Anti-NRA vitriol increasing?

[Phoenix54c]

Their decision to publish videos featuring NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch is probably largely responsible.

Many people, some members of the sweeping political, racial and social demographics the video indicts as "thugs" who "bully and terrorize the law-abiding," found the video propagandist, reactionary and threatening.

To this last point, Ms. Loesch's call "to fight this violence of lies with a clenched fist" isn't exactly an olive branch.

[JohnKSa]

...some members of the sweeping political, racial and social demographics the video indicts as "thugs" who "bully and terrorize the law-abiding,"

I'm not defending the video because it's overly dramatic for my taste, but let's keep our facts straight.

The video definitely refers to "thugs" and to people who "bully and terrorize the law-abiding". But there is nothing in the video which identifies those actions as being specifically attributed to any racial, social, or political demographic.

If people choose to identify with those who "bully and terrorize the law-abiding" then I can see why they might be upset. Or if people choose to self-identify as "thugs" then it's understandable why they might be offended by the comments. Or if people think it's ok to destroy the property of innocent people when they get upset, it's not difficult to see why the comments in the video might disturb them.

But the video does not call out, or indict, any specific racial, social, or political demographic.

To this last point, Ms. Loesch's call "to fight this violence of lies with a clenched fist" isn't exactly an olive branch.

Wow, that's spectacularly misleading.

First of all, it is a misquote. The quote did not say to fight lies with "A" clenched fist, it said to fight lies with "THE" clenched fist. But even more importantly, the actual quote doesn't stop there. Correcting the misquote and completing the sentence completely changes the meaning of the quote from what the misquote implies is resisting with an actual clenched fist, to what the actual quote says about resisting lies with the metaphorical fist of truth.

Here's the entire sentence.

"The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth."

Now, I suppose that fighting back lies with the truth is seen as "propagandist, reactionary and threatening" to some, but it's hardly the call to violence that some more creative people have tried to make it in their quest to find offense at every turn.

[zukiphile]

Personally, I wont support the NRA anymore because its turned into nothing more than a special interest group who uses our money to try to influence elections.

You're welcome.

[44 AMP]

If the NRA got back to being what it was when it started: being all about gun safety, responsible gun ownership and promoting the shooting sports; Id be all for it but Im not going to support a radical, right-wing lobby.

I just wish that gun rights were treated as constitutional rights and not republican rights.

Seems to me that if you think the NRA is radical right wing and gun rights are only for republicans, you have already drunk the radical left Kool-Aid to a point.

It may LOOK like the NRA only supports Republicans, but that is a situation CREATED by the Democrats!!!!!

When one party makes gun control (registration, confiscation, and even outright prohibition) one of their political party "planks" and the other doesn't, it kind of doesn't leave us many options about whom to support.

There are Democrats who believe in gun rights the same way "we" do, but they are thin on the ground, and have not been allowed to make party policy for a long time now. There are Republicans who are gun control advocates too. So far, they have not been in a position to lead the Republican party, either. So far.

No, the NRA was not created to be a political force opposing gun control. For nearly a hundred years, they weren't. They became one (and created the ILA to do it legally) because NO ONE ELSE was there to fight gun control in anything even remotely resembling effective numbers. And there still isn't, really.

For those of you who decline to support the NRA's work against gun control (which I admit has been flawed on occasion), because the "didn't do enough" or "didn't stop" this or that specific law, tell me, who would you support??

What did YOU do, gunowning NRA basher??

If you're a sports guy, do you stop supporting your team because they don't win every single game???

IF you're in a war, and you don't support your "army" with supplies because they didn't win every single battle, you won't be winning many more battles, nor will you win the war. If the Generals directing things lead to defeat more often than victory, you replace THEM, you don't cut off the flow of beans & bullets needed.

oh, and FYI, about the GCA 68, yes the NRA didn't fight much against that one, partly because the people at the time didn't foresee ALL the unintended consequences accurately. Even the gun industry supported the GCA 68, BECAUSE it was sold to them as a trade protection law.

