PDA

View Full Version : To all of you people slamming the NRA...


jdmcgee
12-22-2012, 12:54 PM
The below statements won't make me popular with a lot of you, but frankly, I don't care.

If you don't like the the statements or stance that the NRA has made, that's your choice but just know that if you criticize without any other plan of action your criticism is nothing but poisonous fuel for the possible loss of our rights by dividing all of us that should have a common goal in mind.

There are too many of you out there that flame anyone for trying to do anything to ensure we keep our 2A rights.

All of you that feel we shouldn't even discuss the topic of gun violence with those who oppose our firearm rights are only leaving yourself one, singular option: infringement of our 2A right.

If your only response to the possibility of infringement of our 2A right is for the opposition to try to "Come & Get Them" or "Pry them from our cold, dead hands" than history shows that with only one option, there can only be one outcome.

I am in no way stating that we should compromise. I am only stating that if we don't have a discussion with those opposing our right to keep & bear arms, than the powers that be will only follow the recommendations of those willing to discuss & give options for a possible solution, even if that possible solution is idiotic.

The only things we should be doing is standing undivided for a common goal & making sure that we personally educate every single person we can on the clear benefit of the right to keep & bear arms.

In other words, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Bring on the flames & asinine rhetoric...

JDMcGee

DeuceFour
12-22-2012, 1:01 PM
Nope you're absolutely right. At least the NRA is doing SOMETHING unlike all the Internet Badasses and their talk that gets absolutely NOTHING accomplished.

scrubb
12-22-2012, 1:04 PM
Agreed. NRA bashers are most times ignorant of all of the rights(guns) that they have today is because of the efforts of the NRA over the years. Everybody loves to "armchair" quarterback everything they do or say, but the do not fully understand the reasoning behind it, nor would any of their ideas sit will with the general public. Bottomline..if you are against the NRA and publicly bash them, then you might as well turn in all of your guns and join the anti's.

Malmon
12-22-2012, 1:17 PM
EXACTLY! These internet experts that feel they can do a better job than the NRA, should just go ahead and do something that they feel the NRA cannot.

brian5271
12-22-2012, 3:21 PM
Well said!

SgtDinosaur
12-22-2012, 3:24 PM
I notice the gun banners do not seem to be nearly divided as we are. Wonder what's up with that. I'm getting pretty tired of reading all the anti-NRA garbage on Calguns.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 3:37 PM
The problem I have with LaPierre's statement is that it was very poorly thought-out and even more poorly executed. I don't keep up with the internal politics of the NRA, but given that we clearly have some extremely good people on our side I don't know why the NRA can't seem to come up with a better spokesperson.

By blaming everything but guns, he made our side look like we are just desperate to blame anything but guns. It makes it look like he believes guns are the problem and just can't think of a good way to deny it. I know that's not the case, but the NRA statement does give that impression, especially given that they took a week to come up with it.

Instead he should have focused only on the issue of increased security, and presented that in a more robust way than just calling for armed security guards. The administration is weak on the issue of school security, and by focusing in a well thought-out way on something that makes perfect sense as a real solution to the problem of school attacks in general, he had a chance to really make the administration look like the opportunistic ghouls they are to anyone who is even remotely unbiased. It was a lost opportunity to really control the debate. As for whether I think I could have done a better job than those at the NRA responsible for this statement, the answer is, yes, in this one case I could have, and I think so could a lot of other people.

GREASY357
12-22-2012, 3:41 PM
Well said.

scrubb
12-22-2012, 3:46 PM
The problem I have with LaPierre's statement is that it was very poorly thought-out and even more poorly executed. I don't keep up with the internal politics of the NRA, but given that we clearly have some extremely good people on our side I don't know why the NRA can't seem to come up with a better spokesperson.

By blaming everything but guns, he made our side look like we are just desperate to blame anything but guns. It makes it look like he believes guns are the problem and just can't think of a good way to deny it. I know that's not the case, but the NRA statement does give that impression, especially given that they took a week to come up with it.

Instead he should have focused only on the issue of increased security, and presented that in a more robust way than just calling for armed security guards. The administration is weak on the issue of school security, and by focusing in a well thought-out way on something that makes perfect sense as a real solution to the problem of school attacks in general, he had a chance to really make the administration look like the opportunistic ghouls they are to anyone who is even remotely unbiased. It was a lost opportunity to really control the debate. As for whether I think I could have done a better job than those at the NRA responsible for this statement, the answer is, yes, in this one case I could have, and I think so could a lot of other people.


Dude, there is not one way possible to please everybody. People on here are crying to "SAVE MY AR/AK" and he says what he can to protect your AR's. To be honest, I do not own an AR and could live without one, but imagine all the hater's on here if he suggested to ban them? Many AR owner's would become a tinfoiler and start digging bunkers. He said what needed to be said and did not sugar coat it. If you can do better start up your own gun rights org and we'll get behind whatever magical things you would say to please US ALL, the media, the anti's, the pro gunner's, the feds, everybody. I bet you make the BESTEST Koolaid of all!

dwtt
12-22-2012, 3:58 PM
The problem I have with LaPierre's statement is that it was very poorly thought-out and even more poorly executed. I don't keep up with the internal politics of the NRA, but given that we clearly have some extremely good people on our side I don't know why the NRA can't seem to come up with a better spokesperson.

By blaming everything but guns, he made our side look like we are just desperate to blame anything but guns. It makes it look like he believes guns are the problem and just can't think of a good way to deny it. I know that's not the case, but the NRA statement does give that impression, especially given that they took a week to come up with it.

Instead he should have focused only on the issue of increased security, and presented that in a more robust way than just calling for armed security guards. The administration is weak on the issue of school security, and by focusing in a well thought-out way on something that makes perfect sense as a real solution to the problem of school attacks in general, he had a chance to really make the administration look like the opportunistic ghouls they are to anyone who is even remotely unbiased. It was a lost opportunity to really control the debate. As for whether I think I could have done a better job than those at the NRA responsible for this statement, the answer is, yes, in this one case I could have, and I think so could a lot of other people.

OK, when will you write opinion pieces for the local papers, appear on the local news outlets, or go to community group meetings to present a better response than the NRA did? Let us know and some of us will try to come out to support you. Let let us know when and where.

:gene:

ar15robert
12-22-2012, 4:06 PM
EXACTLY! These internet experts that feel they can do a better job than the NRA, should just go ahead and do something that they feel the NRA cannot.

I agree most think they know how to do a better speech,have a better plan ,etc but if they were to go and talk they wont get anyones attention.

The NRA has deep pockets and influence i'd rather give them my money and let them fight vs me going up to a politician who wont bother to hear my voice.

NORCAL#1
12-22-2012, 4:10 PM
Someone start a new poll, Are you at NRA member or not? Unfortunately I would bet the number on here that are not is pretty big!!!

Fellblade
12-22-2012, 4:13 PM
The way I look at it is like this:
NRA membership provide some insurance for my guns. That alone is probably worth it.
The NRA, while they might be fighting hard for manufacturers, probably also help keep lawmakers from passing more bad laws that hurt everyone. That's worth it too.

If I sat and read up on everything they do on a yearly basis I'd probably disagree with some of it. On the other hand, at least some of the stuff they do probably helps me directly or indirectly so it's worth the membership fee. I'll just skip going out to lunch 2-3 times over the course of the year to make up for money.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 4:29 PM
Dude, there is not one way possible to please everybody. People on here are crying to "SAVE MY AR/AK" and he says what he can to protect your AR's. To be honest, I do not own an AR and could live without one, but imagine all the hater's on here if he suggested to ban them? Many AR owner's would become a tinfoiler and start digging bunkers. He said what needed to be said and did not sugar coat it. If you can do better start up your own gun rights org and we'll get behind whatever magical things you would say to please US ALL, the media, the anti's, the pro gunner's, the feds, everybody. I bet you make the BESTEST Koolaid of all!

I'm not bashing the job the NRA does in general, nor did I remotely suggest that I could do a better job 24/7/365. I'm just saying that, for the most powerful gun rights group in the country, and given that they took a week to make a statement, one should expect that they'd have done a much better job. They are supposed to be the political experts, after all. And when someone who is supposed to represent you does a crappy job (which they did in this case), it's only right to point it out.

This isn't about coming up with a solution that pleases everyone. If you think that it is, then you completely misunderstand the problem. This is about controlling the political spin, which is what they are paid by millions of members to do. Instead they came out with something that looks totally amateurish, and is only working at all because the antis are generally not smart enough to point out the flaws in it and are instead mostly focusing on the one part that I said (and have been saying since last Friday) should have been the main focus of their statement. That short-sightedness on the part of the antis does give us an opportunity to salvage something from that statement, but only if our side starts playing smarter.

choprzrul
12-22-2012, 4:37 PM
Blaming the NRA for school shootings....

is like....

blaming AAA for car accidents.

I would expect AAA spokesmen to come out tell everyone that cars are not to blame for car accidents. I would also expect NRA spokesmen to come out and tell the world that guns are not to blame for school shootings.

See how that works?

Pretty simple.

.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 4:43 PM
OK, when will you write opinion pieces for the local papers, appear on the local news outlets, or go to community group meetings to present a better response than the NRA did? Let us know and some of us will try to come out to support you. Let let us know when and where.

:gene:

Unfortunately because I work in a field where I can't afford to be that public with certain opinions, I'm not able to do many of those things. But I've been posting on here (in at least 4 threads), on other forums, and anonymously on all major media sites, since last Friday when the shooting occurred, what our response should be, in my opinion. And I still believe I am right on that score, that focusing on the question of security, and in fact challenging the administration on the question of why they've failed to address school security almost 15 years after Columbine, or after Virginia Tech, would have given us a chance to put the antis on the defensive. Instead they remained silent for a week, and then threw the kitchen sink at the problem, which makes it look like they just really didn't know how to respond.

And what's your point anyway, that simply because I'm not able personally to mount a one-man publicity campaign that I have no legitimate right to criticize an organization to which I pay dues for representation when they screw up? Or that, for the same reasons, my points aren't valid? The point isn't whether I can do a better job, it's whether or not the group we dues to so that they will do the job for us turns out crap when it really counts. And using your logic, let's see you come up with a response better than mine before you criticize me. :gene: right back atcha.

jdmcgee
12-22-2012, 5:34 PM
By blaming everything but guns, he made our side look like we are just desperate to blame anything but guns. It makes it look like he believes guns are the problem and just can't think of a good way to deny it. I know that's not the case, but the NRA statement does give that impression, especially given that they took a week to come up with it.



I don't think that anything any of the speakers said at the NRA press conference could be construed as making guns the problem through omission as a possible cause. The reason anything but guns was blamed for the tragedies is because the cause of these tragedies IS anything but guns.

Not too long ago in our country's history, anyone could order a Thompson machine gun (or many other guns considered by today's standards to be "Military-style Assault Weapons") by mail order to be delivered directly to their home with nearly no regulation. Did the children or the mentally ill order Tommy guns & shoot up schools back then? No, if it did happen it was a freak occurence statistically speaking. Who did order those guns via mail order & use them inappropriately? Criminals... which will always use any type of firearm inappropriately.

So we have to ask ourselves, what has changed in our current society that would make the children or mentally ill acquire firearms & use them for murder at a school, mall or anywhere. To be honest, I don't know??? As my Dad always said, "That's wayyyyy above my pay grade." The sense of self-validity of these actions could be mental illness, poor parenting, a lack of legal consequences for their actions, maybe that they're exposed to so much graphic violence when they clearly have such an impressionable mind, or maybe it's all or none of these... as I stated before, I don't know. What I do know is that in a very small segment of the population, something or someone convinces these murderers that killing someone, or in far too many cases, many people with a firearm "makes sense" in their deranged mind. An inanimate object such as a firearm can't convince anyone to do harm to anything or anyone.

As legal gun owners, another thing we all know is that in our current society, it is possibly harder to legally obtain a firearm than it has ever been, yet these firearm-related tragedies are happening with a somewhat regular occurence now.

We owe it to the memory of our forefathers that fought & died for all of our rights to personally educate anyone & everyone that we come in contact with about why our founding fathers felt all the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution were & still are so important. Important enough to die for.

JDMcGee

4DSJW
12-22-2012, 5:38 PM
I have to agree with GaryV, the NRA fell flat on this one. They had a rare opportunity to show some real leadership on the issue of legal gun ownership by responsible people. A chance to help lead this discussion forward in as intelligent and mature a fashion as possible. To make it clear that BS laws like the GFSZ do not make our society any safer and are mainly passed to make people FEEL safer and make the politicians look good. To point out that criminals DO NOT care about the law and and therefore the restrictive gun laws leave the rest of society less able to defend itself. Simple talking points that, if delivered clearly, would give those on the fence something concrete to think about.

And as for not making comments disagreeing with the NRA, baloney. Those of us who are NRA members have a right to comment when we feel the organization that we pay to support is not doing a good job representing us. At the very beginning of the speech Wayne LaPierre went out of his way to use the term "Fathers, Mothers, Sisters, Brothers", well some of us disagree with his decisions. He should have just said, "The NRA thinks..."

For the record, I am an endowment member of the NRA. I have been a NRA member for over 25 years and I think that every gun owner should at least be an annual member.

myk
12-22-2012, 5:50 PM
So, because I haven't been able to find a soapbox big enough for the media and the majority public to notice I don't have a right to an opinion? Just because he's THE MAN in the NRA I should just blindly and mutely follow along with how he's doing things, even if they're wrong and marginally incompetent and I disagree with him or his methods? It's sad that a message board that shouts and screams about freedom and rights and the will of the people doesn't even grant its members the right to their own opinion.

Gosh, maybe the world DID end after all...

aklon
12-22-2012, 6:11 PM
We should never forget that there are more of us than there are of them. NRA is now over 4 million members; Brady has - what? - something less than 100,000?

Not to mention the other 89 million Americans who own guns but have yet to join NRA.

