Time to change the face of the NRA !!!

M

Menos

New member
Gentlemen: I propose that it is past time for a major change at the NRA. The primary one being the outster of Wayne La Pierre.

He is a poor spokesman, rarely knows the correct Constitutional answer in rebuttal to the Anti's, and is hell bent on this deferal of topic , instead of direct rebuttal of the erroneous statements of the gun ban-er types.

His leadership is relegating the NRA to near obscurity. Be sure to urge those
members and regional Board Members within your sphere of influence that its past time to change the Exec. to someone who speaks for the Constitution , instead of this lawyer prattle that we hear all the time now !

Either we have a Constitution or we do not, and I'd like to know now, while I'm still in possession of the means to reinstate the Constitution if the Congress or the Court finds against us !

What do you think?


------------------
What part of "INFRINGED" don't they understand?
 
i fear the constitution is well on the way to
being obsolete. seems to me the way that we're suppose to be able to rectify the problems aren't/don't work. writing your congressman/representative doesn't seem to do anygood, they just agree w/ ya' while you're talking to them, then just blow you off afterwards. you elect new ones, eventually, same thing all over... i'm at a loss, at my wits end( i know it didn't take long to get there, har, har, har) about what to do. it seems like the people on here and the very few that i consider friends, are the only ones that even give a damn!!! i wish i had an answer, but i don't. all i can do is keep trying, and keep waiting for something that appears needs to happen, but would hate to see it come.
frown.gif


i won't even get started on theNo Rights Asso.

------------------
fiat justitia


[This message has been edited by longhair (edited June 07, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by longhair (edited June 07, 1999).]
 
Menos, good luck; With the last board election, Wayne more or less finished purging all the board members who wouldn't unconditionally back him. AND got the bylaws changed so that the controling faction can spend NRA money campaigning! It's kind of hard to accomplish anything within the NRA, when only the faction in control of the NRA has a practical way of communicating with the membership, and getting their side out. (The mailing list is unavailable to everyone else, and the official publications make Pravda look like a model of press freedom.)

Theoretically, of course, you could show up a the members meeting with 5-10,000 of your closest friends, and vote to change the bylaws... And discover that LaPierre would never let you have the floor, and would end the meeting as soon as all HIS motions had been acted on, parlementary procedures to the contrary being ignored. Wayne heads a self-perpetuating clique, and I don't know HOW he could be blown loose.

[This message has been edited by Brett Bellmore (edited June 07, 1999).]
 
I am one of the ignorami(?) who believed the "sitting" NRA honchos when they said Neal Knox was tearing the NRA apart. I have heard rhetoric from both sides about the "Cincinnati reforms" and other things that were talked about (in shorthand) but never explained (at least that I found).

So, what is the story on Neal Knox? I realize he has been treated badly, etc. but did LaPierre tell us the truth?
- What are the philosophical differences between Knox (and his followers) and the current NRA leaders?
- Who is MOST likely to affect the political changes we desire? (Who can get it done?)
- What can we do to make the NRA more responsive to our needs and more effective as an organization.
- If the NRA drops LaPierre, who will replace him? Will the replacement have as much impact on legislators at LaPierre currently has?

This is not my thread, so I probably shouldn't get into this, but let's skip the recruiting lectures. I already know if I don't get ten friggin' new members a month and tithe weekly I'm blood-sucking the NRA, not doing my part, etc.!

I'm a life member, I donate as I can, and it seems gun control wins a little bit on every compromise, and the "compromises" are coming quicker and quicker and are worse and worse.

Sorry, Menos. I know it's your thread, but I really think all this backs up your view that it's time for a change. Or is it simply that we don't stand a chance? In which case our "donations" and "EMERGENCY contributions" just go to pay our NRA leadership hundreds of thousands of dollars each year for salaries, re-imbursed expenses, and perks? Oh, yes, and all those fancy mail-outs?

Who can get the job done if LaPierre is ousted?
 
I too saw La Piere on the tube during the hearings. My response: this guy has got to go. I believe he is well intentioned, but he is woefully inadequate as a spokesperson for gun owners in this perilous time. I have read and have hard copies of data that can be readily used to rebut the gun control lobby. There are net sites with plenty of information. What the he** happened to the NRA? We need to go on the offensive here not look like a brow beaten weak sister. We need to extoll the virtues of the NRA and the sacredness of the Constitution. What's with the "cry baby" routine of La Piere's?

