National Association for Gun Rights

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

...For those of you who don't think NAGR has the "political acumen" (as one internet wizard put it), first go here to read their strategy: http://www.nationalgunrights.org/abo.../our-strategy/

The people and organizations they base their strategy on have been around far longer than anyone here (National Right to Work, anyone?), so to say that you are "underwhelmed" by what they do only shows your own ignorance of how political groups are built....

Simply self-aggrandizing claptrap.

I have no reason to accept the NAGR's proclamation that they know what they are doing. It doesn't count unless some third party I know and trust tells me that the NAGR knows what it's doing. If you tell me you're an expert, it's meaningless. You're not an expert unless an expert calls you an expert.

The NAGR's self promotion has no credibility. You're a stranger here, so you have no credibility. I have no reason to trust the NAGR or you.

Originally Posted by BrockManson

...call WyGo and talk to their head guy. Go ahead, call him. I'll wait here....

Nope. You're making the claims, so it's your burden of proof. There's no reason for us to trouble ourselves to do your work for you.

And BTW, you might take the trouble to learn to do proper, HTML quotes.

[LockedBreech]

Brock, I'm a MEMBER of WyGO, as well as the University of Wyoming's Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, so trust me, I know what's going on in the state I've lived in for my entire life. Brown played a role. Yes, he threw his hat in the ring and yes, he stood behind Matt Mead (who I've also met and hung out with, several times, in our small state where politicians let you walk into their office essentially whenever you feel like it). It was a bit role. The larger role was played at the community level and political level. Do you know about the town halls had on the issue? The write-ups in local papers such as in Wheatland, Rock Springs, and Casper? Because I do.

Do you honestly think every person standing behind a governor or president signing a bill had a monumental impact on that bill? Usually it's everyone who can squeeze into a room, because that kind of stuff makes for serious political imagery!

Would it be incorrect to say that NAGR played no role in Wyoming Constitutional Carry? Yeah, it would, and I apologize if my message gave any reader that impression. However, it would be equally incorrect to say that NAGR played a primary or even a significant role.

Wanna know how Con-Carry passed? Wyoming is a pretty weird state in that when an issue comes up, our senators and representatives actually listen to what the people want. 49-9. Do you honestly think that Dudley Brown with his money-begging emails and hyperbolic bashing of all gun-rights organizations other than his could have masterfully orchestrated such a whopping majority? If he could, he wouldn't need to send constant streams of e-mails full of exaggerated claims, begging for money like a pauper.

The NAGR is a bit player in the gun rights movement, and the way they conduct their business leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. I will stick with the NRA. They aren't perfect, but I've never heard of a Washington, D.C. politician giving a flying fig about any other gun rights organization. When the NRA membership gets ticked off, Washington pays attention, and that's something worth all the negative things you or Mr. Brown can say about them.

Now, thank you kindly for registering for a mature and extremely informative community and deciding in 3 posts that we're a bunch of ignorant blowhards. That saves us the hassle of having you linger around here and taking time to actually form connections and have intelligent discussions, which I've had by the dozens here with some of the finest folks in the shooting community (kraigwy and Ken from Wild West Guns spring to mind, you won't find better folks on any online community, anywhere).

It doesn't appear you'll change any minds today, especially not mine, a lifelong Wyoming native, about the state of Wyoming politics. There are few times I'll claim expertise. I'm a young, novice shooter. Here, I'm going to go ahead and claim I know a bit more about it than you, Brock, unless I'm mistaken and you, too, have been here your entire life as well.

[Tom Servo]

They focus on supporting state-level operations like WyGo, Iowa Gun Owners, Georgia Gun Owners, South Dakota Gun Owners and a few others.

I have to wonder why the NAGR chooses to support a fly-by-night operation with no track record, but not Georgia Carry, who have gotten a few things done in this state.

Furthermore, weren't they the ones who were still scaremongering about HR 45 in 2010?

