June 13, 2010, 10:37 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: March 20, 2006
Location: Just East of Indianapolis
Posts: 29
|
NRA, GOA Confusion
Hi Folks.
I wanted to post my 2 cents here and see if I was alone in this train of thought. I welcome responses and opinions both pro and con. Thanks. I really don't understand some of the NRA's decisions, lately. (I'm very close to paying off my life membership dues, so I've been a supporter and contributor for a long time.) The June issue of "America's First Freedom" has a good article in it about a new gun range that was built in Nevada, and shows Chris Cox and Wayne LaPierre buddying up with Sen Harry Reid (D) and thanking him profusely for helping push the bill to allocate the funding. This is a man who has repeatedly cast anti-second amendment votes and sided with the hard left liberals. The NRA has also recently endorsed John McCain in the current AZ Senators Race, and he was the co-author of the McCain-Feingold bill, which restricted the rights of organizations' ability to politically advertise 30-60 days prior to an election. In McCains case, for this one election, it's probably just a case of the devil you know, because his opponent is said to have a worse gun-rights voting record than McCain; but a photo op with Harry Reid? Do they think he's suddenly a good guy and worthy of such accolades? Are any other members out there a bit put-off by this? Another prominent gun-rights organization is the GOA, of which I'm also a member. They do a great job with their action alert emails, and are more timely than the NRA's alerts; however, those pre-written letters they offer for members to contact their representatives with are a little pigeon-holed and harshly worded for my taste. I appreciate the contact and info, but I usually re-write a portion of them before I send them out, or simply author my own letter altogether. These two groups seem to often differ on contents and interpretations of bills, and gradings of politicians. However, what they both do well is prompt people to get involved and do some homework. (The thomas.gov web site is a great resource for all things legislative. If you haven't tried it yet, check it out for full versions of bills, updates on their movements, and how your legislators voted.) Don't get me wrong, I thank God that there are advocacy groups out there, and I will continue to support them and get active in my local elections. But I may have to reconsider that if I continue to see conflicting information on the same issues adn news items from these two pro-gun groups - because it forces me to wonder who's info is accurate, and who's dropping the ball. Thanks for letting me vent. Your thoughts? |
June 13, 2010, 10:58 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 23, 2009
Location: Nevada
Posts: 644
|
I think of the NRA and GOA as the lower and upper bounds of second amendment activism in the U.S. Take, for example, a law that affects the right to keep and bear firearms in some fashion.
If the NRA objects to that law as infringing rights, I will most often agree with them. If they approve of it, I might agree or might think that they're entirely too accommodating to those who do not value my freedom. If the GOA *approves* of the law as not infringing my rights, I'll usually agree with them. If they object to it, I might agree or might think they're raving loons. (It has happened.) That difference accounts for such cases as Harry Reid, which the NRA gives an A rating and mostly supports, while the GOA gives an F rating and mostly opposes. Looking at Reid's voting record on second-amendment issues alone, he isn't too bad. I moved to Nevada from California about eighteen months ago: compared to either of our senators in California, Reid is a miracle of pro-second-amendment activism. (wry grin) The NRA has the habit of looking at second-amendment issues alone. They are not interested in how conservative or how liberal a politician is otherwise. IMHO that's smart; it avoids entangling them in issues that they are not qualified to judge and creates a "big tent" for second amendment supporters who might not all be in agreement on other political issues. |
June 13, 2010, 11:06 PM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
|
Regarding the NRA and Reid. My viewpoint is the NRA is giving credit where credit is due. You mean to tell me that even if a politician has an anti-gun voting record as a whole is automatically disqualified in receiving credit when they actually do something GOOD for the gunowning community? His support on that bill for the funding was huge. The NRA and the surrounding local communities have fought very hard to make it happen. Kudos for Reid in the involvement. On top of that, kudos for the NRA to print the article. Kudos for our elected board members of the NRA to spend time with Reid to discuss in a professional manner. Why would anyone think it's a bad idea to expose Reid to our culture and have him see what our true image is?
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language. Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting |
June 14, 2010, 08:09 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
|
"They do a great job with their action alert emails"
Except for the fact that over the years the alerts have tended to run to extra-shrill caterwauling and playing real fast and loose with the facts. Or lack of facts as it were. JT |
June 14, 2010, 09:14 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
|
Quote:
The fate of the NRA's impact on gun rights now rises and falls with the fate of Conservative evangelical Christian politics which is an unnecessary, risky, limiting and imprudent alliance in the realm of gun rights advocacy: It's impossible for a legislator to support Second Amendment rights without also being seen to support the commentary, perspectives and politics of the far right as well, which may not be his politics or the politics of his constituency. Thus he's kept silent on gun rights issues he would support were they free of such taint. Unfortunately the NRA's marriage of gun rights to the perspectives and manners of the far right has permanently burdened gun rights issues with unrelated, contentious politics and that hurts all of us and unnecessarily limits membership and political support for our Second Amendment rights- not just the NRA, but gun rights themselves. |
|
June 14, 2010, 10:27 AM | #6 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Both organizations pale in modern relevancy to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) when it comes to the judicial battles we must face down to re-establish our beliefs in the eyes of the law.
