PDA

View Full Version : Dear NRA,


Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 2:52 AM
Please stop using the term "sportsman" to describe me. I don't engage in any sport with my firearms or in the course of my advocacy. True, I put holes in paper and work diligently to increase my skill in doing so, but that is hardly the point of rights-advocacy or 2nd amendment advocacy. I am a gun rights and civil rights activist. I'm sure there are plenty of "sportsmen" who feel that minorities in crime-ridden urban areas shouldn't carry a gun for self-defense, and they may as well be Brady Campaign supporters.

"Sportsmen" is an outdated and wildly inaccurate term for referring to NRA members. Dear NRA - gun rights are civil rights, and sport has nothing to do with either. We are here to promote and protect the right to use force in defense of self and others. Sport has nothing to do with that, and in fact, conflating self-defense with any type of "sport" is disgusting. We live in a harsh world, where everyday people are forced to fight for their lives or die trying. Sporting is a leisurely and pleasant activity. Self-defense is a manifestation of the ugly realities of life.

NRA - please stop calling me a sportsman.

Bigyates
03-13-2012, 2:59 AM
Dear NRA,
Its ok to call me a sportsman.

IVC
03-13-2012, 3:10 AM
Your heart is in the right place, but there are those who have exactly the opposite view and care *only* about the sport aspect of firearms. After all, only 3%-5% of those who can easily carry for self protection (in other states) regularly carry. The rest use firearms, among other things, for sports.

Narrowing down the scope, particularly when you look at the statistical distribution of the actual usage, is counterproductive. Consider that 2A protects the "right to keep and bear arms" - doesn't imply *only* self protection and doesn't *exclude* hunting or other sporting purposes. Just because the recent cases recognized self defense as a core of the right, doesn't mean there aren't other rights that are protected. NRA works on all of these rights.

Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 3:49 AM
Your heart is in the right place, but there are those who have exactly the opposite view and care *only* about the sport aspect of firearms. After all, only 3%-5% of those who can easily carry for self protection (in other states) regularly carry. The rest use firearms, among other things, for sports.

Narrowing down the scope, particularly when you look at the statistical distribution of the actual usage, is counterproductive. Consider that 2A protects the "right to keep and bear arms" - doesn't imply *only* self protection and doesn't *exclude* hunting or other sporting purposes. Just because the recent cases recognized self defense as a core of the right, doesn't mean there aren't other rights that are protected. NRA works on all of these rights.

Thanks for the apt words. I suppose you are correct that the 2nd amendment (and by proxy, the NRA) doesn't protect arms ownership solely for the purpose of self-defense. I can imagine that the 2nd amendment was codified to protect the use of arms in all manner of ways, but I really just don't see the point if the human/civil/gun rights aspect is left out. What good is a gun if you can only use it to kill deer, or if only certain classes of people can own or carry guns?

This is what I'm really getting at - "rights" and "states who like guns" really are different things. A right belongs to every person, regardless of class or group membership. People who like guns and who also live in gun-friendly states are not ever forced to consider the realities of a fundamental right. Maybe look at it this way - under the principle of individual rights, gun rights activists ought to also be fighting against the war on drugs and the war on terror. A right isn't much of a right if a simple majority can take it away without Due Process of Law.

I've known plenty of sportsmen who thought that the AWB was entirely reasonable, because it only affected "those black scary guns". I'm not saying that the term "sportsmen" automatically connotates a lack of caring about rights, but I am saying that we, as a movement, need to drop any focus on "guns for fun" and instead focus on "gun rights are civil rights", because they are.

The modern gun rights movement is a civil rights movement, and relating gun rights to "sport" really devalues what the 2nd amendment and the principles of liberty are all about.

gobler
03-13-2012, 4:01 AM
You do need to remember that the NRA was established as sports rifle shooting club to help riflemen from getting rusty. They have expanded there role in the NRA-ILA. If you want more of a rights/self defense group try Gun Owners Of America. They have been around since the 70's and while not as "powerful" as the NRA, they have a lobby in DC.


Sent from somewhere in space & time...

Tarn_Helm
03-13-2012, 6:19 AM
Please stop using the term "sportsman" to describe me. I don't engage in any sport with my firearms or in the course of my advocacy. True, I put holes in paper and work diligently to increase my skill in doing so, but that is hardly the point of rights-advocacy or 2nd amendment advocacy. I am a gun rights and civil rights activist. I'm sure there are plenty of "sportsmen" who feel that minorities in crime-ridden urban areas shouldn't carry a gun for self-defense, and they may as well be Brady Campaign supporters.

"Sportsmen" is an outdated and wildly inaccurate term for referring to NRA members. Dear NRA - gun rights are civil rights, and sport has nothing to do with either. We are here to promote and protect the right to use force in defense of self and others. Sport has nothing to do with that, and in fact, conflating self-defense with any type of "sport" is disgusting. We live in a harsh world, where everyday people are forced to fight for their lives or die trying. Sporting is a leisurely and pleasant activity. Self-defense is a manifestation of the ugly realities of life.

