first thought would be that anybody who thought the NRA was only about hunting rifles is tremendously ignorant of all the NRA has accomplished. To give just a few examples off the top of my head of what the NRA has done for the black rifle crowd:

The NRA was the first group to challenge 922(o) (1986 machinegun ban) in Farmer v. Higgins (11th Cir. 1990). They lost.

The NRA fought the original assault weapon ban in Congress from the time it was first introduced in 1989 until they were finally overwhelmed in 1994; however the NRA did succeed in inserting the 10 year sunset provision and introduced a repeal of the AWB that passed the House in 1996; but died in the Senate.

The NRA pulled support for their number one priority legislation in 2004 (Lawsuit protection for firearms manufacturers) rather than risk renewing the AWB after the Senate successfully amended the legislation with a ban renewal.

NRA Service Rifle Competition anyone?

Perhaps most importantly, without the NRA efforts in firearms safety and range construction, we wouldn't have both the tremendous base of knowledge on safe firearms use and a place where they can be safely used and enjoyed, regardless of whether that firearm is a single-shot hunting rifle or a semi-automatic detachable magazine rifle. Even worse, we wouldn't have a place to "grow" new shooters and without new shooters (i.e. votes) we would soon be marginalized. So you see, one of the greatest things the NRA does, doesn't even directly deal with firearms legislation.

Would you join and support an organization that worked to drastically reduce firearms legislation as it's one and only goal.

I'll support any organization that can show me results. The NRA, TSRA, and SAF are just a few of those organizations that offer a good return on investment in my opinion.

johnwilliamson062
January 13, 2009, 05:42 PM
Maye my statement that they have limited it to hunting was a bit off, as others pointed out and as I was aware they certainly protect things like EBR's, but they seem more willing to compromise on guns for hunting than I am comfortable with. Maybe this is just a compromise is necessary and thank goodness cooler minds prevail issue.
AZREDHAWK44 thanks for that list. I will be checking the ones I had not previously heard of out. I am about to lob some money into the 2A coffers and want to m sure it gos for something good.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 13, 2009, 05:50 PM
but they seem more willing to compromise on guns for hunting than I am comfortable with.

Maybe you could give us an example of what you are talking about? Some specific issue where you felt the NRA was compromising to protect guns for hunting?

azredhawk44
January 13, 2009, 06:11 PM
AZREDHAWK44 thanks for that list. I will be checking the ones I had not previously heard of out. I am about to lob some money into the 2A coffers and want to m sure it gos for something good.


No problem.

AZCDL is my local 2A legislation advocacy group for Arizona. You'll have your own up in Ohio. I want to say there's something up there called Buckeye Firearms Association?

Seems the state level orgs always do a better job fighting for your rights than the national level ones. If I could only join one group on that list, AZCDL would be the only one. They are effective.

I think it has to do with the small amount of money it takes to affect real change for a smaller locality. Less travel expenses, less wheel-greasing, things like that. Politicians may just be more honest (or at least less corrupted) at the state level than the national schmucks.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 13, 2009, 10:06 PM
That is definitely a good point. State RKBA groups are great places to invest your time and money. After all, all politics are local. This is where the Obamas and Palins get their start at the national level. Strong local RKBA groups mean that no antis ever reach the national level.

johnwilliamson062
January 13, 2009, 11:30 PM
Yeah BFA is the top of my list.

I will come up with a few more examples later, but here is one to start it:
Charlton Heston saying "from my cold dead hand," while holding a rifle. What is the rifle? For myself and most Americans the image that pops to mind is him holding a ?Sharps rifle?. You can say what you want, but probably the most famous video moment for the NRA, likely the only moment most Americans have in their memory, features a flintlock most now associate with deer hunting or historical collectors. Neither activity is related to my Second Amendment rights.


Edit:I guess that is probably used in cowboy action shooting also.

johnbt
January 14, 2009, 10:34 AM
"but in order to do so they have destroyed the second amendment by limiting it to a hobby."

I'm sorry, but you are just so wrong.

Please do some research. If you simply can't find the facts of the matter, please ask for guidance.

Thank you.

John

ohen cepel
January 14, 2009, 10:45 AM
We really do a good job of stabbing ourselves in the back by constantly attacking the NRA.

I'm sure the anti's love it when we bad mouth the lobby which they fear the most in DC.

Is the NRA perfect? No, neither is my Wife. However, I'm not so short sighted to destroy something great because I don't always agree with it/her.

