PDA

View Full Version : NRA and Obama?


loose_electron
03-24-2011, 2:25 PM
This came to my attention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?_r=1

The NRA refuses to go to a meeting with Obama.

I know a lot of people on here don't like Obama, but what bothers me about this is pretty simple:

If the president of your country asks you to come to a meeting, you go to it.

You don't have to like them, or agree with them, you don't have to bee affiliated with them or anything else, but you go to the meeting.

I don't care if their name is Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Carter, Obama or Roosevelt. I also don't care if they are white, black, green or purple, republican or democrat, or whatever.

Is that unreasonable?

I do expect to be jumped all over, and before you ask, yes, I am a member of the NRA, but that does not mean I agree with the stonewall approach towards anything.

stix213
03-24-2011, 2:30 PM
The purpose of the meeting is to find new ways to restrict gun rights. NRA showing up at that kind of meeting would by some be interpreted as a validation of the meeting's gun rights restriction goals.

If this were a 1 on 1 with the president you'd have a point, but thats not what the invitation was for.

Leaving it an administration meeting with only anti-constitution groups gives the correct impression though on what is going on. Its no longer Obama and both parties coming together to come up with more "common sense" constitutional restrictions, but instead Obama meeting with anti-rights groups to find new ways to restrict your rights. Its also then less likely Obama would run with any new restrictions the meeting comes up with due to how bad it now looks.

The NRA was specifically invited so they could be used by the administration to validate any "consensus" that comes from this meeting. NRA was right to give the middle finger.

All my opinion of course, but I believe I'm correct here.

loose_electron
03-24-2011, 2:39 PM
Ok, then you show up to register your disagreement with the ideas and make your case against those restrictions or new regulations being redundant on already existing laws.

Sometimes winning the battle means that you need to show up in order to disagree intelligently. If you aren't in the conversation, then you have no influence on the outcome.

Virtually all new legal regulations placed on firearms in the last 30 years have been ineffective in dealing with their illegal use. We all suffer under stupid regulations where knowledgeable people could have helped stop those new rules/regulations.

stix213
03-24-2011, 2:45 PM
Ok, then you show up to register your disagreement with the ideas and make your case against those restrictions or new regulations being redundant on already existing laws.

Sometimes winning the battle means that you need to show up in order to disagree intelligently. If you aren't in the conversation, then you have no influence on the outcome.

Virtually all new legal regulations placed on firearms in the last 30 years have been ineffective in dealing with their illegal use. We all suffer under stupid regulations where knowledgeable people could have helped stop those new rules/regulations.

That's not how the media would spin this, and the administration is well aware of the NRA's position on the issue. What would actually happen is the NRA shows up, and makes their case known. Then they are ignored. New regulations and/or laws are drawn up based on the meeting while completely ignoring the NRA position.

Then when the news reports what happens it will be reported as a coming together of both the gun lobby and the gun safety groups with the Obama administration's help... and here are all the common sense new rules that everyone agreed on. Don't vote out Obama, cause the NRA was even in support, cause look they are right there in the picture.

Result: utter disaster, and the Obama administration succeeds in using the NRA's presence to promote gun restrictions while avoiding the appearance that Obama is anti-gun.

I'm just glad that the NRA has people at the top smart enough to see a train wreck from a mile away, and get off at the first stop. Much props to the NRA for not falling for this

taperxz
03-24-2011, 2:52 PM
Having the NRA show up to this would be like showing up to a gun fight with a UOC weapon.

stix213
03-24-2011, 2:54 PM
With the NRA absent, anything that comes on this will have to be reported as the Obama administration getting together with anti-gun groups and coming up with new restrictions on their own. Any new rules that are created will then be less palatable to voters since it now lacks the implied NRA stamp of approval that Obama was seeking, and as such Obama will be less likely to push for the new restrictions for fear of a 1994 style backlash.

Obama wants to restrict gun rights, but he wants more to not be seen as "wanting to take yer guns." If the NRA was there that would go a long way to getting new restrictions pushed through since it then looks like they were drawn up with the input of the NRA.

berto
03-24-2011, 3:04 PM
NRA loses whether they show up or not. A no show is spun as NRA being unwilling to even discuss "reasonable" restrictions. Showing up lets the "no compromise" element spin it as NRA selling out 2A. Why should NRA sit down with a bunch of people intent on weakening 2A? What is there to discuss? It's like me letting burglars into my house to discuss what they're going to steal and just how far they can get with my wife.

madmike
03-24-2011, 3:06 PM
There is no up side to the NRA "participating" in these meetings. This is and always was a trap. Also, the President did not invite the NRA to a meeting with him, he invited them to go and meet with other people. A small distinction, but important.

nrakid88
03-24-2011, 3:09 PM
Even if it is going to be a meeting where they are pushing for crazy gun controls, shouldn't the NRA send SOMEONE to be the VOICE OF REASON, that way we can at least say we told them so when the court hands them toilet paper to wipe our asses with.

trevilli
03-24-2011, 3:10 PM
This came to my attention:

If the president of your country asks you to come to a meeting, you go to it.

Maybe you live in a country where the word of your leader carries the force of law. I do not. That's a very simple answer, but valid nonetheless.

wazdat
03-24-2011, 3:10 PM
I sent the following note on the day that the NRA announced they would not participate;

If the NRA does not attend there will be no advocates for gun owners present to combat the misinformation and propaganda that the Brady Bunch, VPC, and MAIG will be spewing. Please reconsider.

Recieved the following reply;

Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.

We rejected their offer to participate in a dog and pony meeting and will be working with members of Congress to stop any anti-gun legislation that the President pushes. We continue to urge the White House to focus on criminals and madmen, not law-abiding gun owners. Further, we have called on Congress and the White House to end BATFE's "gun walk" program and support an independent investigation.

Please let us know if you have further questions or concerns.

Best regards,
Miranda Bond
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

I see their point. They'll achieve more by working with the Pro-gun members of the Congress and Senate.

nrakid88
03-24-2011, 3:12 PM
Just read what stix213 had to say, I now i get how the trainwreck would be woven. The NRA should at least counter offer a one on one with the president of the club and the president of the states.

trevilli
03-24-2011, 3:16 PM
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

It's a straightforward and eloquent response, and I commend them for taking this position.

Legasat
03-24-2011, 3:17 PM
I for one would NOT be happy with the NRA if they attended that meeting. Nothing good could come out it for the NRA or for us.

loose_electron
03-24-2011, 3:21 PM
Maybe you live in a country where the word of your leader carries the force of law. I do not. That's a very simple answer, but valid nonetheless.

No, I would consider it a sign of courtesy and respect. Like him or hate him, he is still the president of the country.

As for this being a trap? Hmmm, not sure. If you don't show up, then it spins as "not willing to talk" - if you do show up, you make your case, and also have the press opportunity after the fact, to make the case that "enforce already existing laws" and "additional regulations are not needed" case.

In addition to all of the above, yes, you do work with lawmakers who are favoring your cause. Thats just politics.

We are coming up on an election year, and everyone is playing political spin games right now. Politics and noise aside, nothing on this topic is gonna make it thru congress before the next election cycle.

putput
03-24-2011, 3:24 PM
This is politics 101. Showing up = having your "buy in".

It sounds stupid but this is how it works. I've known people who would show up and refuse to sign in only to be named as supporting in notes coming out of a meeting.

The only thing you can do is to not show up at all. Then the message is pretty clear.

trevilli
03-24-2011, 3:24 PM
No, I would consider it a sign of courtesy and respect. Like him or hate him, he is still the president of the country.
Yes, he is the President, and he works for us. He is not an elected king, he can ask the NRA to "participate" in an event that would do nothing to further gun rights, so why should they attend? Their duty and mission is to make sure my 2nd Amendment rights are not restricted in any way. In fact, I give them money for this purpose. Attending a photo-op with the president does nothing to further my rights, sorry.

dantodd
03-24-2011, 3:30 PM
Do you think the NAACP would have shown up to a meeting with a bunch of southern governors after Brown v. Board of Education to try and identify how to best circumvent the court's ruling?

dantodd
03-24-2011, 3:32 PM
Now, if the meeting were with a pro-gun caucus to help root out which laws on the books violate the Heller ruling and need to be repealed I'm sure the NRA would be happy to go.

elSquid
03-24-2011, 3:42 PM
No, I would consider it a sign of courtesy and respect. Like him or hate him, he is still the president of the country.


Right, President, not King. If the NRA leadership feels the meeting would be counter-productive, then not going is a valid choice.

-- Michael

Cali-Shooter
03-24-2011, 3:48 PM
Don't discount the NRA's decision. Knowing BHO, the meeting's purpose could have very well been to just put on a show for the media and label Barak as "Successfully Negotiating with Gun Rights Groups."

One definite possibility of having such a meeting is that the whole thing was pointless from the start. with no intention of any real negotiations (for the advancement of the 2A).

GOEX FFF
03-24-2011, 3:55 PM
That's not how the media would spin this, and the administration is well aware of the NRA's position on the issue. What would actually happen is the NRA shows up, and makes their case known. Then they are ignored. New regulations and/or laws are drawn up based on the meeting while completely ignoring the NRA position.

Then when the news reports what happens it will be reported as a coming together of both the gun lobby and the gun safety groups with the Obama administration's help... and here are all the common sense new rules that everyone agreed on. Don't vote out Obama, cause the NRA was even in support, cause look they are right there in the picture.

Result: utter disaster, and the Obama administration succeeds in using the NRA's presence to promote gun restrictions while avoiding the appearance that Obama is anti-gun.

I'm just glad that the NRA has people at the top smart enough to see a train wreck from a mile away, and get off at the first stop. Much props to the NRA for not falling for this

^^^^ THAT is 10000% spot on.

I too am glad that the NRA saw/sees this. It's no surprise what the underlining tricks are going on by the congressional gun grabbers. They've used up all their old ones in the past, the NRA is keen and this one is clearly transparent. This Administration inviting the NRA, only wants to exploit their presents.

The Obama Administration is again trying to be slick, the exact same way they're trying to be slick about keeping Obama as "gun friendly" in the public's eyes, while at the same time, conducting backyard tactics to further push the Gun control agenda....... quietly and Indiscriminately from public view.
e.g., Sotomayor, Kagan, Traver nomination, ATF Gun walker/F&F, NRA exploit…etc.

Why some pro gunnies out there (even some here) still think Obama is pro 2A is totally beyond me. 1). They're either naive and don't know who the anti ones are in congress. Or 2). Are so new to the firearm world of politricks, they're totally unaware on how gun-grabbers work. Just because he's allowed CCW in national parks??? Not talking against the 2A in public? :confused::rolleyes: Don't kid yourselves, that's nothing more but a move saving face...and some are actually buying it. The old ways of public congressional out-cry for gun-control might have worked in the Clinton era, but it’s no longer a way to conduct “business” these days, and is political suicide.
So backdoor policy is and has been underway.


The NRA (we 4.3 million dues-paying members) has successfully been around for 140 years...and there is a reason for that.

madmike
03-24-2011, 3:58 PM
Don't discount the NRA's decision. Knowing BHO, the meeting's purpose could have very well been to just put on a show for the media and label Barak as "Successfully Negotiating with Gun Rights Groups."

One definite possibility of having such a meeting is that the whole thing was pointless from the start. with no intention of any real negotiations (for the advancement of the 2A).

Do you really think this is just a possibility, and not an absolute fact?
There is nothing to negotiate.

bwiese
03-24-2011, 3:59 PM
Right, President, not King. If the NRA leadership feels the meeting would be counter-productive, then not going is a valid choice.

Bingo.

#1, this is a meeting - or rather a request - for publicity more than for any results.
If the WH really wanted to talk there are plenty of very quiet ways of reaching out
. I'm quite certain that Wayne LaPierre
or Chris Cox' phone numbers can be readily found by an Obama aide in under 2 min,
and if they rang either NRA leader privately, some useful communications could take
place if it were indeed truly desired by the Obama administration.

[I] The fact the request was public is in fact why we know the request was facially insincere.

#2, the NRA really has nothing to gain and can only lose. The NRA is acknowledging it
holds the politcal hammer.

#3, While Obama can do damage in place in certain aspects, the NRA has more clout than
he does. NRA can cause more legislators to lose seats than Obama can cause to stay/gain
a seat.

#4 The NRA does not need 'favorable' PR. It will not change the position of the antis,
any temporary negative outcome from this will not set back gun rights legislation or litigation,
and it will not change any votes. It's better to have the reputation as functionally and skilfully
evil.

In fact the NRA leadership was more than reasonably polite in its response.

Cali-Shooter
03-24-2011, 4:05 PM
Do you really think this is just a possibility, and not an absolute fact?
There is nothing to negotiate.

Yes, you are correct. I just naturally express comments in a very skeptical tone, even with the more definite of absolute facts in the world, such as anything that can be gained from having a "gun policy" meeting with the Deuce himself.

loose_electron
03-24-2011, 4:38 PM
The NRA can treat this stuff as a photo op and statement of position as well.

I understand that some construe that "showing up = cooperation" but you can also spin it the other way - with a wider audience than what you get from a statement of position letter.

I see two different paths here:

1 - Protect 2A rights, its a legal battle and lawyers are what you got to protect yourself with.

2 - Build popular support and better understanding, so you don't have to spend all your time hiding behind lawyers and legal wrangling.

Option 1 is what happens in CA, Option 2 happens in states where gun ownership is "no big deal" because so many people are comfortable with it.

Is option 2 a total lost cause in CA?

trevilli
03-24-2011, 4:45 PM
Is option 2 a total lost cause in CA?

You live here, you've seen the laws, the speeches, etc. What do you think? Do you think the CA legislature could ever be convinced to pass shall-issue laws for concealed carry, for example?

voiceofreason
03-24-2011, 5:03 PM
Republicans met with Obama regarding Obamacare.

