The NRA.....lets talk!

[seamusTX]

Many excellent points have been made in this thread, and I'll try not to repeat them.

I will repeat what Liberty said: The NRA is all we have.

The NRA has been rated the most effective lobbying organization in Washington by people who wish it would go away (including Bill Clinton). When the NRA calls a legislator's office, they get through. Many elections are decided by a fraction of one percent, and elected officials know that the NRA influences elections.

The NRA also puts lobbyists in every state capital when needed, and they frequently testify at legislative hearings.

They have filed and won more lawsuits than I can say. They currently have at least four lawsuits going against cities and states, including against Chicago's handgun ban. They file friend-of-the-court briefs in RKBA cases. None of these things are cheap or easy to do.

The NRA assists ranges that need help. The Galveston Rifle and Pistol Club was all but wiped off the map by Hurricane Ike. The NRA is helping us to rebuild. (I don't know the details yet.)

The NRA has many programs to introduce people to the shooting sports. But guess what? They need volunteers to run local events.

Now I'm going address some of the objections that that trouble me:

• The NRA is not ideologically pure. Other organizations that present themselves as "true" supporters of the RKBA do not have this record of accomplishment. Most are creations of one man and will die with him.
• The NRA said or did this or that decades ago. Get over it. The current leadership of the NRA has nothing to do with what the organization did years ago.
• The NRA should do more. Yeah, and it needs money and membership numbers to accomplish more. What organization doesn't?
• Joaquin Jackson's ill-advised comment about magazine capacity occupied a few seconds in the middle of a non-very-interesting interview on an obscure show on public TV a couple of years ago. The guy who produces the show said he was surprised that more than a dozen people watched it. That comment would have disappeared into history if it had not been repeated time and again on forums like this one. If the NRA had taken any public action against Mr. Jackson, our opponents would have said that the NRA had no tolerance for "reasonable gun control." I think we should let it go.

I don't agree with everything the NRA does. I don't agree with any organization or individual about everything. But we are entering a period when the RKBA is going to be under attack by forces that have a superior strategic position. We need to hang together, or most assuredly we will all hang separately.

Finally, think about this: We all know a man who has spent his entire adult life fighting for the RKBA in Texas. He is also a director of a range, an IDPA organizer, and a CHL instructor. He chooses to serve as a board member of the NRA, despite the criticism he takes for it. That is the proprietor of this forum.

What more endorsement do you need?

- Jim

[seamusTX]

P.S.: If anyone is offended by the tone of the preceding message, I apologize.

But not too sincerely.

Thank you for your attention.

- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

P.S.: If anyone is offended by the tone of the preceding message, I apologize.

But not too sincerely.

Thank you for your attention.

- Jim

Nice post, JIm.

Sometimes the truth offends people.

Anygunanywhere

[seamusTX]

Thanks.

- Jim

[Commander Cody]

This is a personal problem that I have with the NRA. I feel that the NRA should provide discounts for more of us. The following is a list of correspondences that I had with the NRA and their responses to me.

I sent an inquiry about discounts for Purple Heart Veterans. In my correspondence I asked why a disabled veteran can receive such a good discount while the disability in many cases was received from an injury that had nothing to do with combat. I know a person that was disabled while falling down stairs while intoxicated in San Diego. I know several others that were disabled while in an automobile accident in California. I was injured in combat in Viet Nam. I worked through the injuries and am not disabled. I do appreciate the message you sent as is below. It has been a while. When do you think I might hear from a representative? I do hope that you will reach a positive decision for me and others that were injured in combat. Please E-mail me when you have an answer. Or before that if it is being taken into consideration. Thank you.

Message Received at National Rifle Association‏
From: National Rifle Association (nra.auto-responder@nrahq.org)
Sent: Wed 8/27/08 4:38 PM
Reply-to: almcneel@hotmail.com
To: Arthur McNeel (almcneel@hotmail.com)
Thank you for your inquiry to the National Rifle Association. A representative will contact you directly.

My second inquiry was answered the same as the first. This is your answer.

Message Received at National Rifle Association‏
From: National Rifle Association (nra.auto-responder@nrahq.org)
Sent: Mon 9/08/08 8:42 AM
Reply-to: almcneel@hotmail.com
To: Arthur McNeel (almcneel@hotmail.com)
Thank you for your inquiry to the National Rifle Association. A representative will contact you directly.