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 12:24 PM
Dingell, NRA Board member, votes for '94 AWB.
He also received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter award after doing so.
Larry Craig pushes to extend NICS, then he gets the award.

As many others have said, look at what the ACLU has accomplished by never compromising on the First amendment? If 2nd Amendment supporters were throwing their money into a group like the ACLU, we would be much better off, even iff everyone was annoyed by them at times. I will come up with more as the day progresses.

NRA gets about 200,000,000 dollars a year. I just do not think we are getting much bang for our buck.
Apparently senate seats only cost a couple hundred thousand.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 14, 2009, 01:17 PM
Dingell, NRA Board member, votes for '94 AWB.
He also received the NRA's Harlon B. Carter award after doing so.

To be fair, few people on this board can claim to have done as much for the Second Amendment or repealing firearms laws as John Dingell has. He was right alongisde Harold Volkmer for the 1986 FOPA - a piece of legislation that repealed more federal firearms laws in one single bill then have been repealed in the 22 year period after that by litigation and legislation combined.

His 1994 vote for the Assault Weapon Ban was a result of the Democratic Party leadership enforcing party discipline on that vote (vote our way or lose your committee leaderships, good appointments, etc.). Dingell voted along party lines when push came to shove and went back to supporting the NRA, including fiercely challenging Janet Reno during the post-Columbine push for more gun laws. You remember some of the proposals being made in 1999 right? You can search the archives here to get a feel for them. For this effort, Dingell was awarded the Harlon B. Carter award in 2000.

Now we can all debate whether someone who places his party above the Second Amendment deserves that award; but I think it would be much harder to argue that John Dingell has not done a tremendous amount for the Second Amendment despite that vote.

Personally, if it buys us a win on a critical vote, I don't care if the NRA hands out the award to Chuck Schumer; but the main point I would like to make is that the situation is rarely so cut and dried as your statement would make it appear.

Larry Craig pushes to extend NICS, then he gets the award.

I'm not sure what you meant by this... the only time I am aware of that Senator Craig ever proposed extending NICS was during the 1999 post-Columbine showdown when we came real close to getting more gun laws. The NRA proposed an alternative background check for gun shows that was introduced by Sen. Craig. This siphoned off enough voters from the other bill that no gunshow background check bill passed at all.

Also, I don't know if you remember the 2004 Senate debates on renewal of the AWB; but Sen. Craig was leading the charge on defeating that and offered some of the best public speeches on the subject I've ever listened to. In the end, he was instrumental in not only defeating renewal but in passing the lawsuit protection bill and the NRA gave him the award in 2006 as recognition for this.

If you kill one of your allies every time they show the least bit of hesitance at following your orders, you not only end up with a paranoid, dysfunctional organization - you soon find you are pretty short on allies.

As many others have said, look at what the ACLU has accomplished by never compromising on the First amendment?

I think that people who believe the ACLU doesn't compromise on both legislation and litigation on a frequent basis are probably not well-informed on ACLU activities (much as people who think the NRA compromises too often are often unfamiliar with the backstory on why a certain compromise was made). The ACLU compromises all the time on its goals and legislatively, and for 2008 wasn't very successful at all in achieving the legislative goals they set.

NRA gets about 200,000,000 dollars a year. I just do not think we are getting much bang for our buck.

How do you arrive at that sum?

If we assume that the NRA gets $30 for each of its members and that membership is still at the all-time peak of 4.2 million, then that makes about $120 million annually, all of which is required by charter and federal law to be spent on education, instruction and other non-lobbying activities.

According to this list (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A), the NRA is #34 on the All-Time List of Political Donors from 1989-2008, having donated $16.9 million in both PACs and soft money during that period. That means that either the NRA leadership is sitting on a secret fund of $3 billion or your estimates of what the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVC take in for lobbying efforts are off a bit.

hillbillyshooter
January 14, 2009, 01:41 PM
To answer the question,
I would definitely get behind a large national group, the size of the NRA, whose sole goal was to reverse, block, or lessen any and all forms for anti-gun legislation. I understand that there are many smaller ones out there, but I speak of one with the lobbying power and political clout of the NRA.

Musketeer
January 14, 2009, 02:21 PM
We really do a good job of stabbing ourselves in the back by constantly attacking the NRA.

I'm sure the anti's love it when we bad mouth the lobby which they fear the most in DC.

Is the NRA perfect? No, neither is my Wife. However, I'm not so short sighted to destroy something great because I don't always agree with it/her.