The NRA lobbies for the status quo. The GOA screeches to simply be heard. The SAF is working to protect us via well established case law. |
June 14, 2010, 10:52 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
I am no fan of Reid, and do not plan to vote for him, but is is not generally anti-gun. His support for Sotomayor was the last straw for me, though. If Sotomayor comes down on the wrong side of McDonald vs Chicago, Reid and a lot of congressman and senators are going to be in the political crosshairs in November, and so might Kagan's confirmation process.
|
June 14, 2010, 10:59 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
We don't want to be too overtly political here. The theoretical issue of tying the NRA to conservative causes and politicians is a good one (it's written up in analysis of the NRA) but we can become rude to each other - so be nice.
No bashing of social positions in general outside of support of the RKBA.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 14, 2010, 12:27 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
As for Harry Reid, on gun rights, his record is not bad. He voted against the AWB for instance. I admit he's more socialistic on economic policy and other left wing causes. The NRA has given A ratings to other liberal politicians depending on their stance regarding gun rights. Gun rights will cut across the political spectrum more than some other issues. Yes, conservatives will offer stronger support, but there are some moderate to liberal politicians who aren't bad on gun rights. It could be the states they are from. The democrats, in fact, actively recruited candidates from traditionally red states who were more supportive of gun rights in order to gain control of congress. This has frustrated the far left as it prevents them from passing more gun control even with control of the whitehouse and both sides of congress. They sold out gun control for political and economic control. I won't go any farther than that and risk veering off to far into pure politics unrelated to gun rights.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
June 14, 2010, 12:51 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Christian Science Monitor had an article in 2009 and Harper's had one a few years ago, that argued that folks left of center are becoming supportive of gun rights and buying guns. Basic reason is the mistrust of the stability of the country and the need for self-reliance. Also, folks left and right are mistrusting government and starting to buy into the notion that the populace maintains a resevoir of ability to resist government tyranny. Now the left and right differ on their feared tyrannies but the American people seem to feel that resisting government is a potential that they might want to have.
I was listening to an analysis of the Iranian people's seemingly growing discontent with their government (if that is to be believed). The commentator made an interesting observation that street demos portray weakness as the religious fanatic governmental militias can control the streets easily as the people have no real ability to contest them. Thus, strikes and labor shutdowns might be a better strategy. It would be different in the USA as it is pretty clear than heavy handed use of force by a left or right government in the USA would not have such an easy time. My conclusion is that the general American consciousness is moving towards gun rights except in some pockets that may be shocked and moving the other way - towards move regulation (NY, CA, MA - for instance). But that's a variant of group polarization as faced with values challenge you become more extreme. Certainly, we see pocket on the right becoming a touch nutty also, lately. As far as a party selling out some constitutency to win, stay in power, collect bribes, etc. Well, isn't that a surprise!
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 14, 2010, 01:22 PM | #11 | |||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
In that list of Democratic senior leadership who can control the fate of gun control in this Congress, there is exactly one guy who voted against the AWB, who sponsored an amendment to prevent gun ownership from being an issue in the new healthcare plan, voted yes on prohibiting foreign aid that restricts U.S. gun ownership and voted to protect firearms manufacturers from spurious lawsuits. Reid happens to be that guy. Now the NRA's choice is whether to reward the Senate Majority Leader for his active pro-gun votes and assistance in the past or whether to reward a newcomer who will have significantly less power and so far hasn't done anything on guns but talk. I can understand where you might not be enthused about Reid as a Senator; but from a purely Second Amendment standpoint, he is easily the smart choice for the endorsement. Quote:
Quote:
For that matter, the first NRA general election endorsement for the 2010 elections? (If you don't count the American Rifleman article on Reid I guess) Ted Strickland of Ohio (D). So NRA is definitely not wedded to "Conservative evangelical Christian politics" - having said that, if you want to pick watermelon, you don't go looking in the Himalayas. Before the NRA can endorse more pro-Second Amendment, non-conservative, non-evangelical Christian politicians, there have to be more pro-Second Amendment, non-conservative, non-evangelical Christian politicians to endorse - and that endorsement can't come at the expense of sound political strategy (like that mentioned in the Reid example above). |
|||
June 14, 2010, 04:06 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
|
Quote:
Glenn, too, is spot on about a broader spectrum of Americans realizing that gun rights are important. I may not be in complete agreement with the NRA at all times (who is ever in complete agreement with anyone else all the time) but I've learned that there is always a method to their madness. Look at their endorsement of McCain, for example. True, he's for an AWB, and for closing the so-called "gun show loophole," but in the main, he's been supportive of gun rights. OK, if the NRA throws their endorsement to his primary opponent, who (according to my sources in AZ) isn't likely to unseat him, now they have to try to influence a P.O.'d senior senator who regards them as a political enemy. Not a position I'd care to be in, or see the organization I belong to put themselves in. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Like it or not, that's the way it works, and the NRA has played their hand very well the vast majority of the time.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill) |
|
June 14, 2010, 04:50 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
No taxpayer funds were involved in the building of that complex. Harry Reid is a staunch 2nd Amendment supporter. Reid voted against the AWB. Reid also voted against the 2004 extension of the AWB. The extension of the AWB passed the US senate with the help of 10 (R) members. |
|
June 14, 2010, 07:16 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
The NRA has an incumbent endorsement policy if the candidates have the same grade. This is an extremely smart policy from a political standpoint. Incumbents have more power and ability to get things done so if you have an incumbent who is pro 2A you want to keep that person.