Sorry Brock, but you're defending an organization with a scant record and a spotty reputation. As Fiddletown said, the burden of proof is on you.

I know it's fashionable to bash the NRA as a recruiting tactic (as Georgia Gun Owners has done), but those of us who've been around longer than, say, four years ago, see it for what it is, and we don't take to it kindly.

[BrockManson]

Fiddletown,

You essentially just admitted your mind was made up long before hearing anyone's opinion that might slightly differ from yours. Which is fine because it does nothing but prove the strategy of messaging that NAGR and other organizations like it use. Again, groups like NRTW have been doing politics a long, long time. Why don't you look at how they operate and tell me that you don't have a "third party" to view. Or do you not trust them, either? Let me guess, never heard of them...Campaign for Liberty, model that the recent "Tea Party" is based on, created originally by Ron Paul? No, those wouldn't be third parties at all, would they...

Law Scholar,

Thank you for your work and for also taking the time to volunteer for the effort. It is much appreciated -- as well as responding with a reasonable comment, unlike 90% of what I've seen here so far.

To address your comments: from my understanding, yes, NAGR was more than just "aware" of the write-ups in those papers (not my place to share more detail than that. Suffice to say they were involved).

In terms of it being a "bit role," I'll say the same thing I said before: Call the guy who runs WyGo and ask his opinion of NAGR. No, the "burden of proof" does not lie with me. The people here are the ones bashing a group they know little about. The specific question here is about Constitutional Carry. And seeing as how people are saying they don't trust NAGR promoting themselves, I gave a simple solution: call WyGo and ask them how much NAGR helped. Seriously, how could that be a bad thing? Either you'll find out they didn't help and be right, or that they did and be wrong and then you'll have learned something.

Learning is a good thing. I know it's scary, but try it sometime.

Now, your claim about a D.C. politician not giving a "flying fig" about any other gun rights organization: Are you serious or was that a joke? I'll give you two, just in the Senate: Tom Coburn and Rand Paul. I could give you a few House members, as well, but what's the point? I just proved that there are ardent pro-gun supporters in the Senate that you claim to have never heard of and that don't care about the NRA. My guess is that you will find away around that.


"...hyperbolic bashing of all gun-rights organizations other than his..." The evidence of this is....where? I'm dying to see it. Seriously. I responded to this claim with my last comment and obviously it was ignored. If you're a "law scholar" you should pay better attention to detail. Find me an example of "hyperbolic bashing" of other gun rights groups in the last year from NAGR and the beer is on me.

Again, pointing out that the NRA didn't support an amendment is not "hyperbolic" in any way. It is fact. But hey, I said that already, didn't I...

It's not hard to decide in three posts that people are blowhards by looking at this thread. Someone posted asking about NAGR and a bunch of people who have zero idea what they're doing or talking about shot him down and started talking a bunch of trash about an organization that they only know about....from other internet forums where people bashed them. For crying out loud, people are actually sourcing other forums as reasons for why they don't trust a group, and you're surprised or offended I refer to that as being a blowhard?

Do you know more about Wyoming? I sure hope so. Do you know more about politics in general? Doubtful. Every state says the same thing: "well, see, it's different here...." Pure nonsense. It all works the same. Politicians respond to pressure. Pressure is created by massive amounts of people threatening to vote them out of office if they don't vote the way they want. If you don't have those two things -- numbers backing you and the ability to call those numbers to action -- your group is doing nothing and going nowhere.

It really is that simple.

But hey, the "finest folks in the shooting community" already know that, don't they? I mean, after all, they're NRA members... Heh.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

Fiddletown,

You essentially just admitted your mind was made up long before hearing anyone's opinion that might slightly differ from yours...

And how does wanting unbiased evidence lead to that conclusion?

Originally Posted by BrockManson

...Which is fine because it does nothing but prove the strategy of messaging that NAGR and other organizations like it use....

And that again begs the question of how you get there from here.