NRA - please stop calling me a sportsman.

I agree.

My preferred term of address is: "Dear MotherF***ing Gun Nut!" :taz:

FatalKitty
03-13-2012, 10:40 AM
also not a sportsman... there are a ton of guns I would love to own but can't because they aren't "sporting" enough.

CHS
03-13-2012, 10:45 AM
I somewhat agree with you.

Personally, I don't care what the NRA calls me. They want to call me a sportsman, fine, whatever, I really don't care.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT WANT that to become conflated with "sporting purpose". I own many guns for many different reasons. Some are for fun and sport, some are for collecting, some are for personal and home defense. Some of my guns have a "sporting purpose" and some have a "defensive purpose", ALL are deadly tools that I take pride in the safe operation of.

I want the "sporting purpose" term killed dead dead dead. It's only use is to marginalize the 2nd amendment to hunting and "gentlemanly" shotgun sports.

SanPedroShooter
03-13-2012, 10:45 AM
Agreed. I seem to reacall my letters addressed as, "Dear Second Amendment supporter..."

Maybe those are coming from somone else... I get so many letters and letters and numbers, I have a hard time keeping track.

SanPedroShooter
03-13-2012, 10:46 AM
I somewhat agree with you.

Personally, I don't care what the NRA calls me. They want to call me a sportsman, fine, whatever, I really don't care.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT WANT that to become conflated with "sporting purpose". I own many guns for many different reasons. Some are for fun and sport, some are for collecting, some are for personal and home defense. Some of my guns have a "sporting purpose" and some have a "defensive purpose", ALL are deadly tools that I take pride in the safe operation of.

I want the "sporting purpose" term killed dead dead dead. It's only use is to marginalize the 2nd amendment to hunting and "gentlemanly" shotgun sports.

This also^

Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 11:07 AM
I just reread my post and I realize it's a bit heated in tone. I'm not just trying to start an internet argument. This post is the culmination of much thought, research and understanding. I was genuinely angry when I wrote that. I do actually understand that the NRA is effective in Congress and LaPierre pulls no punches when it comes to the gun rights argument.

My main problem with the NRA is that they put up such a gag-tastic facade of white-bread America. I know this is done for fundraising purposes but I really hope they begin to shift the outward-facing culture of the NRA. The game has changed. Gun rights are no longer restricted to middle and rural America. By parading a certain culture ahead of the principles of liberty, they are shortchanging themselves and everybody else.

For example, when I was younger and ignorant about guns/rights/politics all I knew was I hated the NRA, even if I liked guns. There was no real reason for me to hate them, I just saw their various adverts in passing and knew that I was not their target market - and that their target market was apparently just white people in fly-over states.

Now I'm being intentionally facetious, but do you see my point? By going full-tilt for a certain group, they automatically cut out potential supporters. I've owned a gun for three years and I only just this year decided to join up. I still have to hold my nose at half of their press releases and ALL of their fundraising tactics.

But fundraising and membership is not the issue here. Fundamental Rights are the issue. And this is what the NRA needs to shift toward, which means doing strategic outreach to all the groups of people they never have before. They need to outright eliminate the sentiment that hunters and sportsmen don't have to care about rights. The game is now in the social sphere, and we need to stop letting our own members be anti-rights. From the bottom up.

I really, really want to see the NRA move in this direction. I would go bananas if they took the lead, but I'm not expecting that. I just hope they adapt, and fast.

Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 11:13 AM
I somewhat agree with you.

Personally, I don't care what the NRA calls me. They want to call me a sportsman, fine, whatever, I really don't care.

HOWEVER, I DO NOT WANT that to become conflated with "sporting purpose". I own many guns for many different reasons. Some are for fun and sport, some are for collecting, some are for personal and home defense. Some of my guns have a "sporting purpose" and some have a "defensive purpose", ALL are deadly tools that I take pride in the safe operation of.

I want the "sporting purpose" term killed dead dead dead. It's only use is to marginalize the 2nd amendment to hunting and "gentlemanly" shotgun sports.

I posted that wall of text before I saw you post this, I think I may have cleared up a couple things and I think we pretty much in agreement. I was being a little obtuse about the term "sportsman". Really I was more focusing on what it represents - I understand it to mean "for me but not for thee" types, the kind who don't care about rights. Which to me, is the worst type of person, even worse than anti-gunners. Because those people understand the responsibility and force a gun confers, and yet they still would deprive people.

That's just my understanding. The gun rights movement isn't good ol' boys anymore. Not that there is a problem with good ol' boys! But there is a problem with good ol' boys who like guns but are anti-rights.

And I'll give you a "hell yea!" on the sporting purpose. Utter silliness and badness.

