TexasCHLforum.com

O.K. guys...if you want to argue about the ACLU start a new thread please.

Abraham wrote:I just discovered this thread.

I'm a $10.00 a year member i.e., no magazines - just membership.

I've maintained this membership status for a few years now and I receive ALMOST no mail from them. I think the first year after membership, I received zero mail from them and in the last two years I received a little more, but really, very little.

Thank you for your support Sir. Please do all you can to encourage others to join as well.

Flint.

nitrogen wrote:

brianko wrote:

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?

I've said it (loudly and constantly) that the NRA, or some orgin general needs to reach out to your "nontypical gun owners", like Obama voters, Democrats, etc.

The thing we always have to remember: We're RIGHT. They are WRONG. (On the gun issue at least!)
The problem however isn't logical, its emotional. We need to win these folks emotionally.
I think Chas has the right idea with TexasCHLForum INC, and hopefully it's a model that can prove to work, and will get attention.

Is this because they have no logic to appeal to?


Just kidding.

mr.72 wrote:

brianko wrote:

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.

I didn't say they didn't have a favorable opinion, I said "appeal".

I have a favorable opinion of onions. I know a lot of people like them and that's well and good with me. But they do not appeal to me. So you can have onions and I will support you in doing that, but for me, hold the onions.

This is what I meant.

If the majority of Americans found the NRA to appeal to them, they would join, no?

If it were "free" and required little or no effort yes.

BTW, I can give away free onions all day long too.

brianko wrote:

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.

Makes me wonder what percentage of these two groups are democrats (perhaps a more telling statistic).

mr.72 wrote: You mean, get them to join the NRA?

I said nothing about the NRA. You may have drawn that conclusion because this thread has "NRA" in the title, or because the NRA is a "burr under your saddle", but I did not specify them.

Maybe you'd like to join the Austin Cycling Association? What? You don't support my right to ride a bicycle on the road? Or the ACLU? What, you don't support the first Amendment? Does the average citizen have to join and contribute to a lobbying organization in order to support every right they think they have?

Certainly not. However...it begs the question: Is it really "support" if all you do is (profess support) and give it a bit of lip service now and then? I think not. (not effective support anyway)
Tell ya what, you join the NRA...and I will join the ACA and donate to the helmet fund to boot, deal?

This is the thing. It doesn't have to be "pro-gun" in order to be "pro-RKBA". That right there is the difference between the NRA and the regular people. Regular people support their rights, and don't care about equipment.

Well, being pro-RKBA pretty much means "you need to be O.K. with guns as well". You might not want one for yourself (thats fine), but if you are not "pro-gun" (meaning you accept it is a tool....and do not demonize this inanimate object) then you are by default...on the other side, or uninformed (you pick). As concerns "regular people", I think there is something Freudian going on there.

I know you meant "pro-gun-rights cause". But that also misses the point. Taking people to the range misses the point. That's about warming them up to guns, and I am talking about the fact that most people support rights even if they are scared stiff of guns! We don't need to get people to not be afraid of guns! We just need to let the lawmakers know that it's not just pro-gun, gun-owners, NRA-members, etc. who support our rights.

Huh? To me...this is just so flawed...it gives me a headache.

Their vote? For what? You mean, voting for politicians who do not actively oppose the RKBA?

This would be helpful...but I do not suggest people be "one issue" voters.

I think the majority of Americans already to this, every time.

Apparently not, else we would not need the NRA, TSRA and others.

The NRA has nothing to do with it! I voted for Republicans and Libertarians who are strong RKBA supporters for years before I owned a gun or cared about owning a gun, because I support freedom.

With that in mind, we can surmise that those who vote otherwise (against RKBA) do NOT support freedom. Thank you, for demonstrating and practicing the kind of "other" support I was speaking about. Now, what can you do to convince others to do the same?

Acting on it, just exactly how? Why do I need to act on it? The Constitution was ratified a couple of hundred years ago. I keep voting for people who do not actively try and change our form of government and restrict my guaranteed freedoms. Is this not enough "acting" on it?

You need to "act upon it" beyond just voting...because there are factions still attacking your rights. They don't particularly care what the constitution says.