A one issue group can't concede either side of the political spectrum. Getting face time with the senate majority leader is never a bad thing no matter what party he is from. |
June 14, 2010, 07:22 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
|
I think it's naive in the extreme to posit that an armed resistance to the federal government by everyday citizens would have any effect other than to get a lot of armed citizens blown away. Look what happened at Ruby Ridge or Waco- anyone who wants to resist the Federal government (or whatever vocabulary you wish to use that describes taking a course contrary to what's "lawful"- armed insurrection is certainly not among the legal recourses we have available) is looking to have the BATF, the FBI, Homeland Security and/or the National Guard right in their faces with all the force available to the Federal military (which can't be used inside the US because of "Posse Comitatus", but their weapons and tactics can, in the hands of other than the Federal military). The last armed revolution that will be allowed was the one in the 1770's; a modern recreation of it won't survive for more than a minute or two.
People on the left believe in personal freedom, in having the government butt out of their lives when it comes to personal choice- who to marry, whether to have an abortion or not, and whether to arm one's self in his or her own defense. So they increasingly believe in individual gun rights with the same fervor they believe in all the other individual rights- firearms as the means to protecting themselves is a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment which they recognize and wish to support. It's a different politic that's emerging and the old alliances aren't as prevalent as they used to be. Using the old pigeon holes of political viewpoints increasingly won't fit the situation, and when that becomes clearer the politics of candidates will reflect it. Quote:
|
|
June 14, 2010, 07:38 PM | #16 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
So, what are you suggesting?
Ostracize from the organization some of the Second Amendment's staunchest supporters just because the left doesn't think they look good? That sounds suspiciously as if it would be playing exactly into the left's hands over the entire matter. Simple fact is, NRA doesn't forge its alliances based on how Holy a candidate claims to be, or how racists CNN claims them to be. NRA forges its alliances based on the candidate's or politican's demonstrated support for the pillar position of the entire organization. There are numerous Democrats in that fold, too, staunch Christians whose beliefs are based on a strong personal morality and who are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, as well. But they, obviously, don't really fit into the media's attempts to paint NRA as a radical, racist organization. Whose fault is that? Ours, or theirs? And again I ask, should we ask NRA to toss its supporters to the curb simply because CNN and the like won't point to the far left and expose the blatant racism and other virulent ism's that are part and parcel to that iniquitous band?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
June 14, 2010, 08:28 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
The best case for keeping Harry is that anyone who replaces him will be a junior senator with no juice. Right now we have a liaison in the enemy camp. Harry picks his battles well enough to retain sufficient credibility with his party to be able to put his foot down when it comes to gun control.
As long as the Democrats are in the majority, we can't do better than that, no matter who we elect. This is as true for the country's 2A advocates as it is for the state of NV. I think I just talked myself in to holding my nose in November. Last edited by maestro pistolero; June 15, 2010 at 12:08 AM. |
June 14, 2010, 11:52 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
People who preach armed insurrection now are usually nut cases, IMHO. I was not talking about Ruby Ridge, Waco or various cults outraged by this and that.
