how did the NRA morph

[rc]

Well, I don't think NRA changing is the problem. The problem is society is changing. It wasn't that long ago that kids didn't take their shotgun to school and leave it in their truck for after school. As our society has become less parented by the parents and more by the government the people growing up now have lost touch with what it means to be a responsible citizen. The criminal justice system doesn't help the situation when kids are taught that nothing happens for criminal behavior. A slap on the wrist and a little time in lock up and you are out running with the bros again. Then there are "zero tolerance" policies where kids are suspended for even a minor scrap. When relatively good kids are sent to continued education they often fall in with all sorts of bad people.


Now I support the elimination of gun free zones for schools. I think that they just attract criminals. What we need is not for every teacher to be armed, but for arms to be available to administrators and other trusted people such as maintenance workers who are unpredictable in their routines. I don't even think every person that could be armed needs to carry. I believe hidden secure weapons that can be accessed only by authorized personnel during an emergency would suffice. No reason for a kindergarten teacher to carry a 38 in an ankle holster. Relying only on police response is delaying life saving help to school children in a crisis. Some talk about "common sense" gun control but they don't seem to have any of that good old common sense when considering proposals like the one I have outlined for arming schools. Guns can kill or be used to save life. Blindly insisting they can only do more harm than good is foolish. rc

 

[dogtown tom]

rc ….. What we need is not for every teacher to be armed, but for arms to be available to administrators and other trusted people such as maintenance workers who are unpredictable in their routines.

If you don't trust your child's teacher then WHY THE HECK do you leave them at that school?

What on earth makes you think the custodian is more trustworthy?
What makes you think an administrator is more trustworthy?
After all the administrator used to be a teacher.

Unbelievable.

I don't even think every person that could be armed needs to carry. I believe hidden secure weapons that can be accessed only by authorized personnel during an emergency would suffice.

"Gun lockers" may sound like a great idea but are not. How many police officers keep their handgun locked away? None I would hope.

When there is a need for an armed response RIGHT NOW...….oh wait how do I get past the bad guy to the gun locker and whats the combination?

Again, unbelievable.

No reason for a kindergarten teacher to carry a 38 in an ankle holster.

Because the bad guys never attack kindergarten teachers or students?
That's the dumbest comment yet.

Either you support the Second Amendment or you don't. You don't.

Relying only on police response is delaying life saving help to school children in a crisis.

Yet you propose keeping guns in locked storage until needed. Do you not see how silly that is. When a gun is needed it's needed RIGHT FREAKING NOW. Not in five minutes, not in two minutes.

Some talk about "common sense" gun control but they don't seem to have any of that good old common sense when considering proposals like the one I have outlined for arming schools.

Your common sense proposals are anything but.

Guns can kill or be used to save life. Blindly insisting they can only do more harm than good is foolish. rc

Who is blind here?

 

[rickyrick]

I don’t ever see a future where there’s widespread use of guns outside of resource officers.
Sure, there are some schools that allow armed staff but I’m sure that that is a rarity.
Most ways of making a school more secure get opposed and shut down anyway.
No one gives suggestions for anything that will have a chance of actually happening anyway.
Do what’s left? Easy, ban specific firearms that are capable of firing rapidly. Not my view on the bans, just how it is. The NRA is the only organization of much magnitude that is even willing to defend gun rights. The most powerful companies in the world along with some of the most powerful governments around the world want our guns gone. A growing number of our own leaders and citizens want our guns gone... This all while fewer entities are on our side. Growing numbers of people consider the NRA a hate group. We should be standing together for all of our rights. Instead we choose to walk on eggshells, cling to an outdated document for protection on our way to bury our heads in the sand.

 

[TDL]

However, it seems to me that, like many organizations,the NRA has changed to be not the voice of our citizens, but the voice of the companies that makes firearms.

You have it backwards. NRA used to be decades ago mostly funded by gun makers and undemocratic.