The US gun industry, at the time, was struggling, losing a lot of business to foreign imports. The GCA 68 promised to curb the imports. All they had to give up was mail order guns (and after all, it was a "foreign mail order gun that killed JFK"..) and a "few other little regulations"....

Like a lot of other laws, what we were told it would do (to get our support, or at least not actively oppose) and what it actually did were somewhat ...different things.

[Tom Servo]

You're welcome.

Precisely. It's easy for people to sit back, armchair quarterback, and gripe about the results when they personally put nothing into the game.

To the "what has the NRA ever done for me?" crowd, you have no idea what they've done. If it weren't for them, we'd have seen sweeping handgun bans and nationwide registration by 1972. Once the the ink on the Roberti-Roos act was dry in 1989, we'd have seen a federal "assault weapons" ban that wouldn't have had a grandfather clause or sunset date. The very idea of carry permits would be a weird and alien concept. Ammunition sales would be tightly controlled. As a result of all this, the few guns to remain legal would be astronomically expensive.

Who else was going to stop the gun-control lobby from getting everything they want? The GOA? The NAGR? Please.

Whether or not the naysayers realize it, they've been riding the NRA's coattails for decades. The fact that we're even able to have this discussion is because of groundwork the organization laid before most people in the debate were even born.

IF someone doesn't like the direction the NRA has taken, they're welcome to actually do something about it. As it stands right now, a vanishingly small percentage of gun owners (I've seen estimates as low as 5%) actual belong to the organization. Any membership level 5 years or higher entitles members to vote in board elections.

Want LaPierre out? Don't like the allegiance to one political party? Perhaps consider forming a bloc to change the leadership. It's happened before, and it really doesn't take that many people to do it. The problem is, there are just that few people concerned and involved enough to bother.

But no. It's easier in the age of Tumblr to post vitriol on the internet, bask in social-media acclamation, and mistake that for action. TL;DR: if you don't like the situation, you can change it. Problem is, nobody seems willing to do the work.

[Pilot]

GCA 1968 gave us the very destructive "Sporting Purposes" clause. It needs to be repealed.

[DaleA]

Post #24

I just wish that gun rights were treated as constitutional rights and not republican rights.

Boy, is this post is right on the money.

[DaleA]

Just another small point, on which I could be mistaken on,

There are folks afoot who take a word, jack it up, and slide a whole 'nother meaning under it so you can't use it anymore like you used to use it.

Like the word 'gay'.

'Thug' might be one of these words that is in the process of being redefined and maybe we should watch out how we use it. But I concede I might be mistaken here and might be over sensitive or too politically correct or just flat out wrong (a possibility I never totally reject).

[Kevin Rohrer]

To answer the OP, Libs are losing and don't like it, so they are shotgunning ALL Conservative interests, hoping to hit something. Not working as they don't know how to shoot.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack

I don't know about the 5$ pistol tax, But from what I do know is they supported the 34 and 68 law, there is a issue of American Rifleman around 68 that has a article in it to that effect..

The NRA did not support the 1968 GCA. They half-heartedly supported an earlier version by Sen. Dodd in 1964; but when it came to the 1968 version:

"Facing this unprecedented, widespread push for gun control, the NRA became highly energized and rallied against the president's proposed regulations. National Rifle Association executive vice-president Franklin L. Orth argued publicly that no law, existing or proposed, could have prevented the murder of Senator Kennedy. On June 15, 1968, the NRA mailed a letter to its members calling for them to write their members of Congress to oppose any new firearms laws. Using hyperbole and emotionally charged rhetoric, NRA President Harold W. Glassen wrote that the right of sportsmen to obtain, own, and use firearms for legal purposes was in grave jeopardy. Furthermore, Glassen wrote, the clear goal of gun control proponents was complete abolition of civilian ownership of guns. Senator Joseph D. Tydings, Democrat of Maryland, who had introduced the provisions requiring licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, responded to this accusation in a press conference calling the letter "calculated hysteria" and saying no bill would prevent law-abiding citizens from having guns. Nevertheless, Glassen's tactic effectively energized the membership of the NRA, then 900,000 strong, just as the public outcry calling for more firearms regulations was dissipating. Whereas Congress had encountered overwhelming support for more gun control measures in the week after Senator Kennedy's death, by late June and early July they reported the majority of the letters from constituents indicated opposition to any new gun control provisions."