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
Y'know, I don't like him either. Or the turkey that replaced Tanya Metsaka.
Come to think of it, there have been darn few NRA leaders I have liked.
I believe that NRA's leadership prefers prolonging the pro/anti gun battle over any wins, because - look at how many new and milkable members joined in the wake of Colombine. Wins means that us gunnies slip back into apathy, and quit sending all those lovely $$$$$ to NRA. In fairness, the same likely applies to the other pro-gun orgs.
That said, and being unfond of compromise as currently defined, I continue to support the NRA. It would be nice to see a new and effective face there though.

------------------
Shoot carefully... swifter...
 
I guess Wayne La Pierre impresses me so much I misspelled his name. Anyway, the pro/anti conspiracy theory designed to get more money from us is not credible IMHO. There have always been threats to our firearm ownership rights out there. Since Columbine they are much more pronounced. We need a Second Amendment campaign, folks, or it will be gone within our lifetimes. As part of a larger Individual Liberty campaign, perhaps, but a CAMPAIGN nevertheless.
 
There's an old saying that goes something like, "If you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem." Cutting lines in the sand with the NRA will get gunowners absolutely nowhere.

I make it a point to ask fellow gunowners who aren't NRA members to join for that very reason. Even if you don't like the particular approach of the NRA or any one of its executives, they are still our most powerful ally in Washington. As I prefer the approach of Gun Owners of America (GOA), they number only about 150,000 members strong (compare that to 3 million in the NRA). Do the math, it makes sense to stay on the NRA bandwagon. We should be coming together as free men and women at this point, not cutting and running, as our opponents would like.

The NRA did the right thing in Denver this year with their annual event. Why allow the leftist media to focus more air time on gun shows and people having a good time with one of their freedoms? We cannot compete against the propaganda machine of major media. We will never get equal time. But we cannot abandon our strength to lobby Congress either. Stay with the NRA. Encourage your friends and their family members to join too. And throw a few dollars at the GOA while you're at it.
 
I don't agree that any criticism of the current NRA executive leadership is counterproductive. That's why it's a democratic institution. La Pierre has proven himself an able manager and tireless worker for the cause. Charlton Heston is a pro too. With his show biz connections, why can't we create a media offensive instead of going through all this hand wringing. And with all Wayne has to do, we need a young, articulate, media savvy spokesperson who can appear credibly before congress as well as kick butt on the media meat puppet talk circuit. A guy with media presence (read looks) whose intelect is rooted in history and can beat these bast**ds statistic for statistic. Somebody who can go for the jugular and smile whilst doing so without appearing an a**hole. Somebody with the charisma of Ronald Reagan and the instincts of Harlon Carter.

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
I don't agree that any criticism of the current NRA executive leadership is counterproductive. That's why it's a democratic institution. La Pierre has proven himself an able manager and tireless worker for the cause. Charlton Heston is a pro too. With his show biz connections, why can't we create a media offensive instead of going through all this hand wringing. And with all Wayne has to do, we need a young, articulate, media savvy spokesperson who can appear credibly before congress as well as kick butt on the media meat puppet talk circuit. A guy with media presence (read looks) whose intelect is rooted in history and can beat these bast**ds statistic for statistic. Somebody who can go for the jugular and smile whilst doing so without appearing an a**hole. Somebody with the charisma of Ronald Reagan and the instincts of Harlon Carter.

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." But is the NRA itself part of the solution? I don't think it's that they're consciously agin us, so much as that they believe defeat is inevitable, and are fighting to lose slowly, instead of win. And they're so caught up in the martial metaphors that they treat the membership like a bunch of dumb conscripts, to be manipulated into doing what they think is right.
 
Maybe we should try something different. What do you suppose would happen if all NRA members took the
money we've been sending to the NRA and sent it to President Slick instead?
(I used to call him Slick Willie, but my wife said I should show more
respect for the Commander in Chief. I'm also not allowed to call him the
Unibanger.)

Anyway, my theory is that by supporting the NRA and the ILA we are really
sending money to a middle-man. We might get more action for our cash by
giving it directly to the person in the position to make the decision.

This approach has already worked for the Chinese, the defense contractors
(care to explain why the Kosovo spending bill contains so much pork at a
time when we're cutting Veterans benefits?), the HMOs, and many others.
Lawsuits and lobbying are expensive. Buying a politician has never been
cheaper!
 
