Search found 20 matches

by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:19 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

mr.72 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
03Lightningrocks wrote:. . . Something I have observed. It seems a large portion of folks are neither pro or anti gun. Many seem to have no emotional investment either way. Many just don't have guns or the desire to own them while at the same time not having the desire to keep me from owning them. These are the folks, IMHO, that we need to get on our side.

. . .

My point is. We need to work on getting the middle of the road folk with us. Many of them are possibly swayed by taking them shooting and getting them interested. I have yet to take anyone shooting for the first time who did not just eat it up and want more. Making sure they realize that being silent is the same as being in agreement with the anti-gun mob. Many of the middle of the road folks are just sitting by thinking the laws don't affect them.
I couldn't agree more. This is precisely the audience we will be trying to reach with Texas CHL Forum, Inc. when it "goes live" next month. These people are an untapped political resource that can make a huge impact not only on the NRA, but on the entire national debate on gun rights.

Chas.
Why does this group of people have anything at all to do with the NRA?
Why don't you accurately read my post, rather than taking yet another opportunity to erroneously claim the NRA is ineffective and out of step with Americans?

My post didn't mention the NRA; it specifically addressed the mission of Texas CHL Forum, Inc., an organization that will have nothing to do with the NRA. The mission of that organization is to court people who 03Lightningrocks identified in his post.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:20 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

03Lightningrocks wrote:. . . Something I have observed. It seems a large portion of folks are neither pro or anti gun. Many seem to have no emotional investment either way. Many just don't have guns or the desire to own them while at the same time not having the desire to keep me from owning them. These are the folks, IMHO, that we need to get on our side.

. . .

My point is. We need to work on getting the middle of the road folk with us. Many of them are possibly swayed by taking them shooting and getting them interested. I have yet to take anyone shooting for the first time who did not just eat it up and want more. Making sure they realize that being silent is the same as being in agreement with the anti-gun mob. Many of the middle of the road folks are just sitting by thinking the laws don't affect them.
I couldn't agree more. This is precisely the audience we will be trying to reach with Texas CHL Forum, Inc. when it "goes live" next month. These people are an untapped political resource that can make a huge impact not only on the NRA, but on the entire national debate on gun rights.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:33 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

boomerang wrote:People can change. Charlton Heston enthusiastically supported President Johnson's infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.
Please explain, I'm not aware of this.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Mon Dec 15, 2008 12:31 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

nitrogen wrote:Look at it this way: What does Obama get if he goes with the NRA on something?
Absolutely nothing but more grief.
That's simply not true. He could take two courses of action that would have a significant impact on how the NRA responds. He could simply do nothing; i.e. not support any anti-gun bills, not say "if you pass them, I'll sign them," not support them behind the scenes. He could also privately discourage the filing of anti-gun bills. If he takes those actions and let's us know, then we probably won't be going directly after him, but we will continue to oppose other anti-gunners. I say probably, as he has already betrayed many of his supporters, he is part of the chronically corrupt Chicago/Illinois political establishment, he has publicly taken anti-gun stands even as a Presidential candidate, and he has insulted and figuratively spit in gun owners' eyes with the "religion and guns" comment.

The other option he has to ease the pressure on the gun issue is to come out and flatly say he was wrong, he won't sign any anti-gun bills that may hit his desk and take other action that proves he is sincere. He'll never do that.
nitrogen wrote:What does Obama get if he goes against the NRA on something?
Absolutely nothing but more grief.
You bet more grief, as well as a history lesson -- 1994, 1996, and 2000.
nitrogen wrote:The NRA already played out their hand. "We already made up our mind about you. We hate you based on your previous record. Nothing you can do will ever change that."
Again not true. We haven't "played out" anything; we have a lot more "grief" we can apply to the problem. As I said, he can change our opinion of him, but we aren't going to buy his lies. (Wright, Ayers, Heller, "religion & guns," etc.) What we won't do is sit back and wait for him to continue a long history of supporting anti-gun legislation. To do that would be irresponsible.
nitrogen wrote:How would you react if you were the CEO of a large company, and a contigant of workers started chatter like, "John is the most anti-worker CEO we've ever had! At his last company, he cut worker compensation 30%! WE HAVE GOT TO STOP HIM! HE'S ATTACKING THE WORKERS" before you even started your job?
You can't seriously be arguing that his long history of supporting anti-gun measures is irrelevant. NRA/TSRA Questionnaires are good (Obama didn't fill one out), but an actual voting record is a far more accurate tool for predicting how an elected official will vote. While it is true that people can change their positions on issues, such a change is more believable when they candidate has actually taken some action to prove their change of heart. However, when you combine a candidate's voting record with anti-gun statements and positions taken during the current campaign, it would be foolhardy to accept their claim at face value.
nitrogen wrote:That's my fear; that the NRA is marginalizing itself right out of the gate.
Not at all. The same could have been said for President Clinton, but the NRA was hardly marginalized. We grew in terms of members, money and strength and were largely responsible for the Republicans taking the House and Senate. We absolutely cost Gore and Kerry the Presidency. Even Bill Clinton admits in his book and during interviews that the NRA cost Gore the election. The NRA cost Gore his home State of Tennessee! I don't know if that's every happened before.

