If you are a gun rights supporter . . .

[71MUSTY]

Do I hear the familiar whine of excuses? What is wrong with an independent audit and if nothing is found out of order by IRS rules then so be it and end of discussion. But if expenditures are out of order are they illegal? who were they paid to and did those parties know or should have known they would be considered illegal? does that warrant further investigations and nobody cares who is proud of what or why since it has no bearing on the questions being asked of the NRA. To paraphrase some people in the past the last refuge of a scoundrel is to hide behind a bible or the flag when all other cons fail. I see a lot of NRA flag waving personally and frequent references to the bible. Personally I keep my religion in church, my flag flying outside my house, and expect to be judged by my actions and not by what I hide behind. i have yet to see one honest answer to the questions being asked of the NRA by anyone.

Nothing wrong with an audit, the question right now is which do you want more.

An Audit of the NRA or the 2A.

The largest supporter of the 2A is the Nation is the NRA. They are currently under attack. Do you support the attack or the 2A.

Is it at all curious to you that these accusations are brought now before one of the biggest 2A deciding elections ever?

We can always audit after an election, but we can't hold off an election until after an audit.

Pick your priorities carefully.

[Aragorn]

Who in their right mind thinks we must choose between those two options?

Wayne has got to go BECAUSE the 2nd Amendment fight must continue without any distractions like this. It's been a travesty to lose Chris Cox and Ollie North under these circumstances; a situation that ought to have been avoided and prevented at whatever cost.

And in the face of the SF libel, I just gave the NRA $100 too. As angry and upset as I am at the NRA, we have got to continue to support and try to fix it.

[dfletcher]

Please describe how the NRA is failing. I'd really like to know because it would appear that gun rights progress is being made, however incrementally. Yes, we're in dire straights at the moment, due to the rash of mass shootings, but prior to that, things were generally improving nationwide.

Unfortunately I'm resigned to the fact that if salvation is coming it's going to be via the courts, and they take a long time to work. Even then, it's not a sure thing. What I'm seeing from a lot of posters here is impatience, and reactionary thinking that does not acknowledge the bigger picture that at the national level things have gotten better. (look a the expansion of CCW rights/constitutional carry etc).

Is the NRA perfect? No. No organization is. Frankly though, they're the best we've got. They have name recognition, a sizeable network and their people have relationships in the political world, which is huge.

There may be issues, and if so reform, not revolution is the answer.

This is California. Where so many gunowners complain the NRA isn't perfect. And they wouldn't support NRA even if it were.

I think the 1st question to ask anyone wanting an "outside audit" is whether or not they are a member. or financial supporter. If they are, let's discuss. If not, a "thank you for telling me how my dues/donation should be spent" applies.

I suppose it's a good thing to see NRA vilified in the press again, a sign of getting healthy I'd hope. I noticed a few "dis-honorable mentions" for GOA also, good for them too.

Now if we can just get those "gun owning Democrats" to do something about their party. Calls for bans and confiscation from their presidential candidates and not a whisper in opposition.

[1911RONIN]

For the TL;DR crowd... I support the NRA, but not 'blindly' and it does get tiresome being lumped in with the anti-gun crowd simply for asking questions.

*********

We've actually got more detailed discussion on this site than is provided in that letter.

It helps, to a limited degree, to hear from NRA leadership. Unfortunately, what little communication we do get is usually very light on details; typically attributed to on-going legal issues. Just as unfortunate is that it often comes across for what it is: "I support Wayne. This is an attack on the NRA and the 2nd Amendment. If you don't support us, you are giving up your rights because the NRA is the only group that can protect you."

Personally, I'm still, mostly, neutral in terms of judging what's been going on. I've put out considerable effort in looking at as many primary source documents as I can and linking to many of them on this site, despite repeated attacks by unabashed (nearly blind) supporters. My intention is to judge for myself and allow others the same opportunity.

With that said, as was noted, without details, such statements as the one you link to simply show the individual's 'unwavering' support, but provide no real, usable information for others to base a judgment upon. Worse. It comes across to many as propaganda-esque... "Support the organization and Wayne... or else."

Just like the declaration about Save the Second: "Save the Second has never done anything to save the Second Amendment." So far as I know, it's a relatively recently formed organization (6/17/19?); thus, saying "it hasn't done anything" is a bit presumptuous. With that said, you might peruse this Calguns thread... Save The Second - Who Are They and What Are They Trying To Accomplish?