They were ignored and railroaded at the meeting.

The NRA are smart enough to learn from that experience.

voiceofreason
03-24-2011, 5:03 PM
Republicans met with Obama regarding Obamacare.

They were ignored and railroaded at the meeting.

The NRA are smart enough to learn from that experience.

loose_electron
03-24-2011, 5:38 PM
You live here, you've seen the laws, the speeches, etc. What do you think? Do you think the CA legislature could ever be convinced to pass shall-issue laws for concealed carry, for example?

Depends. With the way things are right now, not a chance. However, if you got every single kid to the shooting range, showed them its fun and (can be) safe, and the Hollywood image of guns is not reality, then over time it might happen.

If you hide behind lawyers and existing (2A) laws, and don't try to build support among the masses, eventually you lose the masses.

When you lose the masses (Brady Bunch?) then eventually you get enough popular support on the other side of the issue that the laws get changed (goodbye 2A) and then you are totally hosed.

I think the best approach is attempting to build popular support while also working the legal protection path as well. I would like to see the NRA do more of the popular support items as well.

bwiese
03-24-2011, 5:44 PM
LooseElectron,

When you have as much experience working DC politics as the NRA does, then we'll take your ideas under consideration.

No offense, I suspect you don't do well at poker or getting big discounts buying cars either.

Do remember the CA problem is somewhat separate from the national problem and less revolves around the gun issue per se than the near-irrelevance of the CA Republican party, its perpetual ultraminority status, its candidate 'bench', and of course term limits.

If you hide behind lawyers and existing (2A) laws, and don't try to build support among the masses, eventually you lose the masses.

'Hiding' behind constitutional law is not hiding, it's called winning.

The masses are increasingly supportive of RKBA in general polling and there's been a sea-change swing in the last decade or so toward overall pro-gun status.

Army
03-24-2011, 6:01 PM
Having the NRA show up to this would be like showing up to a gun fight with a UOC weapon.
Careful, your ignorance is showing.

MP301
03-24-2011, 6:34 PM
I like the NRA more every day. Good choice not participating in this BS meeting.

loose_electron
03-24-2011, 7:21 PM
'Hiding' behind constitutional law is not hiding, it's called winning.


No, winning is when the public supports you so much that there never is a need to get lawyers involved.

If you have popular public support, you don't need restrictions on magazines, bullet buttons, one shot exemptions to get around the stupid roster list, people walking around with a copy of the fine print of the CA PC and similar stuff.

All of that stuff would not have gotten dumped on us if 99% of CA was for the 2A

As for poker and cars, I do just fine thanks...

Just trying to ask some questions that might help the cause, pity to see you got to get into personal attacks because you don't like my perspective.

ElvenSoul
03-24-2011, 7:24 PM
I say Trolling

vantec08
03-24-2011, 8:34 PM
The NRA is thoroughly familiar with being setup for media and political spin purposes.

GOEX FFF
03-24-2011, 8:44 PM
Loose,

What one has to understand, is the NRA HAS taken the public approach you've suggest they should do, many, many times in the past.
This "public invite" is just another play ground attempt that the NRA is use to, and this time is not going to deal with. These days, given post Heller/McDonald are different now and so is the way of doing things, (winning, without giving them an inch to "negotiate" at chipping our 2A rights away) and that's in the courts.
Having the NRA come sit down negotiating rights, doesn’t gain any additional public support anymore than the liberal media would suggest the NRA has sat down to consider, or talk about more types of gun control. I hope you know that this isn’t just about the events at Tucson and keeping guns out of the hands of the prohibited, but to negotiate about many, if not all forms of Firearm restrictions. Undoubtedly, like LaPierre said, "with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the Second Amendment in the United States"

This also isn’t like some window of opportunity for the NRA to come to the public and speak. If they felt like that's what they needed to do, then they'd do it more. Heck, the NRA is getting enough exposure just by this...The "zero tolerance" on restricting more of our 2A rights by not walking into the palm of their hands to negotiate more of their trickery, is the smart thing to do.

DocSkinner
03-24-2011, 10:40 PM
I think it was a mistake in that, as pointed out, the NRA doesn't need this, it could have been a great opportunity for the NRA to win hearts and change the focus of gun control to insuring mentally unstable people can't just buy guns - something the DEMs and liberal have basically fought for by restricting the reporting of those people to aid the NIBC.

If they would have went in and forced the discussion away from restrictions on law abiding citizens and emphasized criminal prosecution for attempted purchases, and mandatory incorporation of mental records for NIBC, they would have won over some swing support.

Like all politics - it isn't about convincing your own followers that you are right, or winning over the other side's supporters, it is about winning the on-the-fence crowd. This made the NRA look self-serving and aloof and not willing to look at anything. While obviously other groups would have went the more laws/bans, NRA could have participated, showed they are interested in reducing crime, vehemently objected to those and tried to steer toward real measures dealing with proven risks.

and then they could have come out with - "we tried to do something real, and the others refused to listen" now it is the banners saying "We tried, and the NRA wouldn't even participate. "

BWIESE: its only winning until a majority gets their hearts won over and change the law. All of these 'wins' are based upon the law or constitution not being changed.
THAT is what the banners are fighting for - a long term strategic win, not just trying to win based upon the current situation, but fighting these battles - showing how rigid your enemy is and getting the basis for the decisions changed. I think that is what the NRA is loosing the battle on, much like lost support in so many areas for hard line Republicans (Like the hard line conservative republicans in Cali that just can't figure out why they keep loosing...).

It was a great opportunity to come out and show REAL ways of preventing violence involving guns that would have reached many non-NRA people. Now they are back to just preaching to the choir, and with the swing votes left swing in the wind, at best, and more likely swinging the other way instead of going with the group that refuses to participate in anything at any level.

DocSkinner
03-24-2011, 10:44 PM
In other words - like chess, when you are winning a lot in the short game, it might be because you aren't seeing (or are underestimating) your opponents end game. Was a fun and winning ploy back when I played chess a lot!

NytWolf
03-24-2011, 10:45 PM
Having the NRA show up to this would be like showing up to a gun fight with a UOC weapon and giving your ammo to the enemy.

I corrected it for you.

lumwilliam
03-24-2011, 10:47 PM
This came to my attention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?_r=1

The NRA refuses to go to a meeting with Obama.

I know a lot of people on here don't like Obama, but what bothers me about this is pretty simple:

If the president of your country asks you to come to a meeting, you go to it.

You don't have to like them, or agree with them, you don't have to bee affiliated with them or anything else, but you go to the meeting.

I don't care if their name is Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Carter, Obama or Roosevelt. I also don't care if they are white, black, green or purple, republican or democrat, or whatever.

Is that unreasonable?

I do expect to be jumped all over, and before you ask, yes, I am a member of the NRA, but that does not mean I agree with the stonewall approach towards anything.

Well said.

Dave A
03-24-2011, 11:04 PM
loose electron made the point that the NRA should have attended the meeting as requested by the President and to not do so was impolite. Others may have said what I will post and if so I apologize.

If the invitation had been for the head of the NRA to meet personally with the President, one on one then I agree they should have agreed to meet. However, Obama would never grant them that status, usually reserved for people he wants to impress, or who are in favor, or who have contributed large dollars to his re-election fund.

Others have said exactly what this meeting was intended to achieve. If he had actually wanted an exchange of ideas, there would have been other pro gun groups invited, but that was not the case. It was a political set up with the friendly media just waiting to spin things for their buddy Obama.

CDFingers
03-25-2011, 6:18 AM
By not showing up, the NRA abdicated its role as representative of gun owners.

Moreover, I think the NRA was afraid to try to support the emotional and fact free assertions LaPierre makes in his American Rifleman editorials.

I quit my NRA membership over this.

90% of success is showing up. If the NRA didn't show up, it had exactly zero chance of successfully influencing the debate at the table.

So, of course, if any new gun regulations come down, LaPierre will blame Obama. It is actually LaPierre who will have failed, if indeed new gun regs come down--which I doubt they will at the Fed level.

The funny thing is, the dems did not even try to get any new gun regs up to Obama when they had majorities in both Houses and were holding the White House. I have the editorials from those years by LaPierre--all emotion, fear, and no facts.

I think LaPierre really fears irrelevancy, as I think the dems have decided that at the Federal level, any new gun regs are vote killers.

If LaPierre never meets with Obama, then LaPierre can keep making his fictions, never having to face the guy he makes accusations about. That's pretty weak, in my book.

CDFingers

mofugly13
03-25-2011, 6:32 AM
I quit my NRA membership over this.


CDFingers

Lame.

GOEX FFF
03-25-2011, 7:52 AM
I quit my NRA membership over this.
CDFingers

Wow....I guess now that you can buy ammo without getting finger printed and treated like a criminal, is less important to you than the NRA showing up to some suppositious meeting.

WTG, it seems as if the Anti's just got you caught in their trap instead.

I see you're in Chino, not THAT far from L.A.
Were you at the CCRKBA Truth rally? Since 90% of success is showing up right?? :rolleyes: [INSERT FOOT IN MOUTH HERE]

Ripon83
03-25-2011, 7:55 AM
The NRA was right to no show, and they said the right thing about it. The message of course will not be repeated on the main stream media too much, but its well said. Why join those who want to gut the 2nd amendment at the table? Why give them any ounce of legitimacy to their actions. A guy that appoints activist judges, an anti gun advocate to lead the BATF, and has fostered anti gun "feelings" for so long isn't about to listen to the NRA now.

kcbrown
03-25-2011, 9:28 AM
No, winning is when the public supports you so much that there never is a need to get lawyers involved.


No, winning is when you get what you want in the most permanent way possible.

Public support is fleeting, transitory. It does not last. Do you think the public was anywhere near as anti-gun 100 years ago as it is now?

I'm skeptical of the staying power of even Supreme Court judgments, but I will most certainly acknowledge that the worst such judgments (e.g., Slaughterhouse), at least, manage to stand unscathed for decades, if not centuries. If those can stand for that long, perhaps a few good ones can, too. Regardless, it's far better than the fickle nature of "public support", which changes at the whim of the media.

loose_electron
03-25-2011, 9:43 AM
What has the NRA done in the last 5 years in the way of general public outreach and building of general public support?

Not among gun owners and hunters, thats preaching to the choir.

Right now, I see things like the show Top Shot, being one of the few general public things on the subject, thats oriented to the general public, and done in an informative and constructive manner. Overall, Hollywood has twisted the topic of guns to its own needs, and the general public gets their images from there.

If the NRA is invited to anything like this, I would like to see them find a way to turn it into something where they can gain ground with the public, rather than be politically used. Then they would be doing something useful.

Those things are mainstream media events, and as every politician knows, you take advantage of those in any way that you can.

Don't get me wrong -- I do feel the NRA is doing valuable things on the litigation side, but I don't see anything on the public relations side that's helping the cause.

dfletcher
03-25-2011, 10:04 AM
This came to my attention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/us/politics/15guns.html?_r=1

The NRA refuses to go to a meeting with Obama.

I know a lot of people on here don't like Obama, but what bothers me about this is pretty simple:

If the president of your country asks you to come to a meeting, you go to it.

You don't have to like them, or agree with them, you don't have to bee affiliated with them or anything else, but you go to the meeting.

I don't care if their name is Reagan, Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Carter, Obama or Roosevelt. I also don't care if they are white, black, green or purple, republican or democrat, or whatever.

Is that unreasonable?

I do expect to be jumped all over, and before you ask, yes, I am a member of the NRA, but that does not mean I agree with the stonewall approach towards anything.

I think this whole "NRA won't meet" event has to be taken in context, I'd hope to provide my reasons why I think the response is appropriate and certainly not jump on anyone.

The sentiment of responding positively to"your President needs you" is strong in most, but this is not simply a meeting with the President. It is a working seminar with MAIG and the Brady group, with retailers and manufacturers. The oft repeated "meeting with the President" is a simplification of the event. And recall the President is also the leader of his party. It is romantic to think of the President as an evenhanded leader, but such is not the case. I've met a few to include Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon - each knew very well how to use the power of the office to support his party, this one is no different.

The timing of the meeting is suspect, it occurs just before the NRA convention. I can think of no better method of causing disruption than to have NRA attend such a meeting so soon before their convention. Would the President attend an NRA sponsored "come, let us reason together" event a week before his party's convention? I don't think so. It occurs to me, in the odd world of Washington politics, the timing may have been set with the intent of encouraging NRA to decline the invitation.

The meeting occurs just after the White House appointed an anti-gun head of ATF, a man opposed by NRA. Again, a little stick in the eye with the invitation. In addition to MAIG and Brady the White House invited VP Biden to the meeting - as Senator he authored the 1994 AW Ban. In Washington perception is important, making nice AFTER someone publicly causes you grief is viewed as a sign of submission.

Perhaps NRA should and shall meet with the President. My concern for NRA not attending this event is that retailers and manufacturers may be pushed into some sort of WalMart or Smith & Wesson type agreement in principle with the White House - easier done without NRA than with, hence my suspicions regarding timing.

I would view NRA's declining to meet not as an absolute, but as "not under the present conditions". NRA can count, they see gun control going virtually nowhere in the Congress, so perhaps they feel they are deserving of a one on one meeting withthe President or WhiteHouse and not just one of a cast of many. I would view their response as part of a dialogue and not the end of it.

uyoga
03-25-2011, 10:06 AM
I wholeheartedly agree with La Pierre's position. By the mere act of showing up, one is already agreeing to having his/her Second Amendment rights diminished.

southernsnowshoe
03-25-2011, 4:06 PM
If the president of your country asks you to come to a meeting, you go to it.



Obama might be your president, but he sure as hell is not mine. Maybe that is also the opinion of the NRA.

TRICKSTER
03-25-2011, 4:27 PM
People stating that the NRA should have attended this meeting are ignoring some simple facts.