You mean the gun control lobby, which is a "industry lobby" since its function is to raise money for the political industry, mostly as a 501c3 tax deductible raised money channel into US politics -- and more than 90% funded by seven individuals and politically active foundations (all DNC trustees or bundlers)

They told us that when Obama was Potus, he'd take away our rights to carry weapons. It never happened!!!!! Gun purchases went through the roof & the was our trusted IRA He absplutely didn't This was one big fat lie. Then, why did gun sales drop when Trump came into being??

Gun purchases went through the roof in Obama's second term because he constantly hawked Australia mass confiscation regime which would see virtually all firearms for self/home defense illegalized and seized.

We also saw a huge number of Democrats vocally and directly back DC in Heller, meaning a huge number of Democrat politicians were asserting the right to ban even revolvers from persons with background checks and training.

You are talking about carry, when there was a major -- and until Heller successful efforts to ban the most common guns to even keep at home.

I will going to restate that about 99 % of us carry properly and not nor ever resonsible for the surge of mass shooters Most of the mass killings should have never happened that children can be brain washed into getting a gun for some of the worst reasons & using therm.

Mass shootings of children are down in both event and casualty numbers. Not up. gun murder of children is also down not up.

The largest mass school shooting in the US was with handgun.

As to arming our teachers. They have a ton of reason not to have a un. These people are "TEACHERS" not lawmen nor educated enogh to carryinf in class a weapon

What the NRA did was suggest training and arming of select staff and teachers. "Lawmen" don't prevent most crime in the US, non LEO citizens do. We also know that having armed staff does reduce violent crime in schools.

 

[TDL]

It didn't happen because of congress. Whether or not the NRA actually influenced one of those congressmen is anyone's guess. I mean they probably did but to claim its because of the NRA is misleading

I've worked on the Hill and half the people who work for are from the Hill. If it were not for the NRA US Second Amendment rights would be profoundly lower.

It is correct to say that Heller was not NRA. NRA had been reticent to deal with court cases. But when it comes to legislation NRA is the only thing that has stood in the way the way of a lot of notable anti Second Amendment legislation

 

[SIGSHR]

The NRA changed with the times. As Government became bigger and more intrusive, people who viewed the Constitution as a blank slate took over, had a "Government is always right" attitude, saw gun ownership as the cause of crime, the NRA had to meet those challenges.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

The NRA Political Victory Fund sent brochures to gun owners prior to the 2008 election:

"

1. Barack Obama would be the most anti-gun president in American history. Senator Obama says 'words matter.' But when it comes to your Second Amendment rights, he refuses to speak honestly about where he stands. In fact, Obama hides behind carefully chosen words and vague statements of support for sportsmen and gun rights to sidestep and camouflage the truth."

The NRA put this out before the 2012 election"
"

If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, our Second Amendment freedom will not survive. Obama will never have to face the voters again, and will therefore be unleashed to push the most extreme elements of his gun-ban agenda to every corner of America."

Obama signed only two bills and they expanded gun rights. He did express hope that better gun laws would reduce the liklihood of school mass shootings.
It is plausible IMO that the NRA was fear mongering, and the result was a huge number of weapons and ammunition were sold because of that behavior by the NRA. I agree with Doc Holliday the NRA morphed over time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Colorado Redneck, are you ignorant of how are government works or being deliberately deceptive?

The only reason Obama did not sign more bills limiting gun rights is because Congress did not send him more gun control bills to sign. Obama was a chairman of the Joyce Foundation even before he became a state senator. He supported assault weapons bans and super-restrictive gun laws in Illinois that not only registered every gun owner; but that entirely prohibited the ownership of handguns in urban areas.

The nicest thing I can say about your commentary is you are ignorant as to your subject and unashamed of it.

