Where is the NRA?

[Maxb49]

Am I the only person who thinks that the NRA hasn't done enough proactively in the past few weeks to protect our Constitutional freedom? Judging by who's sitting on that board, I think something more nefarious is going on here, like weapons dealers using the run on guns to drive up an artificial premium on firearms and ammunition, knowing that true bans and confiscation will never pass the Supreme Court. Your thoughts?

[Alabama Shooter]

I believe they are meeting with the VP today. What do you think they are not doing that they should be doing?

[Isk]

Give them some time to see what is actually proposed or likely to see the light of day before they try to shoot it down. It doesn't help to argue the theoretical restrictions. Better to wait and see what restrictions are actually being thrown at us.

[MonRiver]

I think the NRA is in a sticky situation.

IF, they came out earlier, harder, or more aggressive, they would be setting themselves up for ridicule. They waited a week after Sandy Hook and were criticized for making a statement "just hours after a moment of silent" for the victims.

The NRA is a well organized and intelligent Association. They need to stay in the background, plan, organize, and be well prepared to protect our rights.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[sigcurious]

I think something more nefarious is going on here, like weapons dealers using the run on guns to drive up an artificial premium on firearms and ammunition,

Firstly, if there is a run on something...the dealers aren't artificially setting prices, demand goes wayway up supply stays the same, prices go up, basic free market economics.

Secondly, the NRA is going to do what the NRA does. That is to say they are certainly out there lobbying whether or not it makes the news. More importantly however is why should you rely on them to protect your rights? As I said in a previous thread, it's great that we have groups like the NRA lobbying for our interests. However, in the end politicians are not accountable to the NRA, they're accountable to us the voters. It's much more critical that the politicians hear from us, the voters, than any organization lobbying for us.

[MLeake]

Received via NRA-ILA email last night:

Statement From the NRA Regarding Today's
White House Task Force Meeting


Fairfax, Va. – The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals.

We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not.

[Maxb49]

I believe they are meeting with the VP today. What do you think they are not doing that they should be doing?

The meeting with the Vice President was yesterday. This issue is a public relations war, and I don't believe they running a good enough public relations campaign for the amount of money they receive in donations from us. Frankly, this game has a first mover advantage and the president is adept at forming huge coalitions among disparate groups throughout the nation. Sitting around and waiting isn't good enough for any serious gun rights organization and certainly not for an organization that takes in so much money. Look at the people who sit on the NRA Board of Directors. Oliver North. OLIVER NORTH. The mastermind behind the Iran-Contra affair. Would you trust your civil rights to a criminal like Oliver North? Who else? Grover Norquist. These guys aren't skilled shooters, riflemen, sportsmen, or defenders of liberty. They're paid lobbyists acting upon an opportunity to make a buck and steal from another organization. Remember what guys like this did in the last election? Remember how the Dick Morrises and Karl Roves of the Republican party pocketed donations and paid lip service to the people they were supposed to work for, while accomplishing nothing? Yeah? Well guess what boys, that's exactly what's going on here. I don't trust them. I don't trust a single one of them to actually stand up for gun rights. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better off we will all be.

[tulsamal]

This issue is a public relations war

I'll agree with this part. And, as a Life Member, I do find it frustrating that the NRA doesn't use more professionals as their spokesmen. Even Obama doesn't come out and personally give a news conference on every topic. He has a pro who goes into that room and reads the statement and answers questions. IMO... the NRA REALLY needs a better media spokesman. Or spokeswoman!!

Gregg

[MLeake]

I think a skilled spokeswoman would be a great move; I think more minority spokespersons would not hurt, either.

Meaning no offense to Wayne LaPierre, but a middle aged white guy in a suit starts with some PR disadvantages.

[Alabama Shooter]

The meeting with the Vice President was yesterday.

Oh, so you knew then?

Would you trust your civil rights to a criminal like Oliver North?

His only criminal conviction was reversed. I guess he is a good a guy as any. At least he has the courage of his convictions.

[jmortimer]

^ And this thinking is helping with the national debate on gun control in what way? NRA is doing just fine and I'm no fan of the NRA.

[MLeake]

Meanwhile, Maxb49, I have not forgotten that Reagan pushed gun control as governor of California, in response to armed protests by the Black Panthers. I have not forgotten that George HW Bush signed the 1986 ban on full autos.

But I think they were much more effective and honest brokers than we have had since.

I can't think of a President with whom I would have agreed across the board, not even TR.

[carguychris]

I think the main topic warrants discussion but I sense that this thread is going off the rails.

Let's just agree that Oliver North is a divisive figure and therefore is not the ideal spokesperson for the NRA as a whole, and leave it at that.

I do agree that the NRA needs a non-controversial celebrity spokesperson. Another organization I belong to, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), has actor Harrison Ford. The NRA needs someone like that. Admittedly, the fact that the person is affiliated with the NRA is likely to make him or her controversial in and of itself.

[MLeake]

Tom Selleck has played that part. However, Tom, while intelligent, well-spoken, and charismatic, is a sixty-something conservative white guy.

We need some younger spokespersons, preferably of both genders, multiple races, and multiple party affiliations.