I believe one of the reasons the shrieking is so loud and desperate is that the anti-freedom crowd know these things and since a crisis gives them the chance to act, they exploit the tragedy for all it's worth and try to legislate more gun control while they still can.

jdmcgee
12-22-2012, 6:34 PM
And as for not making comments disagreeing with the NRA, baloney.



4DSJW, I in no way started this post to discourage you or anyone else from criticizing the NRA or any other organization. The only point I'm trying to make is that if we criticize without it being constructive, than our criticisms will only work to divide us as a group. Those opposing the 2A use this division as a tactic. I, as a fellow NRA member, don't agree with everything the NRA says or does but if I'm going to make it public that I don't agree with the organization that historically has done more to retain my 2A right than any other group, I will try my darnedest to criticize constructively with logical & common sense alternatives.

To everyone else,

All of us also need to remember in political issues, which this clearly is, if you ever want to sway the opposition to your side you must assure the opposition that we're all working towards a common goal. I think the "School Shield" program shows that common goal, the safety of our children.

I ask you all, how far do you really think the cause of less infringement on 2A rights would've gotten if the NRA started the press conference with "NO COMPROMISE!", "From my Cold, Dead Hands", "Come & Get Them!" or "Guns didn't kill those poor kids, a person did!"? Do you really think that if they came out with statements like some of you want that it would've gone differently? That those inflexible statements would've opened a civil discussion to actually address the real problems?

giantsfan
12-22-2012, 6:52 PM
Blaming the NRA for school shootings....

is like....

blaming AAA for car accidents.

I would expect AAA spokesmen to come out tell everyone that cars are not to blame for car accidents. I would also expect NRA spokesmen to come out and tell the world that guns are not to blame for school shootings.

See how that works?

Pretty simple.

.

I'm not a member of the NRA nor am I against the NRA. I'm a believer in our Constitution and system of government. This fact alone had me going to the NRA site to join. As yet I haven't pulled the trigger, no pun intended.

The comments made by Lapierre insulted my intelligence. Just ridiculous. However, why did they need to address this anyway except to say what the President and others have said...horrific, shouldn't have happened, god bless the families, our hearts and minds are with them, etc...leave it at that and go back to your 2 martini lunch.

I agree wholeheartedly in what you're saying and that's the best analogy I've heard yet. Thanks!

njineermike
12-22-2012, 6:55 PM
For everybody pissing and moaning about the NRA: Name me even one other pro 2A group with the horsepower to get congress to meet with them.

The GOA couldn't get anybody to show up at a press conference if they gave away free cocaine and hookers. The SAF is awesome, but they focus on lawsuits. The rest are mostly regional. NO OTHER GROUP has the pull in Washington the NRA has, and right now we need a unified pull more than ever.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 7:46 PM
I don't think that anything any of the speakers said at the NRA press conference could be construed as making guns the problem through omission as a possible cause. The reason anything but guns was blamed for the tragedies is because the cause of these tragedies IS anything but guns.

Not too long ago in our country's history, anyone could order a Thompson machine gun (or many other guns considered by today's standards to be "Military-style Assault Weapons") by mail order to be delivered directly to their home with nearly no regulation. Did the children or the mentally ill order Tommy guns & shoot up schools back then? No, if it did happen it was a freak occurence statistically speaking. Who did order those guns via mail order & use them inappropriately? Criminals... which will always use any type of firearm inappropriately.

So we have to ask ourselves, what has changed in our current society that would make the children or mentally ill acquire firearms & use them for murder at a school, mall or anywhere. To be honest, I don't know??? As my Dad always said, "That's wayyyyy above my pay grade." The sense of self-validity of these actions could be mental illness, poor parenting, a lack of legal consequences for their actions, maybe that they're exposed to so much graphic violence when they clearly have such an impressionable mind, or maybe it's all or none of these... as I stated before, I don't know. What I do know is that in a very small segment of the population, something or someone convinces these murderers that killing someone, or in far too many cases, many people with a firearm "makes sense" in their deranged mind. An inanimate object such as a firearm can't convince anyone to do harm to anything or anyone.

As legal gun owners, another thing we all know is that in our current society, it is possibly harder to legally obtain a firearm than it has ever been, yet these firearm-related tragedies are happening with a somewhat regular occurence now.

We owe it to the memory of our forefathers that fought & died for all of our rights to personally educate anyone & everyone that we come in contact with about why our founding fathers felt all the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution were & still are so important. Important enough to die for.

JDMcGee

I would definitely agree with you that the problem clearly isn't guns, but the "blame everything else" approach was politically just about the worst thing they could have done, especially after such a long delay. Clearly the cause isn't everything but guns, but the causes are complex, and it's doubtful that anyone really knows what they all are. That's why they should never have even mentioned causes. This is not a problem that we can hope in our lifetimes to solve. What they should have done instead was to focus on practical ways to minimize the damage of what is clearly a deep-seated and fundamental societal issue that will take decades to adequately analyze and address.

Even if violent movies and video games are the root cause, you can't ban them or effectively keep young people from viewing/playing them. So why even mention them? And if they are to blame, then there's the question of why they have such appeal, which is the reason they exist, and an even deeper issue that would need to be addressed. There's no solution there to be had. Bringing it up just sounds like trying to divert blame. It doesn't matter if it's true, it's a very bad rank amateur political mistake. It's not what I expect (or what any dues-paying member should expect) from our premier lobbying group. Damage control, to be effective, needs to not sound like damage control, and this reeked of it.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 7:50 PM
4DSJW, I in no way started this post to discourage you or anyone else from criticizing the NRA or any other organization. The only point I'm trying to make is that if we criticize without it being constructive, than our criticisms will only work to divide us as a group. Those opposing the 2A use this division as a tactic. I, as a fellow NRA member, don't agree with everything the NRA says or does but if I'm going to make it public that I don't agree with the organization that historically has done more to retain my 2A right than any other group, I will try my darnedest to criticize constructively with logical & common sense alternatives.

To everyone else,

All of us also need to remember in political issues, which this clearly is, if you ever want to sway the opposition to your side you must assure the opposition that we're all working towards a common goal. I think the "School Shield" program shows that common goal, the safety of our children.

I ask you all, how far do you really think the cause of less infringement on 2A rights would've gotten if the NRA started the press conference with "NO COMPROMISE!", "From my Cold, Dead Hands", "Come & Get Them!" or "Guns didn't kill those poor kids, a person did!"? Do you really think that if they came out with statements like some of you want that it would've gone differently? That those inflexible statements would've opened a civil discussion to actually address the real problems?

I think the criticism has been constructive. People are not just saying that they screwed up, but pointing out how they screwed up, and in some instances giving suggestions on how they could have done better. That is what constructive criticism does - points out specifically what you did wrong so you don't do it again, and offers suggestions as to how to do it better.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 7:52 PM
For everybody pissing and moaning about the NRA: Name me even one other pro 2A group with the horsepower to get congress to meet with them.

How is that remotely relevant to whether or not they messed up when we needed them the most? I don't care if you're Michael Jordan. If you choke when we need you to be Michael Jordan, you should expect that people are going to call you on it. In fact, in this case it is the very fact that they are such an important mouthpiece for gun rights that their mistake is so egregious. Had GOA done such a lousy job, no one would have been surprised, and it wouldn't have cost us very much. The fact that the NRA does have so much clout means that their mistake cost us a lot more political capital than if anyone else had done it.

Anchors
12-22-2012, 8:21 PM
The people that think the NRA looks stupid and is blaming everything except guns are the same people that have always thought the NRA is stupid and only blame guns.

It isn't like we lost any traction due to the conference. The NRA has had 8,000 new memberships a day since the shooting lol.

Whether you love them or hate them, I would rather give them money than not give them money.

Donate to SAF and the NRA-ILA specifically while you're at it.

njineermike
12-22-2012, 8:41 PM
How is that remotely relevant to whether or not they messed up when we needed them the most? I don't care if you're Michael Jordan. If you choke when we need you to be Michael Jordan, you should expect that people are going to call you on it. In fact, in this case it is the very fact that they are such an important mouthpiece for gun rights that their mistake is so egregious. Had GOA done such a lousy job, no one would have been surprised, and it wouldn't have cost us very much. The fact that the NRA does have so much clout means that their mistake cost us a lot more political capital than if anyone else had done it.

Tell you what there scooter. You call a press conference and do better. Til that time all this is just more noise from an internet yutz with no credibility complaining that he didn't get a pony for his birthday.

Mrs Rabbit
12-22-2012, 8:59 PM
I personally think they did the right thing in waiting before speaking. To come out too soon after, in my opinion, could have come off as very callous and insensitive. I don't agree with everything he said but this one is a lose/lose sitch. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. Given I didn't hear him bow to public pressure in regards to future bans and regulations, I remain hopeful they will take up the future court case that is in no doubt coming.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 9:13 PM
The people that think the NRA looks stupid and is blaming everything except guns are the same people that have always thought the NRA is stupid and only blame guns.

It isn't like we lost any traction due to the conference. The NRA has had 8,000 new memberships a day since the shooting lol.

Whether you love them or hate them, I would rather give them money than not give them money.

Donate to SAF and the NRA-ILA specifically while you're at it.

Thats not true at all. I love most of what the NRA does, and have been a member for 30+ years. But I also have no problem pointing out when they screw up. And they did screw up. This isn't about supporting or not supporting the NRA.

Where does this idea, that support equates to never being critical, come from? It's ridiculous. The NRA isn't a spouse or child. They are our political mouthpiece to whom we give money so that they can do a professional job in representing our interests to those in power. When they screw up that job, it is our right, and I would say even our duty, to point it out and to demand that they get their act together.

Especially since they're seen by everyone, not just us, as representing our interests, this kind of mistake in such a critical situation is extremely serious. It's not new members we need to worry about, it's political capitol. And if we don't lose a large chunk with this poor response from them, it'll only be because the antis are too stupid to capitalize on it.

GaryV
12-22-2012, 9:36 PM
Tell you what there scooter. You call a press conference and do better. Til that time all this is just more noise from an internet yutz with no credibility complaining that he didn't get a pony for his birthday.

Again, this is a ridiculous response. I've already done better, right here, and I challenge you to show how I haven't. The fact that, as myk put it, I haven't found a soapbox big enough has nothing to do with whether my opinion is relevant or credible. It's certainly, at an absolute minimum, every bit as credible as yours, which you seem to hold in such high regard.

This isn't about not getting what I wanted, it's about not getting what I paid for. I paid for a professional political lobbying group, that isn't supposed to make these kinds of mistakes. I don't care how good a job they've done at other things. The situation right now is by far the biggest threat to gun rights in the US since the 1968 GCA, and for them to make such an amateurish error now is inexcusable. What surprises me is how many people think that it's not, that, in fact, we should be applauding it.

How do you ever expect to get better performance from them if you don't ever hold them accountable when they give a poor one? Isn't that why we need them in the first place, because our politicians have become isolated enough from us that they no longer feel accountable to us unless we can pool our influence through the agency of a lobbying group? Why would you not insist that your chief lobbyist not perform with competence when you are in a fight like this one?

If we can't criticize them, our only other option for showing that we expect better from them is to end our memberships and donations. But that's cutting off our nose to spite our face. We need them now more than ever, so we can't afford to remove our financial support from them. But we need them to bring their A game, not just some half-baked afterbirth like what we got this week, so we need to let them hear our disappointment. Otherwise, if they continue to turn out such a poor performance, we'd be better off without them.

njineermike
12-22-2012, 9:55 PM
Again, this is a ridiculous response. I've already done better, right here, and I challenge you to show how I haven't. The fact that, as myk put it, I haven't found a soapbox big enough has nothing to do with whether my opinion is relevant or credible. It's certainly, at an absolute minimum, every bit as credible as yours, which you seem to hold in such high regard.

This isn't about not getting what I wanted, it's about not getting what I paid for. I paid for a professional political lobbying group, that isn't supposed to make these kinds of mistakes. I don't care how good a job they've done at other things. The situation right now is by far the biggest threat to gun rights in the US since the 1968 GCA, and for them to make such an amateurish error now is inexcusable. What surprises me is how many people think that it's not, that, in fact, we should be applauding it.

How do you ever expect to get better performance from them if you don't ever hold them accountable when they give a poor one? Isn't that why we need them in the first place, because our politicians have become isolated enough from us that they no longer feel accountable to us unless we can pool our influence through the agency of a lobbying group? Why would you not insist that your chief lobbyist not perform with competence when you are in a fight like this one?

If we can't criticize them, our only other option for showing that we expect better from them is to end our memberships and donations. But that's cutting off our nose to spite our face. We need them now more than ever, so we can't afford to remove our financial support from them. But we need them to bring their A game, not just some half-baked afterbirth like what we got this week, so we need to let them hear our disappointment. Otherwise, if they continue to turn out such a poor performance, we'd be better off without them.


You've posted your opinion on a web forum. Seeing as any moron with internet access can do the same thing, it isn't exactly earth shattering. I repeat. Call a news conference and do better. Until then it's just verbose noise.

dwtt
12-23-2012, 12:10 AM
You've posted your opinion on a web forum. Seeing as any moron with internet access can do the same thing, it isn't exactly earth shattering. I repeat. Call a news conference and do better. Until then it's just verbose noise.

mike, take it easy on him. He works in a position where he can't be known as a gun owner, even though he can and did do better than the NRA (in his own mind) in responding to the shooting in CT. Everything should be good now.

SMR510
12-23-2012, 1:41 AM
The major problem that many people (myself included) have with the NRA is that their public image outside of the gun community is horrible. In order for me to want to be a proud member of the NRA I have to be proud of the organization, at this point in time I am not.

I agree that the content and delivery of the speech at the press conference was not very good in the context of public image. I believe that has just given the bias media more fuel to add to the fire by taking portions of his speech and showing them with their commentary about whatever the heck they thing is right or wrong.

With that being said, if you own a gun you should be a member. I signed up last week because I know that it is important for us to be behind the most influential gun organization in the country and most likely the world. I will however donate to other smaller organizations that I believe are going to be very effective at neutralizing any of this new legislation.

