PDA

View Full Version : NRA is America's Most Influential Civil Rights Organization!


oaklander
10-15-2011, 5:47 PM
This is how they described themselves in a recent marketing email to me.

I REALLY LIKE THIS!

I have a terrible memory, so can someone let me know is this is a new "self-description" for them?

I do not recall them usin that exact laguage before, but I am usually wring about these things!

;-)


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Ubermcoupe
10-15-2011, 5:50 PM
I know its the oldest!

it was something like:

"Show your part of Americas most influential civil rights organization by using and wearing official NRA gear. And stand tall while youre doing it."

Paladin
10-15-2011, 6:04 PM
They've called themselves the nation's oldest civil rights organization for few years. Can't recall exactly when I first read them doing so. It made me smile.

About a month ago I introduced myself to a bunch of liberals as a "civil rights activist" who volunteers to help "the nation's oldest civil rights organization.... the NRA!" Let's just say I got a mixed reaction: :eek: :mad: :facepalm: :taz: :svengo:

HowardW56
10-15-2011, 6:05 PM
I just wish they wouldn't spend so much time trying to shoot other gun rights groups in the foot...

oaklander
10-15-2011, 6:11 PM
Yes, now that we have Heller/McDonald - it is simply true that we ARE CIVIL RIGHTS.

Our right protects the other rights, and is the most important one.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

nicki
10-16-2011, 3:01 AM
The NRA is still evolving as a "civil rights" organization.

The sad truth is many gun owners are not "forward thinking", as such, the NRA leadership has to cater to the views of the membership at large.

I say that because while they are getting stronger on the "second amendment", there is room for improvement on the rest of the bill of rights.

The bill of rights is an interdependent document. If the rest of the bill of rights are gutted, the second won't survive on it's own.

Since we are the "NRA", rather than cry to the "NRA" about things they should do, what we should do is come up with things we can do and if they work, go to the "NRA" and share what we did, how we did it, so that whatever good we do here, can be done elsewhere.

Nicki

resident-shooter
10-16-2011, 4:18 AM
The NRA is still evolving as a "civil rights" organization.

The sad truth is many gun owners are not "forward thinking", as such, the NRA leadership has to cater to the views of the membership at large.

I say that because while they are getting stronger on the "second amendment", there is room for improvement on the rest of the bill of rights.

The bill of rights is an interdependent document. If the rest of the bill of rights are gutted, the second won't survive on it's own.

Since we are the "NRA", rather than cry to the "NRA" about things they should do, what we should do is come up with things we can do and if they work, go to the "NRA" and share what we did, how we did it, so that whatever good we do here, can be done elsewhere.

Nicki

Sorry your comment confuses me. Can you be a little more specific on your issues and solutions?

SilverBulletZ06
10-16-2011, 4:49 AM
Yes, now that we have Heller/McDonald - it is simply true that we ARE CIVIL RIGHTS.

Our right protects the other rights, and is the most important one.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

Yes they are civil rights, but didn't the SAF (not the NRA) win both of those cases?

oaklander
10-16-2011, 5:40 AM
Sorry your comment confuses me. Can you be a little more specific on your issues and solutions?

She can, but she is too busy actually doing them.

Her point is "we are the NRA."

I kind of personally know the players these days, so I just love it when folks start speculating on stuff.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

oaklander
10-16-2011, 5:48 AM
Yes they are civil rights, but didn't the SAF (not the NRA) win both of those cases?

I think it was actually a friend of a friend (literally) who won those. Us lawyers are tight. But yes, it was a team effort near the end. Kind of.

;-)

For the record, I am an EPL Life Member, and I really LIKE the NRA, and they have been EXTREMELY supportive of our Grassroots. In fact, I have been asked to speak at an upcoming Members Council meeting here in the Bay Area.

Right now, ALL of the 2A groups are fairly aligned and on the same team (in CA). That is because all of us have worked hard to work together.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

nicki
10-16-2011, 6:19 AM
The sad truth is many gun owners are not "forward thinking", as such, the NRA leadership has to cater to the views of the membership at large.

Think of "Chess". A good chess player not only projects their moves, but also their opponents moves and accepts they will lose pieces in order to check mate their opponent.

Many gun owners are like the chess player who is afraid to lose pieces, so they play defense.

The problem is you don't win chess by playing defense, you win by going on offense, forcing your opponent to react to your moves, controlling position on the board and going in for the checkmate.

The NRA is representative of their membership and many gun owners don't see the "civil rights" issue. They care about their gun rights, but not much else.

The reality is many gun owners operate on a "me" mindset. Their attitude is if it doesn't affect "me", I don't care. The NRA is trying to break this mindset, but that takes time.

Some NRA members in other parts of the country for instance don't care about us. They would just as soon watch California fall into the ocean.