[Alabama Shooter]

Part of winning this war is knowing who our friends are and who are enemies are.

You might be on to something there. Here in this letter he seems to be saying something:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


WASHINGTON — Full disclosure right upfront: I'm a proud life member of the National Rifle Association. I am on the NRA's board of directors and serve as chairman of the organization's Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have owned and used firearms most of my life, and I can read. Unlike some in Washington, I don't believe that the 27 words above — the Second Amendment of our Constitution — have anything to do with "gun rights." Guns don't have rights. I do. So do you.

Fifty-two years ago, like tens of millions before and since, I raised my right hand and took an oath of enlistment in our armed forces, pledging to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I promised I would "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." Notably, the words promise loyalty not to a political party or a particular individual but to the Constitution, which enshrines our liberties and the limits and responsibilities of those who govern us like no other foundational document on earth.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/oliv...he-o-team.html

I am not sure how is pro gun control go ahead and let us know.

[carguychris]

The meeting with the Vice President was yesterday.

Although this is already been discussed in other threads, IMHO the meeting with Biden was a dog and pony show, a perfect example of meaningless political theater. Both sides were merely pandering to their respective political bases. The outcome was preordained and changes nothing.

The important work starts when we see an actual proposal.

[spacecoast]

I thought David Keene did a good job on CNN last night.

[Ben Towe]

The NRA does it's best work where it counts in DC. In the background. There's been a lot of policy made at the Old Ebbitt Grill and such places. The posturing you see on TV is just that. Policy is decided in the back rooms.

[Strafer Gott]

Not TLTFR, but close. Thanks for the analysis, none the less. The real authority is supposed to reside in the people. Let's get back on that.

[Pointshoot]

I'd think the NRA is waiting to see what is put before them by the antis. I just heard a very short web radio partial statement by an NRA spokesperson and they said that the focus should not be on 'feel good' measures but to look at what actually is the cause of these kinds of acts. - - Well, since the likelihood of being struck by lightening is higher than being a victim in a mass shooting, one has to wonder if any 'measures' are really required. (Just websearch the numbers for the number of people stuck by lightening versus those in mass shootings over the last 10 years.) IMO, there isn't enough emphasis on this fact. This was a horrible event, but emotionalism seems to be the order of the day, and the antis are using this to advantage. But I suppose today, using the facts, logic, and the truth would be heard by many as "nevermind, youre concerned about nothing" by the soccer Moms. So, this is likely a bad strategy. (Ever have a girlfriend or wife accuse you of 'not listening to her feelings' ?)
That said, a common factor in most of these senseless mass shootings is that the murderers were taking psychiatric drugs which can increase suicidal and violent behavior. This needs to be investigated and brought to broader attention. The media definitely isnt doing this.
If the NRA focuses on this, it will help frame these matters and will better protect the children and similiar victims of these rare crimes. (As another comparison - about 115 people are killed in auto accidents every day in the US.)


I'm an NRA Life Member. I'm also a member of Gun Owners of America (GOA) & Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) - I'm not Jewish, but you don't have to be. - - - I'm in the NRA because they are the biggest pro 2A organization out there. I'm in the GOA and JPFO because IMO they take a more aggressive stance to protect our gun rights.

[coachteet]

The NRA-ILA has done the job quite well, I think. The meeting with Biden was a farce, he had no interest in hearing anything but which guns should be outlawed and how small "clip" capacity needs to be to make the world safer.

[thallub]

Look at the people who sit on the NRA Board of Directors

.

Become a Life Member of the NRA and you can vote for the members of the NRA Board of Directors.

In 2012 only seven percent of eligible NRA members voted in the annual Board of Directors election.

http://www.netgunsmith.com/2012/04/t...-of-directors/

[Skadoosh]

Ben Towe wrote:

The NRA does it's best work where it counts in DC. In the background.

I agree. The NRA doesn't need to the spotlight to be effective.

[Pointshoot]

coachteet said: "The NRA-ILA has done the job quite well, I think. The meeting with Biden was a farce, he had no interest in hearing anything but which guns should be outlawed and how small "clip" capacity needs to be to make the world safer."

IMO we must always keep the antis agenda in mind - to disarm the American people.

They would like, at minimum, to have the kind of restrictions that other countries have. Many kinds of guns completely outlawed. Some guns 'allowed' but under very restrictive conditions - locked up in a gun club, special licensing, etc, etc. 'Proof' of 'need' before a gun could be owned & 'psychological evaluation'. Registration.

In the past, that's why many of us have been displeased with the NRA. There has been 'compromise' which seems to be "they give nothing, we give as much as they can get from us . . . till the next time around" - then we 'compromise' some more. The former Assault Weapons Ban ended. It was obvious that various external 'scary' features on rifles had no impact on violent crime, and it went away.

But what many seem to forget is that 'they' don't grant us the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This God given inherent right of all men to be able to defend themselves is one recognized in the US Constitution.

[JWT]

I think the NRA comes across much better when someone other than La Pierre speaks for them. The other representative I've seen on the media come across with the same message but in a less confrontational manner. Just my opinion.

Agree the Biden meeting was a farce. Just an excuse for him to say he reached out to hear all parties before he does whatever he planned in the first place.