[Hal]

Your history is a bit wrong. The $5 handgun tax was removed from the NFA at the behest of the NRA.

Welp - I was just repeating what I read on this forum at one point.

Anyhow - the NRA sure comes across pretty bad according to this:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/nra/nfa.asp

W/friends like that, who needs..........

[cjwils]

Back to the OP's original question: I think vitriol from both the right and the left on a wide range of topics has been increasing since at least the Bill Clinton era, and has now reached the point where the vitriol is harmful to the nation's well being. I think the solution is to respond with facts and calm politeness no matter how vitriolic the other side is.

[doofus47]

Tom Servo

So, we've got "gun safety" advocates working in direct opposition to the nation's largest, most effective gun safety organization. Let that sink in.

the nation's largest[, oldest, ]most effective gun safety organization.

Fixed it for you.

[IrishGuy824]

They've been spouting lies about the 2A community for years and now they're being seen as exactly what they are - deceitful people who want to strip people of their freedoms.

They feel if they can destroy the National Rifle Association they can get "common sense gun control" passed in Congress. They are screaming louder with every Concealed Carry License granted. They can scream and stomp their feet all they want, public perception is skewing towards the 2A community and away from the gun grabbers.

[P5 Guy]

NRA is 4 million members with a few million to spend on politicians.
Micheal Bloomberg is a billionaire that spends as much as he can on gun prohibition.

[Mike Irwin]

Badgerstate says...


"Personally, I wont support the NRA anymore because its turned into nothing more than a special interest group who uses our money to try to influence elections."


Unless you have donated money to NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, NONE of "your" money has been used to influence elections.

Per Federal law, ALL money expended on election issues MUST be raised separately and independently of other funds.

Your membership dues do NOT support political activities by NRA.


As for it being a "special interest" group... Holy hell, man, what do you think NRA's purpose is? To support lawful firearms ownership and activities through educational and political processes!

OF COURSE it's a special interest group!

It supports and defends OUR interests!

[Mike Irwin]

I don't think it's getting any more vicious, just louder. For most of the Obama presidency it wasn't really front page news because the assumption was that with D-D-D controlling the all phases of the government, well it was going to be a dark day for gun owners.

When Obama was elected in 2008 the anti-gun left thought it was a new day for sweeping gun control in America. Even though Heller had gone the "wrong" way, they figured that on a 5-4 decision they could get some friendly votes in the Supreme Court and it would be overturned.

After all, the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives were all Democrat controlled.

Living in DC metro I saw many gleeful predictions that "assault weapons" would finally be outlawed and there would be a rollback on the ability of Americans to purchase and own firearms.

Some of the call I saw for were based on California legislation HEAVY. $100 a year taxes on every firearm. $1 a round taxes on ammunition. Totally ludicrous stuff that never had a chance of passing, but it was being talked about openly and loudly.

In February 2009 Eric Holder, attorney general, proclaimed that one of the first things that was going to happen was the assault weapons ban.

A friend of mine was was a former Justice Dept. attorney who got information from his former colleagues that after Holder opened his yap, Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff, called Holder on behalf of the president and blistered him up, down, and crossways for daring to announce policy.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...

But, it also gave the anti-gun left pause. They were jubilant when Holder yapped, and as time went on and nothing happened, they grew more concerned, and more vocal.

When Democrats lost the 3-way majority in the by elections, the anti-gun left, and a lot of the ultra left, started turning on Obama for failure to deliver what they thought should have been delivered.

