Tweet
No problem mr. Brady. i'll continue to steer people to anyone but the NRA and do my best to be around when the NRA is gone. You have managed to make one more anti-NRA person and the only one feeling any shame is or should be you. You are beginning to make me understand why millions of gun owners will never join the NRA and do not appreciate a bully. there are plenty of gun organizations that are worthy of help but the NRA is not one of them. Five million and going down for the count is the way I see it. You are forcing a lot of 2A gun owners to other avenues to protect their rights. Your rabid responses are doing the enemy's job for them and I must say you are doing a good job. Nobody wins a fight with a closed minded fanatic and that is what I am fighting with now. I should have known better. the only place you and the NRA are heroes are in the closed minds on this site and yourself. 95% of the gun owners don't think you are worth the money and in california I suspect it is more than 95%.
-
Last edited by warbird; 09-13-2019, 9:49 PM. -
Well, it may have seemed tedious to you and everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, bear in mind YOU are the one with the problem and that problem means we, the membership (and all gun owners) have a problem. Remember, not every gun owner is an NRA member, nor should they be required to be. Truthfully, though not well advertised, neither is every NRA member an actual gun owner, though they do support the 2nd Amendment.
Something that has yet to be said (including by myself), is noted in both Friedman's and Hammer's "screeds." (Yes. I said 'screed.' If my post is one, so are their's in that they provide little or virtually nothing beyond personal support and considerable flag waving.) It's found here...
Hammer:
Friedman:
NO ONE is or should be THAT indispensible. Over the course of those decades, LaPierre should have been grooming a worthy successor. (Most assumed it would be Cox.) Read virtually any book on being a quality manager and one of the attributes is always making sure the company will run, effectively, the same if the manager were to retire tomorrow. Will the 'personality' or 'public face' of the business be altered? Certainly. But, from a pragmatic standpoint, the business should still function effectively.
Does that mean I want LaPierre gone? No. I'm not sure that he needs to be ousted as many/most of the accusations have potentially legitimate explanations. However, as I repeatedly indicated, we have not heard virtually any of those explanations beyond "I support Wayne" from the NRA. Worse. We keep hearing that if Wayne is gone or if you don't support Wayne, the NRA is through, can't effectively defend your rights, you are a Bloomberg shill, etc.
An indispensible leader and if you don't show absolute fealty, you are a 'traitor' to the organization and the cause? That's a cult, not a civil rights organization. (A perception which is exacerbated by emphatic statements such as: "I will continue to shame any gun rights supporter who owns firearms and is not a member of the NRA.")
Wayne LaPierre is 70 years old. At some point, he will no longer be there. There should be someone ready to replace him already warming up in the bullpen. If there isn't, that's on both the organization and LaPierre.
There is no "good" time and the times are ALWAYS "critical." Such thinking is a trap and leads to inaction when action is necessary. In this case, the action isn't necessarily the ouster of LaPierre. One of the necessary actions is putting in place an effective successor for when Wayne, inevitably, is no longer able to function as the 'leader.' Once again, according to the NRA's own standard, one that has been publicly declared for decades, Wayne LaPierre is NOT "the NRA."
The membership as a whole is the NRA. It's also something that is your most effective weapon in dealing with the politicians and the public. While one man can make a difference, it usually has to do with what that man can do and the number of people behind that man, in this case, is the 'power' wielded. It's the equivalent of Teddy Roosevelt's "speak softly, but carry a big stick." It's also the very thing you, Hammer, Friedman, et al. are, at face value, promoting; i.e., 'stick together.'
If that's a tedious thing to read, you have my sympathies since you deal with it everyday as part of your job.
Another necessary action is the PR battle. Right now, you are fighting both legal actions AND a PR battle. As I said, the majority are willing to be patient, for awhile. The... restraint/recalcitrance... demonstrated thus far regarding communication to the membership (who DO constitute the NRA) wears on that patience. For the impatient, that portion has, evidently, worn thin. For those with a bit more endurance when it comes to waiting, enduring the continuing insults (from "our side") and demands to "get in line," hearing that you "think it's a problem if you are focusing so much on "fixing" the NRA" is not a persuasive message.
While we might not be able to know the details of the problem (especially when NRA, both correctly and incorrectly, is keeping members out of the loop), we do know there are... issues (whether big or small) which need to be dealt with. If 'fixing' such issues creates a problem for the NRA, THAT is, in itself, a problem. I don't think that's the message you intend to send, but it is the message being received by what is being said.