Excelsior
12-23-2012, 2:01 AM
The problem I have with LaPierre's statement is that it was very poorly thought-out and even more poorly executed. I don't keep up with the internal politics of the NRA, but given that we clearly have some extremely good people on our side I don't know why the NRA can't seem to come up with a better spokesperson.

By blaming everything but guns, he made our side look like we are just desperate to blame anything but guns. It makes it look like he believes guns are the problem and just can't think of a good way to deny it. I know that's not the case, but the NRA statement does give that impression, especially given that they took a week to come up with it.

Instead he should have focused only on the issue of increased security, and presented that in a more robust way than just calling for armed security guards. The administration is weak on the issue of school security, and by focusing in a well thought-out way on something that makes perfect sense as a real solution to the problem of school attacks in general, he had a chance to really make the administration look like the opportunistic ghouls they are to anyone who is even remotely unbiased. It was a lost opportunity to really control the debate. As for whether I think I could have done a better job than those at the NRA responsible for this statement, the answer is, yes, in this one case I could have, and I think so could a lot of other people.

It's interesting how you offer a personal opinion as if it were fact... :rolleyes:

Excelsior
12-23-2012, 2:06 AM
Again, this is a ridiculous response. I've already done better, right here, and I challenge you to show how I haven't. The fact that, as myk put it, I haven't found a soapbox big enough has nothing to do with whether my opinion is relevant or credible. It's certainly, at an absolute minimum, every bit as credible as yours, which you seem to hold in such high regard.

This isn't about not getting what I wanted, it's about not getting what I paid for. I paid for a professional political lobbying group, that isn't supposed to make these kinds of mistakes. I don't care how good a job they've done at other things. The situation right now is by far the biggest threat to gun rights in the US since the 1968 GCA, and for them to make such an amateurish error now is inexcusable. What surprises me is how many people think that it's not, that, in fact, we should be applauding it.

How do you ever expect to get better performance from them if you don't ever hold them accountable when they give a poor one? Isn't that why we need them in the first place, because our politicians have become isolated enough from us that they no longer feel accountable to us unless we can pool our influence through the agency of a lobbying group? Why would you not insist that your chief lobbyist not perform with competence when you are in a fight like this one?

If we can't criticize them, our only other option for showing that we expect better from them is to end our memberships and donations. But that's cutting off our nose to spite our face. We need them now more than ever, so we can't afford to remove our financial support from them. But we need them to bring their A game, not just some half-baked afterbirth like what we got this week, so we need to let them hear our disappointment. Otherwise, if they continue to turn out such a poor performance, we'd be better off without them.

You have? :rolleyes:

Are you being serious?

Excelsior
12-23-2012, 2:08 AM
The major problem that many people (myself included) have with the NRA is that their public image outside of the gun community is horrible. In order for me to want to be a proud member of the NRA I have to be proud of the organization, at this point in time I am not.

I agree that the content and delivery of the speech at the press conference was not very good in the context of public image. I believe that has just given the bias media more fuel to add to the fire by taking portions of his speech and showing them with their commentary about whatever the heck they thing is right or wrong.

With that being said, if you own a gun you should be a member. I signed up last week because I know that it is important for us to be behind the most influential gun organization in the country and most likely the world. I will however donate to other smaller organizations that I believe are going to be very effective at neutralizing any of this new legislation.

All you need to do is become a member. You need not be proud of it. Joining the NRA is the single best way to defend your RKBA.

dwtt
12-24-2012, 12:07 AM
The major problem that many people (myself included) have with the NRA is that their public image outside of the gun community is horrible. In order for me to want to be a proud member of the NRA I have to be proud of the organization, at this point in time I am not.



This is sidetracking a bit but do you think the image you give to nonshooters would be better than what "the NRA" is presenting? Then you need to get involved and start working at the grassroots level. The NRA is the membership, not some distant committee in Virginia. Do what I did. Find your local NRA Member's council and go to their monthly meetings. Take part in the events they hold to reach out to the general public and you can present the positive image you think is needed.
In Alameda county, the local member's council holds fun shoots twice a year and they introduce nonshooters to guns and show they are not the evil death machines the Brady bunch want them to believe. There aren't member's councils in Virginia and you shouldn't let a good program pass you by.

rugershooter
12-24-2012, 10:47 AM
I'd rather donate money to the Calguns Foundation. The NRA's solution to the shootings is compromise; "enforce the laws we already have", rather than eliminating the existing gun laws. How much has the NRA done to try eliminating the GFSZ? How about shall-issue ccw in California? What has the NRA done to try eliminating the assault weapons laws in CA? I hear all this talk from people about "trading" background checks on mags in exchange for high-cap mags, more background checks, etc. Are you people that damn stupid? When you compromise and give away your rights, the gun grabbers WILL try taking more. Look at our carry laws. At first we didn't have any laws, then ccw, then the UOC laws, now no OC for handguns, and long gun OC is now being banned. Or bullet buttons. They antis were fine with that for a while, now they want them banned.
Gun owners are not the problem. Get that through your heads. I own several guns. I have never killed anybody with any of them, nor do I ever intend on shooting anyone unless forced to in self defense. I should not give up my rights because other people don't obey the law. It's embarrassing to see how many people who claim to be pro gun are acting as if we are the problem.
One way to make an actual difference is getting people to become shooters and gun owners. I've introduced many people to shooting and they're really into it now. I've given several guns as gifts to them so they can get started, and now they're buying more guns.

BBJohnnyT
12-24-2012, 11:11 AM
I'm simply astounded that this divided debate in our own ranks is even taking place. For those of you guys who are not NRA members, shame on you! Period. You're riding in the cart but others are pulling your weight. So, man up and join... today. Don't put it off, go to their web site now. Forego that one dinner at Applebees to cover the dues. No more excuses. No more whining.

The fight is now on and it will be brutal. Other organizations like CalGuns and the 2nd Amendment Foundation are fine, but no other group has the same clout and influence in Congress where the fight will take place this winter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg/800px-Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg

Excelsior
12-24-2012, 11:42 AM
I'd rather donate money to the Calguns Foundation. The NRA's solution to the shootings is compromise; "enforce the laws we already have", rather than eliminating the existing gun laws. How much has the NRA done to try eliminating the GFSZ? How about shall-issue ccw in California? What has the NRA done to try eliminating the assault weapons laws in CA? I hear all this talk from people about "trading" background checks on mags in exchange for high-cap mags, more background checks, etc. Are you people that damn stupid? When you compromise and give away your rights, the gun grabbers WILL try taking more. Look at our carry laws. At first we didn't have any laws, then ccw, then the UOC laws, now no OC for handguns, and long gun OC is now being banned. Or bullet buttons. They antis were fine with that for a while, now they want them banned.
Gun owners are not the problem. Get that through your heads. I own several guns. I have never killed anybody with any of them, nor do I ever intend on shooting anyone unless forced to in self defense. I should not give up my rights because other people don't obey the law. It's embarrassing to see how many people who claim to be pro gun are acting as if we are the problem.
One way to make an actual difference is getting people to become shooters and gun owners. I've introduced many people to shooting and they're really into it now. I've given several guns as gifts to them so they can get started, and now they're buying more guns.

There's that logical fallacy again! :facepalm: You infer that you can donate to Calguns ONLY if you don't join the NRA. BULL!! Get over yourself already and spend $10-35.00 joining the NRA!

Excelsior
12-24-2012, 11:45 AM
I'm simply astounded that this divided debate in our own ranks is even taking place. For those of you guys who are not NRA members, shame on you! Period. You're riding in the cart but others are pulling your weight. So, man up and join... today. Don't put it off, go to their web site now. Forego that one dinner at Applebees to cover the dues. No more excuses. No more whining.

The fight is now on and it will be brutal. Other organizations like CalGuns and the 2nd Amendment Foundation are fine, but no other group has the same clout and influence in Congress where the fight will take place this winter.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg/800px-Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg

Amen. There are some VERY shallow thinkers on these forums! You talk about programmed individuals who seem to lack the ability to stop think!?!

GJC
12-24-2012, 1:21 PM
Blaming the NRA for school shootings....

is like....

blaming AAA for car accidents.

I would expect AAA spokesmen to come out tell everyone that cars are not to blame for car accidents. I would also expect NRA spokesmen to come out and tell the world that guns are not to blame for school shootings.

See how that works?

Pretty simple.

.

Well said!! :clap:

dfletcher
12-24-2012, 1:46 PM
The below statements won't make me popular with a lot of you, but frankly, I don't care.

If you don't like the the statements or stance that the NRA has made, that's your choice but just know that if you criticize without any other plan of action your criticism is nothing but poisonous fuel for the possible loss of our rights by dividing all of us that should have a common goal in mind.

There are too many of you out there that flame anyone for trying to do anything to ensure we keep our 2A rights.

All of you that feel we shouldn't even discuss the topic of gun violence with those who oppose our firearm rights are only leaving yourself one, singular option: infringement of our 2A right.

If your only response to the possibility of infringement of our 2A right is for the opposition to try to "Come & Get Them" or "Pry them from our cold, dead hands" than history shows that with only one option, there can only be one outcome.

I am in no way stating that we should compromise. I am only stating that if we don't have a discussion with those opposing our right to keep & bear arms, than the powers that be will only follow the recommendations of those willing to discuss & give options for a possible solution, even if that possible solution is idiotic.

The only things we should be doing is standing undivided for a common goal & making sure that we personally educate every single person we can on the clear benefit of the right to keep & bear arms.

In other words, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

JDMcGee

I've been an NRA member since about 1973 and a Life Member for many years. With respect to criticism of NRA by those who are not members I am of two minds on the issue, one is loosely but best summed up by stealing from "A Few Good Men" ....

"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way."

On the other hand, I want NRA to grow and that means bringing in more members. So, NRA has to be aware of the likes and dislikes of those outside of membership. If a criticism is offered by way of improving the message or method of delivery of the organization, I think that should be taken into account.

Constructive criticism offered to improve effectiveness is fine. Requiring the person to have a better plan or keep quiet, I don't agree. As a passenger in a car I may not know the way out, but if I know we're lost there's a value to simply saying "stop - we're lost". The "better way" can come later.

I am not especially pleased at how NRA handled the press conference. I liked much of the message but would have preferred including a softer sell along the lines of the old "I'm the NRA" adverts. I would have liked to see a woman or two included in the presentation, maybe a Black police chief and others supporting CCW. This is a public relations event that should be aimed at all of the American public, not just a bunch of White old fart gun owners like me.

I am hopeful NRA will listen, assess and retool for success.

Anchors
12-24-2012, 8:21 PM
Thats not true at all. I love most of what the NRA does, and have been a member for 30+ years. But I also have no problem pointing out when they screw up. And they did screw up. This isn't about supporting or not supporting the NRA.

Where does this idea, that support equates to never being critical, come from? It's ridiculous. The NRA isn't a spouse or child. They are our political mouthpiece to whom we give money so that they can do a professional job in representing our interests to those in power. When they screw up that job, it is our right, and I would say even our duty, to point it out and to demand that they get their act together.

Especially since they're seen by everyone, not just us, as representing our interests, this kind of mistake in such a critical situation is extremely serious. It's not new members we need to worry about, it's political capitol. And if we don't lose a large chunk with this poor response from them, it'll only be because the antis are too stupid to capitalize on it.

My point is that jumping in on the pile on with the media right now isn't going to help our cause.
You don't like something they've done? Cool, write them a letter or try to run for a position within the NRA.
But complaining about them online isn't helping you, the NRA, or me.
That is all I'm saying.

rugershooter
12-24-2012, 9:29 PM
There's that logical fallacy again! :facepalm: You infer that you can donate to Calguns ONLY if you don't join the NRA. BULL!! Get over yourself already and spend $10-35.00 joining the NRA!

What's bull is that the NRA is constantly and consistently compromising our rights. They somehow think that the antis are reasonable and will stop wanting more laws if we only enforce the ones we have. My money is more effectively spent by donating to Calguns

BBJohnnyT
12-24-2012, 10:19 PM
What's bull is that the NRA is constantly and consistently compromising our rights. They somehow think that the antis are reasonable and will stop wanting more laws if we only enforce the ones we have. My money is more effectively spent by donating to Calguns

Holy cow, we're now in the fight of our lives and the NRA is, by far, in the best position to lobby Congress to thwart any new legislation. And you're preoccupied with some pissy side issue because they don't do everything to your liking? Pardon me for being frank, but you're attitude disgusts me. Wise up, get over it man and get on board. If new bans or restrictions get enacted, I'll be surely blaming the likes of you as well as the anti gun crowd.

carrywisely_ca
12-24-2012, 10:41 PM
The problem I have with LaPierre's statement is that it was very poorly thought-out and even more poorly executed. I don't keep up with the internal politics of the NRA, but given that we clearly have some extremely good people on our side I don't know why the NRA can't seem to come up with a better spokesperson.

By blaming everything but guns, he made our side look like we are just desperate to blame anything but guns. It makes it look like he believes guns are the problem and just can't think of a good way to deny it. I know that's not the case, but the NRA statement does give that impression, especially given that they took a week to come up with it.

Instead he should have focused only on the issue of increased security, and presented that in a more robust way than just calling for armed security guards. The administration is weak on the issue of school security, and by focusing in a well thought-out way on something that makes perfect sense as a real solution to the problem of school attacks in general, he had a chance to really make the administration look like the opportunistic ghouls they are to anyone who is even remotely unbiased. It was a lost opportunity to really control the debate. As for whether I think I could have done a better job than those at the NRA responsible for this statement, the answer is, yes, in this one case I could have, and I think so could a lot of other people.

Could not have stated it better.

rugershooter
12-24-2012, 10:51 PM
Holy cow, we're now in the fight of our lives and the NRA is, by far, in the best position to lobby Congress to thwart any new legislation. And you're preoccupied with some pissy side issue because they don't do everything to your liking? Pardon me for being frank, but you're attitude disgusts me. Wise up, get over it man and get on board. If new bans or restrictions get enacted, I'll be surely blaming the likes of you as well as the anti gun crowd.

