Official NRA critic's thread (NO NRA BASHING DANG IT)

[Bud Helms]

Playboypenguin:

The vast majority of Americans are not republicans, and since I feel gun ownership transcends political beliefs I would have to assume that the vast majority of gun owners are also not republican.

The vast majority of Americans are not democrats either, in that the vast majority of voting age Americans are not officially affiliated with a party, i.e., not registered party members.

I could as easily say that I believe the vast majority of gunowners are not Democrat, but that's pointless since most of us (citizens) aren't registered with a party and don't vote. It would not surprise me in the least to know that a majority of gunowners don't vote either.

I would be more interested in what percentage of dems and repubs are gunowners, not what percentage of gunowners are members of each party.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I would be more interested in what percentage of dems and repubs are gunowners, not what percentage of gunowners are members of each party.

That would be an interesting number to find out. I know where I was rasied (WV) the population was primarily democrat. I think when I was in the YR club in college nearly 70% of my state were registered dems and still almost everyone I knew was a gun owner. Even if it was just an old shotgun or a hunting rifle.

I would have to look it up but if I remember correctly, as of the last census, something like nearly 50% of all registered voters were dems also. This included dems, repubs, and independents/3rd party. Repubs was second and independent/3rd party way behind at a distant 3rd.

I think people get a skewed version of how many their are of each party when they see those maps of red and blue states. They always forget to mention that the repub states in the mid west that make up most of the map have very low populations. In fact it would take three of those entire states just to equal the population of LA county, CA.

 

[Red Grant]

There are good pro-gun Dems out there....

I agree, there are.

..........and NRA always chooses the pro-gun republican over the pro-gun democrat........

I'm sorry, but NRA endorsed Nebraska incumbent Senator (D) Ben Nelson over pro-gun challenger Republican Pete Ricketts.

.........it makes them look like partisan political organization.

Grover Norquist, a conservative NRA board member said, " NRA is not an affiliate of the Republican party."

I would be more interested in what percentage of dems and repubs are gun owners, not what percentage of gun owners are members of each party.

Actually, I would be more interested in what percentage of dems and repubs who are gun owners actually vote, not necessarily what percentage of dems and repubs are gun owners.

I know where I was raised (WV) the population was primarily democrat.

Did NRA endorse WV. Rep. Alan Mollohan?

Was Mollohan a Democrat?

The one thing I do wish the NRA would do is start being a bipartisan organization.

Chris Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action stated,

"We will endorse regardless of party,"

They have appeared to be a republican mouthpiece for so long that non-republican gun owners want nothing to do with them.

NRA endorsed Oklahoma Rep. (D) Dan Boren, Tenn. Rep. (D) John Tanner, and in gubernatorial races, endorsed Democratic candidates in Oklahoma, Tenn, Wyoming, and Bill Richardson, a former Clinton energy secretary and cabinet member in New Mexico.




...........and here's the link:


http://www.online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116061596790090051-fUvEm9ne6ODxqV9tlTRr4SPzk9E_20061110.html?mod=tff_main_tff.top

By the way, I am a Republican, pre-NeoCon Republican, always voted for a Republican except the last Presidential election, where I abstained.

 

[Silver Bullet]

False logic is SOO entertaining. Yea dude, everyone who questions the nra is actually a guy in Sarah Brady drag sent on a mission from her offices

That’s not what I said at all. I said I was suspicious of those who would tell us to drop our NRA membership.

If you have a better plan, tell us about it, but there’s no reason for us to drop our NRA memberships while we’re waiting for your plan to work.

See the difference ? Learn to read more carefully, and pay attention when people are trying to help you.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Your original post said the NRA "DOESN'T favor "Vermont/Alaska" carry", but now you are saying that they "fail to encourage" it. These are not logically the same. The NRA also fails to encourage kids to play dodgeball, but that doesn't mean they disfavor it.

Excellent analogy, Tim !

 

[TimRB]

I just noticed this in the post that started the thread:

"I mean, just sitting around telling everyone to "join nra and buy gift memberships" isn't going to save our guns from the government thieves."

Ironically, if everyone, or at least all gun owners, would join the NRA, we *really could* easily stop the gun-grabbers. As an interest group, shooters would have as much clout as a major political party. It's all about numbers.

Tim

 

[Fremmer]

Why should the NRA have to endorse Vermont/Alaska style concealed carry in other States? I understand that Vermont/Alaska style concealed carry works well in Vermont and Alaska. Good for those States. But what works for Vermont and Alaska may not work (or have any chance of being enacted) in other States.

A prime example of this is the State of Nebraska. For years, the NRA has lobbied for CCW here, and one (1) State Senator managed to block the legislation. This year, CCW legislation was finally passed. It is not Vermont/Alaska syle CCW. It is Nebraska CCW, and Nebraska CCW is better than nothing. The Nebraska State legislators enacted CCW legislation for the State of Nebraska. Good for them, and for the citizens of Nebraska.

