TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote: If the majority of Americans found the NRA to appeal to them, they would join, no?

Maybe the NRA's recruitment efforts are lacking in some way?

mr.72 wrote:But the fact remains that the NRA does not appeal to the majority of normal people, and the majority of normal people have no reason to believe that the 2nd Amendment is under attack.

Actually, this is no longer the case...as of last year, more than half of all Americans hold a favorable opinion of the NRA (the first time since 1994 that this has happened). (Source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/443/the-nra ... trol-slips" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

However, there's another interesting tidbit: Support of the NRA by women and blacks has not increased appreciably since 1995.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

This is fascinating, a factoid I was unaware of:

The 1960s marked the first time Heston became overtly political, but in ways that now surprise. Having supported Adlai Stevenson for president and then John F. Kennedy in the 1960 election, he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and appeared with other actors on national television after Robert Kennedy's assassination, urging public support for President Lyndon B. Johnson's Gun Control Act of 1968.

Source: USA Today, updated 4/7/2008

Heston has even had moderate instincts about gun rights. Until recently, he hasn't spent much time pushing the Second Amendment. After Robert Kennedy's assassination in 1968, he endorsed strong gun control legislation, and as recently as last year he declared that AK-47s are "inappropriate for private use." (Heston's "softness" on gun rights was an issue in his NRA election, but he has quieted critics by backing off his earlier statements and hewing to the NRA's official line. He recently said that a Washington state initiative to require trigger locks was "written by Satan.")

Source: Slate, 6/4/1998 (http://www.slate.com/id/1869/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Additonal commentary here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2143134/entry/0/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A Google search for "charlton heston president johnson" turns up many more hits for your perusing pleasure.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: PM sent; yet another one.

Don't worry, your PM was received loud and clear. In fact, it was quite the motivator I needed to cut two checks this weekend: One to the GOA, and one to the JPFO. Thanks for helping me make up my mind!

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.

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...

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.

Mike1951 wrote: Please don't assume that you know anything about the NRA!

And this attitude fosters understanding and acceptance of the NRA how, exactly?

This is the very problem with discussing the NRA: It's either the NRA or the highway. There seems to be no middle ground.

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."

Charles L. Cotton wrote: As gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment, we can have differing opinions on many of the issues that face us and how they should be addressed. Fund raising methods, the content and frequency of letters and advertisements, proposed legislation, candidates, etc. are fair game for discussion and disagreement. But Feldman-type lies about the NRA, its goals, methods and leadership is counterproductive and just plain dishonest.

It's all a matter of what spin is put on the numbers. You've introduced a new metric to the discussion (salary as percentage of revenue), one that wasn't even brought up previously. I might argue that this metric is meaningless, because it sidesteps the true issue of the absolute numbers that comprise salary (my original argument). So we differ in opinion. Your opinion and my opinion as to how the numbers are interpreted is different, and I respect your opinion even though I don't necessarily agree with its validity. (I don't believe you or I have a disagreement on the actual numbers involved, as we have both produced authoritative references.)

One more thing: Even if Pratt is making $150,000 a year (and I'll take your word on that), it's a far cry from LaPierre's salary. Both the GOA and the NRA have made great strides in protecting our 2A rights. It's my believe that the GOA is providing the most "bang for the buck," which is why I support the GOA. However, the climate for gun owners has changed considerably with the installation of a virulently anti-2A administration, and I am considering supporting both organizations in what will probably turn out to be a long and protracted battle over gun owners' rights.

seamusTX wrote:I see you're still harping on Wayne LaPierre's alleged pay.

Actually, I was done "harping" on the pay issue. I was simply setting the record straight.

But since you brought it up again: Yes, I think it's a valid topic of discussion. As the subject of this thread states: "The NRA...lets [sic] talk!" Sometimes unpleasant things come up when the conversation is open. And I see nothing wrong with that: I will go out on a limb and make the statement that all of us here are mature adults who are capable of deciding what is and what is not important to us in terms of how the NRA runs their show. So if the topic of discussion really is to talk about the NRA, then everything is fair game.

In keeping an open mind on this, I've come to realize that my decision to stop supporting the NRA (but continue supporting other pro-2A groups) was made a few years ago (2004). I think it might be time to re-evaluate the NRA, especially since the changes in leadership during that period, and see if the reasons I left in 2004 are still valid in 2008.

This has been discussed here when Richard Feldman was hawking his sour grapes book. The claim is false. The President, 1st Vice-President and 2nd Vice-President don't get paid a dime. You actually mean Exec. VP Wayne LaPierre and he doesn't make anywhere near $1 million a year.

I stand corrected. I was referring to LaPierre, just got the title wrong.

That said, LaPierre's combined salary and deferred compensation totaled $892,166 in FY2004 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/99 ... =990O&t9=A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). "Near $1 million a year" might indeed be stretching it, but it's still a lot of dues money. Compared to GOA Executive Directory Lawrence Pratt's FY2004 salary of $65,000 (http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/99 ... =990O&t9=A" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), that's quite a difference in my book.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pat Williams wrote:In this there is good news and bad news for gun owners. First the good news: The federal government, your elected officials, never have and are not now conspiring to take our guns. No such legislation has ever been introduced in the U.S. Congress.

This is an outright lie and Congressman Williams knows it. Assault weapons ban, "Saturday Night Special" bans, 50 BMG bans, federal prohibition on concealed carry nationwide, Morton Grove IL handgun ban, D.C. handgun ban, Chicago/Cook County handgun/assault weapon ban, California "assault weapon" registration then confiscation, Lautenberg Amendment to the VWA are but mere examples of the threats faced by gun owners and the Second Amendment. Williams was in Congress for 18 years, so he saw all of this.

Not to be pedantic, but these are "bans," not "confiscations."

I'm well aware that one can and will lead to the other. I'm not, however, aware of any pending Federal-level legislation that specifically calls for door-to-door confiscation of existing weapons.

People are raising legitimate concerns in this thread, but this stuff from Williams and Feldman aren't among them.

There are certainly two sides to every story. My point wasn't to argue which side of the story was accurate. I stand by my position that so long as the NRA refuses to take the high road of rational, reasoned debate over hysterics and saber-rattling, the pro-2A movement will continue to be perceived as a fringe movement. If we can't win over the public to our cause, we certainly won't win over an anti-2A Congress.

Counterpoint from someone who definitely isn't anti-gun:

http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/ ... umns01.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the reasons I chose to stop sending my money to the NRA and instead send my hard-earned money to other 2A groups was the incredible amount of exaggeration, hyperbole, and personal attacks that saturated many NRA publications. Attacking the opposition with personal epithets (need I remind anyone of Ted Nugent's various hate-filled rants that certainly aren't suitable for posting here) is not going to win support for one's cause. To me, the NRA's rabid invectives against anyone they deem to be the "enemy" are a sign of weakness, not strength. All of this courtesy of an NRA president (then) raking in nearly a million bucks a year of NRA dues money.

Reasoned debate will win the day, not childish namecalling and fiery rhetoric. Even though I don't support the NRA's tactics and practices, that doesn't make me any less of a pro-2A supporter than one who chooses the NRA as an advocate.