Obama has proven himself to be as anti-gun as Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, McCarthy and Pelosi and he has not said or done one thing to indicate a change of heart. To sit back and take a "wait and see" approach would be to repeat Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's folly and this we will not do.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Wed Dec 10, 2008 1:12 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

I was at NRA HQ last Friday and Saturday for a budget meeting of the Finance Committee. It was a very busy meeting, but I did have the opportunity to voice some of the concerns and complaints that were posted in this thread. I'll be going to a full board meeting next month and I'll have more time and more people to talk to about these issues. Thanks again Flint for starting this topic.

The NRA does try to address complaints and concerns of its members. The biggest single complaint we have is that people don't like getting numerous letters soliciting donations. A very close second was the complaint that people were getting letters asking them to join the NRA and they were already members! The NRA addressed both of those complaints. All anyone has to do to get off the solicitation list is ask. With millions of members mistakes can happen, but we've done a very good job of honoring requests to be removed, or to be contacted less often.

The membership solicitation issue has been very difficult to deal with because of the way many people join, expire and then join again. For example, it is very common to join as John Smith at 1111 Anywhere St., Houston, TX, let the membership expire, then rejoin as J.A. Smith. There is no way for us to know that these are the same people, so we send a "please join letter" to John Smith. If John Smith moved to a new address, it's even more difficult to identify him as a current member.

To address members' complaints, the NRA had software developed to help "scrub" the database and try to prevent multiple entries for the same person. We also did some other things with the databases that I won't go into. Overall, the efforts have greatly reduced this problem, although sometimes it is not possible to identify two different entries as being the same person.

I also discussed the "hyperbole" issue as Kevin calls it. (I think it was Kevin.) It may come as a surprise to people here, but this is not an issue that is often raised by a significant percentage of the membership. (As noted, there are complaints about fundraising letters, but not the wording thereof.) The short answer is that there is no "fix." The NRA has to raise money to operate and some messages are more effective with some audiences than with others. With some members it is sufficient to say something like "we need X millions of dollars for the Heller case, so please contribute what you can." With other members, it may be necessary to say something like, "if we lose the Heller case, then draconian gun laws will be passed all over the country." Both statements are true, but one is presented more casually while the other is stronger on emotion. Every mailing is tested and only those that are proven effective are used. I don't know for certain, but I suspect people who are interested enough in Second Amendment issues to frequent TexasCHLforum and other gun boards certainly don't need the more "serious" message. However, the vast majority of NRA members probably are not as invested in the issue and they tend to respond better to ad campaigns that you and I may not like.

The concept of the right message for the right audience is well known to trial lawyers. After a jury is seated, I thoroughly study the jury information sheets and jury questionnaire, if one was used for that case. I'm trying to get some information about the members of the jury so I can phrase some of my open argument comments, witness questions, and closing arguments in a manner likely to appeal to them and sway them to my side of the case. You have to be careful, because it is highly likely that comments that appeal to some jurors might not impress other jurors, or worse yet, they might be offended. So you just do the best you can with the jury you drew. The NRA is in much the same position, but with a heck of a lot bigger jury panel!

So when you hear or read a fundraising letter that is worded in a way you don't particularly like, please understand that the NRA is doing what it has to do to thrive. And please remember, the threat to the Second Amendment is very real and if our only complaint is the way it is portrayed, then let's just take a collective breath and and accept that "it's for the cause." We all have to do that in many other areas of our lives (wives and kids come to mind :lol: ) and we do so because the mission is critically important.

This is all I had time to discuss during this trip, but as I said, I'll be going back next month for a full week. I'll try to address other concerns that have been presented in this thread.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:24 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

brianko wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: BTW, your dodging the LP Platform is most enlightening.