I have still not received recognition from a representative of the NRA. Please notify me of when I might hear from a representative. I would like to become a life member of the NRA as soon as possible. If this matter is of no interest to you, please notify me. Please contact me by E-mail. You have the address.

My third inquiry was not answered at all. Please contact me ASAP.

My fourth inquiry was answered as follows:

Message Received at National Rifle Association‏
From: National Rifle Association (nra.auto-responder@nrahq.org)
Sent: Tue 9/30/08 9:34 AM
To: Arthur McNeel (almcneel@hotmail.com)
Thank you for your inquiry to the National Rifle Association. A representative will contact you directly.

I did finally get an answer. Their answer was that they did give discounts to disabled veterans and that it was on the honor system. They said they do not check backgrounds. This response made me feel that they think I should be dishonorable. I think that being a veteran with three purple hearts, a silver star and a bronze star earned in Viet Nam I should be given the same discount as a disabled veteran. Actually I think any veteran of a foreign war should be given a discount. There are many disabled veterans that never left the USA. I do believe the NRA has problems communicating with us or it would not have taken them so long to answer.

This said, I am and will continue to be a member of the NRA. They do a great deal of good work for all of us, and I hope all of you that are not members will be soon.

[nitrogen]

OTher people on here have put it better; but i'll say it anyway.
The NRA does good work. I think they can be far better and get frustrated with 'em, but they usually get mone from me sooner rather than later

[brianko]

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.

[seamusTX]

Reasoned debate will not win the day, the week, the month, the year, or the century. I wish it could, but it doesn't. Reasoned debate is not a part of politics now, and probably never has been.

Political clout -- measured in votes and money -- wins the day and the year.

The long run is up for grabs. It is very much up for grabs.

- Jim

[John]

You can't win a reasoned debate when you are considered criminal by the ones you are debating. The anti's have been very successful in demonizing guns and gun owners. Placating them will NOT win them over to our side.

[nitrogen]

Reasoned debate will not win the day, the week, the month, the year, or the century. I wish it could, but it doesn't. Reasoned debate is not a part of politics now, and probably never has been.

Reasoned debate should be. As your mother said, "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right." Wether or not you are right, I don't think it's ever a good reason to be as negative and hateful toward your opposition. Granted, some, like McCarthy, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc, we'll never be able to work with, but there are plenty more that aren't.... like that.

You never know unless you try. Besides, taking the high road isn't a bad thing, is it?

Political clout -- measured in votes and money -- wins the day and the year.

The long run is up for grabs. It is very much up for grabs.

- Jim

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

Remember, it's not just congress we have to win over; it's the American people. A change in tone might help win another few million members.

[SCone]

Reasoned debate will win the day, not childish namecalling and fiery rhetoric

"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."

"The bad news? Groups such as the NRA have been hoodwinking you about that very issue -- wastefully spending your hard-earned dues money on politics, and useless protesting by having people like Charlton Heston give that phony 'pry it from my cold dead fingers' speech"

These two paragraphs are quoted from "Some Facts About Gun Control" written by Pat Williams, nine time Representative of Montana.

OK, here's the debate...

1791
The Second Amendment is ratified.

1934
The National Firearms Act imposes a tax on the sale and transfer of machine guns and short-barrel firearms, including sawed-off shotguns. Passed just after Prohibition's repeal, it follows widespread outrage over gangsters like John Dillinger and Al Capone.

1938
The Federal Firearms Act requires federal licensing of gun dealers.

1968
The Gun Control Act, following the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr., expands licensing and record-keeping requirements. It prohibits felons and the mentally ill from buying guns and bans the sale of mail-order firearms, including rifles and shotguns.

1972
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms is created to oversee the regulation of gun sales.

1986
The Firearms Owners Protection Act eases some gun sale restrictions and bars the government from creating a database of gun dealer records. The law, which also authorizes sales of guns between private owners, reflects the growing influence of the National Rifle Association and a strongly pro-gun Reagan administration.

1993
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named for the press secretary disabled by the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981, requires gun dealers—although not private sellers—to run background checks on purchasers and authorizes the creation of a national database.

1994
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, passed by a Democratic Congress, bans the sale of new assault weapons for 10 years.

2003
The Tiahrt Amendment prohibits the disclosure of trace data about guns used in crimes. Following a wave of lawsuits against gun dealers, Congress also protects gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits if their guns are used in crimes.

