TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:NRANews assumes that all gun owners are conservative republicans.

I have to agree, with great reluctance, but failing to reply to your message would be a lie of omission.

I bought a token share of stock in NRANews before it commenced broadcasting. I used to listen to it on Sirius also, and quit eventually. I still have that stock certificate, in case it appreciates in value some day.

The host, Mr. Edwards, talks about many things that have nothing to do with the RKBA, the shooting sports, firearms ownership, or related politics. Those issues seem to come from the proverbial talking points memo that other conservative talk show hosts draw from.

I am a fairly conservative person, but I did not sign up to every issue on the platform of the Republican Party or any other party.

As has been pointed out many times, when an interest group identifies itself with one party, that party owns the interest group, and they lose any influence that they might have had. This has happened between labor unions and the Democratic Party, and between Chrisitian religious conservatives and the Republican Party.

This country will have Democratic or Republican presidents and congresses every other four or eight years. You don't want to be left out in the cold when the party that you supported exclusively is out of power.

I will give Mr. Edwards well-deserved credit being urbane and well-informed*. He did not treat callers who disagreed with him with contempt, in my hearing.

I don't know what he said to you. If he said that you had a moral obligation to remain in California, I disagree. We all have the right to move wherever we please for any or no reason.

*I listen to a fair amount of talk radio. I have heard various well-known hosts who were obviously ignorant of history and general information that I thought everyone knew. Friday, I heard one talking about "completed uranium." He meant depleted uranium anti-tank artillery, and he had no clue what it was. He also obviously did not have a PC in front of him, or an assistant ready to provide information to his headphones.

- Jim

The NRA has an Internet "TV channel": http://www.nranews.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

About a quarter of U.S. homes have broadband Internet access, so this has the potential to reach a large audience.

I don't know what it takes to get on cable TV. Maybe it's too expensive.

- Jim

I get e-mail from the NRA almost every day (though much of it is promoting endorsed products).

It seems they let you know (a) when they need letter-writing, votes, or money, or (b) they accomplished something.

Certain issues are better handled confidentially to avoid stirring up opposition.

- Jim

I don't that's possible.

The Bradys, Schumers, Kennedys, etc., constantly criticize the NRA for blocking their "common-sense gun control" proposals and promoting such "lunacy" as concealed carry and castle doctrine.

If you perform a Google search for "National Rifle Association," and then scroll down past the sites that are actually run by the NRA, you start to find media and bloggers characterizing the NRA as somewhere between the Tobacco Institute and NAMBLA on the scale of evil, vile, and odious.

I doubt that most people know the NRA is anything else but a lobbying group.

Before I woke up and started caring (which, for the record, was in 2001), I didn't know anything different. No NRA-sponsored activities are held in my area. I never heard anything about the NRA that was not in public media such as television news or newspapers.

- Jim

That's not quite a rhetorical question.

The NRA has commissioned surveys that show that approximately 12 million people identify themselves as NRA members. The actual membership is 4 million.

The rest may have been a member at one time, or in some other way think that they are, or tell the questioner what they think they should (kind of like church attendance or dental hygiene).

That 12 million is probably what NRA membership would be if it were free or you could join by a one-time checkoff, like voter registration.

The rest of firearms owners who are not members think that there is no threat to the RKBA, or at least not to their preferred sport, such as skeet or hunting.

- Jim

The NRA does this to some extent. They have women's programs like Refuse to Be a Victim (which requires volunteers to run it). They have sympathetic spokeswomen like Marion Hammer. The NRA just doesn't have the resources to reach a wide audience.

The opposition gets it free. The media and especially television are constantly broadcasting "shocking news" about criminal violence committed with firearms and tin-foil-hat kooks. They don't have much to say about successful self-defense incidents.

BTW, the "left" is not one set of people with the same beliefs. There is an anti-RKBA faction, of course; but the really far left includes groups like the Weatherman and Black Panthers.

- Jim

I will try to address this concern in two ways:

1. The right to freedom of association that is guaranteed by the first amendment and affirmed by many Supreme Court rulings prevents government from subpoenaing the membership lists of legitimate organizations -- which the NRA is.