Anyway, it's been fun reading you, on one hand promoting an organization to us, and on the other hand insulting us -- a strategy you no doubt believe is well calculated to dispose us favorably to the NGRA.

[BrockManson]

Law Scholar,

My apologies, your comment was whether or not there is anyone in Washington who cares about "other" gun rights organizations. My answer above is still the same, and there are a couple in Congress that could state that, as well (Paul Broun, Cory Gardner, just to name two).

Same answer, but I wanted you to understand that I read your statement and understand what you are saying -- but also what you meant by the entire line. Yes, NRA has a lot of clout. But no, there are a rising number of politicians who choose to side with other gun groups (Ron Paul would be yet another).

[BrockManson]

Fiddletown,

Wanting unbiased evidence is great -- except that it doesn't exist. My point is this: Do you want to know more about a group or did you make up your mind beforehand? If it's the former, then I provided more information and was shot down for being "bias." If it is the latter, well....there you go.

It proves the strategy (as linked earlier from NAGR's page) that it is mostly a waste of time trying to convert people who don't get it. I came on here because I happen to know a fair amount about the group and everyone else on here clearly does not. You making statements showing that your mind is already made up shows that my efforts are essentially futile and wasting my time.

I'll ask the question again, since you seem to want to harp on "strategy": How big is your group?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

Fiddletown,

Wanting unbiased evidence is great -- except that it doesn't exist....

Of course it does. The challenge for you is to find it and make it available to us. After all, you're the one promoting the NGRA, so it's up to you to provide the evidence. If the only "evidence" is your word, the word of someone none of us know, and the self serving statements of the organization, that doesn't tell us anything.

Originally Posted by BrockManson

...I came on here because I happen to know a fair amount about the group and everyone else on here clearly does not...

But none of us know anything about you, so we have no way of knowing what your information and opinion are worth.

Originally Posted by BrockManson

...You making statements showing that your mind is already made up shows that my efforts are essentially futile and wasting my time...

Well, I think you are wasting your time. But it's not because my mind is made up.

Not being willing to blindly accept the self serving claims of an organization asking for my money, nor accept as reliable the unsupported claims of an anonymous denizen of cyberspace, is not the same as having one's mind made up. It's a healthy and appropriate skepticism and the capacity to distinguish naked claims from evidence.

[BrockManson]

Fiddletown,

No, unbiased evidence does not exist. This is politics, for crying out lout. Everything is bias; the question is whether or not it's the bias you agree with or not (this is a much larger topic, so I'll stop there).

I provided several pieces of evidence: the strategy page is one example. Yes, it's on NAGR's site. However, it's not written by Dudley Brown; it's written by a guy who has more experience as a political consultant than most people here have firing rounds down range. And he has worked for/with other groups that are also part of the evidence I gave: NRTW and C4L are two examples of very large groups doing a whole lot in conservative politics that, yes, do exactly the same thing that NAGR does (and their higher-ups would agree if asked).

But, in a case where someone's mind is already made up, none of that matters. I can provide all of that and tell you to find out for yourself (something you should be doing, anyway), but it seems "different" and therefore scary to you, so your mind is shut.

And no, you don't know anything about me, which is why I provided what I did the way I did: go find out if I'm wrong. You said yourself that you don't believe me telling you I'm an expert. Good for you. So why would you trust evidence I provide? This is called a stupid circle unless you are willing to break out of it. I told you to go read the strategy -- you didn't. I told you to call the head guy of WyGo -- you didn't. I told you that NRTW is the model for NAGR and that you should research them -- you didn't.

In other words, I gave you all the tools to figure this stuff out so you wouldn't have to trust *me.*

Again: How big is your group?

Oh and for all of you who whine about groups asking for money: How, exactly, can a group grow and get more powerful and add more members if....it doesn't bring in any money?

[MLeake]

BrockManson, it seems to me that providing links to articles or pages where known, respected, third parties endorse NAGR would be more effective than saying, "call the head of WyGo."