Here we are with the dig at people younger than you.

I do not "dig" at anyone simply because they are "younger" than me. Heck.... nearly everyone is younger than me. I am just stating an undeniable fact, (each generation becomes increasingly self absorbed, self serving and sensitive). There are exceptions of course, perhaps you are one of those.

That's the way to get them to join!

Well...it's cheaper than putting on a rock concert and then busing everyone directly to the voting booth to vote.
Athough...I do enjoy a "good" concert.

Anyway, just let me know what you want to do about the "membership swap". I'd be happy to support your cause (in a demonstrable way).

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 would someone who is ambivalent about guns and owning guns have any desire to join an outfit known best as a sort of club for gun owners?

I know, I know. I can tell by this 18 page thread. Most NRA members cannot see how their right to keep and bear arms, and their defense of the Second Amendment, can be accomplished without the NRA, so naturally, anyone who doesn't actively oppose RKBA should join the NRA, right?

IMHO, we would be a lot better off if we could figure out how to not need to get these people into the NRA in order to improve our RKBA support. It is a fool's errand to think that the millions upon millions of people who don't care anything about guns but don't oppose the RKBA are going to join the NRA. It's just not going to happen. What we need to do is find a way to make sure that lawmakers know that the NRA does not contain every single RKBA supporter in the USA, but rather that the 2nd Amendment support is a default position for virtually all Americans.

I think Chas' point...was to "find a way" to make this group more interested and supportive of RKBA.

Ambivalence is indeed the problem. I would characterize this kind of "support" as static at best...and "stagnant" at worst. This group may profess to support the 2nd, and it makes good "conversation" over dinner for them, but they do nothing (for the most part) to actively further a pro-gun cause.

There must be some way to reach a small portion of these folks and persuade them to actually support their belief though membership, monetary support and their vote.

SAYING "I support the 2nd amendment and RKBA" is very different from ACTING upon it. If we can't introduce them to the shooting sports/society...or show them the importance of the 2nd amendment, then there is little hope of getting them to participate beyond "lip service".

Also, with each generation...you have to deal more and more with the "whats in it for me" people.

03Lightningrocks wrote:I am a member of the NRA and I agree that the junk mail is out of control. Yeah....I know, I can go to the web sight and blah blah blah...but that is not the point. The NRA, it seems, is wasting a ridiculous amount of money sending spam mailers. I suppose they have statistics to support the return on investment. I hope they do anyway. I just recieved an offer to become a life member for 500 bucks, so I am going to do this.

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.

Nobody is going to turn some anti-gun, Jesus hating nut job liberal into a pro-gun NRA member. Why waste time trying. Heck, I have to work hard just to resist punching them. I sure don't want to tempt fate by starting a debate with them. I know I would end up in jail... .

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 do something else that seems to help introduce the NRA. I take my American Rifleman magazines to the office after I get done with them. I just leave them laying out for other folks to pick up and read. I also leave them at the doctors office and other places I visit.

Good Job!

nitrogen wrote: The NRA already hates me, and if I don't sign one, they'll still hate me. At least I can get some Brady voters, so I'll sign the AWB, ban gun shows, and whatever else they want."

Let me ask you a question. What could Obama do to win? Nothing. There's no endgame. There's no, "Say you aren't going to pass an AWB and you'l get our grudging support."


If the NRA can't give Obama an out, what's the point for him?

The "point" for Obama is simply this: He needs to figure out which dog has the "bigger bite" and stay away from that one. If he thinks the Brady Bunch is the "big dog", by all means go with them. I happen to think the NRA (and others) are currently the BD, and Obama would be wise NOT to rattle our cage.

Obama and Biden have clearly shown us (by past actions) what their posture is on gun control. Don't be fooled, a leopard doesn't change his spots.

mr.72 wrote:Right, so why would I join an organization which I don't really support? Is it not extremely divisive for people to join the NRA and then go about trying to change it?

I mean, if we are all going to join an organization with intent to change it, then we shouldn't be joining the NRA, but the Brady Campaign!

Again, I think this argument does not make one whit of sense. Of course the NRA doesn't care what I want. But I also suggest they really don't care what millions of other gun owners who are not NRA members want either, and this is costing them members.

