TexasCHLforum.com

I've heard so many times over the years that "NRA was already working on that, we just had to keep it quiet!" that I frankly don't believe it any more. And frankly, I no longer care who feels insulted when I state my doubts. After a while, it starts to sound like the Russians claiming they invented something first.

Since when is the NRA quiet about what it's working on? And why the constant dismissiveness towards other organizations working to accomplish the same goal?

I praise NRA when they get something done that is positive. Why is the NRA response typically, "We would have gotten that done already, if XYZ hadn't screwed things up!" (Which always seems to come right after XYZ gets something done, but not through the NRA's insider political channels.)

I believe GOA has made bad moves, I believe JPOF has bad moves, and I believe NRA has made bad moves. Every state organization has made bad moves over the years, including TSRA.

The "We were doing that, we just couldn't tell you!" response just doesn't sound plausible for an organization of NRA's size and clout.

I am a member, and I support the NRA, and I know that sometimes my criticisms sound like I'm bashing the organization.

I'm not. I want the organization to grow.

But one of my biggest gripes is the excessive hyperbole that gets tossed about. It's mostly on the "preaching to the choir" stuff, but non-members see NRA publications and ads too. If they're off-putting to me, a member, how are they perceived by people on the borderline?

My father had been a member most of his adult life, but he dropped his membership in the early '80s over the tenor of NRA's political "warnings".

For a recent example, NRA press releases about the national park rule change, claimed that NRA "took the lead" in getting the rules changed. Now, NRA did let people know about the public comment period, but I don't believe they were involved until the process was already underway. The VCDL initiated the request to change the rules, and it took them a couple of tries and some political clout to get things rolling.

When even "true believer" members know they have to discount a certain amount of NRA publicity, it hurts credibility.

brianko wrote: http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/ ... umns01.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
Reasoned debate will win the day, not childish namecalling and fiery rhetoric.

If this were true, we'd be preparing for the Paul administration. Or possibly Richardson, if the election had gone his way.

Just the fact of who the nominees were, thoroughly disproves the claim.