Note in particular the discussion about "Neal Knox-esque approach," "...they CLAIM they are not, specifically, looking to oust Wayne LaPierre, per se, however, what they say in that regard does leave one a bit... askance...," how we've seemingly been down this road before and the list of my concerns as presented in the OP of that thread...



However, there are many members who legitimately agree with their declared outcome...



[ETA: Save the Second appears to have a response to Hammer's piece: Dear Mrs Hammer.]

In short, most who read this forum are already aware of virtually everything that was said in Hammer's statement. The frustration (and disappointment) for many is the lack of detail coupled with the "propaganda-esque" approach to the few statements the membership has received. Again, just like the acknowledgement on this site that "Save the Second" is a misleading name in that their supposed agenda is "Reform the NRA" (making the choice of name its own "propaganda-esque" allusion).

Cutting through the... smoke screen... being pushed by both sides is the challenge.

We KNOW there is an advertising campaign coordinated by Bloomberg. We KNOW there are elements in the NRA which believe, rightly or wrongly, that the NRA is/was headed down the wrong path and isn't as 'effective' as it once was, should be, or as we would like it to be. We KNOW there are groups/individuals on both sides (pro-/anti-) who are attempting to take advantage, for their own reasons/agenda, of well known, pre-existing, naturally occurring, and predictable divisions among a membership of 5 - 6 million. We also KNOW that many of the 'accusations' being foisted on the membership and the public have been 'spun' from actual events and information derived from very real documents.

What we DON'T KNOW is the real 'truth' behind the actual events and information demonstrated in the documents. To fill that vacuum, what we have largely been presented with are declarations, from both sides, which amount to... NRA/Wayne good vs. NRA/Wayne bad.

What we haven't been presented with is specifics as to why beyond personal testimonies of support or condemnation.

Yes. There are those who appear more focused "on tearing down the NRA based on accusations than they are on the gun ban lobby." However, I do not believe they constitute the majority. Neither do I believe it to be helpful (or fair) to lump everyone who has questions based on actual events and information derived from very real documents into that group, declaring them to be "unequivocally trying to destroy our way of life." To be frank, that's not only self-serving propaganda, it's not helpful; particularly when their 'priorities' are then questioned.

What's the clear inference drawn from that? If one doesn't prioritize supporting Wayne (who is not, "the NRA" unto himself) over looking for direct answers to questions which have arisen then you are, by default, looking to destroy the NRA, destroy the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment, and undermine the American way of Life? Uh... For me, that very much comes across as US vs. THEM and if you question "us," then you are, automatically, one of "them."

While we have ample demonstration of such a mindset among a number of Calguns and NRA members (something which cuts both ways), once again, I don't feel that to be the case among the majority. The problem is that if people continue drawing that line, both will end up driving off support and force members/the public to 'pick a side.' Such a 'forced' choice may not be to our liking or in our favor.

Saying that if you don't view the 'evidence' currently available as an unassailable indictment of Wayne and the NRA's chosen direction means you are... various invectives... is not helpful in that the 'evidence' currently available is inconclusive, at best, beyond being applied to pre-conceived notions/concerns. Likewise, being told that the 'evidence' is simply malicious attack when it does exist (to some degree) vis a vis actual events and very real documents, coupled with no or vague explanations bolstered by claims of being restrained from providing specifics by "on-going litigation" or "fiduciary responsibilities" or similar leaves those legitimately seeking answers with the equivalent of unquenched thirst or unappeased hunger.

If the basis is that 'it doesn't matter if any issues are true or not, we need NRA during elections and you shouldn't care if some people did something they will regret after the elections,' that's a PERSONAL OPINION being expressed, not an answer, not a debunking of the allegations raised, or, frankly, a 'defense' of potentially inappropriate behaviors. As I've repeatedly said, if the accusations are unfounded, misleading, and simply 'attacks' meant to divide/undermine, go to the source material being referenced, show what it actually says or doesn't say, demonstrate how those media stories are being presented and 'unspin the spin' with the facts. If everything is on the up-and-up, such should be easily accomplished.