 

[rickyrick]

Political leaders tell us that they would take the guns away if they had the opportunity. Their opportunities don’t materialize or are blocked, then we get called out for fear mongering. Then it repeats. Then we get compared to hate groups for wanting to retain our rights. We should support the NRA.
Gun rights is one of those political land mines that no one wants to push real hard. If it remains an issue, both sides will use it for votes. Anything that can get votes will never be solved. But I think the scale is slightly leaning towards loosing rights at a minimum.
Anyone with a mind that can comprehend knows exactly why the 2nd amendment exists and exactly what it says. It is one of the few political debates that could be put to rest, but it gives many politicians some mileage.
Powerful leaders want the guns gone.
Powerful nations want our guns gone.
The most powerful and influential individuals want our guns gone.
Immense corporations are want our guns gone and are actually exerting pressure on our rights.
Celebrities are constantly campaigning against us.
Our universities are wanting guns gone.
Some of our government bodies have restricted gun rights severely.
The majority of our own population wants guns gone.

It’s not fear mongering, it’s just reality.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

My post points out the fact the NRA was selling an extremely biased political message. So you deny the organisation has morhped into a very political storefront?

 

[rickyrick]

It’s a political issue, of course there’s bias.

 

[dogtown tom]

Bartholomew Roberts Colorado Redneck, are you ignorant of how are government works or being deliberately deceptive?

The only reason Obama did not sign more bills limiting gun rights is because Congress did not send him more gun control bills to sign. Obama was a chairman of the Joyce Foundation even before he became a state senator. He supported assault weapons bans and super-restrictive gun laws in Illinois that not only registered every gun owner; but that entirely prohibited the ownership of handguns in urban areas.

The nicest thing I can say about your commentary is you are ignorant as to your subject and unashamed of it.

How dare you!
Barack Obama was the greatest gun salesman in history. The NRA should be thankful for his eight years and should put him on the cover of their magazine as Man of the Year.

 

[zukiphile]

My post points out the fact the NRA was selling an extremely biased political message. So you deny the organisation has morhped into a very political storefront?

The 2d Am. is a political issue.

 

[dogtown tom]

Colorado Redneck My post points out the fact the NRA was selling an extremely biased political message.

No, the reality is Barack Obama was nearly able to get another liberal on the US Supreme Court. Ignoring the ramifications of that shows no small amount of naivete.

Of course the NRA is going to use vitriol in its warnings.....if all they had publicized was "Obama has a history of gun control advocacy" would that be an understatement?

If the Republicans had not taken back the House in 2010, we would very likely have seen another Assault Weapons ban, another high capacity magazine ban, universal background checks, a federal gun registery and who knows what else.

If it takes "the sky is falling!" type of message to motivate voters.....then bravo to the NRA.

So you deny the organisation has morhped into a very political storefront?

What do you think caused that?
That you would ask this question is troubling.

 

[TailGator]

Re arming teachers

I volunteered in local schools for 15 years, spending so much time at a local high school that staff members, thinking I was a full time employee, asked me how I got out of faculty meetings. With that experience, I can tell you that we do not want every teacher armed; there are a significant number who don't have the mind set or the common sense to handle firearms correctly or to use them successfully in an emergency. I can say with equal certainty, however, that there are a significant number of teachers who love their students, and are are competent and thoughtful and cool under pressure, and who would, if armed, be excellent guardians of our students' safety.

The only people I have seen arguing for all teachers to be armed are those who put it up as a straw man argument to then argue against firearms in schools. The argument to permit - not require, but permit - interested and qualified teachers, administrators, staff members, and volunteers to protect their students with effective arms is only good sense. To argue that students are safer without armed protection is foolish.

As for the NRA's role: It saddens me that they have become political shills. We need to recognize that both sides of the gun control debate are significantly bipartisan. We have supporters on both sides of the aisle to embrace, and opponents on both sides of the aisle to fight. Rejecting supporters and embracing opponents in such a closely contested issue is dangerous.

I noticed something in my last issue of "American Rifleman" that bothered me: photos of a recent gathering with banners of the executive vice president's face. The reason that it bothered me was that the banners reminded me strongly of banners with the visage of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin that were unfurled at the end of a Russian ballet performance that I attended during the cold war. The NRA should belong to all its members and represent them, regardless of their political affiliation and their positions on other issues. It should not be the mouthpiece of one person or one politician or one political party.