As I noted, I'm not really aware of who or what Save the Second is. I do know that I'm not liking the 'attack/destroy them' messaging in Hammer's piece. It's not about whether they are a distraction, her message is that they are the progeny of failed 'traitors' to the organization. Neal Knox was more than just a board member. He was Executive Director of the NRA-ILA and played a role in the creation of FOPA. In a very real sense, he had his own 'cult-like' following; but, he also represented a significant number of gun owners in terms of his philosophical stance. Also remember that there are two sides to the... 'disagreement.'
Which is why I pointed out that Save the Second actually has a reply to Hammer's piece, where they state, in part...
Whether their attempt to reform the NRA is 'pure' or something else, neither are Hammer's (or LaPierre's) skirts entirely clean. Would I rather have street fighters on our side in the type of fight we currently have over the 2nd Amendment? Absolutely. But, while that means no one is going to come out of it entirely clean, at least if they are making the desired and necessary contribution, such "we are more pure than those guys" squabbling among those who are supposedly on our side is not helpful.
Our side? I thought preserving/protecting the 2nd Amendment was what our side was about. If Wayne is our best option, for the moment, to that end, then so be it. Not everyone agrees, but simply declaring that everyone needs to 'get in line' behind him 'or else' isn't productive and, frankly, the 'or else' is as off-putting to many as their demands to get rid of him are to you, Hammer, Friedman, et al.
Likewise, when you declare - "...ask if you are, in fact, doing both, and which one are you making more of an effort on?" - I don't think you are sending the kind of message you intend. If the NRA is our best hope for preserving/protecting the 2nd Amendment, then making sure the NRA is functioning... 'properly'... has to be a priority, if not THE priority, or any effort expended in preserving/protecting the 2nd Amendment is, by default, subverted to whatever degree.
If that means defending Wayne at all costs, then DEFEND him. Stop putting forth only testimonies of personal support and actually deal with the accusations (charges?) by providing evidence. Even though Friedman's posting was more helpful in that area than Hammer's, it was only marginally so and, as Friedman himself emphasized: "...it is MY BELIEF that one of our vendors attempted to take over NRA leadership in order to preserve its own lucrative contracts. It is also MY BELIEF that..."
For more INFORMATION, he then encourages us to read the NRA's lawsuit (links are posted in numerous locations on this board). The problem is, by its very nature, that lawsuit will present ONE SIDE of the issue. Not to mention that the NRA has two suits against North and, I believe, three against Ackerman-McQueen. It's why several of us have been linking to as many of the documents filed in those cases as we can; being hotly criticized by many for doing so. Yet, not everyone is fluent in or predisposed to reading 'legaleze.'
Therein lies your PR battlefield and it is one that cannot be entirely ignored or effectively 'held' (not for very long) by obstreperous demands of faith and allegiance. Neither can it be reduced to bumper sticker or Tweet length/size. Now, if it is too tedious to be worked through in something longer and more detailed, then maybe there is a reason the NRA had a public relations (advertising) firm to side it all these years.
Either way, the NRA and its subsidiaries need to get it figured out and soon. Not everyone is or can remain 'neutral' for much longer. Why? Because we have primaries and an election coming up where the field is extremely polarized in regard to firearms ownership. Gun owners are under constant attack by the media and politicians who would remove the right to keep and bear arms entirely if they could or can. On top of all that, many 2nd Amendment supporters now feel (in many respects, correctly feel) attacked and threatened by some who are supposed to be on "our side" and are concerned that the NRA and its subsidiaries don't seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time; i.e., fix problems at the NRA and effectively fight for our rights simultaneously.
To that end, it's not about which you are putting the greater effort toward or focus upon. It's about BOTH needing to be done. As I said, immediately following what you parsed out as the most relevant statement in my previous post, even the most neutral in this dust up are being left with having to take a stand based on what limited information is at their disposal and I fear, whichever way the decision leans, such 'limitations' could result in a stand which may not be the best for either those individuals (myself included) or the organization.Comment
-
Mine wasn't an attempt to shame. But let's be honest. Yes, there are some who would join but now question NRA's current situation. That's why I said NRA should make a reasonable effort to be responsive. But the overwhelming majority of that 95% are the same folks who were never going to join. They ought not act as though they're owed an explanation or accorded influence. That box of ammo, maybe saving for a new scope or a weekly poker game, weekend in Vegas was the reason back then. And so on over the years.
Whatever pro-gun organization a person joins of supports - good for them. That's a contribution to the cause.GOA Member & SAF Life MemberComment
-
@Warbird
Thank you for your opposition.
You can tell much about a man by his friends and his opponents.
Based on your statements here, I'm confident in my position being the right one having you as an opponent.
