PDA

View Full Version : NRAWOL Website... Lists of shady compromises the NRA has made?


Danz la Nuit
02-02-2011, 8:07 PM
I already donate to the G.O.A. mostly due to the Ron Paul endorsement & recently spent my xmas money on a life membership to the C.R.P.A. but during my research on which group would be the best to join I came across this site...

http://www.nrawol.net/

The home page summary is this...

"Certainly since 1968 -- and possibly since 1934 -- Americans' gun rights have been in drastic decline. That decline has been created, and studiously maintained, by the failed and disastrous strategies of the National Rifle Association.

The NRA has been synonymous with the shooting sports in America, but has now become as much a gun control organization as a gun rights group. Though the 1994 passage of the Brady Act opened NRA members' eyes to this fact, there are literally hundreds of earlier examples where the NRA has stood against gun rights -- and for the "establishment."
The NRA's main motivation is being friends with those "shakers and movers" in the Beltway. One activist made this analogy: "The NRA desperately wants a seat at the table, even though the host feeds them dog food and makes fun of them in front of the other guests."

Most NRA members believe the NRA represents their members by urging politicians to move toward freedom. Instead, the NRA is given orders by politicians, which the NRA must then sell to its members. In other words, the NRA no longer represents its members but actively represents politicians.

If you want to delve into the NRA's misdeeds with honesty and an open mind, read on. If you are an NRA hack, who thinks the three letters mean no wrong can be done, you don't deserve the freedom we aim to protect."


Does anyone here looked into the claims @ this site?

Are these criticisms legitimate or is this someone with an anti-nra agenda?

nick
02-02-2011, 8:17 PM
What did GOA accomplish, exactly? What did the NRA accomplish? Would you rather go with rhetoric or actual accomplishments? Also, don't forget the pre-Heller environment the organizations which actually tried to accomplish something operated in.

I'm not too happy with some of the things the NRA has done over the years, but overall they've been VERY beneficial to gun rights. Aside from everything else, they were instrumental in preserving the gun culture in this country, without which Heller (if it even happened) would be a moot point. They've blocked a LOT of really nasty stuff over the years.

When I was new to gun rights movement, I looked into the various organizations, and also liked the "no-compromise" approach of GOA and such. Then I started digging in, and let's just say I still donate money to the NRA, CRPA (now that they've changed their ways), and CGF, as well as the occasional good causes. I do not give money to GOA, GOC, or other organizations that don't have much to show besides the rhetoric, and which are often used by the antis as opponents in debates because, well, they're generally inept at that, as well. They don't do much good to promoting freedom in this country, as they turn a lot of people away from even considering their positions by their inept rhetoric.

So, the NRA has its shortfalls (and in many cases the perceived shortfalls actually had a good reason behind it, or were an honest mistake), but their track record is pretty impressive, and, once again, what's the track record of GOA/GOC/etc.? Where's their influence? What are they actually capable of doing?

6172crew
02-02-2011, 8:17 PM
Propaganda.

762cavalier
02-02-2011, 8:22 PM
propaganda- In 1934 NRA was more of a marksmanship organization and had no political arm. so those "compromises" are specious claims at best

jdberger
02-02-2011, 8:23 PM
Yes.

Occasionally the NRA has to make compromises. The NRA also gets things done.

Legislation like the PLCAA. Scuttling of the Disclose Act. Guns in Nat'l Parks. Gun on Amtrak. Shall Issue CCW laws in 40 states. Constitutional Carry in 3 (soon to be 4).

Here's a comprehensive list of political, legislative and legal victories that can be claimed by GOA:

.

Get the picture?

BTW - the site you refer to is an outgrowth of the National Association for Gun Rights (http://www.nationalgunrights.org/) which I discuss at this post (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=244155).

BigFatGuy
02-02-2011, 8:38 PM
I'm new to the gun rights community, I've been an NRA member now for all of about 4 weeks (I literally just got my card in the mail last week). I can't speak for or against that site's allegations.

However, what drove me to join is this: when the latest anti-standard-size-mag legislation was introduced, the author stated she had to be very careful in writing it "so the NRA wouldn't have ammunition to use against her".

Whatever they have done right or wrong in the past, at present they are strong and active enough that politicians openly admit fear of them. That's good enough for my $35 bucks.

I made mistakes when I was growing up too. ;-)

CHS
02-02-2011, 9:33 PM
GOA: Compromise on nothing, accomplish nothing.