As I have also, repeatedly, stated, I believe Bloomberg's 'ad campaign' likely specifically targeted pre-existing concerns among NRA members; where the aim is to 'distract' the NRA and its efforts in the upcoming election, create a window of opportunity insofar as forcing gun control legislation (which politicians can then 'blame Trump' for; and already are), and anything else they manage to 'accomplish' in terms of weakening the NRA's long-term ability to fight for the 2nd Amendment is likely considered a bonus. Unfortunately, we are still confronted by the reality that there are divisions and the source documents can be, partly, interpreted as raising valid questions, no matter how limited their actual scope may be. At some point, the NRA, as an organization, is going to need to address those concerns and questions, specifically; not simply with the often vague allusions, obscurity, and defensiveness permeating the anecdotal displays of support from NRA leadership, but with detail, transparency, and aplomb.

The majority are willing to be patient, for awhile, insofar as limitations on detail and transparency related to on-going litigation. Most are well aware of the typical posturing and demands associated with lawsuits. Certainly, those aligned against the NRA can be expected to take advantage. However, that doesn't mean there isn't some, potential truth in the allegations as well. Unfortunately, thus far, the only substantive reply from the NRA has been, essentially: "There's nothing to see here. Let's move along and if you continue to question, you're obviously..."

Such... restraint/recalcitrance... regarding communication to the membership (who DO constitute the NRA) wears on that patience. As I noted to begin with, I've remained and continue to remain, mostly 'neutral' in terms of the accusations and questions which have arisen; preferring to make a decision informed by as many 'facts' as I can muster, judging for myself and allowing others to do the same. This post is the most I've stated about my, personal, position in any, single post. However, there does or will come a time when, if all I can glean, is more "propagandized" declarations, from both sides, that I'm left with having to make a stand based on what limited information I have at my disposal and I fear, whichever way I lean on that basis, such 'limitations' could result in a decision which may not be the best for either myself or the organization.

This. Mr Brady?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

What, exactly, Mr. Ronin?

This is the only relevant statement in that screed, as far as I'm concerned:

"Personally, I'm still, mostly, neutral in terms of judging what's been going on."

That's all I am suggesting pro gun people do at this point because nobody knows the facts. I am not suggesting nobody ask questions, nor am I suggesting that if you do you are (necessarily) the enemy (because make no mistake our enemies are taking advantage of this situation by stoking the flames).

I'm saying I think it's a problem if you are focusing so much on "fixing" the NRA when you can't even be sure it needs fixing (and that such "fixing" could in fact harm the NRA and its members), while not focusing on the CERTAIN threat to our rights, Democrat politicians and gun control groups.

Before you say "I can do both," ask if you are, in fact, doing both, and which one are you making more of an effort on?

[warbird]

If the NRA cannot afford a public audit to quell critics while supporting the 2A fight then there is a problem. I am tired of hearing deflecting excuses and the song and dance every defender gives instead of answering questions honestly. we know the other side and their lack of credit but now what about ours if you expect money. I have no problem with members getting rabid in their support and donating even more money if they want. But the big silent majority (95% of your gun owners) are not coming over because they want answers from the NRA and corrections if need be. and one final observation? Is the NRA threatening to hold the 2A hostage if the (95%) continue to demand answers before coming around to start financial support?

[SISKIN]

I look at it this way. Just think where we would be if there was no NRA.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

If the NRA cannot afford a public audit to quell critics while supporting the 2A fight then there is a problem.

If you will not allow the police to search your property to quell suspicion, then there must be a problem.

But the big silent majority (95% of your gun owners) are not coming over because they want answers from the NRA and corrections if need be.

Is that why they aren't coming over? Somehow I find that hard to believe. Were they members before all this public turmoil? If they weren't, then they aren't entitled to answers anyways.

Is the NRA threatening to hold the 2A hostage if the (95%) continue to demand answers before coming around to start financial support?

What on earth are you talking about?

Does it look like NRA has stopped fighting? https://www.nraila.org/legal-legisla...gation-report/

Name another group with a close to comparable list to that.

[dfletcher]

If the NRA cannot afford a public audit to quell critics while supporting the 2A fight then there is a problem. I am tired of hearing deflecting excuses and the song and dance every defender gives instead of answering questions honestly. we know the other side and their lack of credit but now what about ours if you expect money. I have no problem with members getting rabid in their support and donating even more money if they want. But the big silent majority (95% of your gun owners) are not coming over because they want answers from the NRA and corrections if need be. and one final observation? Is the NRA threatening to hold the 2A hostage if the (95%) continue to demand answers before coming around to start financial support?

