Problems with NRA messaging and defense of a civil right

Z

zukiphile

New member
It has been suggested that this be its own thread.

With some frequency, we read here the thesis that the NRA's message is alienating to a larger population of potential supporters. One member here recently wrote:

If [the NRA] are really interested in expanding their membership($$), then only they can change to do that..they don't seem interested in doing anything more than keeping their 'base' happy.

I'm not alone in my impression of the NRA..It's shared by many, most, of the people I know who own guns and shoot/carry. Probably 75% of the people I know, are gun owners..haven't met one yet who is a member of the NRA..nor do any participate in gun forums, this one included.
Click to expand...


If there is a larger audience/market for a less strident message or tone, what other civil rights organization is poised to capture it?
 
The reality is one party supports a major increase in gun control. Many of their proposals would punish law abiding citizens while doing little to stop violence. The other party tends to oppose more restrictions on the Second Amendment, but may support some minor restrictions.

So, based on this reality the NRA tends to support the party that is not attacking our Constitutional freedoms and that is the reality. Now, the bigger question might be is the NRA responding to this reality or did they somehow create it.
 
zukiphile said:
It has been suggested that this be its own thread.

With some frequency, we read here the thesis that the NRA's message is alienating to a larger population of potential supporters. One member here recently wrote:




If there is a larger audience/market for a less strident message or tone, what other civil rights organization is poised to capture it?
Click to expand...
Not wanting for this one to be closed but how about the 2 political parties, ie, change message, make the pie bigger w/o
-driving the 'base' away
-keeping true to the basic 'mission'
The reality is one party supports a major increase in gun control. Many of their proposals would punish law abiding citizens while doing little to stop violence. The other party tends to oppose more restrictions on the Second Amendment, but may support some minor restrictions.
Click to expand...
I think the actual positions of the same middle of the grounders, whether they be in Congress, in state government of among the general populace, is somewhere in the middle and a very large group. Yes, there are very vocal people at either end..'gun grabbers' and 'don't tread on me(s)'...But the I don't think either very vocal group appeals to me and others like me. Don't like the ones that want to ban guns(unlikely) or the ones that say, 'any gun, any time, to anybody, for any reason'(also unlikely)...
I'm not attracted to the NRA, but I'm not attracted to Violence Policy Center, either.
The huge problem is it appears a large majority percentage of firearms owners don't support any Second Amendment Rights organization.
Click to expand...

Why do ya think that is? Ignorance? 'Can't happen'? Poor message from the available 2A rights organizations?
 
Last edited:
Well I can't agree with that. While the NRA is not perfect, what organization is?, I have been happy with them and they have done a of good including in my home state of Illinois recently. I have given more to the NRA in 2018 than I ever have and that will continue.

It does seem that many are upset about the NRAs perceived stance on bump stocks and that is an extremely difficult issue IMO as the MSM has portrayed bump stocks as cheap and easy to obtain devices to turn a semi automatic rifle into and automatic rifle after the Las Vegas shooting. While not true that is the public perception and I think NRA rightfully decided to not pursue a very vocal "not another inch" policy on bump stocks. Below is the NRA's postion on bump stocks.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20181221/nra-statement-on-bump-fire-stock-rule

The NRA is IMO still the 500LB gorilla when it comes to defending our Second Amendment Rights and I don't see that changing and we need them. The SAF is outstanding with what they do mostly behind the scenes with their lawsuits and have won many important victories. The GOA does not impress me much with their almost daily sky is falling email blasts and until very recently they have not done much of anything other than making a lot of noise.

If someone does not want to support the NRA I urge them to instead to support the Second Amendment Foundation.

The huge problem is it appears a large majority percentage of firearms owners don't support any Second Amendment Rights organization.
 
Why do ya think that is? Ignorance? 'Can't happen'? Poor message from the available 2A rights organizations?
Click to expand...

Some of each, along with probably the main reason.... laziness. The years I have not been an NRA member it was solely out of laziness. I would wager that many many others can be included in this number. I have been a member off and on since I was 18, and the years that I let my membership lapse it wasn't out of boycott or disagreement (though I did ponder my loyalty to the NRA for a brief period, but it was quite brief), it was just I didn't do the legwork to renew my membership.
 
If we wander into political zealotry, this will be closed also.

Have it at but insulting folks for not agreeing with you or demanding blind loyalty makes or doesn't make you a good person - well, that's not a good idea.
 
With some frequency, we read here the thesis that the NRA's message is alienating to a larger population of potential supporters. One member here recently wrote:
Click to expand...