Paladin
02-02-2011, 10:10 PM
Good grief! Seems like we keep getting these threads every week or two and they keep wasting our time, usually by sincere newbies who've been sold a bill of goods.

MODERATORS: We need a sticky by CGF leadership or the NRA where they post what the NRA has accomplished for gunnies in, say, just the past 5 years in this state (Katrina Emergency Powers restrictions; killed UOC ban last year; killed Prop H in the courts; killed firearms ban in federal housing; killed AB962 internet ammo sales ban in court last month).

Danz la Nuit
02-02-2011, 10:14 PM
Now you guys have me curious...

Has the G.O.A. accomplished anything?

Paladin
02-02-2011, 10:26 PM
Now you guys have me curious...

Has the G.O.A. accomplished anything?Where's Bill Wiese when you need him! :43:

Sorry. An inside joke for those who've been here for more than, oh, a year. He'll explain how GOC (GOA in the PRK), %^&*ed us in the past.

5 yrs ago I thought as you did. Then I discovered what really goes on.

FWIW the members (Life and Annual members w/5+ years of consecutive membership), vote who is on the NRA's board and they choose the direction of the NRA and its leadership/executive team.

GOA/GOC? Nope. Just send your money, sit down, and shut up.

Bill Clinton said the NRA is what caused the Dems to lose the House for the first time in something like 40 years, because of the AWB law.

Barney Frank said the NRA does not go to the Capitol and talk nice, compromise, want to be invited to galas, parties, etc. They stick to their guns and do not compromise and he said that gay rights activists need to imitate the NRA if they want to know how to win.

The MSM constantly harangs against the NRA and rarely even mentions the GOA.

'nuff said.

Gray Peterson
02-02-2011, 10:31 PM
Gun Owners of America only files amicus briefs. They also have been called out as more anti-gun than the NRA.

They've accomplished nearly nothing in Washington. They don't file lawsuits against governments like...ever. They just file amicus briefs.

SAF accomplishes in 1 day in the court system that Gun Owners of America/Gun Owners Foundation can accomplish.

oaklander
02-02-2011, 10:34 PM
OK, here's the deal.

I will spell it out in plain English.

Many gun owners are so passionate about their gun rights that they will throw money at anyone who says that they "will fight for your rights."

The problem here is that SOME people have figured out that this is a way to make good money. Here's how it works:

1) You start a group.
2) You solicit contributions.
3) You make a lot of noise about "how you are making a documentary" or "writing a letter."
4) You solicit more contributions.
5) You repeat 2 through 5.

Many of the small groups (and I am not going to mention them by name) are like this.

The difference is that the legitimate groups actually get stuff done. The NRA gets stuff done. ALSO - only a dumbcluck would think that we can get stuff done without doing the political dance. The "no compromises" groups have no understanding of politics.

Hence, they get nothing done.

This is what it looks like from the inside.

Danz la Nuit
02-02-2011, 10:36 PM
Gun Owners of America only files amicus briefs. They also have been called out as more anti-gun than the NRA.

They've accomplished nearly nothing in Washington. They don't file lawsuits against governments like...ever. They just file amicus briefs.

SAF accomplishes in 1 day in the court system that Gun Owners of America/Gun Owners Foundation can accomplish.

I had never heard of SAF until now, pleasant surprise to see on their homepage that they are active in the courts suing...

http://www.saf.org/

Deadred7o7
02-03-2011, 12:48 AM
No one is arguing that the NRA has not been effective in protecting access to some firearms. It is obvious. What should be equally obvious is that in order to retain said access, the NRA has, as your purported spokesman, participated in the giving up of certain rights in the process.
It remains a very legitimate question as to what would be now absent the NRA and how it has chosen to approach firearm control.
It remains a legitimate concern that our younger generations see the stance of the NRA as one that is in support of our 2nd Amendment Right, when it is more accurately described as a stance to preserve access to firearms. Thus, in 'softening the blow' to 'sportsmen and shooters', the NRA has been complicate in the redefinition of the 2nd Amendment in the minds of those younger generations.
We must ask ourselves whether that buffer has had a positive or negative effect on our rights as individual citizens. Is it possible that buffer has provided the time necessary for a population to become conditioned to accept the presumed supremacy of government with respect to firearm ownership?
Our path forward can either be accepting that the 2nd Amendment guarentees a right that is directly controlled by government, and is thus not a right at all, or we can stop acquiescing to the encroachment of government into the very right that will protect us from that encroachment. It is not unreasonable to think that this buffer, which is steadily pushed back, paves the way for further reduction of that right. A softened blow is, after all, easier to take and accept than a hard one.