Assuming there are respected third parties who have endorsed NAGR, that is.

Meanwhile, insulting established members here is probably the worst tactic you could employ. I know nothing about NAGR, but based on your conduct in this thread, the odds of my ever supporting NAGR have gone way down from neutral.

Fiddletown is exactly right: skepticism about new groups that put a high emphasis on fund-raising is a healthy thing. The onus is on the group to prove that they deserve support, not on potential contributors to prove otherwise.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

Learning is a good thing. I know it's scary, but try it sometime.

So basically, you are trying to convince us that NAGR is an effective force for gun-rights by mocking and belittling those who are skeptical? I hope you're just a random supporter of NAGR as you claim and not someone in any position to determine their policy.

ETA: Looking at NAGR's website, I see they were formed in 2001. Yet looking at Open Secret's website, I see that during the past 10 years, they have contributed $6,250 to federal elections from their PAC - and all of that in the 2010 election. I see zero lobbying expenditures.

In addition I see an Amicus Curiae brief in McDonald.

So exactly where would I go to find out how NAGR is spending whatever money they receive? Currently, I've got quite a list of effective RKBA groups - NRA-PVF, NRA-ILA, SAF, TSRA - what role does NAGR fill that is not currently being filled by an existing group?

So far all I have to go on are NAGR's own press releases - and they do not enhance NAGR's credibility at all to put it mildly. A couple of questions raised by the releases:

1. Why is NAGR warning of HR45 in 2010? This makes me wonder whether they lack the understanding of political reality to realize that HR45 is going nowhere or whether they understand that but think I am too stupid to know better? Neither of those makes me want to give them money.

2. How does contributing to NAGR foil the UN Small Arms Treaty? Since the treaty currently doesn't even have a draft form and it will not even be presented to the UN until 2012, how does giving money to NAGR now help that? Is NAGR a UN-approved NGO? Are they attending the current negotiating sessions in New York right now?

3. NAGR's analysis of the Heller decision is incorrect as a matter of law. The press release misinterprets the decision badly - and in a way that seems calculated to spread fear and earn donations rather than inform or direct positive action. Why is that?

[thallub]

Brock Manson:

i absolutely will not contribute to a so called "gun rights" organization that is attempting to build a reputation by badmouthing established pro-gun organizations like the NRA. Your main man Dudley will get nothing from me but contempt.

i'm done with this one and you.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

No, unbiased evidence does not exist. This is politics,...

Of course it does. See MLeake's post. See Bartholomew Roberts' post. Or to demonstrate the effectiveness of the NGRA, how about a link to Washington Post or New York Times editorial blaming the NGRA for the passage of some pro-gun legislation or the failure of some anti-gun legislation.

Originally Posted by BrockManson

...I can provide all of that and tell you to find out for yourself (something you should be doing, anyway), but it seems "different" and therefore scary to you, so your mind is shut.

And no, you don't know anything about me, which is why I provided what I did the way I did: go find out if I'm wrong. ... I told you to go read the strategy -- you didn't. I told you to call the head guy of WyGo -- you didn't. I told you that NRTW is the model for NAGR and that you should research them -- you didn't.

In other words, I gave you all the tools to figure this stuff out so you wouldn't have to trust *me.*...

You just don't get it. The NGRA wants something. The burden is on it to demonstrate that it is worthy.

I'm not in the market for a RKBA organization to donate money to. I already donate to several RKBA organizations. And I suspect most folks here are similarly situated.

Now the NGRA comes along and wants money. If I give money to it, I must either reduce the amount I give to one or more of the RKBA organizations I already support or increase my RKBA budget. I might be willing to consider either, but first the NGRA must convince me that it is effective enough to warrant my support. It has to earn my support. Sending me to read the NGRA self-serving website, or expecting me to go call around to see how swell it is, or whispering in my ear that it will respect me in the morning just ain't going to do it.