But no, to some on this Forum, if the NRA doesn't lobby for and absolutely insist on "Vermont" CCW in every State -- and if the NRA refuses to work with legislators to accept anything other than "Vermont" CCW -- the NRA has failed. Tell that to the good citizens of Nebraska who, but for the hard work of the NRA, would still have no option for legal CCW of any kind.

 

[Gary Conner]

I knew Mr. Paul's Constitutional reasons for not supporting the legislation and while I disagree with him I respect that he is at least making a Consitutional argument. I still believe the NRA was justified in lowering his grade.

I just saw your post Musketeer, and appreciate your comments.

But keep in min, there isn't a "Constitutional argument" there. Heck, it forbids it completely. Isn't his argument. It's the Founders.

Congressman Ron Paul swore an oath to govern by "preserving" that document. The legislation is not "in pursuance" of the Constititon.

Disregarding their oath of office, is how Congress got us to the point where NRA wanted the legislation in the first place.

(Nobody could vote in favor of that legislation, and still be in keeping his oath of office)

I think he simply got screwed because he isn't in lock step with the Washington power brokers pushing the "North American Partnership" and "Globalization" nonsense.

 

[mthalo]

Ironically, if everyone, or at least all gun owners, would join the NRA, we *really could* easily stop the gun-grabbers.

I personally don't think the NRA really wants to stop the gun-grabbers.

Why would I make such a statement? Because if the NRA managed to get every anti-gun law repealed, they would no longer have much reason to exist.
Do you think all the NRA directors and lobbyists want to give up their enormous salaries?

For the same reason, I don't think Sara Brady would want a full repeal of the Second Amendment, and give up the 300K+ that she pays herself as the Brady Institute director.

I'm not trying to bash the NRA here, just stating the way I think things work.
There isn't really anyone I trust in Washington DC, but then again, I may be a touch cynical.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

You know, instead of talking bad about the NRA and it's politics, why don't you become a life member, or if you can't do that, pay your dues for five years straight.

I did the five year route. It was a great idea, expect they kept sending me a bunch of garbage on a regular basis, mostly asking for more money or to change my membership. Apparently joing for 5 years wasn't good enough.

When I asked that they stop wasting my dues money on sending me silver-looking 'bullets,' multiple copies of the history of the gun, and other such trinkets, they didn't stop.

I didn't renew and they still send me stuff. They also spam my email.

I just have trouble giving money to a group that spends a significant portion of it in trying to get more money out of me. I think the NRA means well, but I don't think they manage my dues in a manner I felt was smart and they didn't win any favor my not honoring my requests to stop sending requests for $ and trinkets.

 

[Musketeer]

if the NRA managed to get every anti-gun law repealed, they would no longer have much reason to exist.

Take a look into the significant support the NRA has long provided for training and sportsman support. The NRA-ILA, the political wing, is only a part of the whole NRA. The amount the NRA has done outside of fighting for the Second Ammendment is enormous.

 

[SIGSHR]

Instead of lobbying for "Vermont" carry, the NRA-that is, we who are the NRA-must work to get the RKBA into the constitutions of the 7 states that do not have it, and we must work to defeat semi-autonomous city-states such as New York and Chicago who practice "Cafeteria Constitutionalism" and
think they can pick and choose what rights their citizens have.
And again, the NRA has been one of the most consistently effective lobbies
because it truly does work for "We The People."

 

[Silver Bullet]

The amount the NRA has done outside of fighting for the Second Ammendment is enormous.

Exactly right.

we must work to defeat semi-autonomous city-states such as New York and Chicago who practice "Cafeteria Constitutionalism" and think they can pick and choose what rights their citizens have.

I hadn't heard that phrase, but it's very apt.

 

[johnbt]

"I mean, just sitting around telling everyone to "join nra and buy gift memberships" isn't going to save our guns from the government thieves."

I agree completely. By federal law, dues CANNOT be used for political purposes such as lobbying and election year donations. So in addition to paying dues it is necessary to donate to the NRA-PVF(Political Victory Fund) and the NRA-ILA(Institute for Legislative Action). I admit that I need to do better on this myself.

And join state organizations. And help out if possible.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Endowment Member

 

[Silver Bullet]

I contribute frequently to the NRA-ILA.

In fact, sometimes if I see something anti-RKBA in the news that is particularly (meaning: more than usual) mendacious, I'll contribute a little something extra (usually $5) to help counter the deluge of bogus propaganda the antis are dredging up.

 

[Vermont Carry]

False logic is SOO entertaining. Yea dude, everyone who questions the nra is actually a guy in Sarah Brady drag sent on a mission from her offices

That’s not what I said at all. I said I was suspicious of those who would tell us to drop our NRA membership.

Oh yea, "not at all" what you said, just reeeely close to what you said You essentially accused those who question the nra as being plants from the anti gun groups and then you try to say it's "not what I said at all." What-ever pal. Everyone can see what you said in that veiled accusation, so have some honor and quit hiding/denying, especially with denials like "that's not what I said at all." Yea, you're SOO misunderstood. You just want it both ways that's all. You want to make semi veiled accusations like that, but you don't have the courage to BACK them up. Yea I see.

