The NRA.....lets talk!

[seamusTX]

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....She is still a liberal university liberal. but she now owns a gun, will get her CHL, and understands the RKBA

Good work and congratulations.

A "conversion" in academia is a great force multiplier, because educators influence many young people.

Everyone that I have taken shooting for the first time "gets it." I just don't know enough people. As others have said, it would be great if the NRA or anyone else would take people who are unthinkingly anti-RKBA shooting.

Unfortunately, some of the most firmly established anti-RKBA politicians are (1) virtual royalty who are guaranteed re-election in their districts, and (2) quite comfortable with their own hunting, trap and skeet shooting, and armed bodyguards. They just don't want armed rednecks and colored people running around.

On the subject of the tone of NRA publications: Almost no one but members reads these things. I used to leave my NRA magazines in the break room at work. Someone always threw them in the trash with the coffee grounds and banana peels within hours.

The NRA cannot afford a national advertising campaign. It costs too much -- literally hundreds of millions. We have to do it, one friend, relative, neighbor, or coworker at a time.

- Jim

[jimlongley]

A "conversion" in academia is a great force multiplier, because educators influence many young people.

Everyone that I have taken shooting for the first time "gets it." I just don't know enough people. As others have said, it would be great if the NRA or anyone else would take people who are unthinkingly anti-RKBA shooting.

Agreed, I just wish that I could have gotten one of my potential conversions to visit the range with me. This worthy had only the slightest of anti-gun leanings and even conceded, during intellectual discourse, that his point was more emotionally driven than logical: "Well, something has to be done and this would be the easiest and it would keep guns out of the hands of criminals."

Unfortunately, some of the most firmly established anti-RKBA politicians are (1) virtual royalty who are guaranteed re-election in their districts, and (2) quite comfortable with their own hunting, trap and skeet shooting, and armed bodyguards. They just don't want armed rednecks and colored people running around.

Save us from the Teddys, Rosies, and Bidens of this world, even when their hypocrisy is on display for the world to see, they refuse to recognize it, telling us that big lie over and over and louder and louder.

On the subject of the tone of NRA publications: Almost no one but members reads these things. I used to leave my NRA magazines in the break room at work. Someone always threw them in the trash with the coffee grounds and banana peels within hours.

I have done the same for years, and have even caught one or two of the persons throwing them away. One, when approached about throwing a magazine that other might read, went into a tirade about such trash not belonging in the lunch room because it was out of date, etc, etc, etc, while three days of newspapers sat just feet away, and soft porn magazines were on the rack. I filed a compaint against her with HR, so HR had me in for an interview in which the HR person expressed that she was scared by people like me. I assume she meant gun owners. Nothing was done.

The NRA cannot afford a national advertising campaign. It costs too much -- literally hundreds of millions. We have to do it, one friend, relative, neighbor, or coworker at a time.

- Jim

I can remember a couple of times when the NRA did have statewide, regional, and even national ads, but they were in response to particular issues and were placed, in part, because the "fairness doctrine" still existed in public broadcasting.

Of course the companies doing the broadcasting can pick who they take advertising from, and even dictate content (witness Belo's Dallas Morning News attack on the use of the word "gun" in advertising) and I can attest to being very frustrated when we had the funds to buy the time, when Mario (I'ma you godafather anda I say there'sa no Mafia) Quomo was portraying all gun owners as slobs, and the TV stations in NY turned us down for our "I'm the NRA and I vote" ads.

I have seen "I'm the NRA" ads on broadcast TV, usually in the late hours between "Gone with the Wind" and "Lassie Come Home" but those are the hours the NRA could afford, mostly because hardly anybody is watching.

Money talks, the other stuff walks, but unfortunately sometimes the purveyors of the other stuff also have money enough to pay for the talk, and possession of the bully pulpit is all it takes for Virginia to believe in Santa Claus.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

I'm very interested in people's comments, so I have stayed out of this thread. I want this feedback.

That said, I have to comment about the article you linked and your statement that an NRA President is raking in almost $1 million a year.

Here are a couple of quotes from Pat Williams article:

The organization's primary focus should be on vastly improving game habitat in America, advancing hunting fair play, and the safety of our youngest hunters. But this is not your grandfather's NRA. This organization has eagerly espoused the politics of resentment and become a pawn of one political party.

As a nine-term Congressman, he must know that to shift our focus from protecting the Second Amendment to improving habitat, hunter safety and "advancing hunting fair play" (whatever that is) would doom gun rights. Even the Brady Campaign blames the NRA for stopping "common sense gun laws" from being enacted. The NRA is active in all of these areas, but the primary focus must be in the political arena. It's also interesting to note Williams' not-so-veiled reference to the Republican Party. He falsly claims the NRA is a pawn of the Republican Party, in spite of the fact that we support many pro-gun Democrats. Why is Williams lying about this? Because he is a Democrat who supported Barack Obama, that's why. No one who truly supports the Second Amendment could support Obama and in so doing argue that he is not a threat to gun owners.

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.

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.

I suspect most members join and donate specifically because their money is spent on politics.