The reality is most people want to stay in their "comfort zones", they are "risk averse". People who are "forward thinking" accept "risks" and they operate outside the "comfort zone".

It is the "forward thinkers" in our society that create new products, new industries, new everything because they are the ones who are always questioning "what if".

We are blessed that many of the leaders here are "forward thinkers", that is why we have things like "bullet buttons, mag locks, single shot conversions".

Most of the NRA membership is "risk averse", as such, the NRA will not take "bold actions" regarding gun rights. Generally, the NRA is conservative in their actions.

This is not a necessarily a "bad thing", it is just the way it is.

The NRA will defend gun rights, but they rarely take "bold actions".

For example, the "Heller case" was not a NRA case, it was a case that was personally funded by Robert Levy, a retired lawyer at the CATO institute.

Robert Levy provided the financial backing that allowed Alan Gura to work his legal magic and Alan ran the "Heller case" like a true "Grand Chess Master".

Alan won "Heller" because he was and is a "forward thinker".

Up until the "Heller case", the Federal courts did not recognize that we had any 2nd amendment rights.

While "Heller" was a "major victory", we got it barely.

A 5-4 ruling is a skin of our teeth victory and if Obama gets the chance to replace anyone of the "Heller 5", we could easily have a 5 to 4 loss.

Supreme court cases can go sideways which is probably why the NRA never pushed a Supreme court case on the 2nd amendment.

On the MacDonald case, Alan Gura was not only going to get the second amendment incorporated, but he was also making a "bold move" to restore the 14th amendment "privileges and immunities" clause back to life.

The original 14th amendment was "bold". Had it not been gutted by the "Slaughtehouse case(1873) and Cruinshak(1876), America could have been spared over 100 years of racism.

Racism didn't just screw minorities, it screwed all of us and the relics of racism are still effecting us today.

I personally view MacDonald as a "limited victory" in that we did get the second amendment incorporated via the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

We got the "low hanging fruit", but what Alan Gura was going for the whole tree. Restoring the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment would have opened the doors for massive restoration of personal rights.

Nicki

GrayWolf09
10-16-2011, 8:37 AM
The sad truth is many gun owners are not "forward thinking", as such, the NRA leadership has to cater to the views of the membership at large.

Think of "Chess". A good chess player not only projects their moves, but also their opponents moves and accepts they will lose pieces in order to check mate their opponent.

Many gun owners are like the chess player who is afraid to lose pieces, so they play defense.

The problem is you don't win chess by playing defense, you win by going on offense, forcing your opponent to react to your moves, controlling position on the board and going in for the checkmate.

The NRA is representative of their membership and many gun owners don't see the "civil rights" issue. They care about their gun rights, but not much else.

The reality is many gun owners operate on a "me" mindset. Their attitude is if it doesn't affect "me", I don't care. The NRA is trying to break this mindset, but that takes time.

Some NRA members in other parts of the country for instance don't care about us. They would just as soon watch California fall into the ocean.

The reality is most people want to stay in their "comfort zones", they are "risk averse". People who are "forward thinking" accept "risks" and they operate outside the "comfort zone".

It is the "forward thinkers" in our society that create new products, new industries, new everything because they are the ones who are always questioning "what if".

We are blessed that many of the leaders here are "forward thinkers", that is why we have things like "bullet buttons, mag locks, single shot conversions".

Most of the NRA membership is "risk averse", as such, the NRA will not take "bold actions" regarding gun rights. Generally, the NRA is conservative in their actions.

This is not a necessarily a "bad thing", it is just the way it is.

The NRA will defend gun rights, but they rarely take "bold actions".

For example, the "Heller case" was not a NRA case, it was a case that was personally funded by Robert Levy, a retired lawyer at the CATO institute.

Robert Levy provided the financial backing that allowed Alan Gura to work his legal magic and Alan ran the "Heller case" like a true "Grand Chess Master".

Alan won "Heller" because he was and is a "forward thinker".

Up until the "Heller case", the Federal courts did not recognize that we had any 2nd amendment rights.

While "Heller" was a "major victory", we got it barely.

A 5-4 ruling is a skin of our teeth victory and if Obama gets the chance to replace anyone of the "Heller 5", we could easily have a 5 to 4 loss.

Supreme court cases can go sideways which is probably why the NRA never pushed a Supreme court case on the 2nd amendment.

On the MacDonald case, Alan Gura was not only going to get the second amendment incorporated, but he was also making a "bold move" to restore the 14th amendment "privileges and immunities" clause back to life.

The original 14th amendment was "bold". Had it not been gutted by the "Slaughtehouse case(1873) and Cruinshak(1876), America could have been spared over 100 years of racism.

Racism didn't just screw minorities, it screwed all of us and the relics of racism are still effecting us today.

I personally view MacDonald as a "limited victory" in that we did get the second amendment incorporated via the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

We got the "low hanging fruit", but what Alan Gura was going for the whole tree. Restoring the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment would have opened the doors for massive restoration of personal rights.