gunsmith
02-03-2011, 2:03 AM
I'M Pleased with the NRA.
& very happy to be a life member.
No one is perfect but few groups makes politicians quake in their shoes like the nations oldest grassroots civil rights org ... the NRA

GrizzlyGuy
02-03-2011, 6:13 AM
As a fellow Ron Paul type of guy, you might want to check out this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4926048#post4926048) and this (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=4928170#post4928170) before you donate money to the NRA. SAF is the way to go, they don't want to trade away one natural right for another as NRA does, so I became a life member.

NightOwl
02-03-2011, 6:49 AM
I had never heard of SAF until now, pleasant surprise to see on their homepage that they are active in the courts suing...

http://www.saf.org/

SAF is a great organization, the more you look into them, the more you'll find that they fight the good fight. They're a worthy cause, and you can't go wrong with offering them support in any way. Similar to CGF in their willingness to fight the legal fight, and they were major players in getting both the Heller and McDonald decisions. I can't say enough good things about them, and I'm a bit surprised that they weren't mentioned within the first couple of posts in this thread.

These days, think NRA for political clout, SAF/CGN for the legal battles, imo.

Kharn
02-03-2011, 9:12 AM
CRPA, CGF, NRA, SAF, JPFO, etc are good organizations.

GOA is a scam, they make a lot of money claiming they never compromise, but then accomplish nothing.

Gray Peterson
02-03-2011, 9:13 AM
The difference is that the legitimate groups actually get stuff done. The NRA gets stuff done. ALSO - only a dumbcluck would think that we can get stuff done without doing the political dance. The "no compromises" groups have no understanding of politics.

Hence, they get nothing done.

This is what it looks like from the inside.

Also, there's different definitions of "no compromise", too. Oregon Firearms Federation, though a "no compromise" group, has actually made forward progress for gun rights. The head of that group (Kevin) is honest and actually has integrity, and sometimes gets questioned when he doesn't follow the NAGR path of fund raising.

Wherryj
02-03-2011, 9:35 AM
This statement also somehow managed to equate passage of the Brady Bill to the NRA's support of the bill.

There are times when even the best civil rights group can't stop legislation that is being steamrolled over the populace-take our own Calguns Foundation and the passage of AB962. Sometimes you just can't stop stupid, you can only hope to contain it (in this case via the courts).

bwiese
02-03-2011, 9:50 AM
Where's Bill Wiese when you need him! :43:

Sorry. An inside joke for those who've been here for more than, oh, a year.


Late to the dance, but most everyone else here has covered the issue nicely.

Dr Rockso
02-03-2011, 10:01 AM
What you have to realize is that we spent most of the last century (until Heller in 2008) in a state of judicial ambiguity about what the 2nd Amendment meant. Courts like those in CA could, and did, dismiss any 2nd Amendment claim out of hand based on interpretations of the 2A that didn't include an individual right to own a firearm.

It is amazing that we made it through decades of that with our RKBA mostly intact. In the 1980s/1990s public perception was hugely against guns and gun-owners since crime rates were much higher at the time and the media had a virtually unchallenged monopoly on information (you should see some of the FUDtastic "news" stories from the '90s about machine guns, 'cop-killer' bullets, etc).

Had the NRA not compromised where it did (NICS, AP handgun ammo, etc...) I have no doubt our firearms laws would look a lot more like Australia's right now.

Shiboleth
02-03-2011, 10:38 AM
The NRA has become a political organization. As such it has adapted itself to the environment it operates in by necessity. Like it or not, accomplishing anything in the political sphere with a two party system, requires compromise. Yes, it's easy for the absolutists to sit on the sidelines and cry foul whenever a compromise occurs, and state that they would never have made such a compromise. But you have to both realize that because those people would never compromise, they really don't accomplish much, and also ask yourself what state our rights would be in if the NRA hadn't compromised.

If you're looking into which organization to support, it's important to understand that different groups operate in different spheres. The NRA has been chiefly politically focused, whereas SAF/CGF have been more judicially active. Honestly, they all need our support.

Glock22Fan
02-03-2011, 2:22 PM
As soon as the politicians start attacking the GOA like they do the NRA, I might start thinking that they are acheiving something worthwhile. Until then . . .