#1: The media would have spun this as NRA support for passage of even more "Reasonable gun laws"

#2: The administration would has spun this as NRA support for passage of even more "Reasonable gun laws"

#3: Don't we all agree that the groups that are pushing these "Reasonable gun laws" use irrational arguments? How do you have a rational discussion with irrational people with an irrational agenda?

#4: This was not a request to meet one on one with the president, it was a request to attend a publicity stunt.

gd-bh
03-25-2011, 4:46 PM
The NRA was 100% correct to not participate in a political sham meeting. The phrase "never negotiate with terrorists" springs to mind here. The anti's are attempting to do far more permanent damage to our country than any terrorist ever has.

There's another phrase that applies here too: "shall not be infringed". There is no room to negotiate in that statement. Unless of course, you have a reading comprehension problem, or are perhaps do not wish to follow the Constitution of the United States.

The NRA made the right choice here....

stix213
03-25-2011, 5:11 PM
loose electron made the point that the NRA should have attended the meeting as requested by the President and to not do so was impolite. Others may have said what I will post and if so I apologize.

If the invitation had been for the head of the NRA to meet personally with the President, one on one then I agree they should have agreed to meet. However, Obama would never grant them that status, usually reserved for people he wants to impress, or who are in favor, or who have contributed large dollars to his re-election fund.

Others have said exactly what this meeting was intended to achieve. If he had actually wanted an exchange of ideas, there would have been other pro gun groups invited, but that was not the case. It was a political set up with the friendly media just waiting to spin things for their buddy Obama.

I would certainly support the NRA meeting with Obama 1 on 1 also.

As for this coming together of the NRA & the anti gun crowd to draw up new 2A infringements, I'm still sticking to my original opinion I discussed at the beginning of the thread.

Hogxtz
03-25-2011, 5:31 PM
Obama might be your president, but he sure as hell is not mine. Maybe that is also the opinion of the NRA.

Nicley said! I want a bumper sticker that says he's not my president. The NRA did the right thing. Any gun restricitons are bad restrictions, "common sence" or otherwise. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

FreshTapCoke
03-25-2011, 5:38 PM
That's not how the media would spin this, and the administration is well aware of the NRA's position on the issue. What would actually happen is the NRA shows up, and makes their case known. Then they are ignored. New regulations and/or laws are drawn up based on the meeting while completely ignoring the NRA position.

If I was the NAACP and Woodrow Wilson invited me to a meeting to "find common ground" with the Klu Klux Klan, and the Aryan Brotherhood, I sure as heck wouldn't be in attendance.

Drivedabizness
03-25-2011, 6:45 PM
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

It's a straightforward and eloquent response, and I commend them for taking this position.

Excuse me---I can't browse while shporting a woodie

BOFH
03-25-2011, 6:55 PM
Say what you want about the NRA (I know we have some NRA haters here) but they know how to deal with politicians. They did the right thing by not attending this ambush. They (and us) had zero to gain by attending.

DocSkinner
03-25-2011, 10:51 PM
Winning battles, loosing war...

By not showing up, the NRA abdicated its role as representative of gun owners.

Moreover, I think the NRA was afraid to try to support the emotional and fact free assertions LaPierre makes in his American Rifleman editorials.

I quit my NRA membership over this.

90% of success is showing up. If the NRA didn't show up, it had exactly zero chance of successfully influencing the debate at the table.

So, of course, if any new gun regulations come down, LaPierre will blame Obama. It is actually LaPierre who will have failed, if indeed new gun regs come down--which I doubt they will at the Fed level.

The funny thing is, the dems did not even try to get any new gun regs up to Obama when they had majorities in both Houses and were holding the White House. I have the editorials from those years by LaPierre--all emotion, fear, and no facts.

I think LaPierre really fears irrelevancy, as I think the dems have decided that at the Federal level, any new gun regs are vote killers.

If LaPierre never meets with Obama, then LaPierre can keep making his fictions, never having to face the guy he makes accusations about. That's pretty weak, in my book.

CDFingers

DocSkinner
03-25-2011, 11:00 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with La Pierre's position. By the mere act of showing up, one is already agreeing to having his/her Second Amendment rights diminished.

Not at all - THAT is the whole point - the NRA had a chance to show up and make it about everything EXCEPT 2A transgressions. They refused -

As far as I am concerned - the NRA just totally fell for a flanking feint. The left has painted them as wanting machineguns, artillery and antitank missiles sold at Walmart, and being completely out of touch, and the NRA just proved their point for them for the swing vote. They did what the radical side of the membership wanted and appeased them, and lost the middle ground on this one. NRA bought the ploy hook, line, and sinker by NOT showing up.

Well played by the grabbers - total F'up by the NRA on this one. It isn't about just keeping the extreme of teh NRA group happy - its about winning NEW swing vote to make sure the laws (and Constitution ) don't change.

Wining current battles and losing the long term war. Te NRA is cocky right now and their arrogance was masterfully taken advantage of.

DocSkinner
03-25-2011, 11:06 PM
Say what you want about the NRA (I know we have some NRA haters here) but they know how to deal with politicians. They did the right thing by not attending this ambush. They (and us) had zero to gain by attending.

It isn't just about dealing with politicians - its about dealing with PUBLIC opinion that gets or keeps officials in office. Most importantly - SWING offices. They made lots of hard core people happy, and lost the middle. Much like REPs did 4 years ago, and much like DEMs did 2 years ago. It isn't the people that already have their mind set one or the other that matter - its the one's that vary back and forth.

REPs swept in because the people gave the DEMs what they asked for, and they squandered it by turning to infighting instead of being the cohesive force they claimed to be. So swing voters were pissed off and showed that. There was not a sudden resurgence of the REP party, it was just that they weren't the party that just blew the public trust they were given, so they were the NEXT! option.

kcbrown
03-25-2011, 11:14 PM
Not at all - THAT is the whole point - the NRA had a chance to show up and make it about everything EXCEPT 2A transgressions.


Uh huh. And how exactly are they supposed to accomplish that? Wave their magic wand or something?

This isn't their meeting. They don't control the agenda, they don't control the venue, and they don't control the set of participants. The only thing they control is whether or not they show up and, if they show up, what they say. That is all.

The person(s) in control of all those things have an anti-gun agenda. So how exactly do you propose the NRA avoid the ambush, much less actually turn it against the ambushers? Pixie dust?

BOFH
03-25-2011, 11:20 PM
It isn't just about dealing with politicians - its about dealing with PUBLIC opinion that gets or keeps officials in office. Most importantly - SWING offices. They made lots of hard core people happy, and lost the middle. Much like REPs did 4 years ago, and much like DEMs did 2 years ago. It isn't the people that already have their mind set one or the other that matter - its the one's that vary back and forth.

REPs swept in because the people gave the DEMs what they asked for, and they squandered it by turning to infighting instead of being the cohesive force they claimed to be. So swing voters were pissed off and showed that. There was not a sudden resurgence of the REP party, it was just that they weren't the party that just blew the public trust they were given, so they were the NEXT! option.

That's great but what does it have to do with the topic? The NRA had nothing to gain by attending this event, it would have been spun against us. I am glad they did not attend.

TRICKSTER
03-25-2011, 11:27 PM
Doc would have a point if we were talking about rational people with rational arguments. What he fails to understand is that we are not talking about rational people. As far as public opinion goes, the press would have had a field day if the NRA showed up. We already see how they treat anything the anti's say as gospel no matter how inaccurate it is.

BOFH
03-25-2011, 11:33 PM
Doc would have a point if we were talking about rational people with rational arguments. What he fails to understand is that we are not talking about rational people. As far as public opinion goes, the press would have had a field day if the NRA showed up. We already see how they treat anything the anti's say as gospel no matter how inaccurate it is.

Exactly.

loose_electron
03-26-2011, 9:09 AM
So let me ask the question again:

What is the NRA doing to reach out to the general public and sway general opinion?

Preaching to the choir in American Rifleman is not the general public!

Also, what is the NRA doing to control the direction of the discussion in politics? Not showing up for public events, and publishing "position papers" that only is going to get read by NRA membership is not getting the message out there.

kemasa
03-26-2011, 9:40 AM
It speaks volumes that the NRA did not show up and it speaks in a positive manner, to most people. It shows that the NRA is not going to play the President's games. The NRA would get NOTHING by attending and instead only bad would come out of it. With the NRA not attending, there is more talk about it and the actual issues, as well as why the NRA refused to attend.

If the NRA were to take part in the meeting, it would validate the meeting and that is not something that you want to do.

bwiese
03-26-2011, 1:35 PM
So let me ask the question again:

What is the NRA doing to reach out to the general public and sway general opinion?

Preaching to the choir in American Rifleman is not the general public!

Also, what is the NRA doing to control the direction of the discussion in politics? Not showing up for public events, and publishing "position papers" that only is going to get read by NRA membership is not getting the message out there.


The fact is, the message IS getting out there.

There's been a sea change in gun rights perception over the last decade, as reflected by the drive for CCWs - most US states actually have somewhat (or better) rational CCW issuance.

That alone gets "ordinary people" in the game. There are a huge proportion of people that are not 'gun nuts' like us but who are afraid and/or recognize the simple need to protect themselves & their family. Once they're CCWing, they're 'in the fold' and they have something to politically protect.

The composition of US Senate and House also reflects the significant pro-gun tilt across the country.

Going to a public PR drama meeting buys nobody any good PR - hell, it didn't even buy Obama Admin any. It's almost looking like it was a 'feeler'.

I will again say that any sincere effort by the Obama Admin - either the Prez himself or his staffers/politcal aides - to understand NRA & gunnies' viewpoints directly would have been done quietly, privately and I am confident A Senior NRA Person would have communicated (opponents communicate in private all the time - it's the way work gets done).

dixieD
03-26-2011, 2:18 PM
Ok, then you show up to register your disagreement with the ideas and make your case against those restrictions or new regulations being redundant on already existing laws.

This is exactly what happened during the "health care" debates and look where that got us.

I say the NRA is doing the right thing. Don't talk. Factually describe their and the opposition's positions, and work to use it against the gun grabbers in the next election. Voting gun grabbers out of office is the only real solution. Talking to them to find "compromise" is an utter waste of time.

loose_electron
03-26-2011, 2:54 PM
People that hold a CCW are part of the "general" public?

Very funny! I hope you are joking! Thats "preaching to the choir" and you know it.

Voting gun grabbers out of office is the only real solution?
Well, that come right back to my original statement, that you need to build general public support. After all, thats how people get elected.

Funny - nobody seems to be able to provide any examples of the NRA working to build general public support.

Well?

Apocalypsenerd
03-26-2011, 6:00 PM
Hmmm, I think it's a good question. The NRA should be reaching out to the general population and to politicians who might be swayed.

I don't know much, because although I am an NRA member, I do not parse their actions on a regular basis. This is what I am aware of:

1) Eddie Eagle program to teach kids about gun safety. This brings people at a young age into weapons familiarity and responsibility.

2) Engage in public debates with the likes of IANSA and Brady. Some of these debates are in the hearts of anti-2A strongholds, such as England or California.

3) Support ANY politician who is pro-2A, not just Republicans.

Without delving too much into what exactly they are doing, you can see the effectiveness of their actions.

First and foremost they have built the single, most powerful lobby in Washington. In addition they are the LARGEST grass roots organization in America. Think on it. They derive most of their money and influence from individual members. Unlike other political organizations which are generally funded by powerful corporations, the NRA is a coalition of individuals.

Second, they have bucked the political norm in this country. They are NOT beholden to a specific party to the chagrin of Republicans. They support and are in turn supported by the likes of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - (D) Nevada. So in this, they have not only reached out to the general public, but have swayed members of the political force that was most anathema to the 2A.

The NRA has done more for 2A rights in this country than any other group save perhaps the Founding Fathers.

In recent years, they have also helped defend 1A rights, although this was on behalf of the 2A.

A simple internet search and a bit of reading can show you the results of their actions and much more. Not recognizing this is either lazy ignorance or dishonesty.



People that hold a CCW are part of the "general" public?

Very funny! I hope you are joking! Thats "preaching to the choir" and you know it.

Voting gun grabbers out of office is the only real solution?
Well, that come right back to my original statement, that you need to build general public support. After all, thats how people get elected.

Funny - nobody seems to be able to provide any examples of the NRA working to build general public support.

Well?

otteray
03-26-2011, 7:50 PM
Is it just me...
or has this site recently become heavily infected with anti NRA, pro Huff Post/Socialist/Obama Worshipers that are trying to divide our cause regarding supporting the true 2nd Amendment?
Several recent threads make me wonder.

bwiese
03-26-2011, 7:50 PM
Loose_electron,

While you disparage my discussion of CCW, that process has brought a larger number of people in many states into the gun fold. These folks are not necessarily at all real shooters - they're Ma & Pa storeowners, etc. that were outside of gun politics until they found they needed a CCW.

You also changed the subject of this debate when you found you were misinformed.

Whether or not the NRA is doing enough public outreach is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, "Should the NRA send someone into enemy fire to validate Obama's "reasonable" antigun stance?"

No. You don't walk into a setup - all of a sudden, "Why don't you wanna stop killing babies?" questions get asked in front of anti-friendly cameras.

loose_electron
03-26-2011, 9:10 PM
OK, the below is a valid point, but for the most part you don't need a CCW for a storeowner.

As for the comments about people "undermining 2A" etc, Obama support, etc, it seems for some people that the NRA is some sort of divine god. So, I guess questioning the god is a sin or something?

I would like to see the NRA take some constructive paths to building support outside their ranks. I don't think thats a bad thing. I haven't really seen much of that. When you read a lot of NRA copy, its pretty evident that they use a lot of FUD tactics of their own.

People have a right to their own opinions in a free country, that includes, here, both the 1A and the 2A. Having this discussion, started off the NRA going "no show" and everyone here has a right to their opinions and perspectives.