It's not a matter of "can't afford". It's a matter of whether or not membership wants to spend money in that way and if it's in their best interests. And let's be honest. 95% of gunowners have NEVER and will NEVER join the NRA and it has nothing to do with current issues. It's been that way for at least 50 years. We should drop the canard that somehow satisfying non-members will bring them on board. Never has, never will. Especially in California.

An organization has no obligation to anyone who is neither a member nor a financial supporter. Those 95% have zero "right to an answer". If they don't like it the solutions are many. Such as joining another organization - which they won't do because it takes the place of griping. Or starting their own organization, which they won't do either because it's too much work and they could fail.

Should NRA reach out, as a matter of increasing membership - absolutely. But are those outside the organization "owed" anything - no.

BTW, the best way the NRA could "hold hostage" the 2nd Amendment is to do what those 95% "silent majority" do. Which is nothing.

[warbird]

You may be right so let's drop the attempts to shame the 95% in joining and let the NRA go it's own way. sounds like the NRA is doing just fine on it's own and does not need the 95% so we have nothing to argue about. we can let things stay status quo and see what happens. and you are right about other organizations to join. We all have choices.

[sbrady@Michel&Associates]

No thanks. I will continue to shame any gun rights supporter who owns firearms and is not a member of the NRA.

[Bobby Ricigliano]

After being pummeled with unrelenting junk mail for years to upgrade my yearly membership to a life membership, I finally relented and did it.

After the honeymoon phase where I was showered with auto penned letters of thanks, lots of stickers, and a Chinese pocket knife & trucker hat gift set, the next wave of junk mail commenced. Five diamond life member, Life member with oak leaves, Grand benefactor membership, Secret inner circle membership, etc.

I don't regret buying the life membership, but the ever higher levels offered are a farce. I know the NRA does good work, but the amount of money spent on huge full color mailers and insultingly trashy gifts must be in the millions. And it goes right in the dumpster.

[pacrat]

warbird...... Do I hear the familiar whine of excuses?

You may be right so let's drop the attempts to shame the 95% in joining and let the NRA go it's own way. sounds like the NRA is doing just fine on it's own and does not need the 95% so we have nothing to argue about. we can let things stay status quo and see what happens. and you are right about other organizations to join. We all have choices.

No thanks. I will continue to shame any gun rights supporter who owns firearms and is not a member of the NRA.

AMEN,............... Mr Brady. As a LIFER in the NRA, and CRPA, I'm rather tired of listening to the incessant "whining" of NON NRA-CRPA members.

Complaining that the people actually taking the 2A fight to the enemy, and paying for the fight that benefits all gun owners, isn't doing enough for those that do nothing.

Anyone who owns firearms, or hopes to in the future. That is not an NRA or CRPA member. Is IMHO, nothing short of a;

"2A WELFARE BUM"

SITTING ON THEIR COLLECTIVE AZZES WHILE OTHERS SUPPORT THEIR RIGHTS, AND FIGHT THEIR FIGHTS FOR THEM.

[Rickrock1]

I am not happy with the NRA 100% but I defiantly support the NRA 100%. And wished that more people would support the NRA especially here in CA.

Without the NRA our Country would be totally different, illegal to own firearms and probably wouldn’t even be allowed to openly discuss or show any support for the NRA.

Most recently we have been classified as terrorist and if the liberals have a chance they would do it nation wide for the good of the people.

Now is the time to support the NRA and not believe all bs and silliness that we are constantly hearing.

[TMB 1]

AMEN,............... Mr Brady. As a LIFER in the NRA, and CRPA, I'm rather tired of listening to the incessant "whining" of NON NRA-CRPA members.

Complaining that the people actually taking the 2A fight to the enemy, and paying for the fight that benefits all gun owners, isn't doing enough for those that do nothing.

Anyone who owns firearms, or hopes to in the future. That is not an NRA or CRPA member. Is IMHO, nothing short of a;

"2A WELFARE BUM"

SITTING ON THEIR COLLECTIVE AZZES WHILE OTHERS SUPPORT THEIR RIGHTS, AND FIGHT THEIR FIGHTS FOR THEM.