Quser.619
02-03-2011, 4:18 PM
Answer to OP's question, look @ McDonald. The NRA's argument was the basis for the decision. While I would have preferred Mr. Gura's they were apart of bringing the 2nd to CA!

PatriotnMore
02-03-2011, 4:27 PM
I'm new to the gun rights community, I've been an NRA member now for all of about 4 weeks (I literally just got my card in the mail last week). I can't speak for or against that site's allegations.

However, what drove me to join is this: when the latest anti-standard-size-mag legislation was introduced, the author stated she had to be very careful in writing it "so the NRA wouldn't have ammunition to use against her".

Whatever they have done right or wrong in the past, at present they are strong and active enough that politicians openly admit fear of them. That's good enough for my $35 bucks.

I made mistakes when I was growing up too. ;-)

Well said. In addition, what other organization does what they do on a national level, is an 800 lb Gorilla in D.C., and spends the volume of money they do fighting gun laws/restrictions?

They are not perfect, but man I am glad we have them.

stix213
02-03-2011, 5:45 PM
If you want to know what the USA would look like without the NRA, just look at England.

The NRA isn't perfect, but the NRA is in fact the most feared organization in Washington DC. They can get more things done with a single phone call than nearly any other rights group of any kind can with a year of pushing their own agenda.

Some absolutists don't understand that in politics you can't just demand to have things done your way. When you do that then you will just get told no. What you can do is say "ok how about we give you this one thing, but I want this entire list." BAM!!! you just got an entire list of things done, and then in the future you can come back and try to undo that one thing you gave up to get so much already. That's pretty much what these compromises come down to.

CMonfort
02-03-2011, 5:57 PM
These days, think NRA for political clout, SAF/CGN for the legal battles, imo.

Yeah, the NRA doesn't do much for legal battles, especially in CA. Not like the NRA got AB 962 struck down in the courts or anything. The NRA has numerous other court cases being litigated right now and across the nation.

In case you are interested in what the NRA is and has been doing locally in the courts, here is a non-exhaustive list of a few of the NRA's litigation efforts in CA in the past two years.

Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit successfully invalidated AB 962, which required vendors to store “handgun ammo” so customers can’t access it, and starting February 1, 2011, to register all “handgun ammo” sales and require transactions of “handgun ammo” be face-to-face, prohibiting internet sales.
Peruta v. County of San Diego - Currently preparing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for this lawsuit challenging San Diego’s strict requirements for obtaining a CCW. This case may resolve the legal question of whether the right “to bear arms” means a right to carry a handgun outside the home.
Jackson v. City of San Francisco - Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring residents to keep handguns locked up in their own homes, banning the discharge of firearms, even in self-defense, and banning many types of ammo from being sold. Plaintiffs recently successfully petitioned the court to have a stay lifted, and are rapidly moving forward with motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment, while many other cases in California remain stayed pending resolution of Nordyke v. King.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. The ban was rescinded. This case was recently used to help NRA lawyers in Delaware where a similar ban existed and is currently being used to help HI residents with similar issues.
McDonald v. Chicago - Recruited 38 California and eight elected District Attorneys from Nevada, along with law enforcement officials in both California and Nevada to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Millender v. County of Los Angeles - Filed a joint amicus brief challenging the ability of law enforcement to write over-broad search warrants used to seize firearms unrelated to crimes.
CBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. - Intervened on behalf of hunters in an Arizona lawsuit in which radical environmental groups sued the BLM to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a classic hunting area. This tactic has been used in CA and defending against this strategy of anti-gunners cloaked as environmentalists is crucial to protecting access to affordable ammunition. Lead is first, copper would be next, and so on. Success in these cases is crucial to protecting the RKBA nationwide.
People v. Saleem - Filed amicus letter in Supreme Court of California. Though the case did not involve firearms, the Saleem opinion would be a great tool in combating vague firearm laws in the future. The Supreme Court recently rejected the case, and CRPA Foundation is currently preparing a new Amicus requesting that the opinion now be republished so that it may be cited in future challenges to vague firearms laws!
Nordyke v. King - NRA and CRPA Foundation each filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to adopt a “strict scrutiny” standard of review for firearm restrictions.
Turner's v. Los Angeles - Lawsuit will challenge LA's ban's on large caliber firearms, large caliber ammunition, and ultra-compact firearms.