Anyway, as Bart pointed out, some of its claims are demonstrably fatuous, and its analysis of Heller was flat wrong.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

Now, your claim about a D.C. politician not giving a "flying fig" about any other gun rights organization: Are you serious or was that a joke? I'll give you two, just in the Senate: Tom Coburn and Rand Paul. I could give you a few House members, as well, but what's the point? I just proved that there are ardent pro-gun supporters in the Senate that you claim to have never heard of and that don't care about the NRA. My guess is that you will find away around that.

Huh? ???

You just wrote that you "proved" something. Your use of the English language is such that it's impossible to determine what it is you seem to think you have proved, but from where I sit you haven't "proved" anything. You have mentioned two names. What does that prove? Anyone can name names. Lemme see -- okay, Martha Roby and Jared Polis. There - I just proved that there are two people in the House of Representatives that a lot of people have never heard of.

So what?

Aside from which, I didn't "prove" anything. Those pepole actually are United States Representatives, but if you've never heard of them you don't know that. And my claiming it doesn't prove it to be so.

Originally Posted by BrockManson

I provided several pieces of evidence: the strategy page is one example. Yes, it's on NAGR's site. However, it's not written by Dudley Brown; it's written by a guy who has more experience as a political consultant than most people here have firing rounds down range. And he has worked for/with other groups that are also part of the evidence I gave: NRTW and C4L are two examples of very large groups doing a whole lot in conservative politics that, yes, do exactly the same thing that NAGR does (and their higher-ups would agree if asked).

The "evidence" that you gave?

Do you understand what the word "evidence" means? You have not given any "evidence" of anything. You have tossed about various bits of totally unsubstantiated information. That hardly qualifies as "evidence," because it cannot be examined and tested and evaluated.

For example, this super-dooper political consultant who (according to you) actually wrote the strategy page on the NAGR web site. Does he not have a name? How can you possibly expect anyone to be impressed by your characterization of the alleged credentials of a person you claim exists but whom you conspicuously do not identify?

[BrockManson]

Aguila,

The question was whether or not there are D.C. politicians who give a "flying fig" about any gun organizations besides the NRA. I gave the names of two very prominent Senators (in pro-gun world, that is) and named three House Reps. That would, in fact, be "proving" that there are D.C. politicians who care about other gun rights groups (as well as thinking the NRA is worthless).

This is not rocket science. He posted a claim of "never" (as in "there aren't any") and I proved that there were "some." How difficult is that to figure out? Apparently very... It's like math: "Some" is more than "none." I learned that in grade school.

Also, the political consultant is named on the web page linked. Again, not too hard to figure out....

To answer the rest (and everyone else): I gave resources so that *I* wouldn't have to prove anything. It has already been stated by several members of this forum that my opinion means nothing and I have zero credibility. Guess what? That's completely fine with me, as internet forums do not bolster my ego. But it's out there, so why would I go to any trouble of providing evidence when everything I post will be immediately denied?

Again, this is why I gave the tools to research the subject yourselves -- so you don't have to trust *me.*

Let me give a very quick example: If someone walks up to me and says "hey, could you explain how to perform brain surgery?" I will answer by saying "no, I'm not educated on that subject."

How hard is that? Yet people come on internet forums to say "have you ever heard of______" and instead of saying "you know, I don't know much about them..." people respond with vitriol and proceed to mock anyone who supports something they have no knowledge and then prove their distaste by linking....other internet forums like this one.

My point is this: Either politely say you don't know about a certain group or, here's a thought, go find out. Do your own research. I know, did any of you think to -- wait for it -- call NAGR? Whoa, that's a crazy idea. Call an organization and ask them about what they do... Nah, it's a lot easier to camp out on internet forums and rant about things. That way you know you're right.

I also find it funny that, in several posts I have written, I have challenged people here to come up with evidence of all this "bad mouthing" of other gun groups from NAGR. No one has provided it, yet it keeps getting mentioned as if it is fact. Hmm....on an internet forum? Shocking.

