Anti-NRA vitriol increasing?

vito said:
Looking for ideological purity before committing a small annual membership fee is truly self defeating and irrational.
Click to expand...

That's true beyond 2d Am. issues and bears repeating, so I will.

Political organizations aren't exclusive clubs. People who treat them as clubs mistake the goal of the organization, effecting a result from government, for their personal goal of using membership to signal their personal virtue to others.

Yesterday at my club, a suburban mayor asked Corey Lewandowski how that mayor could continue to be a republican when (listing several examples of presidential behavior he didn't like). That mayor is a smart man, but his question wasn't smart.

One need not like every last thing the NRA does to recognise the beneficial role it plays in protecting your rights.
 
Its disheartening that there's a significant economy surrounding keeping a right that was supposedly affirmed so long ago; some even say it's a birthright from nature.
 
I apologize. I never meant to stir up anything.

1) it is interesting to me that I can get more from Wikipedia than from forums like this one. That just seems a bit backwards. I can and have been reading all kinds of things across the web about the NRA. I do wonder though if this thread would have become half as interesting if I hadn't said anything.

2) I don't have any love for any PAC. The older I get, the more I realize that there are some things I will simply have to 'suck it up' and deal with it. You guys can tell me there are no moneys from my NRA dues that go to the ILA but the ILA falls under the NRA as a subsidiary. It's a bit like telling me that Kerry never benefit from the purchase of bottles of Heinz ketchup.

i always knew that this stuff was a thing but never really gave much thought to guns until later in life. But I am a quick learner with it. Forgive me if a feel a sense of being uncomfortable with aspects of it. I see the appeal and the need for the NRA, but to be honest...I am looking for information, data, experience, and wisdom a lot more than a suggestion to do research (that I am already doing....which is why there is a compulsion to join in the first place). It needs to be my decision, not someone telling me I should. Maybe I'm just jumping-the-gun here, but atleast I'm asking.
 
No offense intended, but I’m just curious why you oppose a group that lobbies political leaders on your behalf. I realize it’s the thing to demonize “special interest’ groups, but quite honestly almost every American will fall into unique groups that have concerns. The NRA-ILA has the necessary contacts, clout and knowhow to get things done that we as individuals never could.
 
An NRA membership is $30 a year. Both the charter and federal law prohibit using that money for lobbying (ILA) or PACs (PVF). The NRA was audited continuously from 1992-2000 on that issue and withstood scrutiny.

More importantly, the NRA's core function is not political - it is teaching people firearms safety and making sure there are facilities where people can safely do so. Although, frankly, I'd just as soon that touchy-feely, moderate types not join the NRA and dilute my voting power as a member with their concilatory nonsense.
 
You guys can tell me there are no moneys from my NRA dues that go to the ILA but the ILA falls under the NRA as a subsidiary. It's a bit like telling me that Kerry never benefit from the purchase of bottles of Heinz ketchup.
Click to expand...

No, its not.

Kerry married the ketchup heiress.

The NRA created the ILA to be completely separately funded to comply with Federal laws about political groups and their tax status. Quite different.

As mentioned, the NRA /ILA have been audited extensively (our opponents would LOVE to find the NRA breaking ANY law, they can't, because the NRA doesn't) and its verified, not one penny of anyone's membership dues goes to the ILA.

Voluntary contributions fund the ILA. Now, yes, the NRA asks for money to fight the fight, and they ask OFTEN, and at the same time they often ask for you to extend membership, and offer membership deals, gifts, etc. But don't confuse the two. The law is clear, and they take great care to stay within it. They can't use the dues money for political action. They CAN use anything else you give them for any purpose needed, including political action.

Don't want to support their political action? Fine, don't donate any money for that.

Being a member without donating money for political action is perfectly fine, and has a number of benefits, including an insurance package you probably won't get from a regular agent.
 
I don’t mean to come down on you too hard Prndll but joining or not joining the NRA is not worth all this anguish and drama.

For Pete Sake JOIN the organization for a year. Read the American Rifleman every month. Half of it is outright NRA pro-gun propaganda (or so the anti-gun folk will tell you) but the other half is gun technical stuff that you might enjoy.

At the end of the year you can:
A. Stand up proudly and proclaim “I AM THE NRA!”
B. Cry foul and claim you were led astray by bad company and now see ‘THE ERROR OF YOUR WAYS’.
C. Having moved on to coin collecting (that is my personal backup/alternate hobby) and away from guns, just don’t renew your membership.

It’s not like if you join you’ll have to attend meetings, swear alligences to ‘Merican Gun Makers or carry a sign at the next Trump rally…

This is just too much drama for a simple thing.

Try it, you might like it.
 
Well slow typing has got me again. It seems like 44 AMP gave you good advice which you like so my post was superfluous.

Just to lighten things up a bit, and you do NOT have to answer, does Prndll stand for Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive and Low? I ask because in a TV show I liked quite a while back (Green Acres) the lead actress Eva Gabor famously referred to the shift lever as the 'perendal' due to the 'prndl'.

Just checking to see if we have a similar humor level and believe me, it is okay if we do not.

And I'd say you did make this thread more interesting and I hope you remain on the forum.
 
Last edited:
The drama is orchestrated. Half the country thinks the NRA is a racist hate group. True or not, it's perceptions that rule the day.
I don't think enough is being done by the NRA or Pro-gun politicians; I'm not saying that they aren't doing anything, there has been some gains. There's losses too. Look at the rediculous guns in NY. Other states are chipping away at gun rights, and they've learned how to do it and getting better at getting restrictions passed.

I've rambled, but my point is this the vitriol is intentional. The perception is intentional.