@TrappedinCalifornia
Sir, respectfully, you seem to be having a debate with someone else. I have yet to say a single thing about the merits of the accusations against the NRA, other than to point out that they are in dispute. I think you agree with that. That is my entire point. I don't know what is going on. You don't know what is going on. Nobody outside of a small group does. Yet, all kinds of people are up in arms, calling for heads to roll. And many of those same people do not dedicate even close to the amount of energy and vitriol toward the undeniable enemy as they do towards NRA, based entirely on speculation. I think that is a problem. That is all.Comment
-
As I indicated, that is not the entirety of your message and your intended message is not what is being received. Likewise, I think you know it; partially indicated by the way you continue to parse specific portions of member posts as 'relevant,' attempting to absolve yourself by indicating "that's all I'm saying," then proffering more assumptions and declarations about "people obsessed with," "allegedly pro-gun," everyone is ignorant of the facts (which is only partially true - obfuscation?), "I will continue to shame any gun rights supporter who owns firearms and is not a member of the NRA," etc.
You have yet to say anything about the merits of the accusation? That's precisely the problem. You haven't addressed the issues, yet you put forth another 'testimonial' in support of LaPierre, insist that you will continue to shame gun owners who don't join the NRA, and call into question the priorities of individuals who appear focused on fixing the NRA while (to your knowledge) not dedicating equal or greater resources (whatever that may be) to the fight to preserve the 2nd Amendment, and infer that many of them are 'a problem.'
I understand and sympathize with your frustration. As I said, we don't need all of the specifics, at this moment. But, it isn't going to be much longer before we will need specific answers beyond "I BELIEVE," flag waving, and brow beating.Originally posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates
You will, inevitably, lose some of the membership due to the controversies. In fact, you are losing some now. Certainly, you are going to find many members here sympathetic and who aggressively agree with whatever support you offer for the NRA. Just as certainly, you will find a few members who will vehemently disagree. None of those people are (or should be) your audience.
It's people like me, those who have, with effort, remained mostly neutral. We have no desire to see the NRA 'destroyed;' but, we're also not predisposed to 'blind loyalty.' What we do want, in fact, what we need, are answers beyond demands for loyalty and allegiance.
When you point to people who haven't joined the NRA already and then 'dismiss' them...
Originally posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates...yet, direct readers to a statement which, in part, declares...Originally posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates
...meaning, by default, non-NRA members are included and alludes to the idea that the NRA is representing 'everyone' or, at least, 'every gun owner,' you leave people askance. If you dare to claim to be their representative, then you must also dare to listen to their input and respond. Again, the NRA's true power is its membership; not LaPierre's personality or experience.The only pro-gun group that really has the wherewithal to protect our Second Amendment rights is the NRA. So, I would advise everyone to think long and hard before siding with anyone else.
We need the NRA. Our country needs the NRA.
Lose members, drive off others, turn off future ones, et al. and you undermine the very power you wield. If such is a debate with myself or someone other than you, then so be it. Of course, if that is actually the case, then, perhaps, I do have cause to be truly worried as you are, by default, one of the representatives of (all) California gun owners and, by derivative of your employment, a representative of the NRA, which purports to represent the nation's gun owners (not just NRA members).Comment
-
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - Hon. Roger T. Benitez[i]Comment
-
@TrappedInCalifornia
To be clear, I never claimed to represent the NRA with my posts here. These are my personal opinions.
I don't know how to be any more clear that I am not suggesting blind allegiance. I have repeatedly said otherwise. Read my earlier posts again agreeing that members have every right to ask questions of ANY organization.
What I am suggesting is people act like adults and deal with tough realities. NRA is THE gun rights organization. The proof is in our enemies' words. Has any other organization been targeted like NRA by anti-gun politicians? If it falls, we all do.
That reality, in my opinion, should compel every gun owner who supports gun rights to be a member of the NRA. So I stand by my comment that I will shame those who are not.
I never said I agree with the views in the article I posted. How could I?! I, like you and most others, do not know the facts. I posted it merely to point out that what many are taking as Gospel in attacking the NRA may not be so. That alone should give people pause in attacking, especially when our real enemy is attacking like never before.Last edited by sbrady@Michel&Associates; 09-14-2019, 12:47 AM.Comment
-
As I've said, several times now, the message you INTEND (or claim to intend) to be sending is NOT the message being conveyed when you couch it in the way you are. I get it. In many ways, I share your frustration(s). But, you cannot adamantly declare...