I would like to see the NRA work as a public interest lobby, but also as a lobby to build public support. The public elects the officials who makes the laws we all have to live under. Better general public support leads laws more supportive of what we all want to do.

Loose_electron,

While you disparage my discussion of CCW, that process has brought a larger number of people in many states into the gun fold. These folks are not necessarily at all real shooters - they're Ma & Pa storeowners, etc. that were outside of gun politics until they found they needed a CCW.

You also changed the subject of this debate when you found you were misinformed.

Whether or not the NRA is doing enough public outreach is totally irrelevant to the question at hand, "Should the NRA send someone into enemy fire to validate Obama's "reasonable" antigun stance?"

No. You don't walk into a setup - all of a sudden, "Why don't you wanna stop killing babies?" questions get asked in front of anti-friendly cameras.

Apocalypsenerd
03-26-2011, 9:21 PM
Is it just me...
or has this site recently become heavily infected with anti NRA, pro Huff Post/Socialist/Obama Worshipers that are trying to divide our cause regarding supporting the true 2nd Amendment?
Several recent threads make me wonder.

I have suspected for over a year now that different organizations, including our government, were creating personalities online to speak on forums and make public comments as an effort to create social change.

I first suspected this during when the Cap & Trade bill was being heavily debated. I went through one of the articles and then began reading the commentary. The biggest complaint about that bill was the licensing of personal homes. Most of the people were debating various aspects, but every once in a while a strange comment would appear from someone saying "licensing homes is a done deal." The gist of the strange comments were that it had been in the works and we just needed to accept what was inevitable.

Three things struck me about the comments. The first was that they seemed out of step with the dialogue. They didn't seem to be replying to anyone in paticular. The second was that licensing a home had not been discussed in a meaningful way prior to the Cap & Trade bill. Third, the strange comments were written in language similar to sales and compliance techniques.

Then recently,I read an article on our government's procurement of software that allow operatives to simultaneously control up to 10 fake people online. They "need" these programs to help sway public opinion on forums such as this. So my initial suspicions were seemingly vindicated.

It is not unusual that a political faction would interject a false argument into the debate this way. It is very similar to the leftists who donned tea party regalia and went out into the tea party rallies and made racist comments to associate the rallies with racism. Nor is it unusual that a government, ours or any other, would want to dictate the pace or content of a dialogue.

I was just surprised at the efficiency with which our government would pursue this line of manipulation. I think that the moderators of this forum or others will find seemingly different commentators saying the same thing but posting from the same IP address.

Arondos
03-26-2011, 9:34 PM
Since I am no longer active duty and that means "that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
no longer applies

I can refuse to meet with anyone I want up to and including the President and I believe any other civilian agency or person has that same right.

loose_electron
03-26-2011, 9:35 PM
Its called free speech. First amendment in the bill of rights. Why does everybody get so bloody upset if you question how the NRA does things?

So now I am a political plant to sway things?
Wow - got any other good conspiracy theories you want to share?

The NRA could do a better job with the general public. Is that such a horrible thing to ask for?

berto
03-26-2011, 9:36 PM
Loose_electron,

What do you want NRA to do? Please be specific. What are your ideas and why will they work?

Don29palms
03-26-2011, 9:38 PM
Any gun control restrictions, reasonable or not, are unconstitutional. Restriction is infringement by definition.

TRICKSTER
03-26-2011, 9:46 PM
I wouldn't go as far as Apocalypsenerd, but there does seem to be quite a bit of Saul Alinsky debating tactics going on.

Apocalypsenerd
03-26-2011, 10:15 PM
The Saul Alinsky tactics are old. I think they were first enumerated in a Socratic debate.

I don't mind complaints about the NRA. Having been an off again on again member for close to two decades, there has been NRA positions that I don't like.

A complaint that they haven't reached across the political spectrum is undeniably false. See Harry Reid.

Apocalypsenerd
03-26-2011, 10:35 PM
For those interested:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks

InGrAM
03-27-2011, 1:06 AM
Is it just me...
or has this site recently become heavily infected with anti NRA, pro Huff Post/Socialist/Obama Worshipers that are trying to divide our cause regarding supporting the true 2nd Amendment?
Several recent threads make me wonder.

+1 it really does seem like there are a lot of anti gun folks on this forum. I know I'm not the only one that thinks so either. I do not know if it is because this is a Kalifornia based forum or if it is because a bunch of anti-gun college kids are trying to flood this forum with their professors view points on guns.

If you are not pro-gun get off of calguns for good.

CDFingers
03-27-2011, 7:42 AM
I'll spend my membership dollars here at calguns since I left the NRA. I feel better represented here than there.

CDFingers

jl123
03-27-2011, 8:06 AM
The NRA has nothing to gain by attending, but there is a small chance that they could come out looking bad through spin. Best option? Take their ball and go home.

Cool Gun Wife
03-27-2011, 9:52 AM
What has the NRA done in the last 5 years in the way of general public outreach and building of general public support?

Not among gun owners and hunters, thats preaching to the choir.

Right now, I see things like the show Top Shot, being one of the few general public things on the subject, thats oriented to the general public, and done in an informative and constructive manner. Overall, Hollywood has twisted the topic of guns to its own needs, and the general public gets their images from there.

If the NRA is invited to anything like this, I would like to see them find a way to turn it into something where they can gain ground with the public, rather than be politically used. Then they would be doing something useful.

Those things are mainstream media events, and as every politician knows, you take advantage of those in any way that you can.

Don't get me wrong -- I do feel the NRA is doing valuable things on the litigation side, but I don't see anything on the public relations side that's helping the cause.

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of Calguns,

I think our original poster is "asking" for help or information merely as a set up. Our Troll friend, Loose, here seems to be either dense, as numerous valid arguments have be postulated, or trying to fuel some sort of anti-NRA sentiment on Calguns. Either way, it is time to find a new thread to play on as this one is not going to produce anything positive to further our 2A cause.

GrayWolf09
03-28-2011, 8:19 AM
By not showing up, the NRA abdicated its role as representative of gun owners.

Moreover, I think the NRA was afraid to try to support the emotional and fact free assertions LaPierre makes in his American Rifleman editorials.

I quit my NRA membership over this.

90% of success is showing up. If the NRA didn't show up, it had exactly zero chance of successfully influencing the debate at the table.

So, of course, if any new gun regulations come down, LaPierre will blame Obama. It is actually LaPierre who will have failed, if indeed new gun regs come down--which I doubt they will at the Fed level.

The funny thing is, the dems did not even try to get any new gun regs up to Obama when they had majorities in both Houses and were holding the White House. I have the editorials from those years by LaPierre--all emotion, fear, and no facts.

I think LaPierre really fears irrelevancy, as I think the dems have decided that at the Federal level, any new gun regs are vote killers.

If LaPierre never meets with Obama, then LaPierre can keep making his fictions, never having to face the guy he makes accusations about. That's pretty weak, in my book.

CDFingers

+1 Well said! I got a call from the NRA a couple of nights ago. They wanted my money. From the text of the call which was NRA approved it was apparent that the first priority was to defeat President Obama in the 2012 election. My gun rights were a second priority at best.

Somebody needs to educate these people that the political landscape is changing. Political parties are becoming less and less significant. In a few years the Republican Party might be the third party in California behind the Democrats and Decline to State. Our gun rights are too valuable to be tied to right wing politics and politicians. We need to start forming broad coalitions across party lines. I do not want my money going to support right wing social causes like anti-abortion or anti gay rights.:mad:

I am also tired of people who question the wisdom of the NRA being labelled anti-gun, trolls, or socialists simply for asking the questions.

tankarian
03-28-2011, 9:12 AM
I am also tired of people who question the wisdom of the NRA being labelled anti-gun, trolls, or socialists simply for asking the questions.

Why, because truth hurts?

rp55
03-28-2011, 9:25 AM
I think the President (or his staff) were showing their ignorance of gun culture. What they really should have done was invite SASS to the meeting. He'd let them keep their single actions and they'd sign off on a ban on EBRs and >10 round mags. Then they could crow about the support they have from gun owners.

loosewreck
03-28-2011, 9:31 AM
We need to start forming broad coalitions across party lines. I do not want my money going to support right wing social causes like anti-abortion or anti gay rights.:mad:

I am also tired of people who question the wisdom of the NRA being labelled anti-gun, trolls, or socialists simply for asking the questions.

I usually reserve political discussions to my close friends and family, but I strongly agree with you. Well said bro.

echoarms
03-28-2011, 9:42 AM
No, winning is when the public supports you so much that there never is a need to get lawyers involved.

If you have popular public support, you don't need restrictions on magazines, bullet buttons, one shot exemptions to get around the stupid roster list, people walking around with a copy of the fine print of the CA PC and similar stuff.

All of that stuff would not have gotten dumped on us if 99% of CA was for the 2A

As for poker and cars, I do just fine thanks...

Just trying to ask some questions that might help the cause, pity to see you got to get into personal attacks because you don't like my perspective.
Using this logic, we would not have Obamacare, given that an overwhelming majority of the people opposed it.

AaronHorrocks
03-28-2011, 9:43 AM
Virtually all new legal regulations placed on firearms in the last 77 years have been ineffective in dealing with their illegal use. We all suffer under stupid regulations where knowledgeable people could have helped stop those new rules/regulations.

Correction: Changed 30 years, to 77 years. You forgot to include the NFA.

G60
03-28-2011, 9:46 AM
Middle Ground Sham (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2011/mar/28/TDOPIN01-middle-ground-sham-ar-931672/?referer=http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftimesdispatch.com%2Far%2F9316 72%2F%3Fsms_ss%3Dfacebook%26at_xt%3D4d90b75109e0bd 31%252C0&h=837aa&shorturl=http://timesdispatch.com/ar/931672/)'

"But while the come-let-us-reason-together approach gets less use in politics than it should, there are realms where it is merely a sham."

bwiese
03-28-2011, 12:08 PM
Its called free speech. First amendment in the bill of rights. Why does everybody get so bloody upset if you question how the NRA does things?

So now I am a political plant to sway things?
Wow - got any other good conspiracy theories you want to share?

The NRA could do a better job with the general public. Is that such a horrible thing to ask for?

Perhaps it could, perhaps it doesn't make any difference either.

The general public on average doesn't vote pro- or anti-gun. It's way down on the list of their concerns. And even the antigunners diliute their vote in a whole host of other competing concerns, while a large fraction of NRA members are (or close to) single-issue voting.


What they really should have done was invite SASS to the meeting. He'd let them keep their single actions and they'd sign off on a ban on EBRs and >10 round mags. Then they could crow about the support they have from gun owners.

SASSers are good people but politically naive - and what happened was they got an NRA tuncoat (I think it was Robert Ricker) to help them in CA.



from the text of the call which was NRA approved it was apparent that the first priority was to defeat President Obama in the 2012 election. My gun rights were a second priority at best.

If you're pro-gun, why would you NOT want Obama defeated?
He appointed two antis to the Supreme Court, is appointing antis to the Federal bench, and is trying to push the most antigun director into the BATF they've ever had.

The mere fact that he has not voted/driven gun legislation is simply a reflection of national gun culture being broadly expressed in House and Senate in addition his relatively weak position in relation to those bodies. So he's taking his antigun fight to other venues.

Frankly given our control of Congress, I'd prefer have Obama try gun legislation than do regulatory runarounds thru BATF bureaucracy.

If Obama were neutral, then your comments would have a modicum merit. As he is not, yours do not either.

cruising7388
03-28-2011, 12:20 PM
+1 it really does seem like there are a lot of anti gun folks on this forum. I know I'm not the only one that thinks so either. I do not know if it is because this is a Kalifornia based forum or if it is because a bunch of anti-gun college kids are trying to flood this forum with their professors view points on guns.

If you are not pro-gun get off of calguns for good.

I meander through most of the Calgun threads but I haven't run across the anti-gun posts. What thread are they on?

InGrAM
03-28-2011, 1:18 PM
I meander through most of the Calgun threads but I haven't run across the anti-gun posts. What thread are they on?

Its random posts here and there but mainly in the political threads.

If you vote for anti-gun politicians or support anti-gun politicians on either side (which includes statements these politicians have made, IMO) you are for anti-gun legislation and there for you are anti second amendment.

Just stating how I feel about my gun rights. I would never vote for someone that is openly anti-gun. (including past voting records, and past/present affiliations)

I know the flames will begin. But honestly I am just stating my Opinion.

GrayWolf09
03-28-2011, 1:19 PM
If you're pro-gun, why would you NOT want Obama defeated?
He appointed two antis to the Supreme Court, is appointing antis to the Federal bench, and is trying to push the most antigun director into the BATF they've ever had.

The mere fact that he has not voted/driven gun legislation is simply a reflection of national gun culture being broadly expressed in House and Senate in addition his relatively weak position in relation to those bodies. So he's taking his antigun fight to other venues.

Frankly given our control of Congress, I'd prefer have Obama try gun legislation than do regulatory runarounds thru BATF bureaucracy.

If Obama were neutral, then your comments would have a modicum merit. As he is not, yours do not either.

If you are a single issue voter then your comments might make some logical sense. But there are a whole multiplicity of issues to consider.

President Obama had huge majorities in both houses of Congress for two years yet he did not propose any legislation to restrict gun rights.

President Obama has shown a willingness to compromise. He continued to negotiate with the Republicans on health care even when it was apparent to all that they were not negotiating in good faith and were merely stalling.

It is too early to tell how his Supreme Court appointees affect the balance of the court especially in the area of gun rights although even in a worst case scenario it is still a mixed bag. The Citizens United decision may surpass Dred Scott as the absolute worst Supreme Court decision of all time.