The p*sy attitude you and the NRA have is f**king disgusting. My rights are not dependent on the state. You and the NRA want to enforce the laws already on the books, which prohibit me from owning and carrying arms for self defense. As far as I'm concerned, that's the same as those who would actually try to kill me. I've had to use a weapon in self defense on several occasions. I've had to pull a knife on several occasions. I couldn't have a gun because Ronald Regan made LOC illegal, and the politicians before him made may-issue laws, and all the other a**holes made UOC illegal. Your attitude disgusts me. Stop being a f**king pushover who keeps giving away your rights. Background checks, assault weapons laws, high-cap restrictions, all the other other laws are bulls**t laws that don't do a damn thing to stop criminals. That's pretty damn clear. So why in the hell should I lose my rights in order to have a false sense of security that people will actually obey the law? People like you are a disgrace to this country and don't deserve the protections of the Constitution. You - along with the NRA- are so willing to compromise MY rights away for increased restrictions that won't be followed by the criminals who are going to murder innocent people.

Slidesauce
12-24-2012, 11:00 PM
...By blaming everything but guns, he made our side look like we are just desperate to blame anything but guns. It makes it look like he believes guns are the problem and just can't think of a good way to deny it...

Exactly

Pred
12-24-2012, 11:08 PM
You are right man, but sadly ive talked to anti gun folk and they just think we are red neck trash who have no idea about whats going on in our world today. They think we want things to be like the wild west. Ill even go as far to say we are being treated like jews in Nazi Germany. We need to back the NRA and do something productive. But its hard when the news and the government is almost all against us. When we have the news showing maps of where gun owners live on there web sites and people like Piers Morgan feeding americans trash all day, we dont really have a foot hole. Now dont get me wrong im not saying we shouldn't fight for our rights. Im just saying i dont think it will do much good sadly

warbird
12-24-2012, 11:30 PM
Many critics of the NRA have issues with what the NRA is saying poorly in my opinion, that the NRA is reflecting the attitude of it's current members but not those they hope to enlist in the future, that the NRA has been ineffective to date or we would not be living under the restrictive rules we now endure, and that any critical comments no matter how well intended are taken as an attack by it's members. the NRA does not have to prove itself to it's current members or they would not be members. But it does have to prove itself to it's future members and it apparently has no idea what those prospective members want. As for money and dues, people in these tough times are holding out because they want proof their money is being well spent especially when they see restrictive gun laws being passed by the dozens across this great country and nothing has been reversed by any legislature. And don't tell me the standard excuse of if we had more money we could accomplish something. How about spending money more wisely and smaller executive paychecks in this time of belt tightening? The NRA needs to turn california around simply because the gun restrictions being put foreward by Obama and others have already been passed in california with worse to come. and why haven't the gun manufacturors joining in donating money and help to the NRA? And if they have why hasn't this been advertised? The NRA seems to be dividing us rather than uniting us if I am reading this forum correctly.

Excelsior
12-25-2012, 12:39 AM
What's bull is that the NRA is constantly and consistently compromising our rights. They somehow think that the antis are reasonable and will stop wanting more laws if we only enforce the ones we have. My money is more effectively spent by donating to Calguns

Yeah? Do you have some examples you could share? Given that they are doing it "constantly and consistently" you should have a boat-load full. Let's hear them please.

Excelsior
12-25-2012, 12:46 AM
The p*sy attitude you and the NRA have is f**king disgusting. My rights are not dependent on the state. You and the NRA want to enforce the laws already on the books, which prohibit me from owning and carrying arms for self defense. As far as I'm concerned, that's the same as those who would actually try to kill me. I've had to use a weapon in self defense on several occasions. I've had to pull a knife on several occasions. I couldn't have a gun because Ronald Regan made LOC illegal, and the politicians before him made may-issue laws, and all the other a**holes made UOC illegal. Your attitude disgusts me. Stop being a f**king pushover who keeps giving away your rights. Background checks, assault weapons laws, high-cap restrictions, all the other other laws are bulls**t laws that don't do a damn thing to stop criminals. That's pretty damn clear. So why in the hell should I lose my rights in order to have a false sense of security that people will actually obey the law? People like you are a disgrace to this country and don't deserve the protections of the Constitution. You - along with the NRA- are so willing to compromise MY rights away for increased restrictions that won't be followed by the criminals who are going to murder innocent people.

I call a smell-test violation. I simply don't believe you.

That said, exactly does the NRA compromise your rights?

drdarkness
12-25-2012, 1:23 AM
[QUOTE=GaryV;9989074]The problem I have with LaPierre's statement is that it was very poorly thought-out and even more poorly executed. I don't keep up with the internal politics of the NRA, but given that we clearly have some extremely good people on our side I don't know why the NRA can't seem to come up with a better spokesperson.

I'm an NRA member and that ^ says it all. The NRA needs someone more like-able not someone who comes off as merely just another politician.

Wrangler John
12-25-2012, 5:30 AM
If it weren't for the NRA the federal assault weapons ban would still be in effect instead of sunsetting in 2004.

Truth is that LaPierre's statements were factual and germane to the discussion. Violence depicted in film and television are very provocative to the mentally unstable sociopath, as are violent video games. The latter are especially effective in programming and reinforcing violent behaviors in mentally ill obsessive individuals. Neuroplasticity, or the ability of the brain to change its structure and function due to repeated stimuli, can result in a mentally unstable individual adopting the fantasy world of the violent game as reality. Coupled with the effects of such psychotropic medications as SSRI antidepressants and others prone to produce suicidal ideation, and the desire to act out the game scenarios, the individual has programmed himself into becoming a mass murderer awaiting a trigger incident. This is especially true of the isolated loner type undergoing an outpatient treatment program, or who has voluntarily discontinued treatment.

Similarly, we find certain anti-social cultic movements and film genres attractive and influential in developing the delusions of these individuals, such as the Goth subculture and dark fantasy films. In one case we find the perpetrator obsessed with the Dark Knight films. In many cases the perpetrators of these atrocities have expressed their delusions outwardly through the adoption of a Gothic lifestyle, cultic markings and openly espoused their malevolent manifesto through social networks and Internet blogs without incurring any official scrutiny. Many were also taking prescribed SSRI antidepressant medication, which also appears to be a common factor. These drugs are well known to cause hallucinations, loss of contact with reality, suicidal ideation and mood swings as side effects, yet they are regularly prescribed for unstable individuals.

While violent games, films, graphic novels and the various subcultures have little effect on the stable individual, they profoundly effect the unstable and dysfunctional individual. It is this area that needs to be investigated, as Wayne LaPierre suggested. It is my theory that, for the mentally unstable, violent video games and films are psychotropic in nature and fully capable of inducing violent psychotic episodes, an effect which may be amplified by antidepressant and other medications. LaPierre was justified in his assessment.

CharlesV
12-25-2012, 5:35 AM
I agree with GaryV. There was a time, when i was still NRA, that NRA was very strong and consistent and smart. Some years ago they changed, i didnt change, and i found they were speaking less for me and more for something else. I even thought at times they were working against the interests of gun owners; i couldnt make any sense of their rationales and they didnt explain themselves either. Today i ask, whose side are they really on?

I think its absurd for posters to say that unless a criticizer starts a New NRA today that his comments are pointless, instead we need to find all the common ground we can even though NRA might not be it.

Can anyone see where our common ground is in this thread or would you all rather bicker?

Excelsior
12-25-2012, 8:42 AM
I agree with GaryV. There was a time, when i was still NRA, that NRA was very strong and consistent and smart. Some years ago they changed, i didnt change, and i found they were speaking less for me and more for something else. I even thought at times they were working against the interests of gun owners; i couldnt make any sense of their rationales and they didnt explain themselves either. Today i ask, whose side are they really on?

I think its absurd for posters to say that unless a criticizer starts a New NRA today that his comments are pointless, instead we need to find all the common ground we can even though NRA might not be it.

Can anyone see where our common ground is in this thread or would you all rather bicker?

What makes you qualified to judge them? Do you have a background in political lobbying? Have you actually worked within the beltway? Do you truly understand what they do in terms of fighting for our gun rights?

They aren't a rah-rah, idealistic group that does nothing. In terms of gun rights they are a lobbying group. A fairly effective one at that. I get a chuckle out of people that judge the NRA with no real substance behind their claims.

tackdriver
12-25-2012, 9:14 AM
Cant say I've seem many comments on Calguns that "slammed the NRA". Comments I've seen on this issue are about their response on the current tragedy. Guards at schools? Why not also at movie theaters? blah..blah..

I did think the issue about more mental health treatment availability was fair
For a group that represents 4 million members, I would have expected better.
Between you and me, I did not think a response from the NRA on this issue was required at all.

donw
12-25-2012, 9:18 AM
in my signature, you will see "NRA life member"

there is a reason (not just one...but one of the most important)

the NRA is UNITED and has resources to be able to forcefully, intelligently and convincingly deal with the likes of DiFi, Schummer, etc.

now...these types may not "Tremble in their boots" when dealing with the NRA, but.. they certainly know they cannot just do as they wish without consequences.

why do you think the NRA has been called "Jack booted thugs", among other names, from legislators and anti's?

IMO, we should end some of these legislators careers by having them put out of office by vote, recall or demand.

wasn't it barack obama himself that said: "Use your vote for revenge" and "The republicans are the enemy"? answer: yes...

simply stated: the NRA has power. we need to assert that power! if that's offenive to legislators...then ................................

sarabellum
12-25-2012, 12:08 PM
JDMcGee's key premise is that if there is to be a dissent it should be a thoughtful dissent. The NRA or any other institution's view of things is the orthodox view accepted as true without further scrutiny or proof. The unorthodox view is generally accurate. Why? The unorthodox view is put to the test and scrutinized by those accepting the orthodox view.

There are various problems with the 2nd Amendment Community's reasoning and historical perspective (or lack thereof). The 2A community accepts the apolitical issues (like "fiscal cliffs") from two corporate parties. A two party monopoly on political discourse is not mentioned in the consitution, much less a two corporate party system. Nonetheless, the 2A community believes in an unconstitutional system and its "issues."

Incongruously, the 2A community believes that one of the corporate parties supports principles of individual and collective liberty, including the 2A right to bear arms contrary to the historical evidence. Historically, the framers and the two corporate parties supported disarming persons who disagreed with them (i.e. dissenters) and people of color http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/controlling-guns-controlling-people . It appears that modern gun control is an outgrowth of American apartheid wherein black communities are disarmed when they seek to arm themselves against police repression.

Sociological research indicates that anti-social and sociopathic behavior is fostered by a social context. We have sociopathic executive and legislative branches, who order our troops to invade places like Iraq and Afghanistan as a solution to our economic problems (with images of U.S. soldiers kicking in the doors of poor people's homes to confiscate their guns without a warrant). The drone killings of folks at weddings add a touch of depersonalized, consequence free violence. That is the social milieu for the Lanzas of the world.

Mr. LaPierre could have turned the tables on the anti-democratic forces in this society (both republican and democrat) by calling for commitment to creation of a more humane urban and economic environment, commitment to funding mental health centers (1980 the Community Health Centers Act vetoed by the then President), and empowering families to prevent disintegration.

However, Mr. LaPierre could not seize the day as his organization buys into the unconstitutional two corporate party system and is too heavily invested with one of those parties.

The current discourse, aka smokescreen into which the 2A community has fallen is- "we will limit firearms" vs. "don't take my firearms". Rather than, "we will limit firearms" vs. "you are neglecting the social problems of an inhumane environment, lack of mental health institutions, and economic policies contributing to familial break up." The former discourse is a perfect tool for getting any anti-democratic legislation approved, while the latter reveals contradictions.

sarabellum
12-25-2012, 12:21 PM
SSRI antidepressant medication, which also appears to be a common factor. These drugs are well known to cause hallucinations, loss of contact with reality, suicidal ideation and mood swings as side effects, yet they are regularly prescribed for unstable individuals.

I am curious to read the research supporting these findings.

Wrangler John
12-25-2012, 12:26 PM
Cant say I've seem many comments on Calguns that "slammed the NRA". Comments I've seen on this issue are about their response on the current tragedy. Guards at schools? Why not also at movie theaters? blah..blah..

I did think the issue about more mental health treatment availability was fair
For a group that represents 4 million members, I would have expected better.
Between you and me, I did not think a response from the NRA on this issue was required at all.

Well, that's a strategy taught to me by an old bureaucrat I once worked with: "Never put anything in writing and keep your mouth shut, you don't want to give 'em anything to work with." There was a secret society of British intellectuals, which somehow included professors and law students, during the 16th Century called The Spearshakers. One of their symbols was a hand reaching from behind a stage curtain writing upon a scroll, implying an unseen author. Work behind the scenes, use behind closed door influence coupled with political pressure from an aroused constituency to accomplish your goals. Although we need not protect ourselves with secret societies today to avoid charges of treason resulting in being hanged, drawn and quartered when publishing political commentary, there is still wisdom in avoiding the darts of a foul and corrupt media.

Dieter
12-25-2012, 12:34 PM
My humble opinion is that the NRA is not correct about the video game thing and movie thing in general. I don't always agree with the NRA's statements or actions - that said -

I will ALWAYS be an NRA member - they contribute tremendously. If you are NOT a member, I'd advise you to become one. I'd also advise you to join as many orgs as possible including SAF and GOC.

Sutcliffe
12-25-2012, 1:16 PM
Yeah, aside from he's ugly, smells, and difficult to get along with.

He's still a G-damned gorilla.

warbird
12-25-2012, 1:32 PM
Membership is only good if your voice is heard and you feel you are not fighting an argument that has already been decided before anyone asked your opinion. The NRA seems to be saying just shut up, join us, and give us money whenever we want it. I have not heard anything about accountability, explaining stances that might be confusing, or showing why they elected one path to pursue over another. I disagree when any organization says "trust us" and it is above your understanding at this time. If you want my money you better be as transparent as clean untinted glass and wiling to explain how you arrived at your decision. I also hate having someone who sounds like a fool who did not even read his que cards before he came out to debate.