A few influential people could end the vitriol and set the record straight, but they choose not to.
If pro-gun politicians would fight more, along with the NRA, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
This is a pipe dream, everyone with political clout will just push it around to get them to retirement then can enjoy the millions upon millions they made from public service.
We will still be having this conversation 20 years from now.
Not just guns, other political issues as well.

Actually solving problems and social issues is less profitable than tossing a bit here and there to the constituency.
 
I apologize. I never meant to stir up anything.
Click to expand...
An apology is absolutely not required. You haven't broken any rules or even bent them.

It's fine to have personal opinions and to voice them and there's never a need to apologize for that. What would a discussion forum be if everyone thought exactly the same way?
...it is interesting to me that I can get more from Wikipedia than from forums like this one.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia is generally a pretty good source, and there are many others. It doesn't make sense for every gun related resource out there to duplicate what is already commonly available elsewhere.

What forums are great for is asking questions and discussing topics that don't show up in the more common resources. I've been on firearms forums for years and I'm still amazed at the depth of the knowledge base that is available for the asking.
It needs to be my decision, not someone telling me I should.
Click to expand...
That makes perfect sense. I don't have a lot of respect for people who would do what strangers tell them without question. Of course, there's a difference between someone who won't unquestioningly take orders from strangers and someone who automatically refuses to do something as soon as someone says that's what they should do. The former is commendable, the latter is just the other side of the coin of instant unquestioning compliance.
You guys can tell me there are no moneys from my NRA dues that go to the ILA but the ILA falls under the NRA as a subsidiary.
Click to expand...
You don't have to rely on anyone here. You have third party sources to rely on. The link I provided was actually from a neutral, if not an anti-NRA, source. And it's not the only source--it's just the first one I found.
It's a bit like telling me that Kerry never benefit from the purchase of bottles of Heinz ketchup.
Click to expand...
Not much like that.

There are pretty strict rules that govern PACs and where PACs can get their money. Does the NRA-ILA PVF benefit from its association with the NRA? I imagine it does--if it were just called the ILA PVF it probably wouldn't get nearly as many donations. :D But NRA doesn't funnel money to it.
 
Half the country thinks the NRA is a racist hate group.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that percentage. Gun-control advocates would like for half the country to believe that, but they tried the same tack in the 1990's (OMG Timothy McVeigh was an NRA member!) and it didn't stick. Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine claimed that the NRA and KKK were founded by the same people, which is blatantly untrue, and most people saw through it.

The problem with the NRA bashing is one of perception. To gun-control advocates and their peers, the only gun owners in this country are knuckle-dragging hillbillies and scruffy EOTW militia types in some mountain town in Idaho. They fail to realize that gun ownership crosses all economic, social, and ethnic boundaries. When they paint gun owners as yokels, they're offending far more people than they think.

And I say, let them continue. Never correct your opponent when he's making a mistake.

Problem is, the NRA hasn't really been helping themselves with recent rhetoric. The idea that they're a partisan backer for the Republican party is hard to refute when they're running wall-to-wall articles and videos implying just that. LaPierre's shrinking the tent at at time when we have a grand opportunity to grow it.

it is interesting to me that I can get more from Wikipedia than from forums like this one.
Click to expand...

I'd be leery of Wikipedia as a source. It's nice that anyone can edit articles, but it can also be a double-edged sword. If you have questions, ask away. While some of us will give answers tinged with opinion, these are often informed opinions built on years (if not decades) of direct experience.
 
There will be even more bovine fecal matter flying very soon I suspect.

yesterday, when I got online (8am), I saw an article on MSN about how the NRA was going to attack the NY Times. They reported how the NRA was going to "fisk" the NY times.

Look it up, "fisk" means to examine line by line (a blog) and rebut items point by point.

HOWEVER, some reporters immediately reported the NRA was going to "fist" the NY Times, which they said was threatening violence.

By noon, when I returned from the market, the article was no longer on the site.

Now, personally, I think it's long past time someone called the lying elitists to task for what they've been saying about the NRA for way too long.

The problem is that the issue is NOT a Repubilican vs. Democrat thing, though many (on both sides) will work hard to make it see to be one.

I fear there are too many zealots on both sides for a fully rational "dialog".
 
zukiphile said:
A court isn't there to render opinions on matters not currently before it.
Click to expand...

It depends upon how narrowly the courts generally take that stance. Do the courts generally rule on a law with or without regard to existing, relevant laws already in place? Is there a difference between, for example, one law with 100 gun control provisions and 100 laws each with one gun control provision?
 
It depends upon how narrowly the courts generally take that stance. Do the courts generally rule on a law with or without regard to existing, relevant laws already in place? Is there a difference between, for example, one law with 100 gun control provisions and 100 laws each with one gun control provision?
Click to expand...

The proper issue for a court would not be whether an issue touches a single enactment with 100 subparts, or 100 separate enactments. It should pertain to issues brought before the court by the parties.

If I run into you in a crosswalk and you sue me, the court's ruling should be about whether I was at fault and what you should receive as damages. If the court goes on to rule that people over 40 are bad drivers, and bad drivers hurt people, so all over 40 drivers need to have their licenses suspended, the court has gone on an errand unnecessary to resolution of the dispute between you and me.

The dispute Heller had with DC was decided by the Sup Ct. (Whether DC followed with due compliance is another issue). The Heller decision wasn't that all restrictions on firearms everywhere were unconstitutional. Subsequent litigation was always going to be needed for that. It might sound neat to have a Sup Ct issue an edict that they notice NY enacting a law that prohibits weapons in common use and that law is stricken as a violation of the BOR, but that would be the act of superlegislative authority rather than a court.

I am not arguing that courts never go on these unwarranted errands, just that it isn't a good example of how a court should work.

I'm not sure whether that was responsive to your question.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top