I think you are incredibly naive if you believe that those who have no hesitancy in trampling on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution will somehow protect your Second Amendment rights no matter what. They spout Second Amendment rhetoric because it gets them votes. They will throw you and your precious rights under the bus whenever it becomes expedient for them to do so.

bwiese
03-28-2011, 1:33 PM
If you are a single issue voter then your comments might make some logical sense. But there are a whole multiplicity of issues to consider.

But there are a TON of us who are, so that's what controls the NRA.


President Obama had huge majorities in both houses of Congress for two years yet he did not propose any legislation to restrict gun rights.

Because he friggin' COULDN'T.

The Rep seats that changed to Dems in 2004, 2006 and 2008 maintained or increased the pro-gun vote.

President Obama has shown a willingness to compromise. He continued to negotiate with the Republicans on health care even when it was apparent to all that they were not negotiating in good faith and were merely stalling.

This is about guns, not healthcare. Single-issue, remember?

It is too early to tell how his Supreme Court appointees affect the balance of the court especially in the area of gun rights although even in a worst case scenario it is still a mixed bag.

He knowingly put antigunners on the SC. He was warned and yet he pressed on. Since he moved against a gunrights stance, it's necessary to punish him. Furthermore, I'm worried about appointments to Federal bench as well.

John Lott also cornered Obama several years ago in Chicago and Obama expressed opinion that people shouldn't own [hand]guns. He ain't gonna change regardless of how he's trying to appear centrist/moderate.

In addition, his nomination of Traver to head BATFE puts the lie to ANY idea of 'balance', semi-'neutraility', 'reasonableness', etc.

Honestly, I'd again much rather have Obama focus his antigun efforts on legislation because I know he's well-constaned there.

This attack on Obama & admin is entirely valid as per gunrights, and has nothing to do with "birther", "citizenship" etc BS the far right nutballs talk about./



The Citizens United decision may surpass Dred Scott as the absolute worst Supreme Court decision of all time.

Again, what does this have to do with RKBA and NRA politics theme? You're changing the subject in the middle of the gunrights discussion.

[But aside from that, I'm sorry you believe that shareolders and company owners don't get free speech rights as good as thug unions. The only conclusion I can draw to the anti-Citizens United stance is that the opponents have severe worries their ideas don't have enough merit to be of any use.

GrayWolf09
03-28-2011, 7:30 PM
But there are a TON of us who are, so that's what controls the NRA.

I believe you are a single issue voter, but I am not so sure there are many like you. Remember all the flack you took about Harry Reid being pro 2A?

Because he friggin' COULDN'T.

The Rep seats that changed to Dems in 2004, 2006 and 2008 maintained or increased the pro-gun vote.

So he is a pragmatist and he still can't, so why the uproar?

This is about guns, not healthcare. Single-issue, remember?

I was merely trying to show that one of his highest ideals is bi-partisanship. So he will not try to ram anything through, much to my dismay.

He knowingly put antigunners on the SC. He was warned and yet he pressed on. Since he moved against a gunrights stance, it's necessary to punish him. Furthermore, I'm worried about appointments to Federal bench as well.

Nobody knows how someone will be once they get appointed to the Supreme Court. There have been some real surprises. His picks were far less partisan and far less political than those of his predecessor.

John Lott also cornered Obama several years ago in Chicago and Obama expressed opinion that people shouldn't own [hand]guns. He ain't gonna change regardless of how he's trying to appear centrist/moderate.

In addition, his nomination of Traver to head BATFE puts the lie to ANY idea of 'balance', semi-'neutraility', 'reasonableness', etc.

All the more reason not to go out of your way to antagonize him like the NRA seems bent on doing. Why did a conservative like Lisa Murkowski vote to end "Don't ask don't tell". Because the right wing theocrats backed Joe Miller and she wanted them to have a big "shout out".

Honestly, I'd again much rather have Obama focus his antigun efforts on legislation because I know he's well-constaned there.

This attack on Obama & admin is entirely valid as per gunrights, and has nothing to do with "birther", "citizenship" etc BS the far right nutballs talk about./

Then why are those the folks speaking at the NRA Convention? Palin, Beck, Hannity?

Again, what does this have to do with RKBA and NRA politics theme? You're changing the subject in the middle of the gunrights discussion.

Simply this. I am not a one issue voter and for me it is a mixed bag. The same justices that tend to vote for 2A rights also gave us the Citizens United decision. Of course, corporations have free speech rights. They own most of Congress already through their lobbyists. When one of the pressing issues is that Washington is awash in money, why do you overturn 100 years of case law to give corporations the right to buy elections? By the way I don't believe unions should have that right either. Remember President Obama's State of the Union Address when he predicted the next election would be awash in corporate funds and Justice Alito shook his head no? Who turned out to be right?



Peace :)

trevilli
03-28-2011, 7:45 PM
So let me ask the question again:

What is the NRA doing to reach out to the general public and sway general opinion?

Preaching to the choir in American Rifleman is not the general public!

Also, what is the NRA doing to control the direction of the discussion in politics? Not showing up for public events, and publishing "position papers" that only is going to get read by NRA membership is not getting the message out there. Are you an NRA member? I apologize if you mentioned it before and I didn't catch it. If you don't like the NRA's position, why don't you join and try changing it from the inside? That's where you'll have the most effect. Complaining about it here...well you can see for yourself how much that will change the NRA.

trevilli
03-28-2011, 7:59 PM
It is too early to tell how his Supreme Court appointees affect the balance of the court especially in the area of gun rights although even in a worst case scenario it is still a mixed bag. The Citizens United decision may surpass Dred Scott as the absolute worst Supreme Court decision of all time.
Did Justice Sotomayor's opinion on the McDonald case coincide with your own? Do you have any doubt whatsoever how Kagan would vote? She was one of the primary forces behind the AW ban under Clinton. Do you agree with that position? As for the Citizen's United decision, have you read it for yourself, are you relying on the analysis of others? I believe there are legal scholars out there who will say that McDonald and Heller overturned all the previous case law as well. The right to bear arms had previously been interpreted as a collective right for the militia (I may be wrong, but I know we have enough people here who will correct my error).

I think you are incredibly naive if you believe that those who have no hesitancy in trampling on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution will somehow protect your Second Amendment rights no matter what. They spout Second Amendment rhetoric because it gets them votes. They will throw you and your precious rights under the bus whenever it becomes expedient for them to do so. I don't disagree with most of what you are saying here. But do you believe it's all a sham? You must not, or else what would be the point? Until such time though, as they do throw us under the bus, what would you have us do? Support the President who very clearly aligns himself with the "reasonable" restriction of our gun rights?

GOEX FFF
03-28-2011, 8:42 PM
But there are a TON of us who are, so that's what controls the NRA.

^^^ That

I believe you are a single issue voter, but I am not so sure there are many like you.

There are more single issue 2A voters than you think. ;)

otalps
03-28-2011, 8:51 PM
...

“How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.”

GOEX FFF
03-28-2011, 9:15 PM
The NRA could do a better job with the general public. Is that such a horrible thing to ask for?

I think what you don't get here is that the 4.3 million dues paying members ARE the NRA.
You and some others talk like the NRA is some entity apart from it's members..it's not.

Perhaps you are new to the fact, that It's ALWAYS been - "I'm the NRA and I vote" not "I'm a member of the NRA and they vote for me"

Anytime someone goes public who is an NRA member, that IS the NRA going public..... and plenty high ranking members do.
I don't see that you said you were a member, but why don't you join for $25 measly dollars..THEN go public yourself, because once someone joins, they ARE the representing NRA. Do YOUR part as the NRA to stimulate public support rather than complain about others not doing it for you.
Especially in this case that is a pitfall into the anti media's tricks.

Apocalypsenerd
03-28-2011, 10:13 PM
I think what you don't get here is that the 4.3 million dues paying members ARE the NRA.
You and some others talk like the NRA is some entity apart from it's members..it's not.

Perhaps you are new to the fact, that It's ALWAYS been - "I'm the NRA and I vote" not "I'm a member of the NRA and they vote for me"

Anytime someone goes public who is an NRA member, that IS the NRA going public..... and plenty high ranking members do.
I don't see that you said you were a member, but why don't you join for $25 measly dollars..THEN go public yourself, because once someone joins, they ARE the representing NRA. Do YOUR part as the NRA to stimulate public support rather than complain about others not doing it for you.
Especially in this case that is a pitfall into the anti media's tricks.

That's very well said. The NRA arguably the only special interest group that is grassroots, and not funded and controlled by large corporations/unions.

bwiese
03-28-2011, 11:02 PM
I believe you are a single issue voter, but I am not so sure there are many like you. Remember all the flack you took about Harry Reid being pro 2A?

Some fair fraction of those voters thought Sharron Angle was more pro-gun than Harry Reid: they were voting pro-gun, they just weren't being deeply analytical, and some of the local *state* organizers drifted from the single-issue message.

BTW, some NRA organizers in the West (and their wives) have received threats from the TPers over the Sharron Angle issue.


So he is a pragmatist and he still can't, so why the uproar?


Because he's a pragmatist *legislatively* and is acting outside that channel where he still has some vestiges of control.



I was merely trying to show that one of his highest ideals is bi-partisanship. So he will not try to ram anything through, much to my dismay.

Bwaah. He's only being bipartisan because he has to to do anything, people realize what a flop he is.



Nobody knows how someone will be once they get appointed to the Supreme Court. There have been some real surprises. His picks were far less partisan and far less political than those of his predecessor.


By your determination. Most are urban big gov't statists judging by what's coming down the pike for Federal judges.


All the more reason not to go out of your way to antagonize him like the NRA seems bent on doing.

NRA maybe did antagonize on Sotomayor when it was gonna happen anywaysince the vote was gonna be on party lines regardless of guns - but then NRA could hold legislators responsible afterward and make 'em kiss up on other legislation.

Antagonizing against Tarver is a directly-gun-only-focused issue and we may have more chance of toppling or neutralizing Tarver than changing Sotomayor. Fortunately Tarver ls dropping into a hot BATF-self-inflicted landing zone where he's gonna have to do a lot of cleanup just to break even without doing new initiatives. We're actually lucky Melson & Holder did 'Gunwalker' when they did.

Then why are those the folks speaking at the NRA Convention? Palin, Beck, Hannity?

The NRA convention is about baseline America membership and fundraising. What's speechified there is not necessarily how Wayne & Chris conduct biz in DC :)

GOEX FFF
03-29-2011, 12:39 AM
That's very well said. The NRA arguably the only special interest group that is grassroots, and not funded and controlled by large corporations/unions.

:) ^^^ That's exactly right.

NRA is also the largest and oldest standing grass-roots organization today next to the NAACP as far as civil rights are concerned, since even though NRA was established earlier (1871) being much older than the NAACP, it wasn’t a civil rights organization until the 1930's after the NAACP in 1909.
But no doubt still holds true as being the largest and oldest grass-roots organization to date. And I'm proud to be the NRA.

NRA knows what it's doing...not succumbing to anti-gun public "politricks" is one of those things.

41M
03-29-2011, 8:46 AM
The OP's seems to feel the NRA is being unreasonable, however, with past gun control efforts in mind, his first clue that the Obama administration is up to no good on this issue is that the article to which he linked was in the NYT. A careful reading of that article points to the the NYT already being on the side of gun control advocates.

GrayWolf09
03-29-2011, 4:50 PM
Some fair fraction of those voters thought Sharron Angle was more pro-gun than Harry Reid: they were voting pro-gun, they just weren't being deeply analytical, and some of the local *state* organizers drifted from the single-issue message.

BTW, some NRA organizers in the West (and their wives) have received threats from the TPers over the Sharron Angle issue.

Because he's a pragmatist *legislatively* and is acting outside that channel where he still has some vestiges of control.

Bwaah. He's only being bipartisan because he has to to do anything, people realize what a flop he is.

By your determination. Most are urban big gov't statists judging by what's coming down the pike for Federal judges.


NRA maybe did antagonize on Sotomayor when it was gonna happen anywaysince the vote was gonna be on party lines regardless of guns - but then NRA could hold legislators responsible afterward and make 'em kiss up on other legislation.

Antagonizing against Tarver is a directly-gun-only-focused issue and we may have more chance of toppling or neutralizing Tarver than changing Sotomayor. Fortunately Tarver ls dropping into a hot BATF-self-inflicted landing zone where he's gonna have to do a lot of cleanup just to break even without doing new initiatives. We're actually lucky Melson & Holder did 'Gunwalker' when they did.


The NRA convention is about baseline America membership and fundraising. What's speechified there is not necessarily how Wayne & Chris conduct biz in DC :)

Bill, thank you for taking the time to respond to me and the grace in your responses. My concern is simply this. As you know the political landscape is changing. The influence of the two major political parties is waning. We are approaching a time where the voter registration will be 40% Independent 30% Democratic and 30% Republican. In such a climate party affiliation alone will not be enough to carry any issue. Broad coalitions across party lines will be needed.

Also those social issues the Republicans are so fond of championing like rolling back a woman's right to choose or opposing gay marriage will be history. Whether the Republicans know it or not they are fighting a rearguard action at best. Among the youth (16-34) the overwhelming majority (85-90%) believe a woman should have the right to choose and really don't care if two people of the same gender get married. As my generation dies off and this one takes over, those issues will become moot.

I am afraid the NRA is climbing into bed with the Republican Party in their choice of speakers and in their opposition to President Obama. If they are I believe they are hitching their wagon to a falling star and I would hate to see my gun rights jeopardized as a result. There are a number of people who believe as I do. At the last Cow Palace gun show I was working at the Calguns booth when a guy came up handed me $100 and said, I want to fight for gun rights but I do not want to support Sarah Palin. By the way, I am a member of the NRA and will continue to be, in spite of my concerns.

I also want to personally thank you also for all your efforts on my behalf and on behalf of all of us in furthering our gun rights.