I think the NRA is in a catch-22. Many ardent RKBA proponents have rent their garments, wept, and gnashed their teeth when the NRA came out with their position on bump stocks... and several other controversial (at least among strong pro-gun folks) stances. The NRA is accused of selling out, treason, heck one guy even posted in a thread suggesting that the NRA was secretly working TOWARD an out-right gun ban.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the RKBA debate, strong anti-RKBA believers say that the NRA has "blood on their hands." I've even heard that all NRA members are murderers.

Lastly, the remaining individuals in between the two above described groups are either OK with the current NRA, or believes that NRA should compromise more, soften their tone, and/or address no other political issue but the RKBA (I agree with this, although I understand there will likely be at least some bleed over from relevant associated issues).

The NRA does about the best they can. They aren't perfect. They make mistakes. But they do as good of a job threading the needle as anyone else. They do lobby, and it requires money to lobby. So they need to send the strong message to their base. At the same time, I agree that a strong message needs to toe the line of being strong enough without coming across as too "aggressive" or "radical." Having too much of a "hard-line" message inevitably will alienate some folks who may otherwise would agree with and join the NRA. On the other side of the coin, too "soft" of a message and the conspiracy theorists will assure you that the NRA is secretly working toward an out-right gun ban.

As to the general question, I personally don't think there is a huge uncaptured market of RKBA supporters that would be susceptible to a softer message. I think most, maybe not all but most, people turned off by something as simple as NRA's "Stand and Fight" or similar hard-line slogans are not willing to actually donate time and money to promote greater gun rights. That's just me. Further, I don't know of any organization that threads the needle better than the NRA.


On the topic of the 2nd Amendment, I'm afraid, the lines are pretty clearly drawn. I do believe there are a lot of people who don't want an out-right gun ban, but would be fine with a new AWB. Right now, the hard anti-gunners embrace that unwitting populace and there is likely no way to drive them to be NRA members. Unfortunately, it does go back to the lines being clearly drawn. There are people in power in politics who would have every firearm confiscated, save maybe black powder firearms or break-action shotguns. That is the ultimate goal of many "anti-gunners," whether those in the middle want to admit it or not. Do not forget a prominent Senator's words over 20 years ago "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." "Common Sense" gun control right now is just a stepping stone to "turn them all in." To believe that faction does not exist is dangerous.
 
Last edited:
5whiskey said:
I think the NRA is in a catch-22.
Click to expand...

I think your description of the position it occupies is apt. That big tent isn't going to fit anyone like a well tailored garment. I can appreciate that someone joins the JPFO or GOA or whichever niche group hits them just right; I belong to the Federalist Society not because it is directly consequential in an electoral sense, but because it is comfortable and generally interesting for me.

For that reason, I would see it as an error to occupy only my niche.

I've worked with people at the ACLU and sometimes attend American Constitution Society events. To invert the usual formula, someone you disagree with 80% of the time may be an ally 20% of the time. One can't identify that 20% of the time without ties to and lines of communication with those 20% allies.

One of the problem with niche advocacy is a fellow we've all met -- the shooter who is sure that his discipline or interest should be covered by the 2d Am., but freely concedes that the others aren't.

When the issue turns to which civil liberty is to be protected, I'm not sure the retreat to niches is any less pernicious.
 
Last edited:
So, is the idea that the NRA should be more moderate and compromise more in order to garner more public support?

What other political advocacy group operates under that philosophy? Pro/anti-abortion groups? MADD? The ACLU?

The NRA does often engage in hyperbole in an attempt to rouse their base into action and/or raise funds. One could argue whether or not those tactics are effective or advisable.

The biggest imaging problem the NRA has is their demonization by the MSM. If the uninformed middle depend on them for an unbiased view of the gun issue, they will be seriously misguided. This is exacerbated by the media's failure to give even cursory investigation to the out and out lies that gun control advocacy groups tell.

Unscientific propaganda pieces disguised as "studies" by Arthur Kellerman, Michael Bellesiles, Adam Lankford are praised when they are released, but rarely get more than a brief mention (if that) when exposed as frauds.

David Hogg and his ilk can spew the most ridiculous, vicious lies about the NRA and gun owners in general and the media loves him. The NRA attempts to correct the record, and they are vilified as evil Nazis picking on a poor defenseless waif.

On the other hand, to a large degree, public perception of the NRA is irrelevant. What really matters is the opinions of the legislators. There are a lot of hard core antis that don't care about gun rights or people who want a middle ground compromise- they will do what they want to.
 
Let's distinguish between the uses of the term 'moderate'.

