NRA - Never Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Best thing I can say at this time is good luck in your right to excercise the freedom to choose whichever organization you want, jmortimer. Obviously, all of the good things (which amount to the size of Mt. Everest compared to GOA's mole hill in my backyard) the NRA has accomplished is a moot point to you over something like you state.

I really wonder what peoples' thinking would be if the NRA didn't so some heavy footwork to help out in the Heller case. I really think some people become so callused and complacent on the accomplishments the NRA has done that the nitpick issues are blown out of proportion.
 
The NRA has been the most effective organization of its type ever at defending its turf. This has worked in the favor of all who care about RKBA.

There are always going to be some people who don't understand (or like) the fact that NRA reaches out to all political spectrums to achieve that end. I consider these people naive. While there certainly is a faction within the Democratic party that would like to take away your gun rights, there are still a lot of Democrats who don't. There are also other political factions who consider themselves neither Democrats nor Republicans, but whose support we gunowners need, be they Conservatives or Liberals or Liberterians or Tea Party supporters or whatever.

Personally, I consider myself a conservative and as such, I generally vote Republican, but I would be the first to say it is the business of the Republican Party to elect Republicans; not the business of the NRA.

The business of the NRA is to work on behalf of its membership (and just incidentally, all other Americans who believe in Constitutional government) to protect and defend the Constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms, regardless which political party is in power.

I fail to see how any intelligent person thinks the NRA could achieve the goals we want it to achieve by associating itself only with the Republican Party - which at the moment controls only a minority of Congressional delegates.
 
One last thing, the NRA was not necessarily supporting the best candidate but blindly supporting the incumbent even if the opponent was equally or even better qualified which was the gist of the article I linked and why some us are not happy. The NRAs disgraceful support of the Disclosure Act was beyond the pale. How can anyone say "I support the Second Amend" and ignore the First Amendment even if the NRA made a backroom deal with the devil and got a special exemption for themselves from the Disclosure Act. There will not be a Second Amendment if the First Amendment is gutted with the help of the NRA. That ain't right.
 
Last edited:
From what I've been able to tell, over the past 5 or 10 years, GOA seems to have spent the vast majority of its money bitching about NRA in an effort to siphon off members, and putting precious little of it to work protecting our rights.

"Most all the good things have been done on a State Level as the maps from Gun Nuttery deomstrate http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php"

Very odd that you'd put that map up there, apparently as some means of casting aspersions at NRA.

Here's the truth of the matter. NRA poured an amazing amount of time, effort, and money into those states over the years in an effort to get shall issue laws passed, FAR more than any other organization could even hope to. And it continues to pour time, effort, and money into the states when needed.

NRA isn't only active at the Federal level - it's also instrumental in funding, coordinating, and supporting pro-rights activities at the state and local levels, as well.
 
Nonetheless, the NRA is very politically astute, and there are excellent political reasons to support an incumbent who is a strong supporter of the RKBA rather than someone new.

An incumbent will have more seniority, a better shot at better committee appointments, and he will already know his way around. Someone who supports the RKBA and who has been in his office a while will generally be able to more effectively promote our RKBA interests than a freshman.

That's just a fact of political life. An incumbent who is good on your issue will be a better choice than someone new, at least on your issue.

It sounds to me like the NRA has endorsed candidates it has reasonably concluded are most likely to be the most effective at promoting the RKBA. That's what I, as a Benefactor Life Member, expect them to do.
 
The Gun Nuttery maps were simply to point out all the good work done on a State level not to knock the NRA. As a practical matter nothing has been done in Washington for many, many years to advance the RKBA. In fact, the appointment of liberal Supreme Court Justices has been the biggest blow to the Second Amendment as evidenced by Heller and the 5 to 4 decisions. Republicans may screw-up and appoint a less than worthless Supreme Court Justice (Souter etc) but the democrat will do it on purpose as, again, evidenced by the last two 5 to 4 SCOTUS Second Amendment decisions. Let's see, Justices Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and Alito or democrat justices kagan, sotomayor, and ginsberg all appointed for very specific purposes to promote specific agendas. Don't tell me there is no difference between the two parties. You all just keep voting for dems as it just don't matter. .Wait till the president appoints another justice or two. You could not be more wrong on this issue - it absolutely matters who is elected and what party they belong to even if there are exceptions
 
Last edited:
The NRAs disgraceful support of the Disclosure Act was beyond the pale. How can anyone say "I support the Second Amend" and ignore the First Amendment even if the NRA made a backroom deal with the devil and got a special exemption for themselves from the Disclosure Act. There will not be a Second Amendment if the First Amendment is gutted with the help of the NRA. That ain't right.
Click to expand...
"Back room deal with the devil?" Did you even research the background for the stuff you're posting, or did you pick it out of some blog post?