I'll try to find out what the real story is about Congressman Williams. I suspect he truly is anti-gun, or at least anti anything that doesn't involve hunting. Unfortunately, there are gun owns like that; shotgunners who don't see why anyone would want an "assault rifle," deer hunters who don't see why anyone would want to carry a pistol. Perhaps he is one of these.

One thing comes through loud and clear. Williams claims to have a 100% voting record with the NRA. If this is true, then we can thank the NRA for his votes, because without our power and influence, this certainly sounds like a man who would not have supported gun owners. Why else would he lie about federal legislation?

All of this courtesy of an NRA president (then) raking in nearly a million bucks a year of NRA dues money

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 know, I'm on the Finance Committee, plus the entire Board votes on the salaries for the paid officers. None of them make anywhere near as much as they could in the private sector. They work for NRA at a much lower salary because they believe in the cause. Every morning Wayne gets up, he knows he has to raise $684,000 to run the NRA, not counting the work that ILA does. He works about 20 hrs a day, 6 and 7 days a week.

Feldman's claim to fame is that the got fired from NRA, went to the National Shooting Sport Foundation where he either got fired or resigned just ahead of a pink slip, wrote a lie-filled anti-NRA book to fund his retirement, and is hailed by such anti-gunners as the Brady Campaign and Senator Chuck Schumer. He now claims the NRA could have and should have cut a deal with the Brady Bunch, Feinstein and Schumer and supported various gun control bills. So much for his dedication to the NRA, NSSF, the Second Amendment and gun owners.

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

Chas.

[seamusTX]

I suggest that anyone who doubts the lobbying effectiveness of the NRA talk to your U.S. representative. First ask them how often they hear from the other acronym organizations. Chances are they won't know what GOA or JPFO stands for. Then ask them how often they hear from the NRA.

You can meet your representative at an open house, community meeting, or ribbon cutting, or just call his office. They are politicians. If he or she won't talk to you, you need to be voting for someone else.

I'm not running down these other organizations, but they don't have the money or membership numbers to do what the NRA does.

- Jim

[Dragonfighter]

The reasons I do not belong:

Caveat: I think they are a fine and necessary organization and I was an annual member for years, and my dad sponsored me with the TSRA for a few as well. I particularly enjoyed the literature and informational research aids. That said...

When I was an annual member, even the nominal membership fee was a hardship based on my income yet I subscribed. I renewed one year and my check cleared (read they cashed it) yet no membership was renewed. I spent hours on the phone and writing letters that included copies of the canceled check. They refused to reinstate the membership or refund the membership fee. This was at a time that I could not really afford the membership to begin with. I have not forgiven them this.

I have since considered renewing my relationship when the finances improved and something (I don't remember what) was stirring on capitol hill. But then my wife introduced another objection that I cannot rationalize or overcome, that of the mail and publications showing up in our box. Our development is a little ways out from town and is quiet, but there have been and still are those that are of dubious character and/or users of illicit drugs. I know our stuff has been misplaced by a rather incompetent rural mail delivery and the fear is either through exploration or by fortune receiving NRA correspondence, the bad guys will know I keep weapons. This is also the reason I never placed the decals on my vehicle.

That's it,
Kyle

[brianko]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

The NRA has never said door-to-door confiscation legislation has been filed or likely to be filed. However, an "assault weapons" ban or any other type of ban that requires turning them in as seen in California is an attempt to take away guns. Williams wasn't arguing the distinction between confiscation and illegal possession in violation of a ban, he was arguing that there is no threat to gun ownership. That's blatantly untrue.

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.

We are winning the Second Amendment argument and no one views us as a fringe group, although the Brady Campaign uses that label. The 2007 Zogby poll shows that over 70% of Americans agree with the NRA's position on guns, gun ownership and gun rights all of the time or most of the time. No other organization in the country enjoys such widespread support. We are not viewed as a fringe group. I'm not saying there isn't merit to some of what you are saying, but we are winning the fight.

Chas.

[mr.72]

I confess up front: I have not read even most of this thread.

However I disagree with Charles. I think the current crop of 2A supporters such as those we find on this forum are indeed a fringe group. I am not sure the mainstream of American society really understands or supports the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. I think public education is 99% to blame in this case, and mass media is 1% to blame. Politicians exploit our ignorance of the Constitution and American History to support the herding of the masses around fear-based issues. If you can divide the population into "gun nuts" and "normal people", then "gun nuts" are far and away the minority. Then attach your opponent to the "gun nuts" and voila, you have staged the majority of normal people on your side.

I also think the lack of unity in purpose of 2A supporters is hurting our cause and takes away from the potential effectiveness of the NRA.

For example, I know many NRA members who only care about the RKBA as it applies to their hunting rifles and going deer hunting. However many would gladly support banning of handguns and the use of firearms for defense of any kind. Frankly I think the hunter-centric message from politicians and the NRA is hurting the cause. We need to get back on topic.

I would be much more willing to support a pro-RKBA organization who was willing to take on the root of the problem, which is public education.

[brianko]

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.