As for the "unlike yourself . . ." comment I highlighted below, knock it off. I've warned you before; talk about the issue not the poster. You said you're a dedicated member of the Libertarian Party and I suspect like most LP members, you are mad at the NRA for not listing your candidates in the Voters Guides. I get it; I've heard it from other sources including Liberty who is a strong Libertarian that is always respectful to others who don't share his views on some issues. Express your views without the insults or express them elsewhere.
I'd be glad to meet you online for some intelligent debate about the LP platform. As I explained to you, this isn't the time or place for that debate.

I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage. Your forum, your rules. When someone steps up to the plate with valid counterarguments to your position, you shut them down. You've done it with me previously, and you're doing it now.

There were no insults, explicit or otherwise, and I believe the readers of this forum know full well that this is the case. This is the very intolerance for alternative viewpoints that makes me leery of the NRA. As previous posters have indicated, the NRA's plan of action excludes segments of the population (non-hunters, liberals, etc.) who would otherwise support the fight for our 2A rights. This position has an uncanny parallel some of the statements that have been made right here in this thread by NRA supporters.
PM sent; yet another one.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:08 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, if any. How is the NRA limiting anyone's choice as to what Second Amendment organizations they support? I am promoting NRA membership and the NRA is doing likewise. You have never seen me say not to join other organizations.

BTW, your dodging the LP Platform is most enlightening.

As for the "unlike yourself . . ." comment I highlighted below, knock it off. I've warned you before; talk about the issue not the poster. You said you're a dedicated member of the Libertarian Party and I suspect like most LP members, you are mad at the NRA for not listing your candidates in the Voters Guides. I get it; I've heard it from other sources including Liberty who is a strong Libertarian that is always respectful to others who don't share his views on some issues. Express your views without the insults or express them elsewhere.

Chas.
brianko wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: Here is the Libertarian Party Platform from the Party's website. Please point out where I'm wrong.
Considering I've been chastised once already for going off-topic in this topic, I'll not do it again. Maybe a debate for another day and another topic.

However, just to keep the post on-topic, I should point out that whatever other beliefs you attribute to the LP, the one that is important to the discussion, and the one that refutes many of your positions about the LP, is the very first one you post:
Libertarian Party Platform wrote: Statement of Principles

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

So you see, unlike yourself, some of us do believe there is room for choice when it comes to supporting organizations that fight for RKBA and 2A rights. The NRA is not the end all to everything that is 2A, and those who want to believe this are obviously no fans of personal choice and freedom. Not exactly an organization I'm ready to throw my support behind...
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:31 am
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

brianko wrote:
Liberty wrote: Some of your catagorizations of the platform are little distorted also. Libertarians as rule to not support state funded abortions, or abortions of a minor without parental consent. As with the the other party's there is room for drift from the official platform, and it changes from election cycle election to year. Even I as an active member and past candidate don't fully buy into the whole platform. The NRA is probably stepping out of its character when it refuses to acknowledge the only party who unabashedly supports the 2nd amendment and the RKBA. I would love to discuss the Libertarian platform but I understand I am drifting way off topic.
Thanks for setting the record straight...if you hadn't, I was set to :)

One other thing of note to get this back on topic: Libertarians, as a rule, abhor government intervention in their personal lives. To that end, they tend to support the position of less legislation and a greater focus on enforcing the laws that are already on the books. One of the "benchmarks" that NRA supporters like to brag about is the amount of legislation the NRA lobbies for in favor of gun owners. Many libertarians (including myself) would not agree that more legislation is needed: The Constitution itself is the law of the land, and instead efforts should continue to be made to stop the bastardization of the Constitution.
Neither I nor the NRA attack the Libertarian Party, but I'm growing weary of Libertarians blaming the NRA for their Party's failure to grow. The NRA is not impeding the Libertarian Party's ability to attract members. The Party's platform is very conservative on most fiscal issues, but ultra-liberal on social issues. This is an odd mix that is not likely to appeal to a lot of people. Conservatives won't like the liberal social positions and liberals won't like the "no taxes," "no social programs" and a "hands off" form of government. Again, I'm not blasting the Party, but I'm not willing to let Libertarians blame the NRA for people not warming up to the platform set out below.

Here is the Libertarian Party Platform from the Party's website. Please point out where I'm wrong.
Libertarian Party Platform wrote: Statement of Principles

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.


2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.


2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights

The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.

3.3 International Affairs

American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid.
We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


3.5 Rights and Discrimination

We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.

3.6 Representative Government

We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.