Nicki

Thank you for this. I agree with what your analysis. There is a tendency with well established organizations like the NRA to not take bold innovative steps and to want to maintain the status quo.

But the larger issue you raise and the critical issue Oaklander raises in this thread is can the NRA make the transition from being a "gun rights" organization to being a "civil rights" organization? For better or for worse McDonald changed the landscape and the question is can the NRA adapt? If you look at the amicus briefs filed in McDonald especially those arguing for P&I incorporation they cut across the political spectrum. If the NRA is forward thinking they will begin to form coalitions with those organizations for the furtherance and preservation of civil rights in general and not just gun rights.:)

oaklander
10-16-2011, 11:27 AM
I think C.O.R.E filed an amicus in a recent CRPA Foundation case. I also know that certain NRA and/or CRPA directors are very much into civil rights. And it is not just me!

;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wash
10-17-2011, 8:47 AM
I've got an extra copy of Rules for Radicals that I keep forgetting to give to Oaklander.

I'm bringing that up for two reasons:

#1, so he will remind me.

#2, because the most important lesson of that book is not about how to be ultra liberal or strong-arm corporations, but how to build a power structure which you can use to create the changes you want.

NRA hasn't gotten that one right yet. It's not entirely their fault, all of the competing gun rights groups jab at eachother from time to time but NRA should take a lead to consolidate power and convince the largest chunks of their demographic that Americans as a whole need gun rights and that diversity and cooperation are more important than the NRA members who say things like "I wish California would fall in the sea" or "I'm glad that we got incorporation under Due Process instead of Priveledges or Immunities because P or I would have given us gay marriage".

We have millions of people across the country and the vast majority just send in their check and wear the baseball cap.

If we could get 1% to organize the other 99% and actually vote single issue, we could probably buy an M16 cash and carry at Sears.

The way it is, most NRA members are happy with what they have got (in a state other than CA) and we don't have enough single issue voters to make a difference where we need it (this is certainly true in CA).

So NRA should change if they want to increase their power base and then use it effectively.

loose_electron
10-17-2011, 9:55 AM
This is how they described themselves in a recent marketing email to me.
I REALLY LIKE THIS!
I have a terrible memory, so can someone let me know is this is a new "self-description" for them?
I do not recall them usin that exact laguage before, but I am usually wring about these things!


Well, it is also a case of selective wording.
and...
Claims that can not be supported or readily denied.
Which really when yiou get to it makes it more politiical
posturing than anything else.
Playing devils advocate here!

If I had to give that title to any lobby group,
I would give it to the AARP.

GrayWolf09
10-17-2011, 12:11 PM
I think C.O.R.E filed an amicus in a recent CRPA Foundation case. I also know that certain NRA and/or CRPA directors are very much into civil rights. And it is not just me!

;-)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well thats good because Wayne LaPierre sure isn't doing us any favors:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-29-2011/wayne-s-world

yellowfin
10-17-2011, 12:19 PM
The way it is, most NRA members are happy with what they have got (in a state other than CA) and we don't have enough single issue voters to make a difference where we need it (this is certainly true in CA).The other half of the problem is just like that but slightly different: many of the ones in states where the situation isn't so good don't believe the situation can be improved and they've got several decades of bad experiences to convince them that such is the inevitable scenario forever. Trying hasn't ever worked so they're resistant to trying now and actively disparaging of any efforts to do so. The older they are the worse they are with it, BGOS taken to a deeper depression state.

oaklander
10-17-2011, 1:27 PM
Well thats good because Wayne LaPierre sure isn't doing us any favors:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-29-2011/wayne-s-world

I did not watch that - but Wayne is VERY good at what he does. I have met him a few times, and also one of his staffers. There is value in stirring stuff up!

;-)

There are also some local people here in CA who are essentially ninjas at certain things. We support NRA 100 percent, and in fact, I will be speaking at an upcoming NRA Members' Council Meeting here in the Bay Area.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

oaklander
10-17-2011, 8:32 PM
Well, it is also a case of selective wording.
and...
Claims that can not be supported or readily denied.
Which really when yiou get to it makes it more politiical
posturing than anything else.
Playing devils advocate here!

If I had to give that title to any lobby group,
I would give it to the AARP.

Now you are thinking like a lawyer!!!!

ROFL!!!!

:D

GrayWolf09
10-17-2011, 8:57 PM
I did not watch that - but Wayne is VERY good at what he does. I have met him a few times, and also one of his staffers. There is value in stirring stuff up!

;-)

There are also some local people here in CA who are essentially ninjas at certain things. We support NRA 100 percent, and in fact, I will be speaking at an upcoming NRA Members' Council Meeting here in the Bay Area.


Sent from my brain, to yours. . .

I am glad to hear that because I just renewed my NRA membership.