Shiboleth
02-03-2011, 6:12 PM
Answer to OP's question, look @ McDonald. The NRA's argument was the basis for the decision. While I would have preferred Mr. Gura's they were apart of bringing the 2nd to CA!

Mr. Gura was already planning on making a due process argument, he didn't need the NRA butting in. The only reason he didn't focus on it was because the NRA guys were given some of his oral time. Alan knew there were not 5 votes for due process incorporation, that's why the privileges argument was so important.

Veggie
02-03-2011, 7:47 PM
It seems to be the NRA gives the anti gun legislators a bone to get a bowl of Kibble. And then comes back later to take the bone back.

bwiese
02-03-2011, 8:14 PM
It seems to be the NRA gives the anti gun legislators a bone to get a bowl of Kibble. And then comes back later to take the bone back.

Highly uninformed and no basis in fact for this statement.
What planet are you from?

Paladin
02-03-2011, 8:59 PM
Yeah, the NRA doesn't do much for legal battles, especially in CA. Not like the NRA got AB 962 struck down in the courts or anything. The NRA has numerous other court cases being litigated right now and across the nation.

In case you are interested in what the NRA is and has been doing locally in the courts, here is a non-exhaustive list of a few of the NRA's litigation efforts in CA in the past two years.

Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit successfully invalidated AB 962, which required vendors to store “handgun ammo” so customers can’t access it, and starting February 1, 2011, to register all “handgun ammo” sales and require transactions of “handgun ammo” be face-to-face, prohibiting internet sales.
Peruta v. County of San Diego - Currently preparing an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for this lawsuit challenging San Diego’s strict requirements for obtaining a CCW. This case may resolve the legal question of whether the right “to bear arms” means a right to carry a handgun outside the home.
Jackson v. City of San Francisco - Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring residents to keep handguns locked up in their own homes, banning the discharge of firearms, even in self-defense, and banning many types of ammo from being sold. Plaintiffs recently successfully petitioned the court to have a stay lifted, and are rapidly moving forward with motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment, while many other cases in California remain stayed pending resolution of Nordyke v. King.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. The ban was rescinded. This case was recently used to help NRA lawyers in Delaware where a similar ban existed and is currently being used to help HI residents with similar issues.
McDonald v. Chicago - Recruited 38 California and eight elected District Attorneys from Nevada, along with law enforcement officials in both California and Nevada to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment.
Millender v. County of Los Angeles - Filed a joint amicus brief challenging the ability of law enforcement to write over-broad search warrants used to seize firearms unrelated to crimes.
CBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. - Intervened on behalf of hunters in an Arizona lawsuit in which radical environmental groups sued the BLM to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a classic hunting area. This tactic has been used in CA and defending against this strategy of anti-gunners cloaked as environmentalists is crucial to protecting access to affordable ammunition. Lead is first, copper would be next, and so on. Success in these cases is crucial to protecting the RKBA nationwide.
People v. Saleem - Filed amicus letter in Supreme Court of California. Though the case did not involve firearms, the Saleem opinion would be a great tool in combating vague firearm laws in the future. The Supreme Court recently rejected the case, and CRPA Foundation is currently preparing a new Amicus requesting that the opinion now be republished so that it may be cited in future challenges to vague firearms laws!
Nordyke v. King - NRA and CRPA Foundation each filed an amicus brief urging the Ninth Circuit to adopt a “strict scrutiny” standard of review for firearm restrictions.
Turner's v. Los Angeles - Lawsuit will challenge LA's ban's on large caliber firearms, large caliber ammunition, and ultra-compact firearms.
Clint, I am sorry you had to take time away from either your personal life or work life to come here to make this kind of post (again!).

This is the sort of thing I think should be made its own, locked, stickied thread where CGF people and/or NRA's legal and/or political ("Hi Paul!"), team can post updates.

*** For the sake of fairness, perhaps another subforum (!) could be added where reps of CGF, NRA, CRPA, GOC/GOA, SAF, JFPO, CCRKBA, or any other vetted pro-gun org can have their own locked thread where they alone post new posts updating CGNers on what they're doing/have accomplished. ***

Paladin
02-03-2011, 9:04 PM
Highly uninformed and no basis in fact for this statement.
What planet are you from?I *think* Veggie may have been thinking of Iowa, where the NRA "gave" the antis the gift of not pushing for Con Carry last year (instead only pushed for and won Shall Issue), only to come back this year to take it away (the NRA's pushing for Con Carry in Iowa right now). See: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=5747156#post5747156

That is how I read Veggie's post.