Excelsior
12-25-2012, 2:48 PM
Membership is only good if your voice is heard and you feel you are not fighting an argument that has already been decided before anyone asked your opinion. The NRA seems to be saying just shut up, join us, and give us money whenever we want it. I have not heard anything about accountability, explaining stances that might be confusing, or showing why they elected one path to pursue over another. I disagree when any organization says "trust us" and it is above your understanding at this time. If you want my money you better be as transparent as clean untinted glass and wiling to explain how you arrived at your decision. I also hate having someone who sounds like a fool who did not even read his que cards before he came out to debate.

I don't know that the NRA is saying that at all. I don't think $$$ or individual voices is of paramount importance right now. I think a huge swell in membership is. If the NRA were to have a million new members, that would make members of congress take careful notice.

One thing I will say is that I have read very little on these forum about how the NRA applies pressure to individual members of congress. I'm not sure that most here even know.

RMikeL
12-25-2012, 3:25 PM
He broke the #1 Rule for gun owners: Never Make Us Look Bad.

GWbiker
12-25-2012, 3:26 PM
Compromise? Why?

We went down that road in 1968, when the NRA, US gun manufacturers and the Congress compromised on new gun laws affecting each and every legal gun owner.

The result was GCA68 which did nothing to help curb street crime.

RMikeL
12-25-2012, 3:34 PM
Gun owners aren't well served by NRA members who support it and all it does with religious fervor. Not possible to have any debate/discussion/disagreement with a true believer when they just keep repeating, "The NRA is always right so shut up."

pHredd9mm
12-25-2012, 3:42 PM
I believe that the current NRA leadership realizes that they (NRA) made some big mistakes over the last 40-50 years trying to "compromise" with the anti-gun crowd. They will never admit it publicly. Wish they would. But, I think they know there is no more ground to give up in this fight. They can put lots of money into this debate. If they (NRA) do not get it right this time, then this is the end of our 2A rights.

RMikeL
12-25-2012, 6:06 PM
My next $$ contribution in support of the RKBA is going here:

http://www.firearmspolicy.org/

RMikeL
12-25-2012, 6:06 PM
repost

Salamander13
12-25-2012, 6:56 PM
I dislike a lot of the things the NRA does, but I've realized that, "The enemy of my enemy is my ally."

Atlantaboi2012
12-25-2012, 7:23 PM
I'd rather donate money to the Calguns Foundation. The NRA's solution to the shootings is compromise; "enforce the laws we already have", rather than eliminating the existing gun laws. How much has the NRA done to try eliminating the GFSZ? How about shall-issue ccw in California? What has the NRA done to try eliminating the assault weapons laws in CA? I hear all this talk from people about "trading" background checks on mags in exchange for high-cap mags, more background checks, etc. Are you people that damn stupid? When you compromise and give away your rights, the gun grabbers WILL try taking more. Look at our carry laws. At first we didn't have any laws, then ccw, then the UOC laws, now no OC for handguns, and long gun OC is now being banned. Or bullet buttons. They antis were fine with that for a while, now they want them banned.
Gun owners are not the problem. Get that through your heads. I own several guns. I have never killed anybody with any of them, nor do I ever intend on shooting anyone unless forced to in self defense. I should not give up my rights because other people don't obey the law. It's embarrassing to see how many people who claim to be pro gun are acting as if we are the problem.
One way to make an actual difference is getting people to become shooters and gun owners. I've introduced many people to shooting and they're really into it now. I've given several guns as gifts to them so they can get started, and now they're buying more guns.
:clap:

goober
12-25-2012, 7:41 PM
I'd rather donate money to the Calguns Foundation.

and most if not all of the Directors of CGF advise that you should be a member of NRA... but don't let that cloud your judgement or anything... :rolleyes:

RobertSmith
12-25-2012, 9:07 PM
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Long live the NRA.

Excelsior
12-25-2012, 11:05 PM
Compromise? Why?

We went down that road in 1968, when the NRA, US gun manufacturers and the Congress compromised on new gun laws affecting each and every legal gun owner.

The result was GCA68 which did nothing to help curb street crime.

You simply don't have the data to back-up that claim. You rally have no idea how crime rates would differ today if the GCA had never come about.

Interesting how you went back almost 45 years for an example...

Excelsior
12-25-2012, 11:06 PM
Cant say I've seem many comments on Calguns that "slammed the NRA". Comments I've seen on this issue are about their response on the current tragedy. Guards at schools? Why not also at movie theaters? blah..blah..

I did think the issue about more mental health treatment availability was fair
For a group that represents 4 million members, I would have expected better.
Between you and me, I did not think a response from the NRA on this issue was required at all.

I do. ;)

Remaining mum would have been a cowardly/punk move in this instance and quite unwise as well.

Loubot10
12-25-2012, 11:30 PM
Tell you what there scooter. You call a press conference and do better. Til that time all this is just more noise from an internet yutz with no credibility complaining that he didn't get a pony for his birthday.

Wow!

So we shouldn't dare question or critique the organization some of us have supported for decades?

Get over it.

This is a PR outfit that is failing at it's only job. After so many years, so much expansion and so many millions of dollars, what has been accomplished?

We pay to defeat the same "threat" repeatedly. We support the largest political machine in a world of gigantic political machinery because the "huns are at the gates".

I will continue to support the NRA but don't try and sell me that they're perfect or sell me any of that "you're either with us or against us" pullschist. Every one has every right to question.

philobeddoe
12-25-2012, 11:45 PM
I don't think that anything any of the speakers said at the NRA press conference could be construed as making guns the problem through omission as a possible cause. The reason anything but guns was blamed for the tragedies is because the cause of these tragedies IS anything but guns.

Not too long ago in our country's history, anyone could order a Thompson machine gun (or many other guns considered by today's standards to be "Military-style Assault Weapons") by mail order to be delivered directly to their home with nearly no regulation. Did the children or the mentally ill order Tommy guns & shoot up schools back then? No, if it did happen it was a freak occurence statistically speaking. Who did order those guns via mail order & use them inappropriately? Criminals... which will always use any type of firearm inappropriately.

So we have to ask ourselves, what has changed in our current society that would make the children or mentally ill acquire firearms & use them for murder at a school, mall or anywhere. To be honest, I don't know??? As my Dad always said, "That's wayyyyy above my pay grade." The sense of self-validity of these actions could be mental illness, poor parenting, a lack of legal consequences for their actions, maybe that they're exposed to so much graphic violence when they clearly have such an impressionable mind, or maybe it's all or none of these... as I stated before, I don't know. What I do know is that in a very small segment of the population, something or someone convinces these murderers that killing someone, or in far too many cases, many people with a firearm "makes sense" in their deranged mind. An inanimate object such as a firearm can't convince anyone to do harm to anything or anyone.

As legal gun owners, another thing we all know is that in our current society, it is possibly harder to legally obtain a firearm than it has ever been, yet these firearm-related tragedies are happening with a somewhat regular occurence now.

We owe it to the memory of our forefathers that fought & died for all of our rights to personally educate anyone & everyone that we come in contact with about why our founding fathers felt all the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution were & still are so important. Important enough to die for.

JDMcGee

Statistically speaking it is still a freak occurrence.

For everybody pissing and moaning about the NRA: Name me even one other pro 2A group with the horsepower to get congress to meet with them.

The GOA couldn't get anybody to show up at a press conference if they gave away free cocaine and hookers. The SAF is awesome, but they focus on lawsuits. The rest are mostly regional. NO OTHER GROUP has the pull in Washington the NRA has, and right now we need a unified pull more than ever.

I would show up to that meeting.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 2:42 AM
Wow!

So we shouldn't dare question or critique the organization some of us have supported for decades?

Get over it.

This is a PR outfit that is failing at it's only job. After so many years, so much expansion and so many millions of dollars, what has been accomplished?

We pay to defeat the same "threat" repeatedly. We support the largest political machine in a world of gigantic political machinery because the "huns are at the gates".

I will continue to support the NRA but don't try and sell me that they're perfect or sell me any of that "you're either with us or against us". Every one has every right to question.

Not even close. AARP is ~10x the size of the NRA.

wildhawker
12-26-2012, 2:57 AM
Not even close. AARP is ~10x the size of the NRA.

AARP is an insurance sales lead generator.

-Brandon

rugershooter
12-26-2012, 6:37 AM
Yeah? Do you have some examples you could share? Given that they are doing it "constantly and consistently" you should have a boat-load full. Let's hear them please.

If the NRA is so good, what have they done to help Californians?

BBJohnnyT
12-26-2012, 8:41 AM
If the NRA is so good, what have they done to help Californians?
Here's just one example... I bought another AR-15 this fall, how about that? Without the NRA, my purchase would have been impossible because there would have been no sunset clause in the last AWB. And that AWB affected Californians, not just the nation. The NRA was directly instrumental in getting that provision added.

Ruger, you're disdain for the NRA has blinded you so you can't see the forest from the trees. It's obvious you don't understand the magnitude of the threat now looming in Congress, and the pivotal role the NRA will be playing in that fight, or how political battles are fought, and sometimes lost. If you don't want to support them in this fight, that's fine and it's you're right and opinion. If so, for the sake of the fight, just please keep your damn deluded opinion to yourself instead of swaying others and sabotaging it.

Wrangler John
12-26-2012, 9:07 AM
Gun owners aren't well served by NRA members who support it and all it does with religious fervor. Not possible to have any debate/discussion/disagreement with a true believer when they just keep repeating, "The NRA is always right so shut up."

Your statement is not the argument. The gist of what is being said is: The NRA is the most powerful lobbying organization among the pro-gun community. It is not about religious fervor, I supported Neil Knox and the Cincinnati Reforms back in the day, but rather supporting the group with the most clout. That does not preclude me from supporting other organizations, it just means that the NRA is the premiere front line organization, warts and all. Calguns has a different approach, and, as one shooter at the range said last Monday, some very smart lawyers that made the Bullet Button possible. All these groups are working to the same end, yet we can not afford to loose the NRA or diminish its effectiveness with petty bickering.

rugershooter
12-26-2012, 9:51 AM
Here's just one example... I bought another AR-15 this fall, how about that? Without the NRA, my purchase would have been impossible because there would have been no sunset clause in the last AWB. And that AWB affected Californians, not just the nation. The NRA was directly instrumental in getting that provision added.

Ruger, you're disdain for the NRA has blinded you so you can't see the forest from the trees. It's obvious you don't understand the magnitude of the threat now looming in Congress, and the pivotal role the NRA will be playing in that fight, or how political battles are fought, and sometimes lost. If you don't want to support them in this fight, that's fine and it's you're right and opinion. If so, for the sake of the fight, just please keep your damn deluded opinion to yourself instead of swaying others and sabotaging it.

The NRA does little to nothing to help Californians. Rather, they use CA as the example of what not to do and focus on the rest of the country. Even when I wasn't stationed in CA I still donated money to Calguns because they do more than the NRA to help Californians.

And this is a forum. I'm doing what people do on forums...expressing opinions :facepalm:

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 10:23 AM
AARP is an insurance sales lead generator.

-Brandon

It's a far bigger and more influential lobby than the NRA will ever be.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 10:26 AM
The NRA does little to nothing to help Californians. Rather, they use CA as the example of what not to do and focus on the rest of the country. Even when I wasn't stationed in CA I still donated money to Calguns because they do more than the NRA to help Californians.

And this is a forum. I'm doing what people do on forums...expressing opinions

Do you know what the NRA does? Do you know how it flexes its muscles? Just exactly what do you expect the NRA to do here in California based on the voting population?

I don't think many have a clue what the NRA really does. They're simply frustrated because the NRA has not solved all their ills and they cannot understand why.

"Opinions" should be based on fact, not on lore...

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 10:30 AM
Your statement is not the argument. The gist of what is being said is: The NRA is the most powerful lobbying organization among the pro-gun community. It is not about religious fervor, I supported Neil Knox and the Cincinnati Reforms back in the day, but rather supporting the group with the most clout. That does not preclude me from supporting other organizations, it just means that the NRA is the premiere front line organization, warts and all. Calguns has a different approach, and, as one shooter at the range said last Monday, some very smart lawyers that made the Bullet Button possible. All these groups are working to the same end, yet we can not afford to loose the NRA or diminish its effectiveness with petty bickering.

That is very well said. The NRA and Calguns (as an example) are two different organizations with hugely different approaches.

I don't think many here realize that.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 10:36 AM
If the NRA is so good, what have they done to help Californians?

You honestly don't get it, do you? You don't understand the NRA's focus. Read Why America Can't Pass Gun Control (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/why-america-cant-pass-gun-control/266417/) to learn. Then consider CA's voting populace.

In any event the national AWB sunsetted over 8 years ago due to the efforts of the NRA.

rugershooter
12-26-2012, 11:17 AM
You honestly don't get it, do you? You don't understand the NRA's focus. Read Why America Can't Pass Gun Control (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/why-america-cant-pass-gun-control/266417/) to learn. Then consider CA's voting populace.

In any event the national AWB sunsetted over 8 years ago due to the efforts of the NRA.

Aside from the AWB sunsetting over 8 years ago, what has the NRA actually effectively done to help gun owners? Show me why I should donate to them; I'll even donate the money I've been saving for a gun if you show me specific examples of how the NRA has helped more than Calguns. At this point I can't donate to both while saving for another gun. But I'd be willing to donate my gun money If you can prove how effective the NRA has been.

Loubot10
12-26-2012, 11:18 AM
Not even close. AARP is ~10x the size of the NRA.

Once again, you miss my point. The NRA is not beyond question by those who make up it's membership.

AARP might be 10 x the size but it is not a single focus organization. The NRA is and that might be part of the problem in my opinion.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 11:19 AM
Aside from the AWB sunsetting over 8 years ago, what has the NRA actually effectively done to help gun owners? Show me why I should donate to them; I'll even donate the money I've been saving for a gun if you show me specific examples of how the NRA has helped more than Calguns. At this point I can't donate to both while saving for another gun. But I'd be willing to donate my gun money If you can prove how effective the NRA has been.

Read the article I posted.

Without the NRA we might well have a congress that would have already passed very draconian gun control laws.