Dirtbozz
03-29-2011, 5:35 PM
+1 it really does seem like there are a lot of anti gun folks on this forum. I know I'm not the only one that thinks so either. I do not know if it is because this is a Kalifornia based forum or if it is because a bunch of anti-gun college kids are trying to flood this forum with their professors view points on guns.

If you are not pro-gun get off of calguns for good.

When an organization like CalGuns becomes effective, it becomes a target. In my opinion, thats whats going on here.

When the left is threatened, the left attacks (with pure emotion, as they have no substance).

Freedom of speech is important. It should be protected. Free speech will make these left wingers look like fools, as fools they are. :43:

berto
03-29-2011, 6:32 PM
Perhaps NRA should invite Obama to speak at the convention. Think he'll take them up? What will the "NRA should show up" crowd say if Obama turns down the invite?

Apocalypsenerd
03-29-2011, 6:38 PM
I am afraid the NRA is climbing into bed with the Republican Party in their choice of speakers and in their opposition to President Obama. If they are I believe they are hitching their wagon to a falling star and I would hate to see my gun rights jeopardized as a result. There are a number of people who believe as I do. At the last Cow Palace gun show I was working at the Calguns booth when a guy came up handed me $100 and said, I want to fight for gun rights but I do not want to support Sarah Palin. By the way, I am a member of the NRA and will continue to be, in spite of my concerns.


In the last two decades, the NRA has made more in-roads into the middle and left political areas of our nation. Prior to 1994 the only politicians who would reliably vote pro-2A were Republicans and Southern Democrats. Since 1994, after the political bloodbath the Democrats suffered at the hands of the NRA, more of the D's at Federal and state levels have voted pro-2A. Harry Reid is a good example of this.

They NRA has been getting into bed with more people, not getting into bed with the Republicans. A better analogy is that they are inviting more people into bed with them and the Republicans.

Some D's simply will not vote pro-2A. Many have been moving more in our direction though.

GOEX FFF
03-29-2011, 7:38 PM
Originally Posted by InGrAM
+1 it really does seem like there are a lot of anti gun folks on this forum. I know I'm not the only one that thinks so either. I do not know if it is because this is a Kalifornia based forum or if it is because a bunch of anti-gun college kids are trying to flood this forum with their professors view points on guns.

If you are not pro-gun get off of calguns for good.

bRaDy moles. I wouldn't doubt even Helmke himself has made an account to lurk.

loose_electron
03-30-2011, 6:52 PM
Are you an NRA member? I apologize if you mentioned it before and I didn't catch it. If you don't like the NRA's position, why don't you join and try changing it from the inside? That's where you'll have the most effect. Complaining about it here...well you can see for yourself how much that will change the NRA.

Very first posting in the thread, yes I am a member of the NRA.

However, like any other organization that I am a member of (or anyone else) that does not mean that I agree totally with the organization on all things.

Sorry I have been away from the discussion for a few days, just got back from Las Vegas, and yes, I did stop at the "The Gun Store" for a taste of automatic weapons. (fun!)

Otherwise, I am getting some good insight from peoples comments here. I get the impression that many vote based on a single issue. That bothers me quite a bit, because that means a politician can get a vote if they tell you what you want to hear on one thing.

As you watch politicians wrangle for position and votes, you need to see where they truly stand on multiple issues. Figuring that out can be a bit messy, to say the least.

loose_electron
03-30-2011, 7:02 PM
The OP's seems to feel the NRA is being unreasonable, however, with past gun control efforts in mind, his first clue that the Obama administration is up to no good on this issue is that the article to which he linked was in the NYT. A careful reading of that article points to the the NYT already being on the side of gun control advocates.

Probably so, but it was a reliable news source reporting the event. (Less biased than Fox or HuffPo?)

As for NYT being on the "anti" side of the fence? Well, that comes right back to my original concept of building general public support and understanding.

Convince the majority. With that you don't have to "lawyer up" to protect what you got.

Public outreach to the masses is a good things and I would like to see the NRA do more of that. Having this conversation with my shooting friends, I encourage them to introduce people to the sport.

Apocalypsenerd
03-30-2011, 11:30 PM
Probably so, but it was a reliable news source reporting the event. (Less biased than Fox or HuffPo?)

As for NYT being on the "anti" side of the fence? Well, that comes right back to my original concept of building general public support and understanding.

Convince the majority. With that you don't have to "lawyer up" to protect what you got.

Public outreach to the masses is a good things and I would like to see the NRA do more of that. Having this conversation with my shooting friends, I encourage them to introduce people to the sport.

The NYT has been accused of being very biased. Most of my reading of the paper suggests otherwise. The NYT online might be more liberally biased, but I don't spend a lot of time there.

Your complaint of the NRA not reaching out enough could use more description:

What context are you discussing? In relation to other political groups?

Your arguments have been fairly general: "The NRA doesn't reach out enough. It needs to reach out more."

Those are general statements that apply to pretty much every politically active group. Considering that the NRA is arguably the largest grass roots organization, and that it has a proven track record of reaching across the political and public spectrum, why don't you give us specifics?

bwiese
03-30-2011, 11:53 PM
Public outreach to the masses is a good things and I would like to see the NRA do more of that. Having this conversation with my shooting friends, I encourage them to introduce people to the sport.

This latter statement is valid and is substantively different than advocating that NRA join Obama for an Obama PR gig, where NRA would be cornered into answering 'when did you stop shooting babies' questions.

Goosebrown
03-31-2011, 1:40 AM
@Loose. I think you're wrong. Just because a president asks you to go to a meeting doesn't mean you should go to it. AFIK, the president doesn't have subpoena power so if you don't want to go you shouldn't. I agree with the NRA on this meeting as well because it is all about them being dragged into a press op where they will be drowned out by the anti-gun voices.

loose_electron
03-31-2011, 11:07 AM
@Loose. I think you're wrong. Just because a president asks you to go to a meeting doesn't mean you should go to it. AFIK, the president doesn't have subpoena power so if you don't want to go you shouldn't. I agree with the NRA on this meeting as well because it is all about them being dragged into a press op where they will be drowned out by the anti-gun voices.

In this case I do agree that you have the freedom of not going. No problem there. However, showing up to such things can be taken in two paths - get a platform for your message, or get used "as a platform" for somebody else's message.

Many here are saying that the NRA avoids this so they don't get used as a platform. That I understand, but I think if they made an effort to participate, and used it as a message platform, they can make a better case to a wider audience.

Keep in mind, whats in American Rifleman, or Guns and Ammo magazines is not the audience that you need to reach. That's a very small part of the country, and they don't need to be convinced.

Showing up to meetings, making the case for enforcement of already existing laws and no need for further regulations and laws, getting rid of stupid regulations that are ineffective, those are all challenges I would like to see the NRA in the middle of.

Here in CA I think the CGF represents our needs a lot more, because of the nature of CA and its stupid mindless rules and regulations.

Biggest lobby/interest groups in the USA? I think the AARP is the biggest. Going to Wikipedia:
NRA = 4 million
NAACP = 0.3 million
AARP = 40 million
The power of the lobby is the money and the votes, so AARP has a lot of talking power in Washington I would think.

As for reaching out to the community, and specifics of how to do it? I think youth training and activity programs are a good possibility. I took an NRA shooting program as a kid, but that stuff doesn't seem to be out there any more.

A lot of us got a 22 rifle put in our hands as a kid, and were taught how to safely use them -- that's where it starts. But exposing adults to the whats real with guns, and debunking the Hollywood image should be part of the effort as well.

With the popularity of cop shows on TV there is a very strong image there which probably drives a lot of the anti-gun legislation and laws.

It is pretty clear that a lot of the gun laws (at least here in CA) were written by clueless legislators.

Wherryj
03-31-2011, 11:21 AM
The purpose of the meeting is to find new ways to restrict gun rights. NRA showing up at that kind of meeting would by some be interpreted as a validation of the meeting's gun rights restriction goals.

If this were a 1 on 1 with the president you'd have a point, but thats not what the invitation was for.

Leaving it an administration meeting with only anti-constitution groups gives the correct impression though on what is going on. Its no longer Obama and both parties coming together to come up with more "common sense" constitutional restrictions, but instead Obama meeting with anti-rights groups to find new ways to restrict your rights. Its also then less likely Obama would run with any new restrictions the meeting comes up with due to how bad it now looks.

The NRA was specifically invited so they could be used by the administration to validate any "consensus" that comes from this meeting. NRA was right to give the middle finger.

All my opinion of course, but I believe I'm correct here.

Well, that and I don't think that it matters very much for the pro-2A side if the NRA had shown up. If the administration wants to pursue more restrictions of gun rights, they'll do it whether the NRA is there to object or not.

It's not as if the administration really wants the NRA's input. They already know pretty much what their stance is on most topics. The NRA doesn't keep these things as a secret agenda. They are pretty straight forward with what they stand for.

kcbrown
03-31-2011, 1:08 PM
Many here are saying that the NRA avoids this so they don't get used as a platform. That I understand, but I think if they made an effort to participate, and used it as a message platform, they can make a better case to a wider audience.


And again, how do you propose they do that? Wave their magic wand? Throw pixie dust? Use the appropriate, obscure incantation?

They don't control the venue. They don't control the participants. They don't control the topics. They don't control anything about the discussion at all. Obama does.

What kind of voodoo do you think the NRA can conjure up in order to somehow magically turn the event from Obama's message platform to theirs?

loose_electron
03-31-2011, 1:48 PM
What kind of voodoo do you think the NRA can conjure up in order to somehow magically turn the event from Obama's message platform to theirs?


Its called taking a political position. Pretty much every politician has gone to a meeting, come out after the fact, and made statements to the press:

"Our organization deeply disagrees with the xxx position. Sufficient laws and regulations are in place to deal with xxx and have served us well already. Recent tragic events were in clear violation of existing laws and the xxx organization should not be taking advantage of this tragic event to promote their political agenda.

This meeting served no positive purpose in promoting safety and members of the XYZ organization should realize that the XXX laws already in place apply here."

Feel free to fill in the xxx and xyxz stuff. You get the idea.
Words to that effect, are done with a wider audience than
throwing a position paper up on the web, that nobody will bother to read.

You want to win public support, you have to appear in public.

kcbrown
03-31-2011, 2:03 PM
Its called taking a political position. Pretty much every politician has gone to a meeting, come out after the fact, and made statements to the press:

"Our organization deeply disagrees with the xxx position. Sufficient laws and regulations are in place to deal with xxx and have served us well already. Recent tragic events were in clear violation of existing laws and the xxx organization should not be taking advantage of this tragic event to promote their political agenda.

This meeting served no positive purpose in promoting safety and members of the XYZ organization should realize that the XXX laws already in place apply here."

Feel free to fill in the xxx and xyxz stuff. You get the idea.
Words to that effect, are done with a wider audience than
throwing a position paper up on the web, that nobody will bother to read.

You want to win public support, you have to appear in public.


And what, exactly, prevents the NRA from doing that even if they don't attend the event? Worse, what, aside from the NRA's non-attendance, prevents the Obama administration from claiming that the NRA's attendance validates Obama's stated purpose of the event?

Nothing, that's what.

There really is nothing to be gained by the NRA attending this. I agree that the NRA needs to be reaching out to the public. Attending this event isn't the way to do that.

dantodd
03-31-2011, 2:12 PM
I guess the NRA could work with a pro-2A legislative caucus and hold a "Restoration of Gun Rights Meeting" and invite the Administration and gun-control groups to attend and help identify existing laws that should be repealed in light of Heller and McDonald.

Do you suppose Brady and Holder would send people to such a meeting?

otteray
03-31-2011, 9:07 PM
Has Obama submitted an NRA membership app. yet?
Has he offered to speak at a pro gun gathering?
Have his little girls reviewed the "Eddy Eagle" program yet?
I don't recall Michelle going all ga-ga in a fashionable tweed sport shooting outfit while praising the kid's program.
I don't really think they believe that the second amendment is really necessary for the commoners.

loose_electron
04-01-2011, 9:28 AM
And what, exactly, prevents the NRA from doing that even if they don't attend the event?

By doing it as a part of this process you are reaching people that don't normally see you. It's political, yes, but making the appearance, you are given the opportunity to be viewed by people who are not in your inner circle.

NRA events get attended by NRA members and gun owners. That's not the group you need to be reaching out to.

Any successful politician knows if you are going to get elected, you need to take any and all opportunities to present your case and what you stand for. This is very much a political process.

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 9:41 AM
Ok, then you show up to register your disagreement with the ideas and make your case against those restrictions or new regulations being redundant on already existing laws.

^^^^This...

They should have gone and talked to him. They're a political advocacy/lobby organization. When the most powerful politician in the U.S. (...arguably, the entire world) asks you to come discus your issue, you should go and discuss your issue!!! That's what the membership is paying you to do!!!

Personally, I don't think that Obama knows much about the ins-and-out of gun laws in this country. Gun owners could have benefitted from the NRA discussing the issues with him.

That's not how the media would spin this,

Could it be any worse than they're spinning it now? Because the way they're spinning it now is that we're arrogant, ignorant and hostile. This is not what we need...

Perspective from "the other side": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EP4jQn1dM

kemasa
04-01-2011, 9:46 AM
I think it makes more of a statement for the NRA to NOT show up and play Obama's game. Yes, the liberals will make a big deal of it, but I suspect it will get more press that way. The NRA would not really be able to really discuss the issues, it is a waste of time. Do you REALLY think that Obama would listen to anything that the NRA has to say? If so, Obama could meet privately with the NRA, but I seriously doubt that he would do that as how it would make him look.

Yes, there is the media spin, but the question is how are people really viewing this. Personally, I prefer that the NRA not play their game as it does not help firearms rights.

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 10:02 AM
I think it makes more of a statement for the NRA to NOT show up and play Obama's game. Yes, the liberals will make a big deal of it, but I suspect it will get more press that way. The NRA would not really be able to really discuss the issues, it is a waste of time. Do you REALLY think that Obama would listen to anything that the NRA has to say? If so, Obama could meet privately with the NRA, but I seriously doubt that he would do that as how it would make him look.