DISCLOSE looked like a foregone conclusion; the NRA made sure that their interests (and those of their members) were being protected. That's what I expect them to do. It wasn't pretty, but they did what they could with the situation.


If you are a member of the NRA, then you should have seen LaPierre's response regarding this. It was published in all of the magazines sent to members.

What did the GOA do during all this? They sent out hysterical emails to their members. They castigated the NRA from their armchairs. While I think it's good they exist, they really need to consider their style of public relations.
 
No and wrong. God Bless NRA Board Member Cleta Mitchell because she called a spade a spade and knows more about this than both of us put together. Her Op-Ed piece in the Washington Post dated 6-17-2010 tells it like it is http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221.html I've never seen so many thoughtless NRA flacks. I used to be an NRA flack - no more Again, God Bless Cleta Mitchell - she is way smart.
 
Last edited:
One last thing, the NRA was not necessarily supporting the best candidate but blindly supporting the incumbent even if the opponent was equally or even better qualified...
Click to expand...
That is not correct. The NRA explains why incumbents who have a demonstrated track record in the office in question can be rated higher than a challenger who has never held that office. In some cases this can be further complicated by other issues such as the committees that the incumbent is a member of since the challenger wouldn't necessarily end up on the same committee even if elected.

Again, the NRA is very clear and open about the criteria it uses for coming up with endorsements. You may not agree with their methods but it is inaccurate for you or anyone else to claim that their endorsements amount to "blind support".
As a practical matter nothing has been done in Washington for many, many years to advance the RKBA.
Click to expand...
BS. Just a couple of examples off the top of my head.

First of all, the AWB was equipped with a sunset provision and even so the passage of the AWB with NRA opposition was credited by Clinton with changing the face of congress and of making them unwilling to pass further gun control.

Second, the AWB couldn't be renewed as a result of NRA opposition.

Look, if you don't like the NRA then drop your membership. But stop making things up to bolster your case.
You all just keep voting for dems as it just don't matter.
Click to expand...
This is a straw man. No one is suggesting that it doesn't matter, the point is that NRA support for a candidate is based on a single issue. If you find other issues more important then don't vote purely based on NRA endorsements. It's a simple solution.
 
Tuttle8 said:
I really wonder what peoples' thinking would be if the NRA didn't so some heavy footwork to help out in the Heller case.
Click to expand...

Tuttle, you know better than this.

The NRA tried to scuttle Heller. Several times.

-They petitioned the DC District Court to merge the Cato Institute's case (Heller) into their case, so they could drive the argument rather than Cato.
-The got Senator Orin Hatch to introduce legislation in the Senate that would repeal the law in question, thereby making the entire Heller case an issue without standing, so it could not progress through the courts and would be dismissed.
-They petitioned the SCOTUS for an obtuse amount of the argument time, taking away from Gura's time to frame his own arguments, attempting a weaker form of watered down victory rather than the slam dunk that Heller is the groundwork for.

We owe the victories of Heller to Alan Gura, the Cato Institute, and the SAF.

The NRA is even more inept when it comes to Heller, than the much maligned GOA and JPFO.

I pays my money to the NRA for two things:
-My annual NRA RSO credential
-To preserve standing for High Power competitions

Not because of the work they do in Congress or the Courts or the Election system.

I give my money to SAF, Cato and The Heritage Foundation. For local issues, AZ-CDL does a good job, and I've heard that the Virginia equivalent (VCDL) is quite good, too. There's a group in Ohio whose name escapes me right now, of which I've also heard high praise. Buckeye Firearms Association, perhaps? And the California Rifle Association (the guys that run calguns.net, I think) also do good work.

The NRA is too entrenched in keeping the fight going, and not on winning it. We've been DEFENDING the 2A for too long. We need to be ATTACKING the mentality that believes in infringing on the 2A. Which seems to be what much of the current grassroots momentum is driving towards. De-institutionalizing government.
 
NRA isn't strictly republican or democrat. They're not split down the crease/edge reagrding party lines. The NRA does a substantial amount for the gun owners, 2nd Amendment, gun rights, lawsuits defending people wrongfully in the doghouse due to gun laws, etc
 
NRA should, and is, support those members of Congress who support the Second Amendment.