On "lobbying": if you guys think that NRA-employed "lobyists" are a good investment of your political dollars, do some better research. Go to Georgetown and see how much of that money is spent at the bar. I mentioned this before but I will say it again, to my understanding NAGR spends most of its time/energy at the state level. They did recently do a trip to D.C. to meet with several Senators, but most of what they do is at the state level.

On the UN Small Arms Treaty: Well, seeing as how the negotiating on the treaty is going on right now and I'm not in New York... I don't know if they are there. Wouldn't surprise me if they were, however, as I know that was one of their big pushes in the campaign they are doing with Sen. Rand Paul right now. I guess we'll have to wait and see, won't we?

Yes, it is good to be skeptical of groups asking for money; that is not what I am criticizing. What I find ridiculous is the notion that, just because an organization asks for money it is immediately illegitimate and leaves a "bad taste" in your mouth. Yet, I would wager that nearly everyone here has, at one time or another, given money to the NRA.

To those (who are still reading -- doubtful) who think me coming on here and insulting people is a bad tactic, there is a point to it all. And if you don't get it....well, sorry.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

What I find ridiculous is the notion that, just because an organization asks for money it is immediately illegitimate and leaves a "bad taste" in your mouth.

It isn't because the organization asks for money that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It is because the organization appears to be deliberately overstating threats to the Second Amendment in order to create fear and THEN asks for money that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I've provided several examples of that in my earlier post; but I'll be happy to provide more if that isn't sufficient for you. This is counterproductive because it both destroys the credibility of the organization and creates a lot of focus and effort on things that aren't real problems (or at the least are distant problems).

Yet, I would wager that nearly everyone here has, at one time or another, given money to the NRA.

Yes; because I understand what NRA does with the money and feel that is a good trade. For example, the NRA gave money to a local range owner to fight his battle with the city over an ordinance targeting the range. They helped provide legal support to a man who shot three burglars as they drove at him in a truck here in Texas. They run regular competitions and help fund ranges. They DID get listed as a UN NGO and are not only attending the current negotiations but reporting on it and had the President of the NRA deliver a statement to the UN yesterday. They run the Eddie Eagle program. You get the idea right? I see what is being done with that money. And strangely enough, when the NRA asks for money, they don't tell me to "do some research" to figure out how they are spending that money. They are happy to point to their programs and make it very easy to find out what they have been up to.

Likewise when I donate to the Second Amendment Foundation, I can see the litigation being funded by that money. I can read the case briefs, read the arguments and see the results of that money. They don't tell me "We are fighting in courts for your rights. Send more money!" They point out the cases filed and tell me what attorneys they've hired.

I'm having a difficult time determining what the National Association for Gun Rights does with the money and I've already explained why I don't consider them effective.

To those (who are still reading -- doubtful) who think me coming on here and insulting people is a bad tactic, there is a point to it all. And if you don't get it....well, sorry.

So there was some deeper point to insulting people here; but if people fail to understand that point, you aren't going to explain it?

Frankly, I just dismissed NAGR before because I considered them chicken-little alarmist types. After your posts here, I am inclined to think they are scam artists because so little of what you say has any substance to it and now I associate them with you.

However, even if they weren't scam artists, I don't see myself giving money to any RKBA group that can go into a 10yr old forum of gun owners and Second Amendment advocates and be unable to find any friends. If they can't work that crowd, I'm skeptical they are going to be successful with people who are indifferent or less committed.

[Tom Servo]

It has already been stated by several members of this forum that my opinion means nothing and I have zero credibility.

Part of that is because you won't provide proof to back up your claims.

Again, this is why I gave the tools to research the subject yourselves

You're the one making the arguments, so you should be supplying us with proof.

Whether or not you're an "official" representative of this group, your posts here aren't doing much to win anyone over. Can you point out specific achievements directly attributable to the NAGR? I don't think you can, because there aren't any.