AMEN!!!

I am getting sick of the constant complaining by folks who do not understand anything about how Washington works and thinks the NRA would be more effective by never compromising on anything. Those folks need to understand our entire nation, from the first time the Continental Congress convened, has been built on compromise. Those who do not do so are disregarded and loose all power in the legislative process.

Are there things I would like the NRA to do differently, certainly. There are things I would like EVERYONE to do differently but you have to choose the path that gains you the most and that is clearly the NRA.

I am a Libertarian at heart but not by registration or voting record. The reason is that they face a similar dilemma, they are run by the non-compromising fanatics and as a result get nothing done ever. In choosing the NRA I am choosing the body that does the most to forward my views on the 2A while also being effective. Without effectiveness they would be nothing but a bunch of guys standing around shouting about their rights yet unable to affect any legislation.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 14, 2009, 02:21 PM
Ideological purity leading to losing strategies is preferred by many to strategies that are not ideological pure in all aspects but makes incremental steps to a goal.

The Futile Noble but Counterproductive Gesture and the following ranting is preferred.

For example, the move to shall issue CCW is one of the greatest triumphs in the current RKBA struggle. How many 'purists' opposed that move and in fact sunk CCW legislation in some places. In Oregon, when I lived there, a small 'anti' measure of little real consequence was the vehicle for achieving shall issue status.

I would also like to thank B. Roberts for his analysis! :)

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 02:31 PM
How do you arrive at that sum?
I looked up their accounting records. It was 199 million and something in revenue for 2007. Many give more than minimum dues and many donate a dollar or more when they check out at stores. Clubs have memberships, advertising in their magazines, etc. From what I could tell, this did not include ILA specific donations.

The clout comes from money. If everyone who joined the NRA joined GOA they would have the money to do it. I would say if you have to choose one choose GOA, I just did. Of course, joining both is probably better.

I guess i can take my Libertarian party and my GOA membership and move to the corner of the room.

Fremmer
January 14, 2009, 02:57 PM
If everyone who joined the NRA joined GOA they would have the money to do it. I would say if you have to choose one choose GOA, I just did.

Oh, a GOA-inspired thread. I should have known. ;)

The GOA, yeah, they get a lot accomplished. Sure they do. Yep, if only the NRA was not so successful, or didn't somehow cause "damage" (although the OP still has not identified how the NRA is culpable for shaping the general public's opinion about guns), the GOA would be....somehow different.

You know, if you add a 'T' to the end of GOA, you get GOAT. Baaaaaa!!!!:D

buzz_knox
January 14, 2009, 03:01 PM
If everyone who joined the NRA joined GOA they would have the money to do it. I would say if you have to choose one choose GOA, I just did. Of course, joining both is probably better.


Then how about you and the other GOA members stop bashing the NRA? These "the NRA is destroying our rights" membership drives are the reason I'm not a GOA member, and why I don't recommend them to anyone.

When I hear anything negative about the NRA, it's from the Bradys and their cohorts or GOA members. When I hear anything at all about the GOA, it's from GOA members. That's telling to me.

blackhawk45
January 14, 2009, 03:03 PM
80 Million gun owners, and 4 Million N.R.A. Members, seems to me alot of gun owners are riding along with we 4 Million Supporters !

And to post #9, Charlton Heston was'nt holding a hunting rifle,He was holding an original ASSAULT RIFLE !!!!!

There is strength in numbers, regardless of how you feel about the N.R.A. you need to be a supporter of our rights. (Financially )If not we WILL lose them. These are dangerous times for us. I suggest you join one or more of the R.K.B.A. Orgs. and financially support those rights. before it's too late !

It might already be.:mad:

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 03:10 PM
Well I really just wanted to stir up some conversation on this while I was making these decisions. The NRA has been losing ground the last 50 years, and I am not sure a 4 year span without an AWB, or Heller really represents a reversal of that trend. They are sucking up most of the money and I really don't see much as a result. Maybe slowing the tide of emotional legislation with compromises is enough for some.

What about a million rifleman march?
How effective would that be? Would one million people show up to Washington? More? How about a march from Concord to Boston?

NRA not culpable in forming the general public's view on firearms? I would definitely say without reservation that if they have not had a significant effect on the public's view of firearms they have failed miserably.

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 03:12 PM
And to post #9, Charlton Heston was'nt holding a hunting rifle,He was holding an original ASSAULT RIFLE !!!!!
I know it was originally a military rifle, does the average American? If that fact is lost on the average American is it relevant?