NightOwl
02-04-2011, 7:12 AM
Parker v. State of California - Lawsuit successfully invalidated AB 962, which required vendors to store “handgun ammo” so customers can’t access it, and starting February 1, 2011, to register all “handgun ammo” sales and require transactions of “handgun ammo” be face-to-face, prohibiting internet sales.
Jackson v. City of San Francisco - Lawsuit challenges San Francisco ordinances requiring residents to keep handguns locked up in their own homes, banning the discharge of firearms, even in self-defense, and banning many types of ammo from being sold. Plaintiffs recently successfully petitioned the court to have a stay lifted, and are rapidly moving forward with motions for Preliminary Injunction and Summary Judgment, while many other cases in California remain stayed pending resolution of Nordyke v. King.
Doe v. San Francisco Housing Authority - Lawsuit successfully challenged San Francisco’s ban on possessing firearms in public housing. The ban was rescinded. This case was recently used to help NRA lawyers in Delaware where a similar ban existed and is currently being used to help HI residents with similar issues.
CBD v. Bureau of Land Management, et al. - Intervened on behalf of hunters in an Arizona lawsuit in which radical environmental groups sued the BLM to prohibit the use of lead ammunition for hunting in the Arizona Strip, a classic hunting area. This tactic has been used in CA and defending against this strategy of anti-gunners cloaked as environmentalists is crucial to protecting access to affordable ammunition. Lead is first, copper would be next, and so on. Success in these cases is crucial to protecting the RKBA nationwide.
Turner's v. Los Angeles - Lawsuit will challenge LA's ban's on large caliber firearms, large caliber ammunition, and ultra-compact firearms.

They also butt in where they're not wanted (McDonald) then try to claim credit not due. Getting others to file amicus briefs sounds more like political clout than them bringing a lawsuit to me, which applies to both McDonald and Nordyke as you listed. Peruta can hardly be attributed to the NRA, regardless of their involvement in it, since that case was happening with or without them, and we all know it. Ed had every intent of pursuing the case and was doing so with his own funds and attorney prior to NRA being brought in. Nice of them to help out, but again, that's not them spearheading anything.

I'm perfectly aware that they're involved in legal battles, but these days SAF is bringing the big cases (Heller, McDonald) without the NRA...or without needing/wanting the NRA at least. Yet their clout let's them invite themselves to the party, to the detriment of all. Unless you think that Mr. Gura is overflowing with joy that they saved his bacon when arguing McDonald at the Supreme Court? He certainly didn't seem pleased at all, from anything I've seen, and I'd venture to say he was competent enough to handle that extra 30 minutes of time.

Furthermore, I didn't say that the NRA does nothing in the legal arena, but the point remains, when the biggest cases are getting pushed, it's not the NRA behind them making them happen, they seem to tend more towards assisting others who are leading the charge. Their efforts in the legal arena pale in comparison to their efforts in the political one, where they can bring a significant amount of influence (and money) to bear on politicians.

Ymmv, but my opinion on it isn't going to be changing anytime soon. Also, don't take this as NRA bashing, either, because it's not. It's merely a my interpretation of who is doing what in what arenas. NRA definately brings something major to the table, but frankly I'd rather see SAF beind a case than NRA any day of the week.

(I edited out the cases that aren't significantly NRA imo or that I couldn't rapidly discern what level of involvement the NRA has)

Captain Neon
02-07-2011, 9:29 PM
NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, mostly because that law restricted imported firearms. That was beneficial for the American firearms manufacturers; less competition = good for them.

Presented with a dilemma, NRA would act in the best interests of firearms makers over the best interests of the American public. Most of the time these two choices coincide but not always.

That being said, I'm an NRA member. Strength in numbers and all that. When NRA gets involved, its in it to win.

Danz la Nuit
02-07-2011, 9:33 PM
NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, mostly because that law restricted imported firearms. That was beneficial for the American firearms manufacturers; less competition = good for them.


Wow, how statist of them... /disgusting

What a perfect example of not respecting the free market.

blakdawg
02-07-2011, 9:56 PM
This "compromise"/"no compromise" dispute happens in many political contexts, and the arguments are always the same - the "compromise" people say that the "no compromise" people are politically naiive, and that if they don't meet others partway and make sometimes unpalatable deals, they'll be shut out of the process entirely. And the "no compromise" people say that the "compromise" people are sell-outs or wimps who give away valuable concessions, and that if everyone would adopt a hardline stance, we'd just win.

