NRA: Friend or Loyal Opposition

Status
Not open for further replies.
The site is there to educate people who blindly follow groups like the NRA.
It lets people know that the NRA has some glaring flaws.
Click to expand...

And there ya go, folks. Thanks to this "life member of the NRA", we've been educated about all of the NRA's horrible flaws. :rolleyes: O.K., so you don't like the NRA. Go form your own organization. Let us know how many members you wind up with.

Lots of threads complaining about the NRA lately. I'd even guess that I'm noticing an interesting pattern....:p
 
Okay, It's called the "call your congressman yourself club"

Membership: About 50 million (or most likely more)
Membership fee: None
Benefits: The knowledge that you had the ambition to call your congressman yourself and not pay someone else to do it for you.

Disadvantages: It requires you do your own research rather then having someone feed you full of BS that may or may not be true.

I'd say it works pretty well......


Shotgun,
 
The past tense is appropriate.
Click to expand...
Two years ago is pretty recent.

If you read the article, you would realize that without the NRA's intervention, the AWB would have been renewed. The Senate was prepared to renew it in the bill to shield the gun industry. The NRA stepped in and said, no, don't vote for this bill. We can vote in the gun industry shield bill later without the AWB renewal.

And that's what happened.
 
It's sad and chilling that we even have to worry about discussions like this being squelched or locked.

I'm amazed at how many people come along to try and shut down any thread that is in the LEAST bit critical of nra. They follow the SAME PATTERN. First they throw out the predictable nonsense of calling it an "nra bashing thread" in hopes that the label will stick. Then they do everything in their power to avoid the issues brought up and get the thread shut down and/or ground to a halt.

Look folks, I wish we could just sit back and let the nra be our "general" and donate a few bucks and let them kick butt, and I wish they were everything we'd LIKE them to be, but the facts just don't bear that out to be true.

The facts listed on the website that started this thread are rather maddening to say the least. The nra throws money around to politicians with little or no accountability. They help bad incumbents as a way of LIFE. They're so buddy buddy with the establishment that it's scary. I'm not trying to "bash" the nra (how that became a cardinal sin I'll never know), I'm saying it's scary for my RIGHTS.
 
Well, let's review the facts.

Two years ago, as a member of the NRA, I prevented the AWB from being renewed.

A year ago, as a member of the NRA, I sued New Orleans for confiscating weapons.

I would ask those here who are bashing the NRA, what did you do acting on your own, especially compared to what I did ?
 
As I watch the antis GLOAT

As some of you know, I check the anti's websites regularly (at least once a week). I've compiled a bookmark folder of effectively all of the anti gun groups. Since the election, I've been watching them gloat their heads off, and they're correct about something that is disturbing. They keep pointing out how much the nra funneled to candidates who LOST. It's staggering to see the amounts of money that went to losing candidates. It's in the millions. That's donated money you could have kept and put towards a gun or ammo, but it's gone and accomplished nothing. Now I don't mind losing if I fought a CORRECT fight with CORRECT principles and at least advanced those principles. All the money the nra funneled to losing candidates accomplished none of that. I've gotten USED to being on the correct side and losing anyway. Every election the voters in my area vote for ANOTHER permanent tax increase, and for more public debt (through bonds), and for bigger government as if it will never affect them. Naive doesn't begin to describe these people.

Nra's ACTIONS got it tarred as if it was part of the republican establishment that got slapped out of office (deservedly so). NRA was mum about the so called "patriot" act, and amazingly endorsed bush in his reelection bid. Stuff like that MADE it part of the republican establishment, and stuff like that ENSURED that almost all of NRA's efforts would be in vain because the voters wanted the big government, ignore america, favor corporations and the super rich, republican establishment THROWN IN THE DUMPSTER.

Too many gun owners behave as if NRA is our "only hope." We have GOT to change those minds. If a single group is our "only hope" then we're screwed.

Voters clearly believed that NRA = republican establishment and didn't listen to a word the NRA had to say. Scumbag Governor Doyle in Wisconsin should have been defeated but wasn't because the republicans had abandoned every good principle and NRA was so closely associated with the republican establishment.

So where do we go from here? I think a message needs to be sent to NRA that they need to back away from being so close to the republican party. I think they also need a message sent that if they're going to say "vote freedom first" (and even if they don't say that slogan), they need to support CORE liberties other than those directly related to guns. They should have gone ballistic about the so called "patriot" act. To this day, the only people who support that act have NOT read it. Same with the detainees bill (which ended habeas corpus). They need to work to reduce the police state if we expect to keep our guns. Lending at least MORAL support to helping end the war on americans possessing CERTAIN drugs would be a good start.