See the difference ? Learn to read more carefully, and pay attention when people are trying to help you.

That sir is EXCELLENT advice, you should try it sometime.

I want to second what was said about supporting LOCAL pro gun organizations. Also, if you are a true hardcore believer in the nra, I would hope you would ONLY give to the NRA-ILA and PVF. Thankfully, johnbt reminded us that yearly dues won't help pass pro second amendment legislation.

One more thing. I never EVER said that nra should have an "ONLY Vermont/Alaska" carry attitude everywhere throughout the country. I just didn't say that. I was very clear that I would like to see nra support "Vermont/Alaska" carry SOMEWHERE, especially in states where it could pass, because I just have never seen them push for it ANYWHERE. Sheesh, if they have, then post a link to a shred of evidence cause I want to see it (and I'm not talking about gloating like what nra did after it passed in Alaska).

Fremmer, you totally twisted what I'm saying so you could make the EASY argument with regards to Nebraska. I never said that nra should have insisted on "Vermont/Alaska" carry or NOTHING in places like that. You're doing a shameless job of putting words in my keyboard with garbage like this:

if the NRA doesn't lobby for and absolutely insist on "Vermont" CCW in every State

For the third time (at least) now, I would simply like the nra to push "Vermont/Alaska" carry SOMEWHERE. I can think of a half dozen states where it's TIME to start pushing it but we all know that nra won't do it. THAT sir is why I believe that nra doesn't support "Vermont/Alaska" carry.

 

[mjrodney]

The NRA is attempting the sway the minds of our politicians who are personally opposed to firearms ownership and use.

You don't do that by getting in Hillary's face and demanding the whole enchilada at once.

Once we and the NRA acheive nationwide CCW laws, with a permit if need be, then we and the NRA can begin to whittle away at the permit part.

One step at a time.

My suggestion to you teenagers is to slow down. This is not about a revolution, but rather evolution.

 

[Fremmer]

I can think of a half dozen states where it's TIME to start pushing it but we all know that nra won't do it.

Fine then. Please provide a list of every State in which the NRA should "push" the "Vermont" style carry, and what makes it more likely than not that the legislators of those States will pass "Vermont" carry there.

Are there any other reasons that the NRA might not want to "push" that kind of legislation? Perhaps it is dedicating money to establishing CCW in other States that don't have any CCW legislation; after all, why establish CCW in Nebraska when you could spend even more money in Texas to amend Texas CCW legislation that already exists (to heck with what the people and legislators in Texas think -- they should have to accept Vermont carry in Texas, and the folks in Nebraska really don't need any CCW legislation unless it mirrors Vermont's CCW legislation). Or dedicating money to other issues, like Federal legislation that protects firearm manufacturers from being sued out of business. Or safety programs like Eddie Eagle. Or CCW training for instructors. Or shooting competition. Or hunting instruction. Or going to court when the police chief of a major city orders the confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens without any due process, or without even providing a darn receipt for the guns.

But to the NRA bashers, no answer is good enough. To the bashers, the NRA is not "pushing" Vermont style carry in other States because the NRA doesn't like Vermont or Alaska, and wants CCW in other States to be as restrictive as possible. The NRA is terrible. We should all join the "Vermont Carry" association. As a side benefit, the dues will only be $5.00 per year, which is what the NRA's dues "should" be.

 

[TimRB]

" I would like to see nra support "Vermont/Alaska" carry SOMEWHERE, especially in states where it could pass, because I just have never seen them push for it ANYWHERE."

And why do you think that's so? Here are *my* thoughts: In many places, permit-free, totally unregulated concealed carry would be seen and villified in the press as utter lunacy. You would see editorials whining about how the NRA wants to put a 9mm in the pocket of every gang-banger in the country. The NRA's reputation and credibility would be damaged on a national scale.

On the other hand, the concealed carry issue becomes a much easier sell if they can say "Yes, there would be more people carrying guns, but they would be law-abiding citizens who pass background checks and undergo specific firearms training." This is especially compelling when these statements can be backed up with crime statistics showing that increased concealed carry does NOT lead to the bloodbath that the press always anticipates, and often does the opposite.

It's politics, pal. The NRA simply doesn't have the membership numbers to force issues like concealed carry. This is, in no small measure, because of people like you. Also, as I said before, concealed carry is only one issue of many. Do you realize that there are places in this country where you're not even allowed to *own* a handgun? Or that the most populous state, California, still has an "assault weapon" ban that is stronger than the Federal one ever was? The list goes on, and without the NRA and its state-level associations, it would only get bigger, faster.

Tim

 

[Silver Bullet]

But to the NRA bashers, no answer is good enough.

This is correct. It reminds me of Marilyn’s response regarding how do you convince those who claim the moon landing was faked. She correctly pointed out that even if you had photographic evidence, they naysayers would claim the photos were fake.

You essentially accused those who question the nra as being plants from the anti gun groups

Some people just don’t take constructive criticism well, I guess. You must be getting desperate if you have to make such blatant falsehoods.