Alternative pro-gun organizations to donate to?

[zukiphile]

Do the math:

$14.50 x 50,000 = $725,000

$0.25 x 5,000,000 = $1,250,000

Additionally, the NRA engages in important negative advertising that may not show up as direct contributions.

Unlike the NRA, The Safari Club International does not have a gaggle of highly paid panjandrums posting political rants about hot button issues outside their charter.

Emphasis added.

If this is the bit about the NRA that bothers you (and you certainly are not the only one in this forum who has complained about NRA political alliances and associations) the organisations aren't the origin of what bothers you. It's the membership.

I've read people here complaining about something Loesch or LaPierre said that wasn't strictly confined to the 2d Am. However amongst people who see the 2d Am. as part of a more broadly principled limitation on government power, those messages may resonate. Over the last couple of decades, I've followed LaPierre's statements and I didn't always like them. For that matter, Heston wasn't excellent in his dotage either. However the NRA was still the most effective vehicle for 2d Am advocacy, so I stayed.

Once you get into a group of more than a few dozen people, something is going to transpire in the group that isn't entirely to your liking. I don't see the utility in politically disassociating from a group if you are in substantial agreement with its goals. If you have a serious disagreement on a core issue, that's a different matter.

 

[JohnKSa]

If their only (or strongly primary) concern is hunting and conservation, that essentially means they're throwing the rest of us under the bus, and that makes them Zumbos.

I wouldn't go that far unless they're actually proposing restrictions that don't affect their particular special interest.

I don't see them actually trying to trade certain rights away in return for getting things that they focus on as being important. It does appear that their focus is very narrowly aimed at hunting rights and on the rights to own and transport hunting weapons. There's nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.

Zumbo was a different story. If he had just said that AR-15s weren't his thing and he didn't care about them, I wouldn't have had any problem with him at all. Where he and I got crossways was when he called them "terrorist rifles" and said that anyone who used them wasn't a hunter and called for them to be banned from hunting.

SCI hasn't, as far as I can tell, ever been involved in attempts to throw other gun owners under the bus--they just don't get involved in issues that fall outside of their very narrow focus.

In other words, I don't see any problem with supporting SCI. I don't think that they will use any of that support to harm firearm rights. But I also don't think that money will go to further gun rights except in the very general sense of trying to insure that at least SOME hunting firearms remain legal and can be legally transported and used for hunting. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's just a different focus.

 

[In The Ten Ring]

Who is "Zumbo?"

 

[JohnKSa]

Jim Zumbo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo

"Jim Zumbo is a firearms and hunting commentator and writer. Until February 2007, he was the hunting editor for Outdoor Life magazine and host of the television program Jim Zumbo Outdoors on The Outdoor Channel. He was removed from both positions after he criticized the use of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 for hunting in his blog."​

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I wouldn't go that far unless they're actually proposing restrictions that don't affect their particular special interest.

I don't see them actually trying to trade certain rights away in return for getting things that they focus on as being important. It does appear that their focus is very narrowly aimed at hunting rights and on the rights to own and transport hunting weapons. There's nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.

The distinction is noted, but it's a very nuanced distinction IMHO. There is a famous saying (variously attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine), "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately." I think that applies here. By now it's abundantly clear that the end game of the gun banners is to eliminate ALL firearms from private ownership. It's fine to just view the Safari Club as staying "on their message," but the fact is that if they don't stand up for the concealed carry and black rifle folks now, we won't be there when the gun grabbers come after the bolt action hunting rifles a few years down the road.

We are arguably at a tipping point, and I think today ALL gun rights organizations need to step up to the plate and join together in resisting these knee-jerk reactions to isolated (tragic, but isolated) incidents. Failure to do so maybe isn't throwing the concealed carry and black rifle people under the bus, but it's certainly not even grabbing them by the elbow to stop them from being run over by the bus. It's just standing on the sidewalk, watching the bus run over them. "Oh, well ... glad it's not me in front of that bus."

To me, that pretty much qualifies as a Zumbo.

 

[zukiphile]

My recollection, possibly wrong, was that Zumbo's article concluded that the AR15 has "no place" in our hunting fraternity. I didn't recall any specific regulation he proposed.

The form of argument "The 2d Am. really protects X" where X variously is self-defense, armed insurrection, pistols, rifles, "black" rifles, hunting arms, militia weapons or sporting arms implies that the 2d Am. doesn't protect the others unmentioned. It's a commonly expressed position, but it implies that "not X" isn't protected.

The idea that what I like is a constitutional right, but what you do is open to legislative prohibition is a noose for everyone to hang separately.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The form of argument "The 2d Am. really protects X" where X variously is self-defense, armed insurrection, pistols, rifles, "black" rifles, hunting arms, militia weapons or sporting arms implies that the 2d Am. doesn't protect the others unmentioned. It's a commonly expressed position, but it implies that "not X" isn't protected.

Exactly. How many years did the mainstream say that our right to arms was for "sporting purposes" (to the point that the BATFE based their decisions on what foreign firearms could be imported on whether or not the firearm met their point total for a "sporting arm")? And then along came Heller, and Mr. Justice Scalia wrote that the "core" right protected by the Second Amendment was self defense. WHAAAAT? Whoa! Paradign Shift!