NRA equated itself with George W. Bush and that guaranteed that your dues money would be wasted in a losing effort because voters had had enough of him and what his party has done (and not done). I also think there's a perception that NRA is pro war in Iraq. I think people equated gun owners with support for the quagmire in Iraq.

I think we need to build up our LOCAL pro gun groups like Ohio gun owners have. I think Buckeye Firearms and Ohioans for Concealed Carry are the best examples we have of local people who put ACTIONS with their words and getting gun owners off the couch.

I think NRA needs to be reorganized big time. I think a million dollar a year CEO didn't help us on election day.

I don't think the NRA has a clue about WHY only a relatively few gun owners are members of it. I would LOVE to hear the NRA give it's opinion of WHY that is. Man I would love to hear that. Wouldn't you?

I think this is an important discussion to have because gun owners are in big trouble right now. No this thread isn't just about one aspect of NRA losses on election day, it's about many.

If all you've GOT to say is to call this "another nra bashing thread" then obviously you're not willing to listen or help solve the REAL problems that led to NRA getting BLOWN OUT on election day.

If all you've got to say is "I don't know what this thread is about," then either you didn't read this post or you want me to do your thinking for you. I brought up a lot of things that concern me in hopes that NRA MEMBERS would take an honest look at the NRA and analyze what went wrong on election day, with an eye towards either fixing the NRA or building up another organization.
 
The Democrats have no NRA, so how did they manage to pull off such an a$$ kicking in the last election????
P.S. I've been a member of the NRA since I was a kid.
 
They help bad incumbents as a way of LIFE. - Vermont Carry
Click to expand...

Got any examples? Look at the endorsements in the last election (link below). See any endorsed incumbents with poor ratings? I checked at least Congressional races against GOA ratings and found very few significant variances in those ratings. Friends of gun owners get help. Incumbents who were true to the bargain were favored. Is that a problem?

http://www.nrapvf.org/
 
hoji:
Before you guys lock this one down, please read through the link and check out some of the info it contains.
By the way, I am a Life Member of the NRA.
Click to expand...
For the record, your Life membership might give you some standing to criticize the NRA, but the issue here on TFL is becoming the repetitive threads on the same topic. You could have just as well posted this in one of the ongoing threads. There is one in General Discussion that should probably be here in L&P, but it's been there a while now (96 posts in four pages) and it will probably stay there until someone forgets their manners.

Those of you that are not a member, never have been a member and express the intent to never become a member of the NRA really have little standing to criticize the organization. Those that oppose the NRA and classify it as an evil organization, responsible for the death of hundreds of children each year and fight the NRA tooth and nail, have more standing than you to criticize. They oppose it on principle and would have it fail. I do not agree with their position. But you to whom I speak support nearly everything it stands for, yet it's not good enough, because it is imperfect and makes mistakes. I have large issues with the NRA's methods. I am an Endowment member.

Critical thinking is not about running your mouth (or keyboard) and spouting opinion. It is about reason and logic. It is about testing the boundaries and logic of your position. It is about being critical of your own position, if for no other reason than to test it prior to the other side poking holes in your ideas. It is about thoroughly exploring those unintended consequences of your position and ideas to the best of your ability. And in the end, it's about being on the right side of a debate. Everyone wants to be right (as in correct). And everyone wants to win.

I realize that these subjects come up for discussion occasionally, but if you've never made daily visits to Neal Knox's or Leroy Pyle's websites, if you aren't a member of GOA, if you aren't a member of JPFO, if you aren't a member of the NRA, if you haven't been a member in a grass roots political organization with RKBA as the main emphasis, if you've never been a member of a shooting club, if you've never, for example, hosted an RKBA news website for your gun club, then maybe you might not have done enough to advise the rest of us about the pros and cons of being a member of the NRA.

If I was king, I'd take the NRA under my wing and things might be different ... a lot different. They suffer from classic large organizational problems. But they do an admirable job of representing the philosophy of the grass roots membership. For their size and their institutional momentum, I am amazed at how effective they have remained. Perfect? No way. Close to perfect? I repeat, "No way." Best rep you can find? Probably. I find it ironic that as time has passed and they have grown, they remain the most powerful lobby for my special interests, yet at the same time the politics that I need them to play for me has taught them to compromise in order to win. My biggest problem with the NRA is just that. They will support a candidate for public office that they should not, in order to say they won. Classic politics. Bad philosophy.

SO. There is no prequalification for posting in these threads, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just remember that your opinion alone does not give you standing and therefore you may not have suffered the consequences of that about which you complain, in which case maybe you should be on the sidelines, reading and learning, with your keyboard cooling off.
 
The facts don't seem to support what you have written here. Referring only to Congressional races, starting with the House:

Open seats (no incumbent)

13 A rated Republicans won
5 A rated Democrats won (1 rated C by GOA)

The reason for favoring a Republican would be to try to keep a gun friendly caucus together. Going into the election there were only 16 pro-gun Democrats in all of Congress (528 members). Obviously the GOP has the critical mass for favoring gun owners.