I also find it funny that, in several posts I have written, I have challenged people here to come up with evidence of all this "bad mouthing" of other gun groups from NAGR.

From the NAGR website:

This news follows closely on the heels of the NRA donating money to establishment politicians like Harry Reid (D-NV), while remaining completely silent on Senator Reid’s opponent, 100% pro-gun challenger Sharon Angle (R). Every day brings a clearer message of who the NRA is truly interested in representing — and it’s not individual gun owners.

Yeah, because Sharron Angle was an bleating fool with no chance of beating a well-established incumbent opponent. Furthermore, Reid does have a fairly good record supporting the 2nd Amendment. How many candidates has NAGR gotten elected or removed--without riding the NRA's coat-tails?

This happy bit of bandwagon hopping comes from the NRAwol site, which is owned by Dudley Brown:

Grassroots outrage over the NRA’s sickening attempt to cozy up to anti-gun Democrats like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi is slowing down the bill.

Today, Forbes is reporting that Democrats are feeling the heat over their devils’ pact with the NRA.

Yes folks, the president and founder of NAGR founded and owns a site dedicated to bashing the competition.

This took me less than ten minutes to find. Do you still want us "doing our own research" on the organization?

[Uncle Buck]

Thanks! The last two post really sum up the whole thing for me (and I believe most of us).

But hurry up and send more money to the NAGR and Dudley, He needs it so he can do more fund-raising!

[hogdogs]

I would want to know how much cash is going to lobby firms and which ones they hired...

Short of this it is just hopeful people being scammed of their cash! The NRA has a proven track record and this new company does not...


I will stick with what already works!

And any company that has not enuff merit to run on that it resorts to bashing the "competition" is not credible!
Brent

[BrockManson]

Tom Servo,

Thank you. You actually went and looked on NAGR's website.

But this goes back to what I wrote when I first came on: how is stating facts "bad mouthing" the NRA? Did the NRA support Harry Reid? Yup. That is a fact. If you don't want to support an organization because they reported facts, well then I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want your support (and you should probably stop supporting GOA, 'cause they are notorious for fact-reporting. What jerks, eh?).

That would also apply to anyone who thinks that Harry Reid has a "fairly good record" on the Second Amendment. Yeah, I guess if all you ever want to do is shoot clay pigeons with your ol' over-under, Harry Reid is awesome (that was a joke for anyone who actually remembers the NRA's and Harry Reid's stance on those "scary black rifles" back in the 90's).

I will say it one more time, for the record, and I'm done: Me supplying proof does no good whatsoever. Go find out for yourselves or stop bad-mouthing organizations you know nothing about.

Good heavens, like I said, I would bet that not a single person here has even *thought* of calling or emailing the organization to find out more about it.

If any of you actually care about politics beyond complaining on the internet, go find a Campaign for Liberty (started by Ron Paul and the main reason Rand Paul is a Senator) class and attend it. Then come back and tell me how much I was wrong.

The rest of what I read here isn't even worth responding to.

Peace out, homeys.

[hogdogs]

Peace out, homeys.

Very classy ending...

Regards,
Brent

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by BrockManson

...Did the NRA support Harry Reid? Yup...

And did they have a good reason? Yup.

Tom Servo,

Thank you. You actually went and looked on NAGR's website....

...Good heavens, like I said, I would bet that not a single person here has even *thought* of calling or emailing the organization to find out more about it....

As has been mentioned before, going to an organization's website or the organization's selected spokespersons is a lousy way to find out if the organization is valuable or does good things or is worthy of support. An organization that bothers to put up a website will tell you how great it is.

Of course, looking at an organization's website can often tell one why he should not support it. So I also thank Tom (and Bart) for their research confirming that the NAGR is an outfit I'd want nothing to do with.

[4V50 Gary]

Peace out, homeys

On that note, let's close this thread and move onto better and more productive discussions. If someone is suspicious of NAGR, ignore them.