3.7 Self-Determination

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.

4.0 Omissions

Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:02 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

I truly understand the desire to have the NRA publicize information like the National Parks issue and NRAs inner workings on the Heller case. I would love to provide information contemporaneously, but I can't without jeopardizing the work we are doing. It's not worth doing a search, but I posted long before the Heller decision was issued that I was sworn to secrecy until after the Supreme Court ruled. That was a very hard promise to keep when I saw Levy's blatant lies and half truths in various articles he authored before the Heller decision was released. But not damaging the effort was far more important than letting people know the truth about the NRA's work. To this day, the NRA does not officially respond to Levy's or Gura's garbage, because our opponents try to use any and every sign of discord among Second Amendment supporters against us. My comments about the case are just that, my comments, not an official NRA position.

I have been asked to write a book about the long battle to get CHL passed in Texas and to improve it over the years by removing some of the provisions we had to accept to get SB60 passed. I'd love to do that for two reasons. First, I think everyone should know just how hard it was to get that bill passed, how hard some people worked to get it done, and how it all came together. I'd love to be able to tell the story how TSRA's then-Legislative Director "Doc" Brown was a gem during the process, how little known Rep. Bill Carter and his Legislative Director worked like Trojans to bring CHL to Texans. We all know of Jerry Patterson's work and he's is rightfully known as the "Father of Texas CHL," but there are stories of late-night work sessions and phone calls that would have you gasping for air, you'd be laughing so hard.

But if the story were told, it would damage our ability to make further improvements in Texas gun laws. I try to keep most of my files and maybe one day one of my son's will read them and write the story. Unfortunately, it would be a somewhat sterile version, as the truly amazing parts and the funny parts were never reduced to writing -- for obvious reasons.

I will continue to provide as much information as I can, but only at a time and to the degree when disclosure will not work to the detriment of our efforts. I wish it were otherwise.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:42 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

Liberty wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:The point I find ironic is that the two groups of people that have a bad image of the NRA are committed anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign, Schumer, Boxer, etc. and a small group of ardent supporters of the Second Amendment who believe the NRA compromises on the Second Amendment.
Chas.
There is a third group I believe which is signicantly large. There are those that believe the NRA doesn't represent them very well. Libertarians, are one group, I caught the recently reposted Susana Hupp video where she brags she didn't belong to the NRA (I think she doesn't like hunting ) I have to admit that it was a struggle for me to join the NRA because I feel they actively work against my party and its core beliefs. While the NRA does some of its best work work behind closed doors, there is a gamble of trust when this happens.
I don't think that third group is very large at all and I think it probably consists primarily if not exclusively of Libertarians. You and I have discussed this before, but the NRA doesn't work for or against any Party, except to the extent we try to get pro-gun candidates elected. I suspect that the majority of NRA members and conservative non-members don't support the Libertarian Party core beliefs, but it's not because of anything the NRA did or didn't do. Opening borders to everyone who wants to come to the U.S., legalization of all drug use for medical or recreational purposes, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, bringing all U.S. troops back to the continental United States, are just some of the planks in the Libertarian Party Platform. Those positions are why the Party doesn't enjoy broad-based appeal, it has nothing to do with the NRA.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sun Dec 07, 2008 3:10 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

mr.72 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote: The NRA doesn't have an image problem, except with a very small percentage of gun owners who choose not to join for one reason or another. The recent Zogby polls prove that beyond a doubt. Even though some members may not support all aspects of the Second Amendment, as long as they are members and contribute money, then the organization will continue to be the strongest, most powerful civil rights lobby in the world.

Chas.

Charles, I am very interested in this Zogby poll. I tried to google it and couldn't find anything like this. I guess I am looking for the wrong thing.

As far as a "very small percentage of gun owners who choose not to join for one reason or another", well I read one statistic that suggests there are 40-80 million gun owners in the USA, and only 4 million or so of them are members of the NRA. Are these the right numbers? If so then it suggests that 90-95% of gun owners have chosen not to join for one reason or another. I don't have any idea what those reasons might be, but I think that if it is true that the NRA is only attracting 10% of gun owners to join, that represents a great opportunity for the NRA to grow, or for another organization to fill the void.
Once a year, Zogby does their "big" poll that covers all kinds of topics. The poll I'm talking about was the 2007 "big" poll; I'm not sure if Zogby did one this year, since it was a major Presidential election year. He may have and I just didn't see it. The subject matter of the polls changes each year, although there are some topics that appear in almost every poll. The question that sticks in my mind was the response to the question "Do you agree with the NRA" and the responses "All the time" and "Most of the time" made up something around 70% of the responses. I'll see if I can get a copy from NRA HQ and post them here.

