In reference to the NRA post!!

J

JG

New member
There is 82 replies as I'm writing this- and there are some really good ones at that. Does anyone think that submitting this thread (assuming they aren't reading it on the board, I wouldn't be surprised if they were) to the NRA would be a constructive thing to do- In letting them know what a nice Sample group of NRA members thinks and feels about the organization.

I'm sure they hear more than their fair share of cr*p each day from members and anti's, but who knows, maybe they like to hear what members are saying about them.

[This message has been edited by JG (edited December 22, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by JG (edited December 22, 1999).]
 
The more the NRA hears from the membership, the better. But information needs to be in a useful form to have any impact.

A simple forum could ask: "What ONE thing would you suggest to make the NRA a more effective organization in the years ahead?"

(My answer would be that they go out and hire some aggressive, creative people who have proven in other organizations that they know how to increase membership, with the goal of doubling it to 6 million members by Jan 1, 2002.)

Another useful forum might be: "Suppose you have been hired by the NRA to double the membership by 2002. What steps would you take to achieve that goal?"

(How about: (1) Hire the talent as described above and pay them according to a bounty system: more sign-ups, more pay, and a fat bonus if they make the goal. (2) Institute a bounty system among the members, too, so that every new member you sign up pays off with merchandise coupons, reduced dues, etc. If every member signed up one other person, that would double the membership. (3) Do a full-court press on the retailers to display and offer NRA membership applications and to give member discounts; (4) Get after the manufacturers and distributors to put an application in the box with every new or used gun. (5) Sell Introductory Memberships (first-time, first-year) for 10 bucks, just break even on them. (6) As the membership increases, reduce the dues -- 6 million members at $25 is a lot more money than 3 million at $35; and 10 million at $20 is a lot more yet. One reason the AARP is so huge is that it only costs $10 a year to belong.)

I'm sure others would have lots of ideas that are more original and more creative than these; the trick is to get them into a form that will get them seriously considered by the folks in Arlington.

Byron
SBW8027J
 
Those are really good ideas and valid points you made, and like you said-putting this topic in a form that would be considered presentable, might be a beneficial thing to do (who knows). I guess like anything else, its easier said than done. In my personal opinion, I don't think the NRA would mind hearing a little constructive criticism from online Gun enthusiasts. Well, it was just a thought.
 
OK, here's some more: The war over gun rights will likely be won or lost in the media. The NRA is not doing nearly enough in that area; in fact, they are doing almost nothing. When the Columbine, etc. shootings occurred, the NRA should have been immediately buying 15- and 30-second spots to point out the number of gun laws already on the books that were broken and to alert people against attempts to use these tragedies as an excuse to deprive law-abiding citizens of their rights. This could have been very effective, but NRA was a no-show while HCI, Chuck Schumer, et al. had a field day.

NRA should also be constantly buying spots to make people aware of how often firearms are used to stop or deter crimes, (imagine the dynamite true-life testimonials you could use) or to refute various myths and lies put out by HCI and others ("HCI claims... But here is what statistics actually show"). Other spots should air to educate people
about the Second Amendment, especially during History Week and such. As it stands now, about the only NRA media presence is to have Wayne LaPierre show up once in a while as a talking head on some show that nobody watches, or to put a spot on a cable TV hunting show where they are only preaching to the choir. (The thing they've been running in some TV markets about the loss of gun rights in England and Canada is excellent. But it is a 15-minute spot. You can't buy 15-minute spots, so they have to buy a half-hour and run it twice back-to-back! For heaven's sake, why didn't they produce a half-hour show?? I think the reason is that they haven't hired the kind of media talent they long ago should have, so NRA basically does not have a clue in this critical area. That should be absolutely unacceptable to the membership.
 
If the membership TRIPLED the money would mysteriously disappear and officials would be wearing tailor-made suits and driving large cars (as happened in the recent past). The NRA has only made token efforts to appease the administration, never have they solidly opposed them. Mr. Heston cannot speak without a script and he has continually refused to be photographed with a handgun.
Why don't the members find a way to depose the current lot of do-nothings and elect some DOERS?(Like Neal Knox) Just think what might have happened if the nominating committee had proposed Robert Stack instead of Charleton Heston.
I am a very unhappy life member.

[This message has been edited by John Lawson (edited December 23, 1999).]
 
Nothing is perfect. If you don't like it, change it, don't dump em.

The NRA is _the_ reason we can still own handguns, and don't have gun laws like Great Britain.

Every gun owner should hold their nose and be a member in the NRA as a minimum, and then any other gun rights groups of your choice to fine tune your efforts.

------------------
>>>>---->
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top