Yes, there is the media spin, but the question is how are people really viewing this. Personally, I prefer that the NRA not play their game as it does not help firearms rights.

As a gun owner, you're perfectly justified to feel this way. For the most part, I agree with your perspective. However, the issue that concerns me is the perspective of voters who aren't gun owners. The "undecided" voters, that actually make up the majority of the voting block. In other words: The "sheeple" who let these types of talking points sway their opinons.

Even if we curse those people as "morons", they still vote. Like it or not, we need as many as we can get on our side. ;)

kemasa
04-01-2011, 10:15 AM
Those uneducated people, not morons, may wonder why the NRA would not meet with the president and start to think about things and/or investigate. If the NRA attends, then there is no press, not possible education, nothing.

Do you really think that going would do ANYTHING to convince the uneducated of anything???? I personally don't get why gun owners think that playing the anti's games would accomplish anything positive. Perhaps they have not really thought about it all.

I have had interesting discussions with anti-gun people, one in particular was on a backpack in which the person tried to educate me, to which I responded with things that she needed to research. At the end of the backpack, she appeared a bit confused and said that she would have to check into the things that I said. I talked to her in a nice manner and pointed out things that she should learn about. Having a heated discussion would not solve anything nor convince a person to think about things.

I am glad to be informed that I am perfectly justified to feel this way.

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 11:13 AM
By doing it as a part of this process you are reaching people that don't normally see you. It's political, yes, but making the appearance, you are given the opportunity to be viewed by people who are not in your inner circle.


This is most certainly not the only such opportunity. Given that, why should they attempt to make use of this opportunity for that, when it poses such great risk, when other opportunities and methods exist to achieve the same thing without the risk?

And you assume here that the people attending the event are the people that need to be reached. That is most certainly not the case. This event is an "invitation only" event, not a public event. The people attending are hand picked by the Obama administration.

The people that need to be reached are the individuals in the population who are on the fence. They aren't attending this event.



NRA events get attended by NRA members and gun owners. That's not the group you need to be reaching out to.


Nor are the groups that attend this event. The people that need to be reached are not being invited to the event. So what, exactly, do you think the NRA could really gain by going, other than a bloody nose?


Any successful politician knows if you are going to get elected, you need to take any and all opportunities to present your case and what you stand for. This is very much a political process.

No, that is quite incorrect. Savvy politicians know that you carefully choose when and where you present your case in order to maximize the impact and minimize the potential for the other side's gain.

Kind of like what the NRA did here...

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 11:23 AM
I have had interesting discussions with anti-gun people, one in particular was on a backpack in which the person tried to educate me, to which I responded with things that she needed to research. At the end of the backpack, she appeared a bit confused and said that she would have to check into the things that I said. I talked to her in a nice manner and pointed out things that she should learn about. Having a heated discussion would not solve anything nor convince a person to think about things.

Really? Out of curiosity, did you address her in the same "nice manner" as you did with me in this last sentence?


I am glad to be informed that I am perfectly justified to feel this way.

If so, I believe I have cause for concern...

kemasa
04-01-2011, 11:24 AM
BTW, read some of the articles on this and see what Obama is saying:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110315/pl_nm/us_obama_guns_nra


Obama waded into the politically treacherous gun control debate on Sunday, calling for reform of rules to prevent attacks like the one that wounded an Arizona congresswoman two months ago, while making conciliatory remarks toward gun owners.

In an opinion piece published in the Arizona Daily Star, he said some 2,000 people had perished from gun violence in the short time since a gunman in Tucson killed six people and shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the head.

"Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it," he wrote.

Obama said he hoped the Tucson shootings could spark a national discussion on preventing gun violence.

"Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word 'commonsense' isn't a code word for 'confiscation,'" he wrote.


http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_5cd6353a-fac3-5060-9a2b-45c90efe43a8.html

http://azstarnet.com/news/national/article_49a0a2e6-94f6-5523-98f1-790ea4d1a718.html

kemasa
04-01-2011, 11:30 AM
Really? Out of curiosity, did you address her in the same "nice manner" as you did with me in this last sentence?

If so, I believe I have cause for concern...

How did I not treat your nicely?

Your response:


As a gun owner, you're perfectly justified to feel this way.


Is a bit demeaning when you look at the fact that you are trying to say that I am wrong. Then you say that you have cause for concern? What is that about? I am concerned that you feel the need to play into the anti-gun people's game and that you don't get what is going on.

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 11:31 AM
Could it be any worse than they're spinning it now? Because the way they're spinning it now is that we're arrogant, ignorant and hostile. This is not what we need...


It most certainly can be spun worse, were the NRA to attend. In that event, it could be spun to say that the NRA agrees with the fundamental principle of the meeting (we need additional "commonsense" laws to prevent "gun violence") even if they don't agree with the details. Suddenly, even more "commonsense gun laws", i.e. more anti-2A restrictions, are okay because even the NRA implicitly agrees with the idea, or so the spin goes.

Do you really want the other side to gain that kind of media advantage? For what possible reason???


By not attending, the NRA is saying that they don't even agree with the premise of the event, and they have even said as much publicly (if I'm not mistaken).

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 11:42 AM
How did I not treat your nicely?

Your response:

Is a bit demeaning.


I was being courtious... not demeaning.

Chill out, dude. We're on the same team. :rolleyes:

kemasa
04-01-2011, 11:51 AM
Funny, your response was demeaning. Perhaps you did not intend for it to be that way and perhaps you don't think it was that way, but that is how it can be view. While you don't agree, my response was not intended to be demeaning, but you viewed it that way.

You comment about being concerned? I see no response to that. Do you think that is nice? It is demeaning in my opinion and I think you intended it to be that way, which I am sure that you will deny.

I am not sure that we are on the same team if you think that the NRA should play Obama's game. There are many firearms owners who think it is ok to compromise and agree to the "common sense" gun laws, which are harming those who value freedom and our rights.

Telling me that "As a gun owner, you're perfectly justified to feel this way" IS demeaning when you continue on after that.

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 12:15 PM
It most certainly can be spun worse, were the NRA to attend. In that event, it could be spun to say that the NRA agrees with the fundamental principle of the meeting (we need additional "commonsense" laws to prevent "gun violence") even if they don't agree with the details. Suddenly, even more "commonsense gun laws", i.e. more anti-2A restrictions, are okay because even the NRA implicitly agrees with the idea, or so the spin goes.

Do you really want the other side to gain that kind of media advantage? For what possible reason???


By not attending, the NRA is saying that they don't even agree with the premise of the event, and they have even said as much publicly (if I'm not mistaken).

So, I guess it just depends on which result you think is worse:

A) The perception that the NRA "agrees with the fundamental principle of the meeting even if they don't agree with the details." (from your post)

or

B) Giving the Liberal media a talking point to harp on for weeks on end...

Bad press either way I just happen to think the latter is more detrimental than the former.

loose_electron
04-01-2011, 1:08 PM
Perspective from "the other side": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7EP4jQn1dM

Personally I think Bill Mahr is a pretentious better than thou jerk on a lot of issues.

But, that video is a good take away perception that non gun owners are taking away from this.

You don't show up, and the people that do show up get to shape and control the message. Consequently the net result? The NRA as a representative of gun owners gets mocked in the media, and public perception is shaped by people who probably never touched a gun in their lives.

Good political efforts are ones designed to sway public opinion. Show up, make your case, and don't look like a nut case fanatic. That's all just bad for 2A rights.

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 1:35 PM
Personally I think Bill Mahr is a pretentious better than thou jerk on a lot of issues.

All the pundits are "pretentious, holier-than-thou, jerks". That's what makes them pundits... :D

...but you're 100% correct. He is. He's also a gun-owner, so there's always the hypocrisy rebuttal, but I digress... ;)

But, that video is a good take away perception that non gun owners are taking away from this.

..and I believe that this is the point you were trying to make when you originally posted this topic. I think a lot of gun-owners had the feeling that if the NRA sits down with Obama, it would look bad in our eyes. They fear that the Liberal Media would get ahold of this and turn it into a story that makes the NRA appear "weak in the eyes of the enemy". Conversely, the Right wing media could report that the NRA is "conniving with the enemy".

What I think gun owners need to understand is that as angry as some of you would be, had the NRA met with Obama, can you imagine how bad he would have infuriated his base by meeting with them? It might have worked to our favor for 2012; especially if we appeared to be the rational side of the argument. I see this as a missed opportunity.

guns_and_labs
04-01-2011, 1:45 PM
http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

It's a straightforward and eloquent response, and I commend them for taking this position.

The NRA-ILA clearly has some skilled writers working for them.

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 2:02 PM
So, I guess it just depends on which result you think is worse:

A) The perception that the NRA "agrees with the fundamental principle of the meeting even if they don't agree with the details." (from your post)

or

B) Giving the Liberal media a talking point to harp on for weeks on end...

Bad press either way I just happen to think the latter is more detrimental than the former.

Option A is a talking point the media can harp on for weeks on end. So with respect to how long the media can trot out their BS, the end result is the same.

But the message is very different. In the former, the media will be able to tell the population that even the NRA "agrees" with their position and therefore that additional "commonsense gun laws" must be a good thing, since even the NRA apparently agrees!

In the long run, that is far more damaging than the usual "the gun rights advocates are unreasonable" BS that the media has been pushing for who knows how long.


Look, if you think the message the media is putting out now is somehow worse, then ask yourself this: how is it that we are winning on the legislative front (increases in shall-issue CCW throughout the nation, more states going "Constitutional carry", etc.) if we're somehow losing the PR war? If the message that the media has been pushing, that the gun rights advocates are unreasonable, somehow carried any real weight, wouldn't we be losing the PR war, and, therefore, on the legislative front?

No, the evidence doesn't appear to support your view.

kemasa
04-01-2011, 2:04 PM
The Bill Mahr youtube video is interesting. Personally, I think it makes that side look extremely childish, especially with the name calling. Quite clearly they are upset that the NRA did not attend and if they don't like that the NRA did not attend, it sounds like a good idea that the NRA did not attend. The comment asking why the NRA would not meet with those who want to get rid of the protection of our rights is valid, but he does not get it or acts like it is foolish.

If the meeting involved a fair and balanced discussion, then it would make sense to attend, but quite clearly that is not the case based on the statements made. I think that the NRA letter is a good response.

What many are missing is how it all would be presented had the NRA attended. It is easy to sit here and say "look at what they are making of all this", but would you prefer that they be saying that it shows that even the NRA believe in "common sense" laws to protect us from the bad criminals? Use your imagination and consider how bad it could be presented and how it can be used against gun owners.

loose_electron
04-01-2011, 2:13 PM
The NRA-ILA clearly has some skilled writers working for them.

But if the only people reading it is gun owners then its a wasted effort.

As for winning on any front? I don't think so. At very best, 2A rights are "holding position" but not gaining.

Ask a simple question when it comes to gun laws - as you progress over the last 100 years, have rules and regulations gotten more or less restrictive?

How about in just the last 30 years?

About the only significant federal victory I can clearly point at is the fact that the assault weapons ban was not renewed.

For the most part, the federal stuff is less of an issue than the state regulations. At the state level, there has been a slow "chipping away" and thats not winning.

kemasa
04-01-2011, 2:22 PM
Hmmm, has things gotten better? Well, what about the two Supreme Court cases which stated that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right? Gone are the false claims regarding Miller. I am sorry that you don't think that is winning. It takes time to deal with the changes, but there are cases in CA which should also be positive or have to go to the SC as well.

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 2:53 PM
But if the only people reading it is gun owners then its a wasted effort.

As for winning on any front? I don't think so. At very best, 2A rights are "holding position" but not gaining.


And this is the root of your misunderstanding.

2A rights are gaining. If that were not the case, we'd have seen no progress in the last 25 years on things like shall-issue CCW, Constitutional carry, and so forth.

I mean, look at the map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/Rtc.gif



It is here in California where things have been at a standstill and largely remain so. California is among the staunchest anti-gun states in the country, so this should come as little surprise.


With respect to the NRA action, that was at the national level. Their choice to attend or not has national implications, and on the national front we are winning like we've never won before. I mean, Constitutional carry? That would not have been dreamed of a few short years ago.



Ask a simple question when it comes to gun laws - as you progress over the last 100 years, have rules and regulations gotten more or less restrictive?
In the last 100 years? More restrictive.



How about in just the last 30 years?
In the last 30 years? Less restrictive in the country as a whole (again, look at the map!).



For the most part, the federal stuff is less of an issue than the state regulations. At the state level, there has been a slow "chipping away" and thats not winning.The increase in shall-issue CCW contradicts your view here. And now there is progress towards Constitutional carry, as the map above shows. It appears we may get another 2 to 3 states added to the Constitutional carry list this year alone.


Look, if you examine my messages on this forum, you'll see that I'm about as skeptical as they come. Ask some of the other people here and they'll tell you that. But I'm a realist. And the reality is that we're winning on the 2A front. We're losing in just about every other way, but 2A isn't one of them.

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 3:10 PM
Option A is a talking point the media can harp on for weeks on end. So with respect to how long the media can trot out their BS, the end result is the same.

But the message is very different. In the former, the media will be able to tell the population that even the NRA "agrees" with their position and therefore that additional "commonsense gun laws" must be a good thing, since even the NRA apparently agrees!

In the long run, that is far more damaging than the usual "the gun rights advocates are unreasonable" BS that the media has been pushing for who knows how long.

I don't think anyone has any doubts as to the NRA's stance on this issue. It would have been more advantagous to gun owners if LaPierre would have stated his position clearly to the President, in person and given the President some viable alternatives to gun control...