2. If the federal government were to go outside of constitutional boundaries, they have the technical capability to do anything they want. In that case, no secrets will exist in any computer system anywhere. If you belong to an organization, subscribe to a magazine, or have bought any "incriminating" paraphernalia with a check or credit card, you are on The List.

In the second case, all bets are off, and no one will be able to hide.

- Jim

mr.72 wrote:... taking people shooting is not going to inform them that they can use guns for defense.

No one need to be told that firearms can be used for self-defense. Most four-year-olds know it. That's why kids play cops and robbers.

The misconceptions that we have to overcome are

• Guns are too dangerous for "civilians" to own.
• You're more likely to be killed by your own gun than to defend yourself with it.
• "Gun control" can stop criminals from obtaining weapons.
• Criminals are buying guns off the shelves at some imaginary self-serve gun stores.

When you take someone shooting, you teach that person that he or she, personally, can safely control this tremendous power.

(I've said that before, but I don't want it to be lost in the noise.)

You also have an opportunity to start educating the person about the reality of personal defensive firearms use, firearms law, and why laws restrict only the law-abiding, and do not stop criminals from doing anything that criminals want to do.

For the NRA or any other group to run ads that clobber unprepared people over the head about personal self-defense is not going to work, IMHO. People reject ideas that are frightening to them, like little kids closing their eyes and plugging their ears when they see something scary.

It is also impossible to run a campaign that reaches only a selected audience. It was at one time. But in the Internet-YouTube era, your opponents will expose your targeted message to the rest of the world in a damaging way (remember Sen. Obama's comments about bitter people clinging to guns and religion?)

P.S.: I have re-read the last week's worth of posts in this thread. I have repeated myself at least once on every point, and so have most other contributors. I have asked questions that have not been answered. I don't think any minds have been changed.

I'm through with this unless someone introduces a completely new issue.

- Jim

TxD wrote:The aim of NRA and its members is to reach those who remain neutral and convert those who see the gun as evil.
We must interview and listen to converts like "Nitrogen" and determine why they changed their views.

Yes, and I'm repeating it because it can't be said too often: If you do nothing else to promote the RKBA, take someone shooting.

Everything in my upbringing, including my parents' attitudes, would have led me to being a lukewarm anti. But a neighbor taught me and my friends to shoot, and fortunately my parents allowed it.

This campaign will not be won by fighters or debaters.
It will be will be won by salesman.

Excellent point.

Somebody is running TV commercials with the tag line "take me fishing." They have gauzy photos of older men with kids in scenic outdoor settings. (OK, I looked it up. It's the Recreational Boating & Fishing Foundation.)

I think we need something like that, or a grassroots effort with a similar goal (sorry, Mr.72).

- Jim

Liberty wrote:You remind me of the big difference between the Brady's and the NRA / TSRA. The Bradys are a few activist who work hard and are financed by grants. The Bradys don't have the money nor the manpower we do. yet the media treats us as equals. What Are they doing right that we aren't?

1. They benefit from a rather thoughtless policy of the media. The media try to be objective (they aren't, but they think they're trying). They always want to present opposing points of view as if they had equal weight.

If I proposed some nutball proposition such as banning Christmas because Santa is an anagram of Satan (which has actually been done), and I had some money and clever strategists, they would put me across the table from a couple of historians and linguists who would try to explain why this was a kooky idea.

I'm not sure what is too kooky for the media. They give face time to all sorts of conspiracy theorists, radicals, and historical revisionists.

2. From the late 19th through the 20th century, this country had massive immigration from countries that did not have a tradition of firearms ownership. My family is in that group. The Irish Catholics could not legally own or use firearms. Those that did were poachers or revolutionaries.

3. At the same time, the U.S. became increasingly urban. Even people whose families had been here for generations stopped hunting and engaging in the shooting sports. Those activities just don't go along with living in an apartment and taking the streetcar to a job in a factory or office.

4. Use of firearms by lunatics and criminals became firmly embedded in the mind of the general public. This is rooted in historical facts: the James Gang, Bonny and Clyde, the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, assassinations and assassination attempts, especially against the President, and more recently school shootings. It's a favorite topic of newspapers and TV shows.

