Problems with NRA messaging and defense of a civil right

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by davidsog

So the analysis is correct. The NRA maintained its efforts and spent considerable money on lobby efforts. There just is not that much to gain as a result of that lobbying for especially when the SCOTUS was previously not willing to hear a 2nd Amendment case.

The information contained in the Bloomberg article contradicts the analysis. Allison asserts lots of money spent with little to show. However the facts show only several million dollars spent, an AWB proof Senate and two Sup Ct nominations of justices whose explicit philosophy involves due weight to the text of the 2d Am. At hearing, Kavanaugh explained for Sen Feinstein in a fairly plain manner why ARs are protected under Heller.

Pertinent to the subject here, these weren't the accomplishments of the NRA alone. They happened alongside the efforts of organizations that aren't mere single issue clubs, but share and value the philosophical underpinnings that give 2d Am. advocacy its heft. Government isn't just legislation, and an exec and senate that can deliver a more reasonable court isn't the result of a narrow and unprincipled focus on people getting to keep most of their arms.

There is no zealotry in recognizing how people and government work.

[USNRet93]

Do not forget a prominent Senator's words over 20 years ago "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." "Common Sense" gun control right now is just a stepping stone to "turn them all in." To believe that faction does not exist is dangerous.

It DOES exist but like the 'any gun, any time' faction, those that think the NRA is too soft(like this gent..Military Arms Channel-https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/10/09/military-arms-channel-withdraws-nra-support/), they are both at each end of the spectrum and neither appeals, again, to those of us in the nebulous 'middle'..Neither speaks for me or to me..

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by 2damnold4this

My NRA (I am a life member) needs to stay out of the culture wars and stick to gun rights, gun training and gun education.

Unfortunately, for us, the "gun wars" are part and parcel of the current culture wars.

[5whiskey]

This is off topic but relevant.

I have a unique view of immigration and immigrants, both legal and not. A fellow officer is a US citizen (born here), however his parents were visa-overstay immigrants from Mexico. They were ultimately deported when he was 17, however he stayed. It set him back in life, and he had a pretty negative image of America for a little while. He's in his late 20's now, and more mature. He understands that its, well, complicated. After speaking with him, and many others in the community, I have pretty much developed a "middle of the road" view that's quite sympathetic to certain populations of illegal immigrants who have been here for years and never have caused any problems.

I feel strongly about the subject, have met and spoke with with numerous illegal immigrants who were sincere and good people. On the same note, however, I recognize that every other nation controls their immigration and that bad things and bad people cross the border almost daily mixed in with the poor good folks who really just want a better life.

I do not disagree with some views held on both sides of the immigration debate. But, middle of the road as I am, I would probably never join either a "pro" or "anti" illegal immigrant rights foundation. Why? Because in my view a solution seems so simple, yet so complicated at the same time, and both sides engage in hyperbole and fear-mongering or moral tongue wagging to support their side/views. I do not relate to either side of the discussion. Therefore I would not join any immigration rights group because either side will have views more extreme than the ones I hold, IMO.

How is this relevant at all?

It DOES exist but like the 'any gun, any time' faction, those that think the NRA is too soft(like this gent..Military Arms Channel-https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/10/09/military-arms-channel-withdraws-nra-support/), they are both at each end of the spectrum and neither appeals, again, to those of us in the nebulous 'middle'..Neither speaks for me or to me..

You are in the same place, only with gun rights...

[davidsog]

Zukiphile

That is twice you have paraphrased the same thing I have said in a rather verbose manner. Not sure if you are trying to be funny or just like to read your own post?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by davidsog

That is twice you have paraphrased the same thing I have said in a rather verbose manner. Not sure if you are trying to be funny or just like to read your own post?

That is incorrect. See below.

Originally Posted by davidsog

So the analysis is correct.

This introduces a problem with Allison's analysis, a problem that should suggest that the analysis is not correct. Rather than merely disagree, I then note the central element of the author's analysis, and contrast it with the positive effects of public advocacy.

Originally Posted by davidsog

The NRA maintained its efforts and spent considerable money on lobby efforts.

That isn't a paraphrase of your post. It is a response to it, which will necessarily involve some of the same points.

I ignored the part of your post that is a non sequitur:

Originally Posted by davidsog

There just is not that much to gain as a result of that lobbying for especially when the SCOTUS was previously not willing to hear a 2nd Amendment case.

It doesn't make any sense to conclude that there is little to gain from shaping a court to one's satisfaction in the future simply because it hasn't been satisfactory in the past.

The balance of my post pertains to a number of organizations working toward a common goal where their interests intersect and achieving the results I described, a topic on which your post didn't touch.

Hope that helps.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Steve4102

Don't you mean, Civil Liberties/Constitutional Rights?

I accept that there is real meaning in the difference, but it also appears common to refer to these generally as civil rights. From the SAF:

Is gun ownership a civil right?

World Net, from Princeton University, defines a “Civil Right” as a right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of congress including the right to legal, social and economic equality. This makes gun ownership as much of a civil right as freedom of speech, religion and freedom of the press.

From the designation of this forum, I believe local custom is to refer to 2d Am. rights as civil rights.

If your point is that this right is one to be free of some level of control, interference or regulation, rather than to use state power to compel the behavior of others, I don't disagree.


On the original question posed:

If there is a larger audience/market for a less strident message or tone, what other civil rights organization is poised to capture it?

… there appears to be no other organization that would be both a better fit for critics of the NRA's message and appealing to a larger membership than the NRA has. Happily there are many other groups, GOA, JPFOA, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, CCRKBA, each of which serve smaller populations and narrower tastes.

[davidsog]

On the original question posed:

Boy I am glad you cleared that up, lmao!!

[davidsog]

It doesn't make any sense to conclude that there is little to gain from shaping a court to one's satisfaction in the future simply because it hasn't been satisfactory in the past.

Well not surprisingly...THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID or MEANT....taken out of context and turned into something else.

Kind of common theme with you and my last post to you.

Glad you reached a conclusion!!

[zukiphile]

The huge problem is it appears a large majority percentage of firearms owners don't support any Second Amendment Rights organization.

Most people on most issues have given little thought to why they hold the position they do. That includes gun owners. Most people have better things to do with their time and money, and don't become involved in political legal advocacy.