Huh?

Since when is "change" a bad thing? I am sure you would agree...it depends upon what kind of change is wanted.

I can't imagine anyone not wanting the NRA to adjust/refine/change itself as conditions warrant.

Naturally, "change" from within makes sense. Those who are not members do not have a voice in the organization, how do you expect their wishes to be heard or considered? Unless they come together as some large group and approach the NRA... their wants will most likely go unheard.

Add to that, most folks that are gun owners (but NOT members of the NRA or other organizations) are most likely a complacent group anyway. Not much chance of those folks changing anything.

My advice (and plea): If you own a firearm and want to keep your 2A rights , get on board and help out!

Stop finding little reasons NOT to join pro-gun organizations (especially the NRA).

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.

"Support the fight" IF WHAT??????

I started this thread to help explore areas of objection to the NRA (large or small) . I fully intended this to include members and non-members alike. I am happy to see so many participate and I genuinely appreciate all viewpoints.

However, I get the feeling that some folks would never be placated no matter how many changes or concessions were made. IMO, the NRA does a pretty darn good job.....but they can not reach everyone (especially those who wear their feelings on their shirt sleeves, or must be constantly coddled and stroked).

Come on folks, if you are not an NRA member (for other than monetary reasons), then please take an honest look at the organization and make a decision. If you easily find more areas of disagreement than agreement, then by all means...do not join. Support the 2nd/RKBA in some other way...and everyone is happy.

OTOH, if you find that you basically agree with the tenets of the NRA and what they are currently doing...then please consider membership. It will help us greatly and we can discuss our petty differences later.

If you belong to the third group that thinks an entirely different program would be better, please get started forming it (time is wasting).

anygunanywhere wrote: I beg to differ with you, Mr.72. Those of us that are "strong supporters" of the NRA just might be happy with the way things are.

Why should I vote to change the NRA to suit someone else?

As has been stated here, no organization will be 100% to everyone. If the NRA changes to suit someone else then I might not like it.

As I read these posts it appears that the ones most opposed to the NRA are harboring hurt feelings and allowing their ideologies to get in the way of their joining. Fine. That IS their choice.
They can stand by their ideology when the knock at the door comes.

Their choice, their freedom to do so.

If you have not noticed, over the years the only group to compromise has been us. It needs to be our CHOICE to now, this day and time, to draw a line and tell the antis that we will not tolerate any more infringements. Period. I think that that is worth someone "holding their nose".

If that ideology can not convince people to join up, then that is their decision. If the Libertarians have such a problem with the NRA then let them AND their party focus their time and money on the RKBA as effectively as the NRA and prove their worth to the cause.

The NRA is not going to change unless we vote to do so. Convince me that I need to.

Respectfully,
Anygunanywhere

Weg wrote:I guess its time to re-up.

It would be greatly appreciated.

Remember folks, there are several sites offering reduced membership fees, or will pay $10.00 of the $35.00 annual fee for you.

Just about everyone can scrounge up $25.00 to help out.

Come on guys and gals...its easy: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/sign ... ignID=iygr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NcongruNt wrote: Now, in answer to the original question... My reasons for not joining the NRA have been expressed by others above - the tendency for the NRA to make commentary on issues that in no way relate to firearms. I however believe that reason to be insufficient in the current political climate, and we need all that help we can get in the coming months and years. I just signed up as a member of the NRA about an hour ago, while I was on page 9.

My personal thanks Sir!

You are not alone in recognizing and expressing that the NRA has room for improvement. Yet, you put aside certain convictions for the greater good and sake of your fellow gun owners and NRA members.

My hat is off to you.

jimlongley wrote:

nitrogen wrote:Remember the Media is about making money, not reporting the facts.

Which story makes more money?

1) OMG A WOMAN GOT SHOT WITH OMG BIG ASSAULT WEAPON HOW DID THIS HAPPEN???!!
2) A woman repelled a rape attempt with her handgun. Nobody was shot, and nobody injured or hurt.

#2 gets reported because it is more of a grabbing story.

Don't you mean #1, nitro?

I think he did, but this part made me have a flashback to diaper changing days.

#2 gets reported because it is more of a grabbing story.