 

[44 AMP]

As for the NRA's role: It saddens me that they have become political shills.

Could you explain how the NRA is a political shill???

Not how it may seem, but how they actually are??

I may be a bit out of touch with their current policies, if they've changed, please enlighten me. The NRA I remember never said vote for party A or party B, they always dealt with specific candidates, by name, and based their recommendations/ratings ONLY on the candidates gun rights record.

It may SEEM like they are only supporting one party's candidates, but when only one party produces candidates that support our gun rights, can you blame them??? There have been, and likely still are some people in office or running from both parties that get NRA support, NOT because they belong to one party or the other but because of their personal record on the only issue that matters to the NRA, gun rights.

From where I sit, all the rhetoric about the NRA being a political mouthpiece for one party, about how the NRA is the spokesman for the gun makers, and the extreme, how the NRA condones murder, etc., is just propaganda from the anti-gun side, seeking to demonize the NRA, (and thereby, us, all gunowners, NRA members or not) in order to further their agenda.

The NRA accepts any and everyone who pays the membership dues. There are no questions asked about ANYTHING, as any kind of requirement for membership. You can be of any political persuasion, it doesn't matter.

 

[thallub]

Read Wayne Lapierre's unsubstantiated rant in the March,2018 Rifleman magazine. The article is entitled: In Today's Democratic Party, Democrat Equals Socialist.

La Pierre rants about the media, journalists, "the socialists of academia", "socialist judges" and the "socialist agenda".

i've been an NRA member for about 60 years and previously contributed thousands to the PVF and ILA. Then political activist David Keene was elected NRA president: Keene took the NRA political.

It's time for La Pierre to go.

 

[turkeestalker]

...is just propaganda from the anti-gun side...

Yep... and it blows my mind that people are either blind enough, or just stupid enough, to accept it as truth.

Can someone prove to me that we as gun owners are in a minority in this country?
I don't mean parrot what lies that the lame-stream media blows out it's collective arse on a daily basis.
I mean show me concrete proof that pro-gun people are in the minority and the majority of our population is against us and our guns.

Prove it to me and back it up factually.

You can't because it simply isn't the truth.

 

[Colorado Redneck]

I knew my post would result in my getting flamed. Predicting that Obama or Hillary or whoever will be coming for your guns is hysterical behavior and over reaction. IMO. The very fact that some of us may not buy into the claims made by the NRA before 2008 and 2012 elections seems treasonous, judging by some (most) of the responses.

Not being politically aligned is not treasonous. If we only want to live in an echo chamber, where every post is validation of a certain political or social view point, that is dangerous and troubling to me.

The outcome of those political brochures from the NRA was interesting. First, it caused a major pain in the rear for anyone wishing to purchase reloading supplies and ammunition. The easily swayed gun people got all bug eyed and started hoarding those commodities. Secondly,the proliferation of firearms, particularly AR's, was ratcheted up. The more guns the better! All except when gangs, street thugs, drug rings, and nutballs get their hands on them. The more guns in circulation the easier it becomes to black market them. Thirdly, the actual outcome should, to any critical thinker, expose the NRA as hysteria inducing chicken littles.

I disavowed the NRA for those reasons. I recently opted to again become a member. But, in the interest of not being a hypocrite, the next time the NRA tries to incite hysteria, I am done with them.

 

[turkeestalker]

All except when gangs, street thugs, drug rings, and nutballs get their hands on them. The more guns in circulation the easier it becomes to black market them. Thirdly, the actual outcome should, to any critical thinker, expose the NRA as hysteria inducing chicken littles.

I appreciate the fact that you've once again allowed yourself to be counted in the numbers of citizens that support the NRA and what the organization defends for all of us, members or not.
But your above quoted statement and your other posts in this thread, makes me believe that you are already (or still) done with them, current member or not.