- "I never claimed to represent the NRA with my posts here." - While simultaneously presenting yourself as one representing: "CRPA is the official state association of the National Rifle Association (NRA), and works together with the NRA in California." (See your avatar/signature line and many of your much appreciated updates on legislation.)
- "...allegedly pro-gun-rights people obsessed with attacking NRA..." - Many of those same individuals are former NRA Board members, gun shop owners, etc. If they are only 'allegedly pro-gun-rights people,' we have a much bigger problem than even you realize. Bear in mind that "pro-gun" is not an hegemonic philosophy, regardless of how some might wish it to be so.
- "...what is going on is not KNOWN by those people..." - As I previously observed, if you read the threads on this topic, you might be surprised how much is actually "known," how much is pretty much correctly "understood," and how much more we'd like to know toward the end of making an informed decision.
- "People are focusing more on tearing down the NRA based on accusations than they are on the gun ban lobby, which is unequivocally trying to destroy our way of life." - SOME people are doing so and with "malicious intent." Others are looking for clarification and answers. (Confronting one's enemies while simultaneously keeping an eye on one's supposed allies is not always a 'bad' thing.) Unfortunately, in many (even most) cases, statements from the NRA and even yourself, often lead people to believe that the latter are being lumped in with the former... Particularly when you immediately follow such a statement with...
- "Priorities?" - An intention of "fixing" the NRA is NOT, of necessity, the same as 'tearing down' the NRA or 'destroying our way of life.' In fact, equating it, if only seemingly, as such actually feeds some of the concerns. As I said, defending the 2nd Amendment must include fixing the NRA as "a" or "the" priority.
- "This is the only relevant statement in that screed..." - That's a parsimonious presentation which blatantly attempts to redirect away from the questions being asked to...
- "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..." - That's something I've already addressed. Just the NRA's own actions have more than suggested that there are... issues. Many of the 'accusations' could have legitimate explanations; but, we haven't heard much in that vein and you declare not only that you are also, supposedly, unaware of the facts, but...
- "that such "fixing" could in fact harm the NRA and its members" - and...
- "Were they members before all this public turmoil? If they weren't, then they aren't entitled to answers anyways." - and that...
- "I will continue to shame any gun rights supporter who owns firearms and is not a member of the NRA."
While, by default, whatever you claim your personal opinions to be, you ARE, by dint of your employment and how you present yourself on this site, a representative of (all) California gun owners specifically and a representative of the NRA through its official state association.
From the other thread already linked to above...
Also bear in mind that doing 'nothing' can be just as, if not more, harmful than doing 'something.' As an instructor once said: "Right or wrong, do something, then learn from the results." That's why many are seeking more answers and information, in the interest of not doing the 'wrong' thing. Others are acting based on what they know (not just what they think they 'know') or think they know or perceive as 'true' and not everyone agrees that some of their desired outcomes are potentially 'harmful.'Originally posted by sbrady@Michel&Associates
None of those individuals should be considered "allegedly pro-gun." A different point of view, maybe. A differing strategy in the fight to keep and bear arms, perhaps. It's just that not 'everyone' is an enemy; despite the feelings engendered by the multitude of attacks currently underway.
Have I made my point... yet?
It's not about your personal opinions so much as it is about those personal opinions creating a mindset which is influencing your public messaging; something also being reflected in the NRA's messaging and its efforts in dealing with these attacks.
If your messaging is wrapped in...
- brow beating
- accusations of 'total' ignorance, despite proof (in these threads) to the contrary and references to individuals who, if they are ignorant, you'd have to question why they hold or have held the positions they have
- exclusiveness/elitism (NRA represents all gun owners, but if you aren't a member, you aren't entitled to answers and will be shamed?; demands that people be or become a member while questions remain unanswered and, largely, unaddressed may not be 'blind allegiance,' but it is perilously close)
- denials of issues in need of 'fixing' when it is clearly established that some sorts of issues do exist
- accusations of misaligned priorities
- without the NRA, we have nothing
- etc.
...I fear you are not targeting and in fact are driving away at least some of the very individuals we need to be educating and persuading.
It is tempting and, in many respects, natural to 'withdraw' or 'cover up' when attacked. One tends to seek out like-minded individuals, preach to the choir to reinforce their beliefs, equivocate so as not to provide an 'opening,' and be less than forthcoming so as not to risk more 'attacks.'
By the very nature of what the NRA does and what it claims to be doing, it cannot afford that luxury. By dint of the legal environment, there are going to be certain restrictions on what can (or should) be said, publicly. We ALL get that; even if it, sometimes, feeds our frustrations and concerns. But, as I said, this is not and never has been strictly a LEGAL battle. Equivocation, parsimony, redirection, etc. are tactics used in both legal settings and public relations; but, they are not universally applicable or useful.