The estimates of gun owners is somewhere around 80 million, but that's grossly low. As recently as 25 years ago, the estimates were around 125 to 150 million and I don't think gun ownership has gone down. I think it's more likely that people today just won't say "yes" to a question about gun ownership.

Why have only 4 million of those 100+ million gun owners joined the NRA? My guess is that many gun owners presume the NRA is so big and powerful that there is no need or benefit in them joining. Also, let's face it, many people are willing to let the proverbial "other guy" do it and simply don't take the time to join. As Wildbill said, money is probably a reason some people don't join, but I suspect that may be more of an excuse than a legitimate reason for most people. I'm sure there are some people who can't afford to join, but I suspect they are few in number.

The NRA has put a lot of effort and money into changing the public perception of our organization and the effort has been successful. Even people who don't own guns look to the NRA as the savior of the Second Amendment, but since they haven't decided to get a gun (yet), they don't tend to join the NRA. The point I find ironic is that the two groups of people that have a bad image of the NRA are committed anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign, Schumer, Boxer, etc. and a small group of ardent supporters of the Second Amendment who believe the NRA compromises on the Second Amendment. The latter group tend to like the in-your-face approach to legislation erroneously believing that if they are loud enough, they can bully legislatures into passing our bills and killing anti-gun bills. I understand the attraction this approach has for some people, I sometimes feel that way myself, but the scenarios where this tactic works are few and far between. The NRA uses this tactic more often than most people realize, but it does so behind closed doors not publicly. Doing it publicly is counterproductive in most situations and even when it works, it tends to make enemies just waiting for the chance to get even.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:21 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

KBCraig wrote: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.
The NRA had a deal with the Interior Dept. to change the rules. Somehow, VCDL got word of it and started their nationwide petition to change the rules. The deal was already done and they wanted to take credit for what the NRA had done. Interior told us the deal was off because they "weren't about to let those people" get any credit for it and "encourage them to keep up their" tactics. At that point, the NRA started building support in the Senate and ultimately got 47 Senators to sign the letter asking for a change.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Sat Dec 06, 2008 3:42 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

mr.72 wrote:I don't really fault the NRA for their current image problem. I don't think they can change it, not reasonably anyway. The problem is that historically, the NRA has not been focused on RKBA. So there is a very old image of the NRA that still endures, which clouds the issue of RKBA.

I think it's the NRA that's sitting on the fence. They are divided because they have multiple goals that are related but nevertheless separate. So the sportsmen NRA members may not really support the RKBA and the 2A guys might not care about hunting. It would be better to split the organization into the old NRA, promoting shooting safety, hunter education, marksmanship etc., and some new organization with a clearly defined goal of only defending the RKBA, without the NRA's name attached.

That's my opinion as an outsider.
The NRA doesn't have an image problem, except with a very small percentage of gun owners who choose not to join for one reason or another. The recent Zogby polls prove that beyond a doubt. Even though some members may not support all aspects of the Second Amendment, as long as they are members and contribute money, then the organization will continue to be the strongest, most powerful civil rights lobby in the world.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:49 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

brianko wrote:
seamusTX wrote:Brian, at what level would Mr. LaPierre's salary not be an issue? $500,000? $100,000.
I'm going to abide by Charles' request and remove myself from this discussion. It's obvious to me what I have to say isn't exactly welcome in this thread. Maybe the thread topic should be changed to "The NRA...Dissenters Need Not Participate."
Not true Brian. I'm open to criticism about the NRA; I've expressed it myself in committee and board meetings. I don't agree with or like everything we do or refrain from doing. I didn't take issue with your first post about the content of NRA fund-raising literature, I just responded to Williams' and Feldman's false allegations.

I do have a problem with unfounded criticism from other organizations and their leaders that work to the detriment of the NRA and its mission. Feldman and Larry Pratt have never expressed constructive criticism, their goal is to damage the NRA as an organization. Unfortunately, some people who don't know much about the NRA tend to believe their lies. A weakened NRA is the last thing we need at this point.

Chas.
by Charles L. Cotton
Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:33 pm
Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
Topic: The NRA.....lets talk!
Replies: 300
Views: 45441

Re: The NRA.....lets talk!

Brian and I have hijacked this thread and I apologize.

Chas.

Return to “The NRA.....lets talk!”