We all know the rest of the story.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

If you're a sports guy, do you stop supporting your team because they don't win every single game???

IF you're in a war, and you don't support your "army" with supplies because they didn't win every single battle, you won't be winning many more battles, nor will you win the war. If the Generals directing things lead to defeat more often than victory, you replace THEM, you don't cut off the flow of beans & bullets needed.

The problem is that each victory of the anti-gun crowd is usually permanent while each victory of the pro-gun crowd is a temporary victory. Anti-gun laws normally stay on the books and fighting them, at best, postpones their passage. Do we have more freedom to bear arms now or when the country was founded? It is certainly better to delay laws which restrict freedom but I am not convinced that will have any effect on the outcome in the end.

[MichaelS.]

Bottom line, as long as everyone refuses to relinquish their guns (in the manner that Australia, Europe etc. gave up theirs), we are golden. If we let the Left chip away at our solidarity, our rights WILL be infringed and crumble, just like the rest of the idiot world.

Hard to impose draconian anti gun laws on a nation with millions of gun owners, unless we let them.

[rickyrick]

Any new law gets passed, gun owners will be among the first to follow it.

Many people are enjoying much more firearm freedom than in the recent past. In small corners of the country, gun rights are leaving and gun control is taking over. I don't see much resistance in these cases. Gun owners follow the laws and tip-toe around any controversy.
Gun control is an election talking point.
Election talking points are never solved.
If these things are solved, the funds dry up.

In a hockey game with no net, both sides just push a puck around.

[langenc]

I wish the NRA didnt pay someone $700,000, or more/yr.

[Prndll]

I've seriously considered joining the NRA. The only real reason I haven't has more to do with the idea that I'm not all that crazy about contributing to and PAC. I'm abit more inclined to put that money to the 100 Club. That doesn't make me anti-gun (far from it). It doesn't make me a liberal leftist either. Maybe at some point, they will bring me in. But not yet.

[zukiphile]

I wish the NRA didnt pay someone $700,000, or more/yr.

If that person is worth a million, they got a deal.

[rickyrick]

$700,000-1,000,000 is not much income in the grand scheme of things. The population needs to be in debt to be useful and profitable.

I'd expect the head of and large organization to make that or more.

[JohnKSa]

The problem is that each victory of the anti-gun crowd is usually permanent while each victory of the pro-gun crowd is a temporary victory. Anti-gun laws normally stay on the books and fighting them, at best, postpones their passage. Do we have more freedom to bear arms now or when the country was founded? It is certainly better to delay laws which restrict freedom but I am not convinced that will have any effect on the outcome in the end.

We have seen the rollback of a number of anti-gun provisions.

The GCA of 1968 was significantly softened by the 1986 FOPA. The AWB was allowed to sunset, carry laws have been expanded and relaxed tremendously over the past 30 years.

So it's not a given that anti-gun provisions are permanent. They can be reversed, but it certainly is not easy.

I do agree that the "outcome in the end" is likely going to be restrictive gun control, however that end may not come for a very long time. What we're fighting for is not a total, over and out, complete and final victory. I don't think it's realistic to think there will ever be a time when gun owners can relax and feel like there won't be any more attempts at gun legislation--but that is not an excuse to give up.

We are fighting to maintain our rights as long as is possible and even expand them when we can. Depending on how good a job we do and how good a job our gun rights organizations do, it looks to be possible to maintain our gun rights for at least a few decades into the future. It's even possible we could continue some gun rights expansions for part of that time.

I've seriously considered joining the NRA. The only real reason I haven't has more to do with the idea that I'm not all that crazy about contributing to and PAC.

Good deal. It's time for you to join up then. The fact is that NONE of your NRA membership fees go to support the NRA PAC (NRA-ILA Political Victory Fund).

http://www.amarkfoundation.org/nra-w...a-11-13-15.pdf

"The NRA-ILA (Institute for Legislative Action, a 501(c)(4)), is not funded by NRA membership dues..."