1. Moderate in terms of compromise on one issue to progress on another. Hypothetically (an example for discussion) - ban bump stocks and get a ban on state magazine capacity bans. Whether that is a good idea is a common discussion.

2. Moderate in terms of politics and not tie the NRA to other conservative political issues. This latter effect is one of the claims that the NRA weakens its more general appeal.
 
I may be wrong and if so please tell me but my impression is that the NRA is a Publicly Open Organization. It is not a Business or Corporation. That it is made up of individual members just the same as AA, M.A.D.D, Ducks Unlimited.

One of the greatest and most effective message I'd seen from the NRA was during the last elections when they kept bringing out people, everyday people with their stories with the catch phrase, "I am the NRA." To me that was a powerful message.

When I read news articles about deadly current events and I then see the comments that this was made possible and is the responsibility of the NRA I find I have to ask them, "Do you even know who the NRA is? Do you even know who makes up the membership of the NRA?" No they just spew the same tired talking points that they have learned to repeat.

That is where the message is today. There are a few very large, very well funded Private organizations that only mission is to remove guns have control of the daily media and reward their Parrots very well.

This has nothing to do with Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal as I know many people on both sides of that spectrum that own guns and shoot regularly.
 
5whiskey said:
As to the general question, I personally don't think there is a huge uncaptured market of RKBA supporters that would be susceptible to a softer message. I think most, maybe not all but most, people turned off by something as simple as NRA's "Stand and Fight" or similar hard-line slogans are not willing to actually donate time and money to promote greater gun rights.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. And if you did get them to join, then what? You’ve dragged in a bunch of milquetoasty new members and probably shed a bunch of people who were donating money, writing letters, and showing up. Of course, they’ll probably continue to do that, they just won’t be donating money to NRA.

For all the demonizing NRA gets, there is no shortage of gun owners who find NRA too soft.

Message wise, I’d like to see them abandon all the AARP style scam marketing.
 
Do not forget a prominent Senator's words over 20 years ago "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." "Common Sense" gun control right now is just a stepping stone to "turn them all in." To believe that faction does not exist is dangerous.
__________________
Click to expand...

Absolutely right. To be honest though, the inability to see other tools in the toolbox and to utilize them is hampering the NRA efforts.


They are much less effective than they could be coming across rather myopic and somewhat lost. That is the impression I get in my recent years of NRA membership.
 
the issue is the analysis
Click to expand...

Part of that is because there is little appetite to change or reinstate some "Assault Weapon Ban".

As much as one party may pontificate and it makes for great theater, pretty sure that duck is lame. We had a ban on so called "Assault Weapons" and it did nothing to in terms of affecting criminal activity or any of the goals in which it was instated.

The reality is that while this makes for great political theater...it is highly unlikely to make it thru the system into law.

So the analysis is correct. The NRA maintained its efforts and spent considerable money on lobby efforts. There just is not that much to gain as a result of that lobbying for especially when the SCOTUS was previously not willing to hear a 2nd Amendment case.
 
Question: Does the NRA really need to have an official stance on illegal immigration, abortion, LGBTQ, or any political issue not directly related to the Second Amendment?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Not to make this political but in the beginning I was not a Trump supporter until well into the campaign when I found I was a single issue voter. That was the SCOTUS. When it came down to just two choices there really was only one choice. Still shake my head at his personality but I do agree with most of his policies.
 
seeker-two said:
Question: Does the NRA really need to have an official stance on illegal immigration, abortion, LGBTQ, or any political issue not directly related to the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

Does it have an official position on the latter two issues?

Presumably, any organization that urges compliance with law is not going to endorse, or even be ostentatiously tolerant of, illegal activity.
 
Last edited:
The following has been mentioned many times by several individuals here...maybe the "best" way to get the message across to the middle of the road folk (I doubt the hoplophobes will EVER or CAN EVER be educated) that guns are NOT evil is to take them shooting.

Minnesota is seeing an upsurge in high school trap shooting. This is a great thing for many reasons.

I believe the NRA has a mentoring program, along with a LOT of other training and education programs but I don't hear much about it, or the other things the NRA does.

I think I would be up for taking a stranger to the range. My "standard" for taking folk to the range is we go to one of the commercial indoor ranges and they pay the range fee for the lane and I bring the guns and ammo.

Maybe having a "mixer" at the local library conference room where non-shooters could meet shooters and arrange a date to go shooting. It SHOULD be okay since my library HAS ALREADY provided facilities for the anti-gun folk to put out THEIR message...

There used to be shooting galleries (of the firearm kind) where people could go shoot reactive targets for FUN. I'd like to see a resurgence of that kind of thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top