RMikeL
03-13-2012, 11:42 AM
Your're not alone on this point. Well put.

Mike

SanPedroShooter
03-13-2012, 11:45 AM
I just reread my post and I realize it's a bit heated in tone. I'm not just trying to start an internet argument. This post is the culmination of much thought, research and understanding. I was genuinely angry when I wrote that. I do actually understand that the NRA is effective in Congress and LaPierre pulls no punches when it comes to the gun rights argument.

My main problem with the NRA is that they put up such a gag-tastic facade of white-bread America. I know this is done for fundraising purposes but I really hope they begin to shift the outward-facing culture of the NRA. The game has changed. Gun rights are no longer restricted to middle and rural America. By parading a certain culture ahead of the principles of liberty, they are shortchanging themselves and everybody else.

For example, when I was younger and ignorant about guns/rights/politics all I knew was I hated the NRA, even if I liked guns. There was no real reason for me to hate them, I just saw their various adverts in passing and knew that I was not their target market - and that their target market was apparently just white people in fly-over states.

Now I'm being intentionally facetious, but do you see my point? By going full-tilt for a certain group, they automatically cut out potential supporters. I've owned a gun for three years and I only just this year decided to join up. I still have to hold my nose at half of their press releases and ALL of their fundraising tactics.

But fundraising and membership is not the issue here. Fundamental Rights are the issue. And this is what the NRA needs to shift toward, which means doing strategic outreach to all the groups of people they never have before. They need to outright eliminate the sentiment that hunters and sportsmen don't have to care about rights. The game is now in the social sphere, and we need to stop letting our own members be anti-rights. From the bottom up.

I really, really want to see the NRA move in this direction. I would go bananas if they took the lead, but I'm not expecting that. I just hope they adapt, and fast.

I agree for the most part. I try and get as many people to join the NRA as possible. I just signed up a girl I grew up with, she's a vegan, something of an anrachist, and an atheist and very into animal issues, I do not use the words 'animal rights', so she is not a hunter or a sportsman, but she is a libertarian, and understands how important an armed citizenry is to freedom overall. She also didnt vote for big barry zero, so thats a huge point in her favor...

Not exactly the NRA's target audience, but I think you may have answered your own question. White people in fly over states are the majority of members. I always tell new members to just hold their nose and skim over what they dont like, keeping the bigger picture in mind.

Stonewalker
03-13-2012, 12:03 PM
I agree for the most part. I try and get as many people to join the NRA as possible. I just signed up a girl I grew up with, she's a vegan, something of an anrachist, and an atheist and very into animal issues, I do not use the words 'animal rights', so she is not a hunter or a sportsman, but she is a libertarian, and understands how important an armed citizenry is to freedom overall. She also didnt vote for big barry zero, so thats a huge point in her favor...

Not exactly the NRA's target audience, but I think you may have answered your own question. White people in fly over states are the majority of members. I always tell new members to just hold their nose and skim over what they dont like, keeping the bigger picture in mind.

I love it when liberals/progressives/whatever are able to overcome their worldview bias and start to actually think about rights. There's nothing so sweet as intelligent people being intellectually honest. I used to be quite liberal myself, only I wasn't so much liberal as I was not republican. It wasn't very hard for me to come over to the side of rights and liberty. The EFF and the ACLU did for me. How about that, the ACLU was material in my joining the NRA :)

But yea, I understand the same things about the NRA and I tell all my gun-owning friends to join. I save the ranting for CGF/CGN because there are very smart people here who know A LOT of stuff and I can both learn and share my thoughts on moving forward. Of course, I rant about all that stuff to my normal friends too, they just get sick of it =\

SanPedroShooter
03-13-2012, 12:05 PM
I turned in my ACLU card for an NRA membership. I was disgusted when I learned their stance on the Second Amendment. I figured the 2A needed me more.

Intelligent people being intellectually honest is exactly right. She doesnt own guns either. I just figured if she was into all kinds of other crazy causes, she should she join the NRA too. I am betting that she will end up a gun owner before her membership expires.;)

stix213
03-13-2012, 1:21 PM
The use of "sportsmen" is really to engage the anti's in their own game of a war of words. The anti's throw around words like "assault clips," "gun show loophole," "deadly assault weapons," etc. Those words are designed to bring up an emotional response.

The NRA refers to gun owners as "sportsmen" for the exact same reason, engaging the anti's in their own game. The word in no way needs to be accurate, and that's simply not the point. It is for the benefit of people not firmly in the pro-gun or anti camps. What rational person would be against "sportsmen" from having access to their tools of choice? Would you be against a baseball player from having a deadly baseball bat? Of course not! Same thing with "sportsmen" and their guns.

Don't be confused by the word game, its done for a specific purpose and for our benefit. If you don't like the word game, well you're in the wrong country. Demonizing your political opponents, and casting your allies in a favorable light, is all a part of the 1A and an American tradition that predates the country's founding.