2004
The assault weapons ban expires under a Republican-controlled Congress.

2007
After the massacre at Virginia Tech, Congress closes a loophole in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System by requiring states to automate lists of people prohibited from buying firearms, including felons and the mentally ill, and put them in the federal database.

These are the ones that have passed at the federal level. But what about the PROPOSED legislation?

Current legislation (110th Congress)
Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007 (H.R. 96)
Domestic Violence Victim Protection Act (H.R. 203)
Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2007 (H.R. 256)
NICS Improvement Act of 2007 (H.R. 297)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 1022)
Foreign Felon Gun Prohibition Act of 2007 (H.R.1168)
Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007(H.R.1859)
The Anti-Gun Trafficking Penalties Enhancement Act of 2007 (S.77)

Past legislation
109th Congress (2005-2006)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005 (H.R. 1312)
Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2005(H.R. 3348)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2005 (S. 620)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2005 (S. 645)
Amendment to prohibit the confiscation of a firearm during an emergency or major disaster

108th Congress (2003-2004)
Bill to Reauthorize the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988--18 U.S.C. 922 (H.R. 3348)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2004 (S. 2498)
Bill to Extend the sunset on the assault weapons ban for 10 years (H.R.3831)
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2003 (S. 1034)
Assault Weapon Ban Enhancement Act of 2003 (H.R. 143)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (S. 1431)
Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003 (H.R. 2038)

107th Congress (2001-2002)
Assault Weapon Ban Enhancement Act of 2002 (H.R. 3751)

106th Congress (1999-2000)
David Chetcuti Firearm Modification Act (H.R. 1428)
Assault Weapon Ban Enhancement Act of 1999 (H.R. 1809)

105th Congress (1997-1998)
Bill to ban the importation of firearms that have been cosmetically altered (H.R. 2702)

104th Congress (1995-1996)
Handgun Control and Violence Prevention Act of 1995 (H.R. 1321)
Bill to prevent handgun violence and illegal commerce in firearms (S. 631)

103rd Congress (1993-1994)
Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993 (H.R. 1025)



There sure are a lot of laws seeking to regulate, restrict or deny firearms for a government that "never have and are not now conspiring to take our guns."

[Mike1951]

You never know unless you try. Besides, taking the high road isn't a bad thing, is it?

It is if you end up losing!!!

Pardon me, but with regards to protecting the 2nd Amendment, it has nothing to do with how you play the game.

The ONLY thing that matters is winning!

[nitrogen]

And their "eviscerate the opposition" has worked so well, hasn't it?

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[seamusTX]

Reasoned debate should be. As your mother said, "Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right." Wether or not you are right, I don't think it's ever a good reason to be as negative and hateful toward your opposition.

Hatred is not a Christian value, a Jewish value, or a value in any other school of thought that I know of. The allies that one might earn by hatred are not allies that I would trust at my back.

I am not advocating hatred. I abhor it. But we have some battles ahead of us that we must win by any means that are not categorically evil. Votes and money are the American way. Always have been. Probably always will be.

If anyone thinks the revolutionary era (18th century) was different, do some research.

Remember, it's not just congress we have to win over; it's the American people. A change in tone might help win another few million members.

You are absolutely right about that. You have said it many times in this forum, and I haven't followed up as often as I should have.

There was a day, less than a long lifetime ago, when the concept of "gun control" would have been regarded as lunacy. We have to get back there, one mind at a time.

- Jim

[Liberty]

As to the discussion of converting liberals. There is no need to convert the left, nor the the libertarians. While those who have taken a stand to be vehemently opposed to us won't be changed, there are those who just don't understand. I have taken liberal Obama supporters to the range. They saw met and talked to people who were polite, they discovered that although they were diverse folks out there, that the shooters were pretty normal, but perhaps just a little more disciplined than the average Joe. Last summer I took my Idealisticly liberal academician niece to the range. She was almost angry at herself for enjoying it so much. She did notice a couple of ladies at the range. I pointed out that often times women tend to be better shooters than men.

There is a lot about gun rights that liberals can latch on to. It allows groups and minorities such as women and gays that are often targets of criminals to defend themselves. I explained how bashing gays was considered sport by in Montrose sorta just stopped with the emergence of the pink pistols. She is still a liberal university liberal. but she now owns a gun, will get her CHL, and understands the RKBA