THAT'S IT.
Click to expand...

+1.

It's been beat to death in this thread, but I can't understand why anyone would want the NRA to support a party instead of supporting their own agenda.

If the NRA became a wing of the Republican party their power and influence would cease to exist.
 
I'll take the NRA any day speaking for me. Beats being poked in the eye with a sharp stick and part of my signature states my feelings
 
jmortimer said:
The NRAs disgraceful support of the Disclosure Act was beyond the pale.
Click to expand...

The NRA did not support the "Disclose Act." When the exemption came about (something that the NRA did not ask for, contrary to some peoples belief), they dropped their disagreement with the act. They were politically against the proposed law. When the exemption was amended into the act, the NRA stopped opposing the bill.

jmortimer said:
How can anyone say "I support the Second Amend" and ignore the First Amendment even if the NRA made a backroom deal with the devil and got a special exemption for themselves from the Disclosure Act.
Click to expand...

It is the National Rifle Association, not the National Rights Association or the National Republican Association. A single issue organization. They are not the ACLU. You want your 1A protected? Join the ACLU, as it is something they do very, very well.

There are actually only two organizations that earn my respect and money. The NRA for every dealing with lobbying the legislature(s) and the SAF for litigating existing law. Note: while the NRA is currently on the litigation side, they are much better at lobbying than litigation - IMNSHO.

jmortimer said:
God Bless NRA Board Member Cleta Mitchell ...
Click to expand...

Um no... Mitchell did not once, in that article, say that the NRA asked for or brokered the "deal." You are reading into the article, because Mitchell was mad that the NRA dropped opposition when the amendment was made public.

The NRA opposed the legislation from the start. They dropped opposition when the amended act was made known to them. Why should the NRA continue to expend monetary and political capitol on something that no longer threatened them? By what possible right did other organizations have, to expect the NRA also protect them?
 
Frankly jmortimer, I think you made the right decision. I find your reasoning about how to promote RKBA backwards and obtuse and I'd much rather not have you voting and having a voice in what kind of organization the NRA will be in the future.

Frankly, I'd still be an NRA member first among all the RKBA organizations even if every criticism levelled by irate "gunowners" on Internet forums and GOA press releases were true - because at the end of the day, you don't have an RKBA without ranges to shoot on and an effective firearms safety program and the NRA is the only organization out there doing both of these things on a national level every day.

Then again, I don't see it as an "either/or" choice. I support as many RKBA organizations as I can using the following priority:

1. I support the NRA because having a place to shoot and being able to do so safely is at the core of the RKBA. If other organizations are doing this as well, then I support them too.

2. I support the local/state organization that I think is the most effective - if you stop anti-gun politicians early, you don't have to worry about them reaching the big leagues where they can do more damage.

3. I support organizations who do great litigation work, like SAF. This is particularly important right now.

4. I support organizations who lobby and help get pro-RKBA candidates elected - REGARDLESS OF PARTY. You only have to look at how badly several of the Democrats core-constituencies have been abused to see what tying your wagon to a single party gets you. This is why I'll support NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF but feel reluctant to support GOA, who doesn't seem to agree that relying on one party is strategically unwise.

(I may flip the priority of 3 & 4 depending on whether we are "defensive" or "offensive." Right now, I place litigation as a higher priority because I feel it is extremely important we flesh out the extent of the Second Amendment right in case law as fast as possible so we can do it while the majority that wrote Heller is still on the Court.)

P.S. Was anyone aware that the NRA just endorsed a Democratic incumbent with an A grade over an NRA BOARD MEMBER running for the first time as a Republican? I think that shows great integrity on the part of the NRA.
 
backroom deal with obama/reid/pelosi to limit political free speech with a special exemption for the NRA which failed Thank God.
Click to expand...

Excuse me, but I have to call BS here. The Disclose Act exempted ALL established organizations which got less than 15% of their funding from corporations from having to reveal where their money came from. That means the NRA, AARP, Audubon Society, all the big grassroots groups. And it had nothing to do with "limiting political free speech," or whatever spin you were told. It had to do with making sure that corporations couldn't pour unlimited, untraceable money, including foreign money, into US elections. Right now the US Chamber of Commerce is using Chinese money to try and defeat bills and elected officials that oppose outsourcing of jobs to China. They don't even deny it. That is the problem.
 
Gun oweners and defenders of the 2A must be an indepedendent bloc of voters that the Republicans cannot take for granted and the Democrats cannot cross except at their peril.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top