AirForceShooter
January 14, 2009, 03:15 PM
I wish you guys would figure out the difference between the NRA and thr NRA-ILA

AFS

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 03:19 PM
I have, in the past, given money directly to the NRA-ILA. I wish they were not under the NRA umbrella though.

Fremmer
January 14, 2009, 03:24 PM
Well I really just wanted to stir up some conversation on this while I was making these decisions.

Oh, you wanted to stir something up, all right. :D

They are sucking up most of the money and I really don't see much as a result.

Really? Not much of a result, huh?!? That's interesting. :D

Now the GOA, those guys, they get results. Seriously. I like 'em.

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 03:30 PM
I would not expect GOA to do as much as the NRA as they don't have near the financial resources.

A good way to compromise:
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004meD&srPos=1&srKp=087
I could live with the laws we already have...

Musketeer
January 14, 2009, 03:49 PM
The NRA has been losing ground the last 50 years, and I am not sure a 4 year span without an AWB, or Heller really represents a reversal of that trend.

Another who does not see the importance of Heller, recognize the advancement of Right to Carry/Shall Issue permits in 38+ states, Castle Doctrine laws in many states, or the Lawful Protection of Commerce in Arms act as anything worth while.

Then there is the AWB... Do you GOA guys think it would NOT have gone through had the NRA stood on principal and completely opposed it? It was going through, like it or not. The NRA though got the sunset clause added which is why it is not Federal Law now.

How about post VT, of course the GOA spun that as "Veterans Disarmament" as part of their attack on the NRA to gain membership dollars but the bottom line is the NRA got a solid path for the return of rights to many who had lost them while also deflecting what would have been some truly nasty legislation after that tragedy by taking the lead.

Then there of course were the Katrina lawsuits.

Then there was the Brady Bill, which was going through no matter what, which they got the instacheck added to to eliminate the waiting federal waiting period.

That's right, the NRA has done nothing...

Odd question, is Larry Pratt hard up for cash? It seems the GOA attacks are on the rise again.

Musketeer
January 14, 2009, 03:51 PM
I would not expect GOA to do as much as the NRA as they don't have near the financial resources.
and of course there is the little problem of any national level legislator you ask on the matter responding with "Who?" when you mention them. The GOA may be able to get some legislators to agree with them who would automatically be on the NRA's side of an issue as well due to ideology but they have zero chance of influencing the middle of the road legislators who see them only as fanatics.

Al Norris
January 14, 2009, 07:11 PM
Somehow, I had a feeling that this was just another "The GOA Bashes The NRA" thread.

...sigh...

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 07:21 PM
Truth be told I would prefer the second be repealed all at once than the slow destruction it faces. Then we might get a real response out of those gun owners who are not involved.

Yellowfin
January 14, 2009, 08:36 PM
We need to capture influence back in universities, law schools and the legal community, journalism schools, maybe buy a few large newspapers (Why the hell is it only rabid leftists buying newspapers and bending them to their leftist purposes?), the advertising atmosphere, law enforcement upper management, the non profit sector, the medical community, various ethnic communities, etc. Fund scholarships. Speak at lectures. Offer internships with TMLLP, Alan Gura, and similar law firms for law students, biz internships at firearms manufacturers and other companies relevent to RKBA and related outdoor activities, recruit the top interns for pro RKBA lobbying and pro 2A lawmakers instead of the antis (so much so the antis can't get any good ones or dream of all dreams any at all), influence funding for academics by rerouting funding away from anti 2A professors and their projects and/or offer substitutes, and so forth. Have every NRA and other RKBA organization member withold direct contributions to universities until they reverse their policies against campus carry, and possibly instead contribute to those that allow it.

In short we need to kick the anti gun establishment out of its nests and thereby eradicate it as an influential ideological and political force. Not until we start doing that will we be rid of it--and being rid of it rather than merely playing ping pong with it needs to be our long term goal. Sure, keep doing what we're doing in the courts and the legislature, but we need much deeper, much more permanent solutions to the problem which will squelch its recurrence by cutting it out from the source. We need to transition from a Vietnam War approach--see an enemy, squash it, wait till another one pops up, but go little further--to a World War 2 approach which is attack the enemy's weapons and its infrastructure, directly eliminating its ability to continue to fight not just the next day but ever again at all. Winning today to lose tomorrow is useless. Our rights and our place in American society and the world as a whole is not something that should be subject to the changing winds of politics or capricious pop culture. We must attack the source of the problem and wipe it out--it is without question the opposition's goal is to do the same to us. Why this has so long been a lost idea to our side for so long I have no clue but the cluelessness of too many on our side to this reality has got to stop.