Incumbents

22 GOP House incumbents were defeated, 17 of which were NRA-endorsed and 19 of which were A-rated. In exchange for those defeats, 6 Democrats won with A ratings, non endorsed. Incumbents always get the reward of the endorsement when rated just as well as a challenger. That is part of the bargain when lobbying for support. Legislators are not very interested in hearing why you have decided not to endorse them or vote for them. What you don't need is an incumbent who did his part for gun owners and who returns from a campaign embittered by a lack of endorsement.

NRA is and should be neutral on issues that are not directly related to gun ownership. That is their way of avoiding polarizing issues that otherwise define political parties.

As far as Democrat endorsements, I found only one. That was Lampson of Texas who was well rated and more likely to be the winner for Tom Delay's vacated seat. Lampson did in fact win the election. I believe that endorsement came before Sekula Gibbs (R) was in the picture. NRA gets the benefit of having picked a winner and didn't need a well rated Democrat with a resentment about not having NRA's support.

Not all races had an endorsed candidate. There was no weak rated GOP incumbent with an endorsement against a better rated Democrat.

I found no race where a highly rated Democrat beat a poorly rated Republican. The pro-gun Democrats who won did so against equally rated Republicans, making the gun issue a moot point.

And now the major point to consider: most Democrats running against incumbents were not rated. They couldn't be bothered to return questionnaires or would rather be "NR" or "?" than "F". On the other hand, Democrats running for open seats and winning included only 3 not rated. Actually 11 were rated D to F-, and one was rated B/B-.

Overall, the contests for open seats was pretty much a draw between A rated and D-F rated candidates. Congress as a whole picked up 4 pro-gun seats. There are now 10 more pro-gun Democrats. Any "loss" for NRA is more in losing the pro-gun majority caucus and the Committee controls that go with it than in actual number of pro-gun seats. Having a bill guided by a pro-gun Majority Leader is definitely a preference. The hope will be that pro-gun Democrats will remain pro-gun when it comes time to vote on gun related legislation. Without that, obviously ratings and reelection endorsements will deteriorate.

In the Senate, all three of the incumbent upsets occurred with each candidate having an A rating. At face value, it would appear that there was no loss for gun owners, but the fact is that the GOP caucus has been weakened, Committee chairmanships have been lost, and three Democrat freshmen (Tester, Webb, Casey) will be the only pro-gun people in their caucus. We can wish them luck on maintaining personal integrity.
 
FYI Second I never said the NRA never endorses DFL canidates as you've implied.
Click to expand...

There was no implication; just logical deduction. Here are your words;

I always found it funny that the NRA always endorses Republican Canidates.
Click to expand...

If they always endorse republicans, please explain how it is not also true that that they can never endorse a democrat.

they are a front for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Just saying it does not make it true. Here's the text of the last GOP platform on gun control:

We believe the Second Amendment and all of the rights guaranteed by it should
enable law-abiding citizens throughout the country to own firearms in their homes for
self-defense. To protect the rights and safety of law-abiding citizens, the Congress passed
and President Bush signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which allows active
and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed guns in public while off-duty. We
support efforts by the Administration and Congress to enhance the instant background
check system for gun purchases and to ensure that records of lawful transactions are
destroyed in a timely manner. We applaud Congressional Republicans for seeking to stop
frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers, which is a transparent attempt to
deprive citizens of their Second Amendment rights. We oppose federal licensing of lawabiding
gun owners and national gun registration as a violation of the Second
Amendment and an invasion of privacy of honest citizens.​

Now lets look at a bit of the democrat platform:

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.​

Now explain to me why the NRA should support a democrat where the individual candidates have equal positions on gun control. You maintain the NRA is a 'front' for the GOP because they usually support candidates from a party who's platform advances their own (NRA) goals? Please explain how if the NRA were to support democrats (in opposition of equally pro-gun republicans), that would not then make them (the NRA) hypocrites for indirectly supporting a platform of gun control.
 
I think it's time to start merging these NRA theads. In order to remain a thread standing separate from the others, they need to have some substantial difference in theme. This one does not.

Merging ...
 
Maybee it's time for a new Category group of Forums. Have an NRA bashing forum, an LEO bashing forum and add the Zombie forum,Conspiracy forum and a Tin Foil Hat forum.

Lessee we could call it......The Manure Pile!:D
 
Another "join the NRA or loose your guns" thread? I have but one question for you: Where were they on AWB 1.0? Taking a nap? In the john?
Click to expand...

ask ex Congressman Jack Brooks about the NRA when he voted for AWB 1.0.

ask Bill Clinton about the NRA after AWB 1.0 was passed. As 20 of the pro ban voters who lost seats in the Congress about the NRA. I am thinking if Bill had it all over to do he would have skipped the issue.

ask Hillary Clinton what could happen in 2008 if they try AWB 2.0.