You've clearly made up your mind. You're part of the problem.

njineermike
12-26-2012, 11:25 AM
Once again, you miss my point. The NRA is not beyond question by those who make up it's membership.

AARP might be 10 x the size but it is not a single focus organization. The NRA is and that might be part of the problem in my opinion.

Others here criticize the NRA saying the exact opposite. They are either a single issue organization or they are not, but they cannot be both simultaneously.

rugershooter
12-26-2012, 11:27 AM
Read the article I posted.

Without the NRA we might well have a congress that would have already passed very draconian gun control laws.

You've clearly made up your mind. You're part of the problem.

I want specific examples of where the NRA has been effective. It seems as though we don't hear of them going on the offensive and trying to eliminate laws. That is why I don't donate to them. They're content with the status quo.

njineermike
12-26-2012, 11:37 AM
I want specific examples of where the NRA has been effective. It seems as though we don't hear of them going on the offensive and trying to eliminate laws. That is why I don't donate to them. They're content with the status quo.

They can only influence legislation where the voting populace will follow through. California is a safe zone for the anti 2A politics and everybody, including the legislators and the NRA knows it. The NRA doesn't write law, vote on law or sign bills into law, yet they do put out press releases showing which bills are being introduced in ALL states so we can have a comprehensive clearinghouse to make informed calls to the legislature ourselves, while supplying preformatted letters so even the slowest among us seem informed.. But feel free to hold your breath and throw a tantrum on the floor refusing to help until you get a pony. I'm sure that will make it all better.

elSquid
12-26-2012, 11:43 AM
The NRA does little to nothing to help Californians.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-high-court-shoots-down-S-F-handgun-ban-3218562.php

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Housing-Authority-settles-gun-lawsuit-3254376.php

{ shrug }

My feeling is that if you dislike the NRA - and there are valid reasons to do so - just pay the $35 to be a member, and send the rest of your donations to SAF, CGF, whomever.

I personally don't see any reason to NOT be a member. If nothing else, they play the national political game very well.

-- Michael

Tarn_Helm
12-26-2012, 11:52 AM
. . . The only things we should be doing is standing undivided for a common goal & making sure that we personally educate every single person we can on the clear benefit of the right to keep & bear arms.
. . .

True . . .

We must maintain a united front.

Always.

No "compromise."

Ever.

:mad:

sarabellum
12-26-2012, 12:39 PM
Gun owners aren't well served by NRA members who support it and all it does with religious fervor. Not possible to have any debate/discussion/disagreement with a true believer when they just keep repeating, "The NRA is always right so shut up."

RMikeL makes a good point. The 2A community repeatedly states that the purpose for the 2A is to fight tyranny then gives shocking examples of Germany pre-WWII confiscating firearms to make it easier to squelch dissent (which incidentally was carried out by the Framers of the U.S constitution as well). However, when anyone in the 2A community questions anything done by the NRA, then the dissent is squelched and commanded to follow blindly.

Dissenters as already stated in this thread communicate the unorthodox and generally accurate view as they are put to the test by those who hold the orthodox view accepted without question.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines fascism as:

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

I at one time was a member of the NRA. All of the propaganda they sent me in the mail, letters and "hunting" magazines, encouraged panic because allegedly in the next election we will lose our guns and civil liberties and, thus, automatically we must vote for some republican candidate. Historically, neither corporate party has been the vanguard of civil liberty, especially when it comes to arms ownership http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/controlling-guns-controlling-people . The NRA is a tool of one of those corporate parties, and in so doing affirms an unconstitutional political appartus. The political apparatus is unconstitutional because the constitution does not authorize a two party monopoly representing big business.

If there are dissenters, good for all of us as dissent is what today the 2A is all about.

wildhawker
12-26-2012, 12:46 PM
It's a far bigger and more influential lobby than the NRA will ever be.

They [AARP] have a guaranteed audience: it's the human condition to get old. It's not the human condition to be a gun owner. AARP also has tons of money because of how it operates and the incentives for the supporters.

-Brandon

wildhawker
12-26-2012, 12:47 PM
Do you know what the NRA does? Do you know how it flexes its muscles? Just exactly what do you expect the NRA to do here in California based on the voting population?

I don't think many have a clue what the NRA really does. They're simply frustrated because the NRA has not solved all their ills and they cannot understand why.

"Opinions" should be based on fact, not on lore...

Then do what you're suggesting and explain it to us.

-Brandon

wildhawker
12-26-2012, 12:50 PM
While I don't agree with the conclusion that "they [NRA] play the national political game very well," I certainly support the counsel that - for those who don't fully buy into the NRA's values - consider joining at the most minimal point of entry to keep our "umbrella" numbers up and directing discretionary support to some organization(s) more aligned with your views.

-Brandon

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/State-high-court-shoots-down-S-F-handgun-ban-3218562.php

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Housing-Authority-settles-gun-lawsuit-3254376.php

{ shrug }

My feeling is that if you dislike the NRA - and there are valid reasons to do so - just pay the $35 to be a member, and send the rest of your donations to SAF, CGF, whomever.

I personally don't see any reason to NOT be a member. If nothing else, they play the national political game very well.

-- Michael

taperxz
12-26-2012, 12:56 PM
While I don't agree with the conclusion that "they [NRA] play the national political game very well," I certainly support the counsel that - for those who don't fully buy into the NRA's values - consider joining at the most minimal point of entry to keep our "umbrella" numbers up and directing discretionary support to some organization(s) more aligned with your views.

-Brandon

They do have a monopoly on National Politics for the most part. When they lobby, not all politicians are created equally (constituent base doesn't allow it)

Basically the NRA is as effective as the system allows for, for the stage they walk on. They're just not as effective as we need it to be. Their grassroots, local affiliates, are NOT effective! (Edited for using a poor cliche)

wildhawker
12-26-2012, 12:58 PM
A monopoly on national lobbying, yes. Efficient, hardly. Effective? .....

-Brandon

taperxz
12-26-2012, 1:07 PM
A monopoly on national lobbying, yes. Efficient, hardly. Effective? .....

-Brandon

They are as effective in the sense of someone "an entity" being there to lobby for gun rights, in D.C. and carries the weight of Millions of gun owners. Their policies are not up to snuff IMHO, however, right now on the National Stage, they are needed to push 'an' agenda.

Grassroots in this state for gun rights is far more advanced than anything at the National level. People in Kentucky have no need to rally their grassroots (at least in the past) because it was always thought the NRA would take care of what was already well taken care of by the NRA.

People like yourself are almost non existent in most states because there was never a need, (in their eyes) to have a pro gun activist on the grass roots level.

Tarn_Helm
12-26-2012, 1:50 PM
RMikeL makes a good point. The 2A community repeatedly states that the purpose for the 2A is to fight tyranny then gives shocking examples of Germany pre-WWII confiscating firearms to make it easier to squelch dissent (which incidentally was carried out by the Framers of the U.S constitution as well). However, when anyone in the 2A community questions anything done by the NRA, then the dissent is squelched and commanded to follow blindly.

Dissenters as already stated in this thread communicate the unorthodox and generally accurate view as they are put to the test by those who hold the orthodox view accepted without question.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines fascism as:

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

I at one time was a member of the NRA. All of the propaganda they sent me in the mail, letters and "hunting" magazines, encouraged panic because allegedly in the next election we will lose our guns and civil liberties and, thus, automatically we must vote for some republican candidate. Historically, neither corporate party has been the vanguard of civil liberty, especially when it comes to arms ownership http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/21/controlling-guns-controlling-people . The NRA is a tool of one of those corporate parties, and in so doing affirms an unconstitutional political appartus. The political apparatus is unconstitutional because the constitution does not authorize a two party monopoly representing big business.

If there are dissenters, good for all of us as dissent is what today the 2A is all about.

You are confusing several things.

First, advocating a united front is not coterminous with saying we should not voice suggestions on how to be more effective.

Second, criticizing the NRA is not coterminous with voicing suggestions on how to make it more effective.

Third, airing internal disagreements about how to be more effective is not coterminous with becoming more effective.

Fourth, withholding support from one of the most powerful pro-Second Amendment organizations is not coterminous with making the NRA more effective.

Cursing the darkness should not be confused with lighting a candle.
:facepalm:

Uxi
12-26-2012, 2:20 PM
NRA member (just renewed that and CRPA). I definitely agree with the general sentiment but would prefer armed security on campus, not necessarily police. That would include incentives towards teachers/administration with CCW, armed security (again not just law enforcement), all of which with some active shooter training as well as armed volunteers/parents and perhaps law enforcement on top of it. Definitely don't want top down from DC or any alphabet soup agency but left for state and local districts to determine their budgets and needs and abilities.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 2:36 PM
I want specific examples of where the NRA has been effective. It seems as though we don't hear of them going on the offensive and trying to eliminate laws. That is why I don't donate to them. They're content with the status quo.

Read the article. You clearly have no idea what the NRA does.

In brief the NRA works to influence who gets elected to congress in some cases. Some would also suggest, who gets elected president. No, they are not always successful. Their influence on who gets elected in large part keeps the federal gun control efforts at bay.

Do you really think President Obama wouldn't try to slam through unprecedented gun control laws right now if he had the congressional votes? Of course he would, but it's likely he doesn't have the votes even after the last massacre. Our prime effort to ensure he doesn't get those votes is to support the NRA.

(Some will no doubt say "well, Obama can just use and executive order to ram gun control down our throats!" True enough but it's no longer 1994, nor does Obama enjoy the popularity Clinton did at that time. Ramming through gun control measures via EO carries some very strong political risks for the Democratic party -- particularly in the next election. Risks the NRA would exploit.)

Given the focus of the NRA, exactly what sort of progress do you think it can make in CA given our voting demographics? Being attacked by the NRA has next to no political consequence in most parts of CA outside of the central valleys. It has a great deal in other states and that's where the NRA focuses their efforts.

You're just another apathetic gun owner (1 of something like 85M out of 90M?) who is not willing to make the effort to study the matter and think about it -- or else you're not able to. You remain ignorant, dug-in and proud as hell. The fact that you don't support the NRA marks you as part of the problem. A member of the enemy in my eyes at this juncture in history.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 2:47 PM
They [AARP] have a guaranteed audience: it's the human condition to get old. It's not the human condition to be a gun owner. AARP also has tons of money because of how it operates and the incentives for the supporters.

-Brandon

So?

I was just correcting someone who said the NRA was the biggest lobby.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 2:47 PM
Then do what you're suggesting and explain it to us.

-Brandon

Read the article.

GWbiker
12-26-2012, 2:51 PM
You simply don't have the data to back-up that claim. You rally have no idea how crime rates would differ today if the GCA had never come about.

Interesting how you went back almost 45 years for an example...

I went back 45 years because I was there. I was 28 years old and I witnessed the televised race riots in Newark, Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami (Liberty City and Coconut Grove), among several other major cities. A democratic Congress forced upon us GCA68, in part the result of race riots plus the Kennedy and MLK assassinations. The public was scared.

I was one of thousands of gun owners who chose to not renew my NRA membership because the NRA knuckled under to the democratic party.

I rejoined the NRA when the 1993 crime bill was enacted - yet another set of gun restrictions on top of GCA68, which you claim to be ineffective in reducing crime. Camden and Newark New Jersey, which enacted strict gun laws post GCA68, remain two of the ten most dangerous cities in the US.

Street crime began to be reduced when many states allowed "Shall Issue" and conceal carry. Two issues you California people will never see in your life time.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 2:55 PM
I went back 45 years because I was there. I was 28 years old and I witnessed the televised race riots in Newark, Detroit, Philadelphia, Miami (Liberty City and Coconut Grove), among several other major cities. A democratic Congress forced upon us GCA68, in part the result of race riots plus the Kennedy and MLK assassinations. The public was scared.

I was one of thousands of gun owners who chose to not renew my NRA membership because the NRA knuckled under to the democratic party.

I rejoined the NRA when the 1993 crime bill was enacted - yet another set of gun restrictions on top of GCA68, which you claim to be ineffective in reducing crime. Camden and Newark New Jersey, which enacted strict gun laws post GCA68, remain two of the ten most dangerous cities in the US.

Street crime began to be reduced when many states allowed "Shall Issue" and conceal carry. Two issues you California people will never see in your life time.

I'm just pointing out the fact that you simply don't have the data to tell us if the GCA has had a good or bad effect on crime like you said you did.

taperxz
12-26-2012, 3:00 PM
Read the article. You clearly have no idea what the NRA does.



Given the focus of the NRA, exactly what sort of progress do you think it can make in CA given our voting demographics? Being attacked by the NRA has next to no political consequence in most parts of CA outside of the central valleys. It has a great deal in other states and that's where the NRA focuses their efforts.



I think you better check you ego and info at the door! NRA spends more money here in CA than any other state and has also been the least effective at changing things here in CA.

wildhawker
12-26-2012, 3:02 PM
Read the article.

Why did NRA try to torpedo Heller?

-Brandon

Bobio
12-26-2012, 3:04 PM
AARP might be 10 x the size but it is not a single focus organization. The NRA is and that might be part of the problem in my opinion.

The NRA's single focus helps it. It gives it more power. Even though it only represents 5% of gun owners I bet at least 90% of gun wonders agree with its positions. Also, NRA complains that 95% of gun owners are getting a free ride but it's really the support of all the non NRA members that gives the NRA it's strength.

GWbiker
12-26-2012, 3:27 PM
I'm just pointing out the fact that you simply don't have the data to tell us if the GCA has had a good or bad effect on crime like you said you did.

Jeeeezzz, having a slow day?

IF GCA68 had any effect on street crime, then WHY did Congress insist that we needed the 1993 crime bill (AWB and magazine restriction) and 100,000 more beat cops?

AFA crime data is concerned, you know how to Google, don't you?

elSquid
12-26-2012, 4:16 PM
Why did NRA try to torpedo Heller?


a) because Gura and Levy came out of left field, and were relative unknowns in the firearms rights community?

b) because it wasn't completely clear that the makeup of the court was such to make a favorable ruling certain?

c) because the NRA has a case of NIH syndrome?

d) all of the above?