Dear Mister Red Bank John,
Unibanger is obviously NOT an appropriate term of address for President Clinton!

Now, multibanger, or polibanger, or maybe Pollybanger, (mumble, mumble...), anybody out there named Polly? Someone who could parrot the news, maybe?

(This is not Dennis....)
 
I have often wondered why neither Wayne nor Chuck can give a direct answer to a direct question by an anti. Their pat answer seems to be “the president is not enforcing the laws”, no matter the question. This statement is certainly true, but it rarely answers the question asked. This infuriates me no end.
 
deanf...

So, you snuck in.... most welcome.
You are right on about the canned responses.

Seriously, how bad could NRA be hurt if they had aggressive, knowledgeable and in your face leadership? I swear, the folks on this forum have much, much more knowledge and debate skill than the NRA leadership. The anti-gunners do it, why don't we? We can't lose any worse now can we? Therefore, I conclude there are ulterior factors and they don't bode well for us.


*****
I'm GOA and recently JPFO, the reason I am not NRA is because they are just like Washington, soft, etheral and no substance

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"



[This message has been edited by DC (edited June 07, 1999).]
 
Speaking of "enforcing the laws already on the books", have any of you given a moment's thought to what that would really be like? Not far from my home, the Van Dyke highway funnels half the deer hunters in Michigan right past Almont highschool; And makes felons of them, thanks to the Kohl amendment. I'd venture to guess, based on my conversations with local gun owners, that as many as half of us here in Michigan are in violation of the state's handgun registration law. Wouldn't suprise me one bit to learn it's like that in other states. Does the expression, "Be careful what you wish for; You might get it!" ring a bell?
 
DC et al - The NRA needs to get out the "Truth Squad." Yeah, the lack of enforcement issue is part of it; working within the Beltway and greasing the pols is part of it, but we need championship and we aint got it. The American public is woefully ignorant of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights and Second Amendment in particular. I would venture that many only know of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speach, period.

A lot of us have poured lots of money into the NRA and ILA. NRA is known as one of the most effective lobbies in Washington. Looks to me like (and I hate sports analogies) half time is over, we're down 21 zip, and NRA comes on the field with the same running game that got it nowhere during the first half. C'mon Coach La Pierre, c'mon Coach Baker. What's the plan?

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
Pkay: The "plan", in so far as I've been able to decern any, is:

1. Stall and obstruct, so as to delay as long as possible the INEVITABLE loss of our right to keep and bear arms.

2. In the mean time, build a really nifty museum, and pray they don't make it illegal to LOOK at the guns we fill it with.

3. Get behind any bad bills we can't defeat, such as the recent Republican gun control measures, so that we can claim we are winning.

4. Don't provoke a real confrontation, because if it comes to a fight, we ARE going to lose.
a. Don't challenge gun laws on Second
amendment grounds, because the courts
would use that as an opportunity to
strike down the Second amendment
entirely.
b. Don't risk ballot initiatives, because
the public is against us, (Isn't that
what all the polls say?) and trying to
change public opinion is hopeless.
c. Don't rate candidates accurately, or
politicians will become irate.
d. Don't support third party candidates,
or the GOP will get REALLY nasty.
e. No big protest rallies, because the
sight of 1-2 million gun owners in one
place would frighten the public.
f. Don't even SUGGEST the possiblity of
civil disobediance, or the Justice
Department will hit the NRA with
conspiracy charges.

5. Save all our energy for preaching to the choir, because preaching to the public only frightens them, (See above.) and preaching to the choir brings in contributions to fund the NRA.

and,

6. Relentlessly purge from the NRA anyone who challenges this plan, while censoring NRA publications so as to create the illusion that the NRA is one big happy family which is 100% behind the plan.

Maybe I'm cynical, but that's the "plan" I see.
 
Brett - I share your cynicism in this regard. Those of us in the NRA are gonna have to get active in bringing change to the top. If the Second Amendment means what it says, then we have nothing to fear. If the Supreme Court strikes down a portion of the Bill of Rights through "interpretation" it will never fly. I hear tell that instead of a Supreme Court confrontation (which I favor), the anti's are considering a constitutional amendment effectively redefining or modifying the Second Amendment. Slippery slope, camel's nose in the tent, whatever ya wanna call it, we are on the cusp of an internal struggle over this issue the outcome of which will hold the key to individual freedom as we know it, and the Founding Fathers meant it.

------------------
Safe shooting - PKAY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top