See MLK versus Malcolm X; Greenpeace/Sierra Club versus Earth First!; the pro/anti-abortion debate - and a thousand others.

We all have a role to play. Find the group(s) that match your ideas and support them. Don't spend a lot of time sniping at people who are on your side but see things a little differently. Dianne Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, Paul Helmke - they're the enemy, not a firearm rights group whose philosophy or tactics don't exactly match yours.

Paladin
02-09-2011, 8:19 PM
Wow, how statist of them... /disgusting

What a perfect example of not respecting the free market.No, a perfect example of being clueless re. the "culture war" and its political implications.

It wasn't until the 1970s and Harlon Carter (no, not the Carter that was a US President), that the NRA realized the MSM had put gun owners in their crosshairs. This was waaay back when everyone naively thought the media were objective and w/o an agenda Example: "Uncle Walter" Cronkite, who was often called "the most trusted man in America," admitted in an interview w/Barbara Walters only after retiring that he ALWAYS believed in advocacy journalism (i.e., having a hidden agenda). Since there was virtually no alternative, there was only "the media": ABC, NBC, CBS, NYTimes and Wash Post.

There was a big internal fight in the NRA and, fortunately, the pro-RKBA folk won the day (vs the "sportsmen"). We were on the ropes in the '70s and thru the mid-1980s. It was only around the mid-1980s when we were able to fight some things to a stand still. Even then and later, things like "cop-killer" bullets (KTWs which had NEVER killed a cop at the time, IIRC, CBS broadcasted their existence and characteristics), "Black Talons" and the Stockton Massacre would overwhelm our side and we had to retreat as best as we could so as to lose as little as we could while stopping the momentum against us.

That is why it is so encouraging to go to the NRA-ILA website today (www.nraila.org) and see all of the pro-RKBA legislation being introduced in so many states even though the Tucson shooting took place just a few weeks ago. If that happened back in the '80s or even early '90s, not only would all pro-RKBA legislation get pulled, but anti legislation would be on the front burner at both the state level and federal. But now, Obama was silent in his state of the union address, and, while some states are introducing anti legislation it is few and far between.

Also, until FL in 1986, the idea of John Q Citizen getting a CCW was UNHEARD of, even among gunnies (outside of VT). (Thank you Marion Hammer, former president of the NRA!) Now, IL is introducing May Issue legislation, WI will be debating whether to go Shall Issue or straight to Con Carry, and 40 out of the other 50 states are Shall Issue.

That's why some of us who've been w/the NRA for DECADES kind of smile when newbies/youngins gripe because things aren't turning around fast enough for them. For us, we're still overjoyed that: (a) we're not still getting reamed by the antis, and (b) we've pretty much routed the antis around the country and are almost equal to them politically even in CA (barring some stupid stuff by our side (UOC group meets), or criminal drama (Tucson shooting)). My guess, is that getting CA to virtual Shall Issue will open flood gates of new pro-gunnies who will then become activists to protect their RKBA, incl other issues as they get plugged in w/us.

The future is bright! Anyone who has to look back 40 years to find something to complain about re. the NRA, while they take it out of its historical and political contexts and while ignoring all the good that the NRA has accomplished since then (versus virtually NOTHING by GOA/GOC), is being disingenuous.

Go to: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php to see what things were like back in '86 and how far we've come, primarily due to the NRA!

Bruce
02-09-2011, 9:40 PM
NRA supported the 1968 Gun Control Act, mostly because that law restricted imported firearms. That was beneficial for the American firearms manufacturers; less competition = good for them.




To be fair, the imported firearms in question were mostly the surplus Mausers being imported and sporterized into hunting rifles. If you look through the gun rags of the 50's-60's, they are full "how-to sporterize a surplus rifle" articles. Remington's and Winchester's bottom lines were hurting so they pushed for restrictions on imported surplus arms. I remember one article in Shooting Times on how cost ineffective it was to convert a Mauser as opposed to buying a Remington 700.

Bruce
02-09-2011, 10:03 PM
Consider the source. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is a Colorado GOA wanna-be. Trash the NRA to get bucks is the name of the game. Affiliates are, not surprisingly, GOA and a host of Gun Owners of _________ organizations. :rolleyes:
Just cuz they put it on the internet, doesn't make it true.