This led to the public wanting Somebody to Do Something. Since it's impossible to predict or control the actions of lunatics and criminals, banning firearms started to sound like a good idea to many people.

5. Jim Brady is a sympathetic figure. He literally took a bullet for President Reagan. Sarah Brady has been remarkably energetic and persistent. I don't agree with her, but I have to admire her dedication to her cause.

Our side has had a few prominent supporters who should have been equally sympathetic, among them Marion Hammer and Suzanna Gratia Hupp. Both achieved progress in their day, but they seem to have retired from public life.

All of this adds up to a situation where we insist on our right to own and use scary things that go bang (which I firmly support), and the other side pleads to save the children. It's a very difficult debate to win. I wish I knew how, but I've run out of ideas.

- Jim

Then do what you think best. This is still pretty much a free country, especially when it comes to freedom of speech and religion.

You can try. Congratulations if you succeed. You usually get another chance if not.

- Jim

I don't think "Malcolm X at a KKK rally" is an accurate assessment of this thread.

I think it has been remarkably civilized, for a debate about an emotional subject among mostly anonymous posters.

I have not seen threats, hatred, or (for the most part) the kind of silly meta-arguments that plague Internet debates. If I had, I would not have participated.

I have presented evidence that the NRA's strategy is succeeding. Firearms sales to first-time buyers are up. CHL applications are up. More states have passed concealed-carry and Castle Doctrine bills. This is undeniable progress.

The NRA has a multi-front strategy:

• defeat the worst proposed legislation
• promote legislation in our favor
• back candidates who are on our side
• promote firearms safety education
• promote the shooting sports
• promote police training

I think it has had more successes than failures.

The Million Mom March fizzled down to the three-mom march or something like that. The "gun-control" movement consists of a handful of (unfortunately) senior legislators and a few fanatical propagandists who (unfortunately) get an audience in the press and on TV.

- Jim

Another thing: The antis don't seem to have this problem. They don't criticize each other in public, and they don't have visible disagreements.

They are also patient. The Bradys have been at this for 27 years. Our opponents in the House and Senate have been at it longer.

I get the feeling that some supporters of the RKBA want results yesterday, and they blame the NRA for not producing those results.

- Jim

Brian, at what level would Mr. LaPierre's salary not be an issue? $500,000? $100,000.

I think he could go to work for a lobbying firm and earn millions a year. That's how much drug companies, oil companies and the like are willing to pay.

I know that this argument is made for executive pay all the time, and in many cases it is bogus. No board in its right mind is going to hire a CEO that ran his previous employer into the ground, and give him a raise.

But I think Wayne LaPierre has done a good job, and deserves to be paid what people who have his skill set are generally paid.

If you don't think he has done a good job, tell me what he could have done differently, to produce a better result.

There is a lot of vague "want" and "should" in this thread. I want the feds to keep their hands off our firearms, because they should. But it isn't going to happen without a positive plan of action.

At the risk of suggesting that I can read minds, I think that people who criticize the pay of heads of not-for-profit organizations have first decided not to support the organization, then looked for rationalizations. I see the same arguments made about the Red Cross and similar organizations.

- Jim

mr.72 wrote:However, most people don't comprehend the need for guns, so why own one if it is dangerous and you don't need it?

That's half the problem.

The statement "guns are dangerous" is true but incomplete.

Guns are dangerous to whatever is in front of the muzzle when the trigger is pulled.

They are not dangerous when stored and handled in a safe manner, unless and until a criminal needs to be stopped. Most people who do not shoot do not understand that, and our opponents have done a pretty good job of keeping them convinced.

We need more mugged liberals. Marion Hammer was a mugged liberal. We need a new generation of muggers that will scare the dickens out of people without permanently hurting them.

Seriously, I think the trend is in this direction. Look at the number of people buying their first firearm this month. Look at the increase in CHL applications, which is a sustained trend in every state.

Notice the number of politicians swearing off "gun control" efforts (though many are insincere). It reflects a change in public perception.

- Jim
[Edited to fix typo]