Want to express your personal opinions? Fine. Just remember, sometimes you have to act like an adult and deal with tough realities. The reality is, whether you wish it so or not, you ARE perceived as a representative of CRPA and the NRA; partly through your own actions. Likewise, presenting one side of the coin while making accusatory representation of the other side(s) while simultaneously claiming ignorance of the facts lends itself to a perception of 'allegiance' rather than 'objectivity' or 'neutrality.' Likewise, declaring that if the NRA falls, we lose 'everything,' is a statement of bias, not necessarily 'truth.'
Yes. If the NRA is 'taken down' or LaPierre is ousted (given that there appears to be no effective successor to LaPierre as there should be), pro-gun efforts will be severely crippled - for a time. Will that time be sufficient for anti-gun forces to take everything from us? There's no way to know. One way or the other, however, it will be more costly for us to take it back if the NRA does fail.
The problem is, regardless of the activity NRA has been involved in and the successes it has had (which is not necessarily all that is claimed), the NRA has failed, in some ways, to fully protect our rights and is continuing to do so. That does not mean it hasn't tried and it is not a criticism, just fact.
In other ways, the NRA is influencing many outcomes in terms of being more pro-gun than the anti-gun pundits would like or appreciate. It's not a zero sum game and is only, in some respects, a marginal net sum victory for many, particularly in California. (Remember, playing is not synonymous with winning; neither is plugging one hole with your thumb while the entire dam continues to degrade. But, you work with what you have and try to take advantage of what can be done.)
It may not be comfortable to hear and it certainly may not be what we wish to hear or hope is happening. But, it is the TOUGH REALITY. You don't have to agree or like it. It simply is what it is. Just like others must accept that there is no other, pro-gun rights organization which currently has the clout, reach, or power of the NRA.
As I said, I'm looking at BOTH sides of the argument/accusations. So are many others. We will make up our own minds as to validity and 'truth.' Still many others have already made up their minds and they will not be swayed. The former is your audience, not the latter. Thus, whatever message you wish to convey should be directed toward those individuals and not be couched in or even predicated upon many of the premises you appear to hold personally.Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 09-14-2019, 2:44 AM.Comment
-
I'm a life member as well and hope they the update their business model. The constant paid marketing calls asking for money is horribleNRA LIFE MEMBER
CRPA LIFE MEMBERComment
-
I critically examine my life choices frequently, including any organization I may become associated with. Critical examination does not include swallowing sole source information from a biased party.
What I see from the current NRA has led me to allow my membership to lapse, to reject MidwayUSA's offer to "Round Up," and to divert my limited funds other organizations. Organizations that don't support RFLs, that don't support bumpstock bans, that don't support suppressor bans, but DO support ground-breaking court cases such as Heller v DC from the beginning, not as coattail riders after the fact.
Oh, and an organization that didn't replace questionable but perhaps effective law firm with one that donates to the most strident gun grabber to date!
I would hope, as a law firm and all, that you also critically examine evidence. Even evidence that may show your associations and organizations in a bad light that may require further inspection.Last edited by Fyathyrio; 09-16-2019, 3:55 PM."Everything I ever learned about leadership, I learned from a Chief Petty Officer." - John McCain
"Use your hammer, not your mouth, jackass!" - Mike Ditka
There has never been a shortage of people eager to draw up blueprints for running other people's lives. - Thomas Sowell
Originally posted by James Earl JonesComment
-
What strong-arming are you referring to? This letter and correspondence to the SDCGO’s board: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content...CGO-letter.pdf ?
I read that correspondence as the exact opposite of strong-arming and rather as an attempt to maintain an amicable relationship between groups.Comment
-
Life Member
Always will be.
It is worth it, just to piss off the anti's ...Comment
-
self defense starts in the home for self and family. Immediate support comes from neighborhood friends and local groups and it spreads out from there. I wholeheartedly support INDEPENDENT local gun groups who come together to accomplish self protection and then link up with outside organizations that may or may not help the smaller groups. this country used to place the individual and their rights at the center of their goals while national groups look at the so-called big picture. This country was formed by individuals coming together and fighting as a group but never losing sight of the individual. individual groups gives us different perspectives to look at and to consider. Never give up your local organization in favor of a national one who does not treat you as the most important aspect of their existence. the national organization is not going to come to your rescue but your neighbors will.Comment
There are currently 1622 users online. 59 members and 1563 guests.
Most users ever online was 65,177 at 8:20 PM on 09-21-2024.
Comment