-- Michael

problemchild
12-26-2012, 4:21 PM
I like the NRA. Even my DOG is a member. Cracks me up to see my dog getting mail.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 5:30 PM
I think you better check you ego and info at the door! NRA spends more money here in CA than any other state and has also been the least effective at changing things here in CA.

Much of what the NRA spends is not directly related to lobbying. My club gets many, many tens of thousands of dollars from the NRA for shooting program and facility development. I suspect others do as well. There's programs like Eddie Eagle, service/high powered rifle shooting, etc.

Nevertheless this juncture in history is not the time not refuse to join the NRA. You can for between $10 and $1,000.00. It truly is a "just do it" thing right now.

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 5:32 PM
I like the NRA. Even my DOG is a member. Cracks me up to see my dog getting mail.

N I C E ! ;)

Excelsior
12-26-2012, 5:47 PM
Jeeeezzz, having a slow day?

IF GCA68 had any effect on street crime, then WHY did Congress insist that we needed the 1993 crime bill (AWB and magazine restriction) and 100,000 more beat cops?

AFA crime data is concerned, you know how to Google, don't you?

Are you honestly serious?

GCA was implemented in 1968. Big changes indeed. There have also been a HUGE NUMBER of others changes (driven by a variety of things) to US society in those 45 years. The result is we don't know the actual impact of the GCA changes. Many, many things (both good and bad) have been acting on US society during that period and not simply the GCA driven changes. No way to isolate the impact of the GCA changes.

Further even if the GCA had a positive impact on crime (which again, we don't know if it did), that doesn't mean that some won't seek further improvement through additional regulation. Seeking further attempts regulation is no proof that the GCA had no positive impact.

sarabellum
12-26-2012, 7:21 PM
You are confusing several things.

First, advocating a united front is not coterminous with saying we should not voice suggestions on how to be more effective.

Second, criticizing the NRA is not coterminous with voicing suggestions on how to make it more effective.

Third, airing internal disagreements about how to be more effective is not coterminous with becoming more effective.

Fourth, withholding support from one of the most powerful pro-Second Amendment organizations is not coterminous with making the NRA more effective.

Cursing the darkness should not be confused with lighting a candle.
:

In other words, remain silent, do not dissent, and do not question. The core of fascism is the forcible suppression of opposition.

If by "coterminous" you mean congruent or synonymous, you are right: dissent is diametrically opposed to blind allegiance to any group, particularly one that does not reflect one's values.

No one owes their allegiance or labor to any group, institution, or corporation. The central principle of the 2A discourse- at least as superficially presented- is that one bears arms to resist a social order destructive of fundamental liberties. Those liberties include freedom of thought and freedom of choice.

Anyone or anything, who commands silence and suppresses dissent should be challenged. History is replete with examples of the folly of blind adherence:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller (http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392) (1892-1984)

Groupthink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) is anti-thetical to critical thinking.

It may be that your candle metaphor means that suggestions would be helpful, in addition to criticism of the NRA's messages. Enabling better mental health treatment, fostering a more humane economic and urban environment, and empowering families to prevent desintegration are more thoughtful solutions.

goober
12-26-2012, 7:46 PM
While I don't agree with the conclusion that "they [NRA] play the national political game very well," I certainly support the counsel that - for those who don't fully buy into the NRA's values - consider joining at the most minimal point of entry to keep our "umbrella" numbers up and directing discretionary support to some organization(s) more aligned with your views.

-Brandon

THIS.
it's been said multiple times in this thread, and Brandon's post sums it up well:
The NRA may not be the entity we WISH represented us all, but it is the one we have, and supporting it is a good thing to do...
By all means support every other org and group you find worthy, to the extent you can afford... But please realize that to remain a non-NRA Member does not serve us all well.

jpigeon
12-26-2012, 8:42 PM
I like the NRA. But they dont always make the right choices...

rugershooter
12-27-2012, 9:48 AM
Read the article. You clearly have no idea what the NRA does.

In brief the NRA works to influence who gets elected to congress in some cases. Some would also suggest, who gets elected president. No, they are not always successful. Their influence on who gets elected in large part keeps the federal gun control efforts at bay.

Do you really think President Obama wouldn't try to slam through unprecedented gun control laws right now if he had the congressional votes? Of course he would, but it's likely he doesn't have the votes even after the last massacre. Our prime effort to ensure he doesn't get those votes is to support the NRA.

(Some will no doubt say "well, Obama can just use and executive order to ram gun control down our throats!" True enough but it's no longer 1994, nor does Obama enjoy the popularity Clinton did at that time. Ramming through gun control measures via EO carries some very strong political risks for the Democratic party -- particularly in the next election. Risks the NRA would exploit.)

Given the focus of the NRA, exactly what sort of progress do you think it can make in CA given our voting demographics? Being attacked by the NRA has next to no political consequence in most parts of CA outside of the central valleys. It has a great deal in other states and that's where the NRA focuses their efforts.

You're just another apathetic gun owner (1 of something like 85M out of 90M?) who is not willing to make the effort to study the matter and think about it -- or else you're not able to. You remain ignorant, dug-in and proud as hell. The fact that you don't support the NRA marks you as part of the problem. A member of the enemy in my eyes at this juncture in history.

I've spent several thounds of dollars donating to Calguns and buying guns as gifts for people. Just because I don't donate to the NRA that doesn't mean I'm an apathetic gun owner. That's pretty damn arrogant of you to think that way just because I don't donate to an organization I disagree with. If that's the attitude of the people who try getting people to become members, f**k you. I've introduced dozens of people to shooting, and have helped all of them get their own guns. If they chose to become NRA members I don't have a problem with that. But I'd rather spend my money in other ways that I see as being more effective. If you think I'm part of the enemy you can go to hell for all I care. I've probably been more active in my support of the 2A than you have.

Excelsior
12-27-2012, 10:48 AM
I've spent several thounds of dollars donating to Calguns and buying guns as gifts for people. Just because I don't donate to the NRA that doesn't mean I'm an apathetic gun owner. That's pretty damn arrogant of you to think that way just because I don't donate to an organization I disagree with. If that's the attitude of the people who try getting people to become members, f**k you. I've introduced dozens of people to shooting, and have helped all of them get their own guns. If they chose to become NRA members I don't have a problem with that. But I'd rather spend my money in other ways that I see as being more effective. If you think I'm part of the enemy you can go to hell for all I care. I've probably been more active in my support of the 2A than you have.

"...I don't donate to the NRA that doesn't mean I'm an apathetic gun owner..."

It does right now. Your anger shown by your potty mouth illustrates you know that's the case too.

Your excuse of "I'd rather spend my money in other ways that I see as being more effective" is apathy at its worst. $10-35.00. Anyone who has "spent several thounds of dollars donating to Calguns and buying guns as gifts for people" should be able to spare the ten bucks. Get over it and recognize the truth that anyone not joining the NRA right now is being apathetic for a variety of reasons -- most commonly ignorance and pride.

rugershooter
12-27-2012, 10:51 AM
"...I don't donate to the NRA that doesn't mean I'm an apathetic gun owner..."

It does right now. Your anger shown by your potty mouth shows you know that's the case too.

Your excuse of "I'd rather spend my money in other ways that I see as being more effective" is apathy at its worse. $10-35.00. Get over it and recognize the truth that anyone not joining the NRA right now is being apathetic.

What have you done in support of the 2A besides donate to the NRA?

wildhawker
12-27-2012, 10:55 AM
Wow.

-Brandon

"...I don't donate to the NRA that doesn't mean I'm an apathetic gun owner..."

It does right now. Your anger shown by your potty mouth illustrates you know that's the case too.

Your excuse of "I'd rather spend my money in other ways that I see as being more effective" is apathy at its worst. $10-35.00. Get over it and recognize the truth that anyone not joining the NRA right now is being apathetic for a variety of reasons -- most commonly ignorance and pride.

vector16
12-27-2012, 11:43 AM
We are on they same side. We contribute to the NRA to fight this battle and when the tim e comes to vote on it, we vote on it. WE however live in CA. If a republicans voice would be heard in this state it would be an absolute mirical. We cannot even transport our guns to the shooting range in the trunk of the car with out them being locked down and the cases being locked. God forbid you get some nut and they try to car jack you or rob you, what are you going to do if yiou are following the law to the letter,

Tell them, "Hold on, I need to defend my self, I need to get into my trunk, that is where my gun is, I need to unlock the cases and then unlock the triggers and then go to my back seat to get the ammo and then I need to load the magazine and then I need to rach the slide, Okay I am ready to defend myself against you".

Gun owners in CA have no say in what happens in the rest of the counrty. If we tell our ele cted officals like Barbra Boxer or Diane Finstien (i do not know how to spell her name) do you think for a minute they are going to take a 2nd amend. advocates opinion to DC? I mean really!! these people do not care about the people they supposedly represent they only care about there own agenda. These two women closed down the canals that supply water to all the farmland along the I-5 in the central valley because of a little fish that was getting thru the pumps. Tbhe did not want a screen put up the prevent the stupid fish from going thru the pump that would have costed tax payers $500 a year, they wanted to shut down the California economy and the farming communty because the dirt roads made dust.

The only thing California gunowners can do is contribute to the NRA and other 2A lobbists and pray. We all know this and can only talk about what we will do if this stuff passes. The dems are taking advantage of a very sad situation that they probably set up tio begin with.

If you guys know of any of our CA reps that are taken seriously in DC please post them and we will all write them and try to swing the vote. I do not think there are any. If there were we would be a "shall issue" state. We would be bale to carry a loaded .45 on our hip w/o a permit and w/o a cop thinking we are a criminal and shoot us dead. We would be able to have a magazine for ore semi auto pistols that held more that 10 rounds, we would be able to buy guns in other states and bring them here w/o being charged with a felony, use what ever ammo we wanted to hunt with w/o someone saying we are going tio give some scavanger bird lead posening etc...

TERRYGER
12-27-2012, 5:25 PM
everyone has the right to critsize anyone they want NRA included,

but how does that how does that help in the fight to keep the 2nd ammed alive and in your favor????????

as for all the examples you guys want of what does the NRA do for you all you have to do is go to WWW.NRA.ORG and WWW.NRAILA.ORG. you will have hours of reading what they do for you in state laws, federal laws, local programs , state programs , federal programs, court cases, INCLUDING CALIFORNIA going back as far as you wnat to research as well as how you can get involved and many of the other things you have have no inkling idea about

those of us that are members get a publication every month and we keep up that way, we go online and look at the FREE SITES or we sign up for e-amil and newletters.

thre is absolute;y no excuse for the ignorance concerning the NRA that is running rampant not just on this page but a host of others with "so called" gun owners that want the benefits of being protected but attack anyone that doesn't do it the way they think it should be done.


it is very easy to pick out a 15 min speech or a 1/4 page article and then decide you are an expert on what the NRA does. even worse when you only get your knowldge from a bunch of whiners on a webpage but do you have any idea howit makes you look?

ut bait!i read every post in this thread and was laughing at the ridiculous statments being posted by normally regular guys trying to show everyone they were "important" and it was only what they thought that was "important"

have your opinions, have your concerns, have your disagreements but keep in mind the #1 concern in front of you. what si the most effective way to keep your guns? united we stand devided we fall!

if you are not satisfied witrh what you see try saying " i don't like the way the NRA did xyz so what can i do different to help the situation. HOW CAN I MAKE A DIFFERENCE? MAN UP ! THEY WILL TELL YA HOW! but either fish or cut bait!


WHY NOT contribute to the nra, the cal gun owners, the 2nd ammed foundation and anyone esle you can think of that can help you in this fight. what will it cost ya? 100-200 a year? how can that hurt as opposed to how much could it help.? IS THIS TOO MUCH TO SAVE YOUR GUNS?

as for those that say the NRA "knuckled under" to anyone how would you know? in every case somebody wins and somebody loses. THE 68 GUN LAW GOT PASSED BECAUSE OF THE PERS BEING KILLED WITH AN $8 MAILORDER GUN AND BOOBY AND MARTIN COMING RIGHT BEHIND HIM IN 68. NOBODY COULD HAVE STOPPED THAT. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE WASN'T A BIGGER BAN AFTER REAGAN GOT SHOT?

THE NRA! LOOK IT UP IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME.


when you lose a contest isn it always because you "knuckled under" or were you just beaten by superior forces that day. did you stomp off in a huff like a little girl or did you regroup and coeme back another day?

you guys have already told us what you did.

this all or nothing crap is what the anti's want. they want it all and you get nothing!

glocksmith
12-27-2012, 5:32 PM
Tell you what there scooter. You call a press conference and do better. Til that time all this is just more noise from an internet yutz with no credibility complaining that he didn't get a pony for his birthday.

What he said.

Also, I think most are offended about the video games targeting and references of early 90's movies...haha.

I don't know about the rest of folks but I'd much rather have games be the target than my guns....But i don't play xbox.

GWbiker
12-27-2012, 6:46 PM
Are you honestly serious?

GCA was implemented in 1968. Big changes indeed. There have also been a HUGE NUMBER of others changes (driven by a variety of things) to US society in those 45 years. The result is we don't know the actual impact of the GCA changes. Many, many things (both good and bad) have been acting on US society during that period and not simply the GCA driven changes. No way to isolate the impact of the GCA changes.

Further even if the GCA had a positive impact on crime (which again, we don't know if it did), that doesn't mean that some won't seek further improvement through additional regulation. Seeking further attempts regulation is no proof that the GCA had no positive impact.

Sorry, but I haven't the time to continue this topic, as I'm on my way to Sportsman Warehouse in Tucson to purchase a Beretta PX4 Storm sub-compact in 9mm, a handgun that not available in California.

My handgun transaction this evening will take around 5 minutes to complete the ATF 4473 form, make payment and carry out the door.

Meanwhile please continue to bicker over whether or not joining the NRA is worthwhile.

themandylion
12-27-2012, 8:13 PM
I don't agree with LaPierre, et. al.'s plan to have a paid cop in every school, but other than that, he's been doing just fine dealing with the anti-2A nut-jobs he's had to contend with.