However, being somewhat a student of history, it's clear that researchers (not gun folk zealots) have determined that genocides occur when the out group is primarily defenseless. Aslo, organized repression of freedom (not the rantings of some group about some trivial cause) occurs when a population is defenseless. In the USA, the existence of substantial force in the population plus our traditions is likely to act as a damper or cadium rod set against an Ayotallah of some religious fanatic imposing beliefs or a left wing takeover as happened in Czechoslovakia where the Communists became elected and then imp[osed tyranny. it is a mistake to view the defense of liberty aspects of the RKBA with the actions of some recent loonies with bizarre causes as compared to the horrific possibility of a true general tyranny. Could racist or religious discriminatory laws be reinstated? Not without a confligration. Note in Iran, the dissidents must resort to symbolic measures. Try to be the religious dictator of the USA? This is of course unlikely but the RKBA provides a buffer against it. Folks like to quote the perhaps bogus Yamamoto quote about a gun behind every blade of grass making invasion impossibility. A communisit or nazi style coup is as unlikely as an invasion but if one did think of such, one must know that you would not have an easy ride. Might sound nutty - but maintaining a potential against a general tyranny is a good thing. This is not the ravings of a cult but a principle that defines the strength of the people. Can you imagine a military officer engaging in planning a coup like Seven Days in May? We are pretty clear now that massive resistance in urban areas stymies even our existing forces (given they cooperated with such). I do agree that lately the NRA trots out folks I disagree with like Beck and Palin. I'd prefer if they didn't. Beck is one of the reasons to have the RKBA, IMHO - oops, I'm getting political. The NRA should make more of a concerted effort to have nonconservatives come to the fore. If they would show up - have a progun liberal/Democratic speaker set at the convention. It's complex isn't it. However, the lessons of history are clear that in a few years, civilization can fail and governments can become tyrannies. Be nice to have a reasonable chance to damp that down. This is a different principle from defending some nuts in compound.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 15, 2010, 06:03 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
The NRA should ask pro-gun politicians from all walks of life to show up and speak at their convention. IMO: My Second Amendment rights are the most precious of all my rights as a US citizen. I will vote for the pro-Second Amendment candidate every time. I could care less that the pro-gunner is a fire breathing Protestant minister or a lesbian Wiccan who has had two abortions. |
|
June 15, 2010, 09:15 AM | #20 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2009
Location: Small city in New York
Posts: 482
|
Quote:
Quote:
When it's time for another convention, the NRA would serve itself and all of us better if it picked less controversial keynote speakers. It may be too late- trying to broaden its appeal by eschewing polarizing commentary and pop stars of the far right might not be possible because such a pernicious identity is like a tattoo. Quote:
|
|||
June 15, 2010, 10:08 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Pardon a temporary diversion from the topic.
Excellent post, but here I disagree: Quote:
This is perhaps even more true on our own soil, where the government would be extremely reluctant to turn WMD on it's own infrastructure, let alone it's own people, posse comitatus notwithstanding. The 300 million guns in private hands in this country include more military-style semi-automatic rifles than are held by any two of the largest armies in the world. I consider that a quite sufficient deterrent to tyranny, so much so, that I think as long as we have a meaningful 2nd Amendment, we will never need to use it for that purpose. That's the irony, as long as we have 2A protection, we won't need it. Take it away, or weaken it enough, and the need for it becomes great. Back to your regularly scheduled programming. |
|
June 15, 2010, 10:26 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
Ask yourself this:
Who would you rather have as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or Dick Durbin? On a whole host of issues there may not be much difference but when it comes to the RKBA Harry Reid > Dick Durbin. |
June 15, 2010, 11:07 AM | #23 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
It's really very simple. You're going to find yourself disagreeing with every person or organization who is not you.
You may even find yourself disagreeing with yourself from time to time. The question is, do they do more harm than good? If they do, try to support their activities. If not, do not. NRA, yes. GOA, I'm not so sure. They're a bit too far on the "shrieky side". I don't necessarily think that they help the cause.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
June 15, 2010, 03:48 PM | #24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 12, 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 130
|
There is one simple fact to remember about the NRA. It's mandate is not about health care, evangelicalism, welfare, immigration policy, or anything else that is not related to guns. The NRA's political mandate is to protect gun rights, and it has to be a one-issue organization. Of course, that one issue has a lot of facets, including campaign advertising laws, potential terrorist lists that include Iraq War veterans, and a lot of back door ways to strip us of gun rights, but their one purpose, politically, is gun rights and nothing else. If somebody wants to be involved in other causes, then there are groups out there that advocate for those causes. Just be aware that some of those groups may be actively working against the NRA's agenda at the same time that they are supporting your other cause.
__________________
Gun laws are designed to extend and solidify the power of an elite over a peasantry. Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march. |
June 15, 2010, 04:06 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2007
Location: Lago Vista TX
Posts: 2,425
|
I was in a lather about the NRA's latest hijinks, conning an exemption to the bill being concocted by liberals to gut the Citizens United ruling ... TexasFats kind of put it in a different light for me; he may be right that the NRA, as THE pro-gun organization in the U.S., has to focus on gun rights, often at the expense of other issues. Reid may be a gun rights guy, but he's so horrible in every other way that it's hard to justify supporting him. But if you look at in from the one-issue side, maybe the NRA is doing the right thing for gun rights in general, even if having Harry around for another term isn't in the best interests of anything else you can think of.
__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|