Almost all here know how the problem exists in these areas I address, but we're too busy fighting the products rather than the process. Guess what, folks, the process is going to keep producing the problems until we shut down the factory.

Case in point: BHO is a product of the factory which you can clearly see he went directly from education to law to anti 2A org to politics--breaking the mechanism would have shut him down, possibly had him on our side instead, defunded the organizations, stripped them of members and influence, removed the influence upon doctors and lawyers to get them to contribute portions of some of the nation's top incomes to anti RKBA orgs and candidates, shut down the spin factories, and made there be little anti RKBA influenced electorate via institutional brainwashing. Cost? A few scholarships of $10-30k, a few internship salaries and perks bumped up another $5k, a 51% stake in a newspaper or two that right now is selling for pennies on the dollar, sponsored spots in a non hunting/shooting mag or three, lobbying in university boards to reverse certain policies and prevent certain types from getting funding and tenure, and a little gladhanding in places that aren't usually in the limelight. DIRT CHEAP compared to trying a high profile case, funding a political campaign which win means little and lose means nothing, or a ballot measure. And fractions of a penny compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars which got that puppet elected.

Just suggesting we try something different in addition to what we already do. What the NRA does isn't wrong, but it is insufficient. Not that they're doing the right things at insufficient levels--they are constrained by how much can be done at a time and perhaps over cautiousness--but also that there's more work to be done that isn't being done at the moment. Thoughts anyone?

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 08:58 PM
Wait, are you promoing a third option Yellowfin? Do you have such an organization? I am sold.
Can we somehow mix in asymetric warfare? Legalize pot and give out a highpoint with each bag so the hippies turn to our side or kill themselves off? I could deal with pot smoking gun loving hippy. Would probably be better than a drunk redneck actually. If not I am still on board.

crashm1
January 14, 2009, 09:36 PM
I think the NRA does more good than damage personally. They educate lots of folk, help support gun ranges, created high power matches (which use those pesky AR-15s, M1s, M1As and M1 carbines AWs all). Do they compromise more than I would like ideally from my libertarian viewpoint, yep. Do I understand why, yep. I am a member of the NRA and JPFO, I send money to the CATO institute and NRA-ILA and am planning to donate to the SAF. The NRA is the 800 pound gorilla of D.C. lobbying organizations which is the main reason I am a member. I send money to CATO because they have a track record of success promoting libertarian ideals. I am a member of the JPFO because I need to support a no compromise group also or I'll feel all dirty like I did voting for McCain. I am not a member of GOA because I'm already helping support one rabid pit bull organization and they are local to me.

johnwilliamson062
January 14, 2009, 11:01 PM
JPFO seems like the best one to me really. I just didn't join them b/c, you know, I'm not Jewish. I felt like I wasn't invited.
EDIT: I just decided that I have had two Jewish roommates and that makes me jewish enough. Lifetime member of JPFO come tomorrow.

johnbt
January 15, 2009, 10:22 AM
"I would say if you have to choose one choose GOA"

I wouldn't, the GOA has issued too many lie-filled statements for me to back them. Specifics are easily found by using the search function on tfl and thr.

John

crashm1
January 15, 2009, 12:01 PM
I'm not Jewish either but how Jewish do you have to be to oppose government having a monopoly on force.

johnwilliamson062
January 15, 2009, 02:56 PM
GOA does seems to get a bit emotional and jump on the bandwagon before anyone really knows where the wagon is headed. If they would wait a bit until more details came out on some stories it would probably serve them well. I still prefer my hot headed bull dog to the NRA.

Sugar Lobby
Cuban Lobby
Both are much smaller than the gun lobby, but get what they want because they will not compromise or stop.

Glenn E. Meyer
January 15, 2009, 03:18 PM
influence funding for academics by rerouting funding away from anti 2A professors and their projects and/or offer substitutes, and so forth.

This isn't clear to me. If you meant that funding for projects that have scholarly or scientific merit and nothing to do with gun shouldn't be granted because of 2nd Amend. beliefs of the researcher, I would strongly disagree.

Also, research on firearms issues should be empirically based on peer reviewed evaluations of the merit of the project.

We've had TOO much ideology in the management of science lately.

LucifersPants
January 15, 2009, 03:23 PM
We've had TOO much ideology in the management of science lately.