But ... he didn't say that was the only right protected, only that it's the "core" right. (I don't agree, but he wore a black robe and I don't, so ...)

The idea that what I like is a constitutional right, but what you do is open to legislative prohibition is a noose for everyone to hang separately.

That's basically what I was trying to say. Thanks for expressing it succinctly.

 

[JohnKSa]

The distinction is noted, but it's a very nuanced distinction IMHO. There is a famous saying (variously attributed to both Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine), "If we do not hang together, we shall surely hang separately."

It's not nuanced at all. Would you denigrate an abortion rights organization for not also making gun rights part of their platform? Would you denigrate a conservation society for not including the right to free speech in their lobbying efforts?

Earlier in the thread you correctly made the point that "The Safari Club is about hunting and conservation. Getting their feet wet and their hands dirty in the debate about school shootings, banning "assault weapons," and restricting handgun magazine capacity is outside their charter." and that is precisely why:

1. I don't see them as a gun rights organization.
2. I don't have a problem with the fact that they don't explicitly make all aspects of firearms rights part of their platform and lobbying efforts.

If they were to tout themselves as a gun rights organization (as opposed to a "hunting and conservation" organization) then I would evaluate them on that basis and the results of the evaluation would be much different.

...Zumbo's article concluded that the AR15 has "no place" in our hunting fraternity. I didn't recall any specific regulation he proposed.

The exact quote was: "I say game departments should ban them from the praries [sic] and woods."

That's obviously not the same thing as banning ownership, but it does fit the definition of calling for specific regulations, IMO.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think Safari Club understands the hang together or hang separately dynamic very well and they are very good at implementing that subtly; but at the end of the day zapping an elephant in the head with a $35,000 Holland & Holland rifle is a higher priority than your handgun or black rifle.

 

[Prndll]

Well, I finally decided today to make some kind of move and start putting my money where my mouth is.

With the fact that JohnSKa has his signature line with a link to the TSRA that always seems to get my attention, I decide it was time for me to join. I now have a 3 year membership to the Texas State Rifle Association and should be getting things in the mail in the near future. I've been feeling the need for some time now. That might have been part of what drew me in here to begin with. Well, that and a need to get away from so much of the craziness that takes place with other sites. I am a Texan and will always be a Texan. So it just makes sense to start at home.

 

[JohnKSa]

So it just makes sense to start at home.

The state organizations are often overlooked, but they are often extremely effective at blocking anti-gun legislation and getting pro-gun legislation passed.

What's more impressive, they often do so in spite of small membership numbers. TSRA, last time I checked, had fewer than 50,000 members and yet it gets the job done--almost every legislative session marks another victory (or two) for the TSRA and its agenda. When it comes to investing in gun rights, the state organizations can provide a lot of bang for the buck.

 

[Tom Servo]

The state organizations are often overlooked, but they are often extremely effective at blocking anti-gun legislation and getting pro-gun legislation passed.

Something else we want to bear in mind: after they failed to get federal legislature in 2013, Bloomberg and his proxies switched to a "state by state" strategy. They're hammering state legislatures, and if they're quick and persuasive enough, they can get regulations passed before the public even notices. It's very much worth looking at how they succeeded in Colorado.

The NRA is big, but they can only move so fast and put out so many fires at once. State-level groups can sometimes be more responsive.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Something else we want to bear in mind: after they failed to get federal legislature in 2013, Bloomberg and his proxies switched to a "state by state" strategy. They're hammering state legislatures, and if they're quick and persuasive enough, they can get regulations passed before the public even notices. It's very much worth looking at how they succeeded in Colorado.

This is very true. We have been seeing the same thing in my state. I'm fortunate (well, as fortunate as I can be, given that I'm stuck in a basically anti-gun state) that we have a very pro-active membership group (of which I have been an active member for several years) that monitors the legislature and has been fairly successful in holding back the tide of draconian legislation. We can't stop all of them, but we have a decent batting average (better than Ted Williams!).

 

[Kimio]

I’ve still got mixed feelings, but I’ll continue looking at sending money to the NRA ILA, but it sure does seem like they’re caving to the pressures of the anti-gun lobbies. Their initial support for the latest draconian gun law bill leaves me especially skeptical if they sill have the spine left in them to even fight.

I’ve not been on this planet long enough to really say, but listening to those who are much wiser in this fight tells me that, like it or not, the NRA is the biggest dog on the block with the strongest bite. I don’t like it, but if anything, donating and participating will hopefully allow me to help get leadership in the NRA that is stronger and holds their ground better than the leaders of the NRA that I’m seeing currently.

We shall I suppose. I’ll need to look into local pro-gun groups in AZ as well. Withthe way things are going, things are looking darker than ever before it seems. Even more so than when Obama was in office it seems.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Posts about leftists and liberals!

Don't go there. We do pro and antigun. If you haven't noticed so-called conservatives have been right there with laws and gun restrictions after Parkland. Don't be naive.

Next time it will be an infraction. If you want to do politics, go elsewhere.