Look, if you think the message the media is putting out now is somehow worse, then ask yourself this: how is it that we are winning on the legislative front (increases in shall-issue CCW throughout the nation, more states going "Constitutional carry", etc.) if we're somehow losing the PR war? If the message that the media has been pushing, that the gun rights advocates are unreasonable, somehow carried any real weight, wouldn't we be losing the PR war, and, therefore, on the legislative front?

No, the evidence doesn't appear to support your view.

Winning...?

In this state, I'm not so sure I'd call it "winning" just yet. I'd say that we're "making progress". Last time I checked, I still can't get a CCW in L.A. county, I still can't buy an actual FN-FAL (or the proper 20 round mags for it), there's a couple pistols that aren't on the safe list that I would love to buy, a .50 BMG Rifle is illegal to purchase and Boxer still got re-elected despite her anti-2A stance. Why are we "winning"? Is it because we can buy OLLs that meet CA DOJ criteria? That's not "winning"; that's "complying". (Please don't perceive these observations as an affront to anyone...I'm merely making an observation)

I know that there are cases pending on pretty much all of these laws but I lived through the 1980s and saw these laws take effect in the time since. This issue can make a 180 degree turn in no time flat. After all, the .50 BMG ban just took place in 2004. All it takes is a few pieces of bad press to resonate with the public. That's what I'm afraid of, and that's why LaPierre's response to the President concerns me...

...and don't get me wrong; I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong but I do think it warrants a discussion, which is why I'm glad this topic popped up on here. If nothing else, it's informative. :)

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 3:25 PM
I don't think anyone has any doubts as to the NRA's stance on this issue. It would have been more advantagous to gun owners if LaPierre would have stated his position clearly to the President, in person and given the President some viable alternatives to gun control...


How would that have helped? The NRA doesn't control the media. The media picks and chooses what they want to say. If the NRA even so much as shows up, that is all the media will actually state as fact, and they will further state that it indicates that the NRA "concedes" by their action that further "reasonable" gun restrictions are necessary, even if the NRA states otherwise. At the very least, it will put doubt into people's minds about the sincerity of the NRA. The damage will outweigh any possible gain, because as I stated before, public outreach can be done independently of this event.



Winning...?

In this state, I'm not so sure I'd call it "winning" just yet.
I didn't say in this state. For that, I explicitly stated that we remain at a standstill (er, I guess not in the message you were responding to, though).

But in the context of the NRA's actions, we are winning. The NRA's action with respect to the event we're discussing has national implications, and it is at that level that we are, in fact, winning. It is in that context that the NRA's decision must be analyzed.



...and don't get me wrong; I'm not saying either of us is right or wrong but I do think it warrants a discussion, which is why I'm glad this topic popped up on here. If nothing else, it's informative. :)I totally agree on this. :)

loose_electron
04-01-2011, 3:35 PM
KCbrown - interesting map, if its factual thats a good thing.

Thanks for being factual instead of emotional.

What if firearms laws were stated on a federal level and mandated to over-rule state laws?

I think CA would get more liberal laws due to that. The reality is that I doubt very much that it would ever happen that way.

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 3:50 PM
KCbrown - interesting map, if its factual thats a good thing.


It has to be factual. It's from Wikipedia, so it can't be wrong. :D



Thanks for being factual instead of emotional.


You're welcome. I think one of the reasons we're winning is that we have reason on our side.



What if firearms laws were stated on a federal level and mandated to over-rule state laws?

I think CA would get more liberal laws due to that. The reality is that I doubt very much that it would ever happen that way.

Well, there is the national reciprocity bill (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=400089) that seems to be forthcoming at the national level...

So good things are afoot even at the national level. Of course, the real action is in the judiciary...

TRICKSTER
04-01-2011, 3:56 PM
KCbrown - interesting map, if its factual thats a good thing.

Thanks for being factual instead of emotional.

What if firearms laws were stated on a federal level and mandated to over-rule state laws?

I think CA would get more liberal laws due to that. The reality is that I doubt very much that it would ever happen that way.

"If it's factual". If you don't know if what gains have been made, how can you even try to make a logical argument to back up your opinion.

Apocalypsenerd
04-01-2011, 4:09 PM
I would point out to everyone in this discussion:

You go to a mechanic to have your car fixed.

You go to a doctor to have your body fixed.

You go to a lawyer if you need help in court.

The NRA has been fighting this battle for decades. Is it safe to assume that they might know how a presidential administration and a congressional body work in relation to 2A rights better than we do?

Obviously we "trust but verify", however, throwing out generalized opinions on "what ifs" is pointless.

At this point, I will trust in the professionals, NRA, Gura, CGF, and the other bodies around the country that have made this political discussion their business.

dantodd
04-01-2011, 4:25 PM
They should have gone and talked to him. They're a political advocacy/lobby organization. When the most powerful politician in the U.S. (...arguably, the entire world) asks you to come discus your issue, you should go and discuss your issue!!! That's what the membership is paying you to do!!!


The first problem with your assertion is that President Obama didn't invite the NRA to have a frank discussion with him about the state of gun rights in the U.S. He asked them to attend a meeting with a bunch of people whose goal is to stifle the civil right of self-defense. Would the NAACP have sent a representative to a Klan meeting to help figure out how to keep black kids out of white schools?

Also, you don't know if the NRA tried to meet directly with the President.

Finally, the NRAs issue is restoration and promotion of gun rights, not gun control so the meeting has nothing to do with the NRA's "issue."

CEDaytonaRydr
04-01-2011, 4:36 PM
The first problem with your assertion is that President Obama didn't invite the NRA to have a frank discussion with him about the state of gun rights in the U.S. He asked them to attend a meeting with a bunch of people whose goal is to stifle the civil right of self-defense.

In which case, the President (and whoever else was in the room) would have been on the wrong side of the argument and should have been given the opportunity to fail, publicly...

Would the NAACP have sent a representative to a Klan meeting to help figure out how to keep black kids out of white schools?

Holy hyperbole, Batman!!! :eek:

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 4:46 PM
"If it's factual". If you don't know if what gains have been made, how can you even try to make a logical argument to back up your opinion.

Dude, it's all good. Argue the issue, not the person. You're not going to change people's minds by beating them up. Instead, convince them that your position is the right one. We have the truth and logic on our side. That's enough to win the debate.

Well, that and a bit of well considered strategy. :43:


Looks like we may have swung another person to our way of thinking. Seems counterproductive to lash out at them after that, don't you think?

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 4:49 PM
In which case, the President (and whoever else was in the room) would have been on the wrong side of the argument and should have been given the opportunity to fail, publicly...


How would it have been a public failure? The meeting isn't open to the public, right?

loose_electron
04-01-2011, 5:56 PM
Dude, it's all good. Argue the issue, not the person. You're not going to change people's minds by beating them up. Instead, convince them that your position is the right one. We have the truth and logic on our side. That's enough to win the debate.

Well, that and a bit of well considered strategy. :43:

Looks like we may have swung another person to our way of thinking. Seems counterproductive to lash out at them after that, don't you think?

Well put - but I am not the one who needs to be convinced on getting to a "shall issue" CCW here in CA.

Wikipedia map? Well, sort of - this is the original source:
http://gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
Or the NRA variant:
http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

Some clarification - I started this thread questioning "how good a job" the NRA is doing representing gun owners, and attending any and all policy discussions on the subject.

I still stand by the statement that you show up, and make clear your position.

Comments about fixing cars, going to doctors, and taking what the mechanic/doctors suggest/do don't hold water. Bad mechanics, bad doctors, exist. The NRA is not god, and as a member, I feel that I can question how they represent me.

In a similar way of thinking, you can take offense at me questioning the NRA. First amendment = free speech, and I full well expected to get browbeaten for asking questions about this topic.

I question the NRA's method of dealing with things. Based upon what I have learned here, some of the CCW shall issue rules have improved. That's a good thing.

However, I encourage everyone to question methods used in anything that you participate in, and if you disagree, that's your right. Also, if you are terminally ill, I suggest that you get the opinions and advice of more than one doctor.

kcbrown
04-01-2011, 6:14 PM
I still stand by the statement that you show up, and make clear your position.


For situations where all other things are equal, I agree.

This is not one of those situations.


I question the NRA's method of dealing with things. Based upon what I have learned here, some of the CCW shall issue rules have improved. That's a good thing.


Indeed it is. And you should be aware that the NRA was instrumental in much of it. There are plenty of things they do right.



However, I encourage everyone to question methods used in anything that you participate in, and if you disagree, that's your right.
Exactly. Everyone should do that, because it's the only way to find out why they're doing what they're doing, and to push for improving it.



Also, if you are terminally ill, I suggest that you get the opinions and advice of more than one doctor.Fortunately, it appears the 2A side of the fight, which includes the NRA, is alive and well...


You'll get no argument from me that the NRA does some things wrong. I don't think this specific instance is one of them, given the political situation involved, but I agree that if there's more they can do to reach out to the public in a positive manner, in such a way that it yields a net positive for the pro-2A side, they should do so.

Apocalypsenerd
04-02-2011, 12:40 AM
Well put - but I am not the one who needs to be convinced on getting to a "shall issue" CCW here in CA.

Wikipedia map? Well, sort of - this is the original source:
http://gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
Or the NRA variant:
http://www.nraila.org/images/rtcmaplg.jpg

Some clarification - I started this thread questioning "how good a job" the NRA is doing representing gun owners, and attending any and all policy discussions on the subject.

I still stand by the statement that you show up, and make clear your position.

Comments about fixing cars, going to doctors, and taking what the mechanic/doctors suggest/do don't hold water. Bad mechanics, bad doctors, exist. The NRA is not god, and as a member, I feel that I can question how they represent me.

In a similar way of thinking, you can take offense at me questioning the NRA. First amendment = free speech, and I full well expected to get browbeaten for asking questions about this topic.

I question the NRA's method of dealing with things. Based upon what I have learned here, some of the CCW shall issue rules have improved. That's a good thing.

However, I encourage everyone to question methods used in anything that you participate in, and if you disagree, that's your right. Also, if you are terminally ill, I suggest that you get the opinions and advice of more than one doctor.

I don't think questioning them is offensive.

I think making claims that "they could do better" and then really offering nothing in the way of alternatives or suggestions is pretty thin.

Everyone can always do better. So what?

Saying there are "bad doctors" when talking about the eminent gun rights organization in the world really doesn't answer any of the questions posed to you. If the NRA is a bad doctor, a) why are you a member? and b) please describe a good doctor.

Your claim that they should show up and make their position clear, well I would normally agree with that. There are two problems. First, you don't know if they would be allowed to state their position. Second, they stated it pretty clearly in their actions and press releases. How much more clear do you need than "Not one inch"?

One last thing, asserting 1st Amendment liberties does not lend substance to your words.

CDFingers
04-02-2011, 7:43 AM
loose electron wrote:

>You don't show up, and the people that do show up get to shape and control the message. Consequently the net result? The NRA as a representative of gun owners gets mocked in the media, and public perception is shaped by people who probably never touched a gun in their lives.


I agree with that as a main assessment. The NRA is left preaching to its own members and does not get the opportunity to help shape the debate in public.

I find it most unfortunate that the NRA did not see this aspect of the problem.

CDFingers

CEDaytonaRydr
04-02-2011, 10:38 AM
I agree with that as a main assessment. The NRA is left preaching to its own members and does not get the opportunity to help shape the debate in public.

I find it most unfortunate that the NRA did not see this aspect of the problem.

CDFingers

Spoken like a true prodigy. :cool:

loose_electron
04-02-2011, 10:41 AM
Your claim that they should show up and make their position clear, well I would normally agree with that. There are two problems. First, you don't know if they would be allowed to state their position. Second, they stated it pretty clearly in their actions and press releases. How much more clear do you need than "Not one inch"?


And what was the general public perception of their actions?
I think the Bill Mahr video posted above is probably close to the general public perception. The general public never saw, or even heard about their press release, so in the eyes of the general public it did not happen.

I think the NRA litigating 2A and CCW issues is a good thing, and they are handling that as best as they can. I get the NRA-ILA press releases, and I see a lot of good efforts being made there.

Apocalypsenerd
04-02-2011, 3:16 PM
Bill Maher is a hard, hard leftist. His show on a premium cable channel isn't mainstream media. His audience is more of a niche than you perceive the NRA's to be.

I wouldn't use him as an example. The NYT or ABC are different matters.

The mainstream media has not been hammering on guns as much as they used to. They still do it, but pretty much MSNBC is the primary anti-2A media outlet. I think they recognize our social fabric is changing and they want to entertain their audience more.

InGrAM
04-02-2011, 3:45 PM
Bill Maher is a hard, hard leftist. His show on a premium cable channel isn't mainstream media. His audience is more of a niche than you perceive the NRA's to be.

I wouldn't use him as an example. The NYT or ABC are different matters.

The mainstream media has not been hammering on guns as much as they used to. They still do it, but pretty much MSNBC is the primary anti-2A media outlet. I think they recognize our social fabric is changing and they want to entertain their audience more.

+ 1

Hunt
04-02-2011, 4:36 PM
sounds like abait and switch con game. " Let's talk" while the photographers take pictures the next day headlines read "NRA meets with Pres to promote gun confiscation"
People need to remember these undisputable historical facts, Gov't lies, Gov't steals and Gov't kills more people than any other organized group. Keep that in mind anytime you are face to face with a bureaucrat.

loose_electron
04-02-2011, 5:31 PM
Bill Maher is a hard, hard leftist. His show on a premium cable channel isn't mainstream media. His audience is more of a niche than you perceive the NRA's to be.


Agreed - looking it up the viewership is roughly 1 million per show. Just using it as an example of perception however.

Apocalypsenerd
04-02-2011, 5:34 PM
I don't think we'll ever reach Maher's audience. Other media, most likely. I have a number of friends who lean left that have been changing their views on gun ownership.