Other than the minor disagreement with the NRA position (I favor multiple armed volunteer teachers/staff v. paid cops/security in each school), I'm fully supportive of the NRA's efforts to defend us. I signed up for the National School Shield mailing list within minutes of it being announced. Of course, I'm already an NRA member.

dwtt
12-27-2012, 11:53 PM
The NRA does little to nothing to help Californians. Rather, they use CA as the example of what not to do and focus on the rest of the country. Even when I wasn't stationed in CA I still donated money to Calguns because they do more than the NRA to help Californians.

And this is a forum. I'm doing what people do on forums...expressing opinions :facepalm:

You are another one of those experts who know it all and so sure of themselves, anyone who has a differing opinion is wrong. Of course, you know the NRA has done nothing in CA. You remember how Allison and her friends let the off-list receivers cat out of the bag. You also remember how the DOJ wanted to redefine what a detachable magazine was, and how a dozen Calgun members carpooled up to Sacramento to a public hearing on the matter. Of course you remember how the NRA was absent and the CRPA and GOC were present with their lawyers, carrying briefs under their arms detailing how the proposed new regulation would not work. (OK, everyone, keep quite, I know what I wrote. ;) ) Of course you do, since you are real expert with real life experience. You are also a personal friend of Paul Payne and Ed Worley, and know those guys are real slackers who just take our money and sit around the buffet lines.

dfletcher
12-28-2012, 12:06 PM
I agree with GaryV. There was a time, when i was still NRA, that NRA was very strong and consistent and smart. Some years ago they changed, i didnt change, and i found they were speaking less for me and more for something else. I even thought at times they were working against the interests of gun owners; i couldnt make any sense of their rationales and they didnt explain themselves either. Today i ask, whose side are they really on?

I think its absurd for posters to say that unless a criticizer starts a New NRA today that his comments are pointless, instead we need to find all the common ground we can even though NRA might not be it.

Can anyone see where our common ground is in this thread or would you all rather bicker?

When was "NRA smarter"? The Maxwell Rich days when a bell was rung each day for tea and they didn't concern themselves with legislation? They were nicer and kinder, I don't know that allowing anti-gun legislation go more or less unchallenged from the early 60s through the 80's was their best effort.

Can you provide some specifics regarding NRA mistakes and "working against interests" of gun owners. I'm not pleased with LaPierre's speech, I allow that NRA will reassess and do better.

Regarding criticism of NRA from those not members, on the one hand I think it should be ackowledged and addressed so long as it is constructive. Every gun owner is in theory a potential member. If a tweak or two brings in good members, that's great. On the other hand, a few lines in that Nicholson speech in "A Few Good Men" ( "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way") pops into my head once in a while. :43:

Regarding common ground, it would seem thus far it is in opposition to any magazine restrictions.

dfletcher
12-28-2012, 12:11 PM
The NRA does little to nothing to help Californians. Rather, they use CA as the example of what not to do and focus on the rest of the country. Even when I wasn't stationed in CA I still donated money to Calguns because they do more than the NRA to help Californians.

And this is a forum. I'm doing what people do on forums...expressing opinions :facepalm:

NRA fought Prop F and helped get it overturned. Prop F banned handguns in San Francisco. I live in San Francisco and am glad NRA made the effort.

uyoga
12-28-2012, 5:24 PM
Wayne LaPierre said what he had to say.

Having armed guards (and adequately trained teachers) at schools is a measure against persons (bad persons); not against guns (inanimate objets).

The people clamoring for "action now", are demanding something be done with regard to guns - - not bad or sick people. This is misguided, irrational emotion.

His (the NRA's) solution identifies and addresses the root of the problem with exactitude and without political correctness.

His speech lends credibility to the fact that "the best defense to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun".

There is nothing else LaPierre could have said or done under the highly inflammatory circumstances existing at the time.

The current president's kids are (and have been) attending a school protected by ELEVEN armed guards - - this does not include the Secret Service contingent that usually accompanies them wherever they go.

Are his kids' lives more worthy than my kids' lives . . . . . . or your kids' lives.?

The thinking has to be directed and kept going in the right direction, and LaPierre's speech did just that.

vector16
12-28-2012, 5:39 PM
The message was right on, the delivery was not. At the beginning of each paragraph he must have had a line desribing to him what emotion he was supposed to have. That vis what it sounded like. One minute he is direct and then the next point he is trying to pull off whimppering and then he is sobbing and the not and then direst. He is not the best one to give speeches. Although he is definetly qualified to hold his position with the NRA there need to be a diffent person the speak in publicor to the American people. He really need to drive home that the criminals of this country do not care about laws and will get whatever weapon they want regardless if it is legal or not.
Look at these gun buy back programs. The one in LA recovered a Grenade luancher for christ sake. That should tell the goverment that it does not matter what the outlaw or ban the criminals will still get the firepower they want.
If the gang bangers can get all this firepower and the law abiding citizen is stuck with a 10 rounf mag or a wheel gun we are not going to be able to defend ourseves and we are facing a certian doom.
Guns and ammo that they are trying to ban also make excellent hunting rifles and hunting rounds. That pont also need to be driven home and forced into the minds of these anti gunners. Having a semi auto in the field is a great thing for follow-up shots and depending on what kind of animal you are going after or what is coming after you a 10 or 20 round mag may be neesessary. They can't just dwell on nthe sef protection thing.
They really need to dr8ive home that the criminals do not care about laws.

Excelsior
12-29-2012, 4:34 AM
What have you done in support of the 2A besides donate to the NRA?

* Signed-up 6 others for NRA memberships.

* Took a group of 18 (mostly kids) from my church out to the range -- most for the first time.

* Wrote to Feinstein, Boxer and Lois Capps.

* Sent a check to NRA-ILA.

oldcodger
12-29-2012, 10:27 AM
I just got back onboard here after several years. im an NRA member and agree we all need to encourage everyone concerned with our freedom to own firearms! to join the NRA But how do we reach them thats the issue if gunowners havent gotten the message by now how do we reach them. i believe part of our problem and i say our is because as gun owners it effects us all collectivly. Im in firm agreement that the old you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands is honestly just an invitation for our Government to do just that. They wont have aproblem with doing just that if we loose our rights! So how do we get these over macho types onboard and thinking about resolving our problems rather than just stroking thier EGOS! The NRA is amazing considering there are only around 4 million members can you imagine the power they could weild if even half the legal gun owners in our NATION were members? Im starting to feel like we as gun owners are standing with Custer our last stand as Patriotic Americans is nearing rapidly. If we cant get more Gun owners onboard were and endangered specis.

Excelsior
12-29-2012, 1:27 PM
We are on they same side. We contribute to the NRA to fight this battle and when the tim e comes to vote on it, we vote on it. WE however live in CA. If a republicans voice would be heard in this state it would be an absolute mirical. We cannot even transport our guns to the shooting range in the trunk of the car with out them being locked down and the cases being locked. God forbid you get some nut and they try to car jack you or rob you, what are you going to do if yiou are following the law to the letter...

The trunk is (or can be) the "locked case." No need for an additional locked case. Just make sure they are unloaded...

Excelsior
12-29-2012, 1:32 PM
I just got back onboard here after several years. im an NRA member and agree we all need to encourage everyone concerned with our freedom to own firearms! to join the NRA But how do we reach them thats the issue if gunowners havent gotten the message by now how do we reach them. i believe part of our problem and i say our is because as gun owners it effects us all collectivly. Im in firm agreement that the old you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands is honestly just an invitation for our Government to do just that. They wont have aproblem with doing just that if we loose our rights! So how do we get these over macho types onboard and thinking about resolving our problems rather than just stroking thier EGOS! The NRA is amazing considering there are only around 4 million members can you imagine the power they could weild if even half the legal gun owners in our NATION were members? Im starting to feel like we as gun owners are standing with Custer our last stand as Patriotic Americans is nearing rapidly. If we cant get more Gun owners onboard were and endangered specis.

Someone said

"Who would be president of the USA if the NRA had 20 millions members?" The answer? "Anyone they wanted to be president."

It is sad that so many gun owners are apathetic when it comes to joining the NRA. I think that's where the anti-gunners have us beat cold. If Brady had 4M members (and not less than 100K) they would be a MACHINE fixated on growth and power.

We don't really realize the power we could wield...

RMikeL
12-29-2012, 1:33 PM
Wayne LaPierre said what he had to say.



Too bad he didn't shut up at that point and kept rambling.

vector16
12-29-2012, 2:43 PM
The trunk is (or can be) the "locked case." No need for an additional locked case. Just make sure they are unloaded...

OH so sorry. So when I get car jacked I only need to tell the guy to wait till I open the trucnk and load my gun?
That will still do alot of good there, Chief. How about I have my legal loaded gun on my hip. That just makes more sense to me. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Not with a good guy with an unloaded gun in the trunk.

Excelsior
12-29-2012, 2:55 PM
OH so sorry. So when I get car jacked I only need to tell the guy to wait till I open the trucnk and load my gun?
That will still do alot of good there, Chief. How about I have my legal loaded gun on my hip. That just makes more sense to me. The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Not with a good guy with an unloaded gun in the trunk.

I would just pointing out an error you made. No need to get upset.

Tom Gresham
12-29-2012, 2:59 PM
Just FWIW . . . we have a button on our web site for joining the NRA. Thousands have joined or bought gift memberships that way. I'm set up as an NRA recruiter, which means I get paid a commission on each membership.

I take the checks from the NRA and sign them over to the SAF. So, money spent to join the NRA from the Gun Talk web site also goes to SAF (which isn't a huge amount, but it's several thousand dollars).

In the court room, I want the SAF. In Congress, there is only the NRA. Right now, the fight is in Congress.

wildhawker
12-29-2012, 3:49 PM
Thanks Tom!

-Brandon

Just FWIW . . . we have a button on our web site for joining the NRA. Thousands have joined or bought gift memberships that way. I'm set up as an NRA recruiter, which means I get paid a commission on each membership.

I take the checks from the NRA and sign them over to the SAF. So, money spent to join the NRA from the Gun Talk web site also goes to SAF (which isn't a huge amount, but it's several thousand dollars).

In the court room, I want the SAF. In Congress, there is only the NRA. Right now, the fight is in Congress.

vector16
12-29-2012, 4:15 PM
I would just pointing out an error you made. No need to get upset.

I'm niot upset I was exagerating the truth a little bit. The poit is that the guns do absolutly no good for anyone other than at home fi we are not permitted to carry them , loaded, on our person.

stator
12-30-2012, 7:38 AM
The below statements won't make me popular with a lot of you, but frankly, I don't care.

In other words, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Bring on the flames & asinine rhetoric...

JDMcGee

You're a good man McGee. Most here who bash the NRA does so to divert blame away from themselves and onto the NRA. CA gun laws are the fault of the NRA and nothing to do with their habitual voting for gun grabbers.

Just like the hippy in another thread who gets it wrong. Liberalism means government liberally applied into our lives which removes our freedom to choose. Conservative means the opposite as in smaller government.

He's probably thinking of Libertarians.

Regardless, California will never change from more banning of gun rights until voters start throwing them out of office. It's been the opposite, Californians have been voting to increase more liberals in office as gun laws increase.

njineermike
12-30-2012, 9:42 AM
You're a good man McGee. Most here who bash the NRA does so to divert blame away from themselves and onto the NRA. CA gun laws are the fault of the NRA and nothing to do with their habitual voting for gun grabbers.

Just like the hippy in another thread who gets it wrong. Liberalism means government liberally applied into our lives which removes our freedom to choose. Conservative means the opposite as in smaller government.

He's probably thinking of Libertarians.

Regardless, California will never change from more banning of gun rights until voters start throwing them out of office. It's been the opposite, Californians have been voting to increase more liberals in office as gun laws increase.

This without a doubt. If you want liberty, STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE THAT REMOVE YOURS! The complaints about the NRA in California center on "they didn't do enough". THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! Several members right here (who, as usual, are deafeningly silent) outspokenly admit that they proudly vote for the idiot that will pass restrictive gun laws, but say it's because they aren't "single issue voters". That's a lie. They vote that way because they view gun ownership as a "hobby", not a fundamental tool for the maintenance of freedom.

Excelsior
12-30-2012, 10:19 AM
Sorry, but I haven't the time to continue this topic, as I'm on my way to Sportsman Warehouse in Tucson to purchase a Beretta PX4 Storm sub-compact in 9mm, a handgun that not available in California.

My handgun transaction this evening will take around 5 minutes to complete the ATF 4473 form, make payment and carry out the door.

Meanwhile please continue to bicker over whether or not joining the NRA is worthwhile.

My condolences... :(

missiondude
12-30-2012, 10:26 AM
This without a doubt. If you want liberty, STOP VOTING FOR PEOPLE THAT REMOVE YOURS! The complaints about the NRA in California center on "they didn't do enough". THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO! Several members right here (who, as usual, are deafeningly silent) outspokenly admit that they proudly vote for the idiot that will pass restrictive gun laws, but say it's because they aren't "single issue voters". That's a lie. They vote that way because they view gun ownership as a "hobby", not a fundamental tool for the maintenance of freedom.

Could not have said it better. My wife, who is very liberal on social issues, voted a republican slate for the first time ever (I think) for those very reasons. If the Second is legislated away, can other "rights" be far behind. "Choice" is backed up through the ability to take back our rights through force if it becomes necessary to do so.

Excelsior
12-30-2012, 11:57 AM
Just FWIW . . . we have a button on our web site for joining the NRA. Thousands have joined or bought gift memberships that way. I'm set up as an NRA recruiter, which means I get paid a commission on each membership.

I take the checks from the NRA and sign them over to the SAF. So, money spent to join the NRA from the Gun Talk web site also goes to SAF (which isn't a huge amount, but it's several thousand dollars).

In the court room, I want the SAF. In Congress, there is only the NRA. Right now, the fight is in Congress.

Indeed. Many people do need to realize the differing focuses/strengths of the different gun rights groups. In the political sewer of WDC lobbying, there is only one gun rights group with enough juice to make things happen -- the NRA.