Amen...but good luck getting rid of it. It's the new academia...College campuses have become festering sewers for pushing social or political agendas. All of them hi-jacking 'science' to 'prove' ideas that are either opinion or faith-based, or those that are entirely subjective or impossible to quantify. Another generation or two and the term 'science' may very well be meaningless. "Creation science" comes to mind.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 15, 2009, 04:09 PM
The Sugar lobby and the Cuba lobby are disproporionately powerful because they can deliver a swing state with significant electoral votes (or at least create that impression and keep it from being challenged). Their success has nothing to do with their willingness to compromise or lack of it. They are successful because they negotiate from a position of power.

The NRA has a more difficult task as getting gun owners to act cohesively is a task that makes herding cats look tame by comparison. As long as there is even a perception that the NRA cannot deliver one or more large swing states or that gun owners can be easily mollified by vague platitudes about your support for the Second Amendment (despite a lifetime of opposition to it), the NRA will be dealing from a weaker, albeit still strong, position.

johnwilliamson062
January 16, 2009, 09:10 PM
If the key is controlling a swing state(and I agree it is), why doesn't the NRA put any money into that? Just send a mailing out that says everyone that is able should move to Florida, Ohio and wherever else. Most people are locked into a location, but many "self sufficient" people are not. Surprisingly NRA membership overlaps greatly with that group of people.

22lr
January 16, 2009, 09:54 PM
I am a member of the NRA for one main reason. They are the only guys doing anything about anything. The NRA has been around since just after the Civil War and frankly they have done more to raise awareness than just about all other combined. Ya maybe they go overboard sometimes but there still doing a boat load of good.

The Bishop
January 17, 2009, 07:23 PM
Will some one please list 10 "gun owner-2nd ammendment right" things each of the organizations have accomplished in the past 10 years ?

Who is the leadership behind the GOA ? Where does their major funding come from ?

Where was GOA in the Washington DC suit ? How about Shall issue rights ? Castle doctrine laws ? Etc., etc.

The Bishop

Bartholomew Roberts
January 18, 2009, 04:41 AM
If the key is controlling a swing state(and I agree it is), why doesn't the NRA put any money into that? Just send a mailing out that says everyone that is able should move to Florida, Ohio and wherever else. Most people are locked into a location, but many "self sufficient" people are not. Surprisingly NRA membership overlaps greatly with that group of people.

Well, Pennsylvania has the highest per-capita number of NRA members of any state in the Union. It has also been a key swing state in the last 3 elections and has swung to the Democrats in every single one of them. Around 30% of gun owners supported Gore, 33% supported Kerry and more than that clearly supported Obama (including one of my own AR15 owning relatives much to my dismay).

As you may recall, the NRA spent millions of dollars trying to swing Pennsylvania in this election (not to mention Ohio and Florida). They touted Obama's past record on firearms quite extensively - to the degree that the Obama campaign even threatened them with lawsuits in an attempt to silence them. Despite that all of these swing states went to Obama. The NRA can only inform and educate its members, it can't kick in doors and prevent its members from making votes that do not place a priority on the Second Amendment.

Given the NRA has been unable to swing the state where it has the highest number of members per capita, I would probably regard an NRA flyer advising me to move to Pennsylvania with some disdain - and can you imagine what the people who regularly complain about the NRA would say in response to that?

pmeisel
January 19, 2009, 05:33 PM
Having spent a fair piece of my life in Pennsylvania and a few other places where people like me are "bitter" and "clinging to our guns and religion" -- most people (not most on this board, but most in general) vote economic issues ahead of everything, and their general feeling on foreign policy second.

Mr. Roberts earlier, excellent post on party politics and John Dingell illustrates that not everyone can or will be a one issue voter. I met Congressman Dingell only a year or two before that. He told me at the time he spent over 30% of his time on RKBA issues. He also a large amount of his time on auto industry related issues, logical given his constituency. So he apparently he decided he had to compromise on one vote to retain his considerable leverage to accomplish good in the future.

Successful long-term political activism is realistic. We live in a country where maybe 50%, maybe 75%, of our population is lukewarm or ignorant or apathetic about RKBA. We all need to take that into account in our advocacy. Changing tactics is not necessarily compromising core principles.

MartyG
January 19, 2009, 06:16 PM
Change your NRA magazine from American Rifleman to America's First Freedom. I chose it because I'm much more concerned with the legal landscape than hunting.
NRA Life Member