Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

[davidsog]

If they come up with a way to lower crime and I maintain my rights to defend myself with any weapon and own the arms I want; I’ll support it 100%

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

 

[zukiphile]

Stand and FIGHT!!!
...
VS

Help Reduce Crime by Learning not to be a Victim!!...

It is not an either/or proposition giving up one for the other.

On the second point, I agree.

That's why demands that the NRA abandon a philosophically coherent advocacy of the right in favor of something else, a message congenial even to those who would welcome ever greater federal restrictions, presents a false choice.

 

[USNRet93]

Which of those three is the problem for you?

The auto-"they are the enemy and have to FIGHT them!", rather than as David above mentioned, focus on things that will make the tent bigger, not just keep the present members nodding their head.

North, a staunch conservative who has found a rebirth as a commentator on Fox News, is perhaps best known for his central role in the illicit arms deals. North was fired from his post as an aide on the National Security Council by Reagan shortly after the scandal spilled into public view in the news media in 1986 and began to widen. An amendment passed in Congress earlier in the decade had prohibited most government funds or military support from being given to the contra rebels.

North, who had helped carry out the schemes, was the most anticipated witness called to the Hill for a hearing hosted by a congressional inquiry into the affair.

I think there are better choices than Oliver North..IMHO..He is kinda by definition, divisive and polarizing..see 'saying and doing things that make the NRA tent bigger', above.

And Mr Lapierre..Let's just say he can be kinda 'polarizing' as well. I've heard more than a few NRA members complain about his tone...again, he doesn't do anything to attract people like me..Gun owner, CCW, gun enthusiast who would like to see groups that appeal to me..NRA isn't it.

David above gets in IMHO..'They', on both sides, are perceived as the 'enemy'..must 'fight', ie hurt, ie kill..'em all.
The premier gun rights advocate organization doesn't appeal to me nor to a LOT of us 'in the middle', gun owning people. I don't want my gun rights taken away, but yelling at somebody only creates yelling on the other side.
If I'm going to be part of an organization, I need to identify with their mission, tone and leadership. NRA doesn't do that for me, nor for a lot of people who own guns.

 

[zukiphile]

Which of those three is the problem for you?

The auto-"they are the enemy and have to FIGHT them!"], rather than as David above mentioned, focus on things that will make the tent bigger, not just keep the present members nodding their head.
…
David above gets in IMHO..'They', on both sides, are perceived as the 'enemy'..must 'fight', ie hurt, ie kill..'em all.

It is no trivial matter that none of your bolded text above is that actual NRA message you noted. If you have to imply terms into the message, as david also does, your sense of the message may not be accurate.

I think there are better choices than Oliver North..IMHO..He is kinda by definition, divisive and polarizing..see 'saying and doing things that make the NRA tent bigger', above.

Divisive and polarizing are clichés that mean that some like him and some don't, sort of like 2d Am. rights. What is that value of someone so anodyne that no one dislikes him?

Yet, it is certainly your right not to like him or anyone else. I question the wisdom of a decision to "pass" on an important civil rights issue because someone of whom you may not approve is also supportive of it.

The premier gun rights advocate organization doesn't appeal to me nor to a LOT of us 'in the middle', gun owning people. I don't want my gun rights taken away, but yelling at somebody only creates yelling on the other side.
If I'm going to be part of an organization, I need to identify with their mission, tone and leadership. NRA doesn't do that for me, nor for a lot of people who own guns.

Having a gun doesn't make you a 2d Am. advocate anymore than owning a book makes you a free speech advocate. That you may choose to "pass" on involvement with the "premier gun rights advocate organization" because it hasn't catered to your other unrelated political sensibilities is not primarily a comment on the NRA.

A demand that the NRA display different political tone, leadership and mission isn't a call for single issue advocacy; it's a call for political re-alignment in order for you to participate. That's also your 1st Am. right., but 's recognize that it's a choice to make 2d Am. advocacy subservient to other political tastes.


The NRA isn't the only game in the 2d Am. advocacy town. Some people find the NRA so large and insipid in its message that they see it as part of the compromise problem, and join one of the smaller groups instead. I know other people who join more than one, the NRA because it is effective and another because it speaks a clearer message.

If the NRA's message were as alienating to the great middle as you suggest, why hasn't a larger, more appealing organization displaced it?

 

[USNRet93]

It is no trivial matter that none of your bolded text above is that actual NRA message you noted. If you have to imply terms into the message, as david also does, your sense of the message may not be accurate.

Perceptions are everything. Most videos of WL involve terms like 'enemy', 'fight', type things. A lot of what isn't said is as important than what is..'tone'. Few will disagree that the NRA 'tone' is aggressive, to say the least.

Divisive and polarizing are clichés that mean that some like him and some don't, sort of like 2d Am. rights. What is that value of someone so anodyne that no one dislikes him?

When I vote, I often vote a certain way because of a 'spokes persons' own ideas, feeling, past, present. As an example, I was a fan of the late John McCain, a lot because he was also a USN aviator. If the NRA was interested in making the tent bigger..'anodyne'(had to look that one up) might not be a bad idea..I watched all of the North testimony..he's kinda slimy..grateful for his USMC service but....

I question the wisdom of a decision to "pass" on an important civil rights issue because someone of whom you may not approve is also supportive of it.

It's the whole package..not just one individual.

Having a gun doesn't make you a 2d Am. advocate anymore than owning a book makes you a free speech advocate.

I disagree with that one..taking guns away or taking books away would both be bad..BUT the madness is in the method, the message, the tone..see David's quotes above.

That you may choose to "pass" on involvement with the "premier gun rights advocate organization" because it hasn't catered to your other unrelated political sensibilities is not primarily a comment on the NRA.

Disagree again..the NRA chooses their method, their message, their tone. If they 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.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We have wandered off topic to the strategies and policies of the NRA. Debates that their messaging is oriented to a shrinking demographic with statements that you find unpleasant in political orientation, unrelated directly to firearms and ineffective spokespeople or that's fine with you as you don't care about those outside the target market, you are of that political orientation and you love those guys is not the focus of whether UBCs are good or bad.

It might be another thread but it usual degrades into a flame battle of gigantic and pompus pronouncements. We've done that a few times.

So after my pronouncements that you may or may not agree with:

Closed.