Bill & Hillary have a healthy respect for the NRA along with other politicians. It cost Bill a Democratic Congress.

So if you don't belong to a genuine pro-gun 2A group find one you like and quit the moaning and groaning. It is American and you too can join sides with Schumer, Rangel and Fienstien and insult the NRA. Or you can join with the rest of us in the NRA, GOA or any other 2A amendment group.
 
The NRA also in the last few years had a Republican run house and senate and could have passed bills to prevent erosions of our gun rights.
Click to expand...

The assertion that the NRA has not done anything is so incorrect that it is absurd. The NRA lobbied for and helped pass important State and Federal legislation:

The 109th Congress has provided gun owners with some tremendous victories-including passage of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” in 2005, and in October, legislation to prohibit the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during states of emergency--to name just a few.
Click to expand...

The NRA also backed CCW and self-defense legislation in several States.

But I know this information won't matter to the bashers. They'll keep complaining and attacking. And no, your phone calls and letters are not enough. You need lobbying skill and campaign/party donations to have a strong voice with lawmakers. The NRA has that. Let us know how many meetings your "new" organization has with politicians.

I see-ath a not-so-subtle bashing pattern of late.

So where do we go from here? I think a message needs to be sent to NRA that they need to back away from being so close to the republican party.
Click to expand...

The NRA doesn't exclusively endorse Republicans. It endorsed Senator Ben Nelson (D) for re-election in Nebraska.
 
Last edited:
maybe it's time gun owners and the American people voted in an honest government that will protect everyones given rights and throw the crooked lobbyist and politions that can be bought by lobbyisy out of DC and the government, they call it lobbying, i call it bribing.
 
I don't think the NRA has a clue about WHY only a relatively few gun owners are members of it.
Click to expand...
Sure they do. Too many people like the NRA-bashers in this thread who will sit back and freeload and criticize while the rest of us do the work and get it done.

You never did say what it is you accomplished on behalf of RKBA acting on your own.
 
Fade to a picture of a dingy place. Picture Sally Struthers standing there, holding a forlorn 1911 in her hands, and whining in a plaintive voice: "Can you afford 10 cents a day. 10 cents a day is all it takes to support this orphaned 1911. 10 cents a day allows us to support guns so more of them don't end up like this one." :D

We're talking $35 a year here. The vast majority of people spend more than that each year buying their second latte each day. The NRA does have some issues that turn off gun owners. They are also demonized by the left-of-center as a threat to society. I wonder why that is? It's because the left-of-center is typically anti-gun. They want all guns gone. They move in small steps because they know each inroad they make goes into the plus column. And they are relentless in their drive to do so. If they can make America view the NRA as something evil, they are one step closer to their goal.

The NRA isn't perfect. I think they miss the boat sometimes. But, they do wield a lot of power and they do lobby well.

After reading this thread, I checked my status and found I forgot to renew- it expired in Oct. Since I was not only a NRA member, I was also a NRA LE Instructor, I'll let you all know how forgiving they are when I ask if I can renew late. If they are agreeable with letting me renew and I can keep my certification, I'll give them a big plus. If they balk, I'll just take a POST patrol rifle instructor course and get recertified through them. But, I’ll probably still renew my basic membership side of it.

I can afford 10 cents a day in order to have a voice in DC. They aren’t perfect, but they are the strongest voice we have. Anybody that thinks lobbying isn’t the way things are done there is wrong. For those of us that think lobbying corrupts the process are turning a blind eye to the fact that it’s how things are done. We may not like it, but that’s no reason to not support the groups that do lobby for us.

If your complaint is that the government shouldn’t operate that way, I agree. But, until we can change the way it works, we do ourselves a disservice but refusing to support a organization to ensures the right we enjoy.

As to the recommendations the NRA makes concerning who to vote for, I’ll say this;

Each election, my union recommends that we vote for Democrats. They rarely support a Republican. I have asked them why numerous times. Their answer is that Democrats are typically pro-union. When I pointed out to them that the Democrats also raised taxes and when I got a pay raise, the increase in taxes cancelled it out (and in many cases, the taxes actually left me with less money than I took home before the raise) they got mad at me. They refused to reply. My stance was I would rather get a small pay raise and actually make a little more money because taxes were kept in check.

True Republicans are typically not anti-gun. Please disregard the RINOs. Many Democrats are anti-gun.

I believe we need to vote for those who at least give the appearance they will support our stance. My stance is simple- less government, no gun infringements, less taxes. I vote for those who I think will take those views to DC.

Sometimes they fool me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top