[seamusTX]

Brian, I've said it before: Reasoned debate will not change the minds of our opponents.

If it could, it would have. Every scientific analysis of "gun control" laws has demonstrated that they have no measurable effect on crime. The unfortunate experiments of the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand demonstrates the same thing. These are island nations, and they all have higher crime rates now than they did before they had gun bans.

Laws within the U.S. vary from the harsh restrictions of Washington, D.C., New Jersey, Illinois, etc., to the relatively lenient laws of Florida and Texas. The laws make no difference. Criminals in the first group of states are at least as violent if not more so than in the second.

Only threatening to vote anti-RKBA legislators and officials out of office, and actually doing it, is going to stop the legislation of further restrictions.

Most "gun control" laws in this country permit people who own the restricted item to continue to possess it, but they prohibit the sale of new ones and in some cases prohibit the transfer of existing ones.

That is how the bans in Washington D.C. and Chicago work. People who owned handguns before a certain year could keep them, but they couldn't transfer them; and over time those handguns went away. Some were stolen. Some stopped working. Some of their owners moved away, taking their handguns with them. Some quietly became contraband and thus subject to being seized if the police found out about them.

If they follow the model of the National Firearms Act of 1934, you will need the permission of local law enforcement to get your tax stamp. If law enforcement won't give you permission, you have to sell the weapon to someone who can get it, or surrender it.

You can argue semantics that that is not a ban, but it has nearly the same effect. Try buying a machine gun.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

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

If he does his job and the NRA prevents new "gun control" laws from being passed, gets some old ones revoked, and increases the passage of concealed-carry, Castle Doctrine, and other favorable laws, I don't care if he is paid a million dollars a year. He deserves it.

Do you refuse to buy gasoline because the oil company executives' pay is too high? Do you refuse to watch professional sports because the athletes' pay is too high?

I'm addressing this to everyone who refuses to support the NRA: If Congress passes an ammo tax, and you're paying $50 for a box of shells, you are going to regret not having donated every penny that you could spare to the NRA.

This is not a bogey man. Earlier this year, Cook County, Illinois (the county that Chicago is in) proposed a ten-cent-per-cartridge ammo tax. That would have made a box of .22 cartridges cost more than $50.

In Illinois, the state dictates where residents can buy weapons and ammunition. You can't walk into Wal-Mart and buy them, like you can here.

- Jim

[KBCraig]

http://www.whitefishpilot.com/articles/ ... umns01.txt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...
Reasoned debate will win the day, not childish namecalling and fiery rhetoric.

If this were true, we'd be preparing for the Paul administration. Or possibly Richardson, if the election had gone his way.

Just the fact of who the nominees were, thoroughly disproves the claim.

[anygunanywhere]

Worrying about executive pay is one of the things most commonly heard these days from those who advocate "spreading the wealth". I really do think that if we work on the top five or ten issues that would make the NRA a more effective organization executive pay would not be one of them. I also truly think that the NRA executives earn every dime they make.

Anygunanywhere

[seamusTX]

I think the current crop of 2A supporters such as those we find on this forum are indeed a fringe group.

What you are seeing here in the forum is what is called in political terms "the base." They are the people who are most passionate and active on issues.

And I got news for you, amigo: you're one of us, whether you like it or not.

This kind of group is fractious. Some are more idealistic and dogmatic. Some are more practical and willing to compromise. Some are more willing to talk than act. Some are more able to get things done. Politics is always like that. I disagree with some of the views expressed in this forum, more than most of you know.

Something like 15 million people in the U.S. either have a concealed-carry license or don't need one in their state. This is not a fringe group. It is comparable in size to any recognized racial or ethnic minority (other than people of European ancestry like the Italians or Germans). It is far more than the number of Jewish people or other minorities that are frequently mentioned as such.

At least 100 million people live in a household with a firearm, probably more like 150 million. That is half the population.

I am not sure the mainstream of American society really understands or supports the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. I think public education is 99% to blame in this case, and mass media is 1% to blame.

You are probably right that most Americans do not understand the second amendment the way we do.

I don't recall it ever being mentioned when I was in school, and that was long before the era of political correctness. I did not understand the Constitution as I do now until I was in my 40s.

The media (TV, actually) is very much to blame for the public's fear of firearms. I don't want to debate the numbers to the third decimal place, but their share is far more than 1%.

I have my disagreements with the NRA on both philosophy and tactics. I have already said that I am willing to sit on them until the coming critical battles are won.

I will say one thing: With tens of millions of firearms owners in the U.S., the NRA membership is around 4 million. That is less than 10%. It has not increased significantly for years.

The AARP has over 30 million members.

It is the fault of those who enjoy shooting or owning a firearm for self defense for not joining the NRA, but the NRA has to do a better job of persuading them to join. I don't know how the NRA can do that. Someone smarter and more imaginative than I has to figure that out.

But withholding our support is not going to achieve it.

- Jim

[Liberty]

You are probably right that most Americans do not understand the second amendment the way we do.



- Jim

But I do think Most Americans accept that it is a constitutional right to be be able to own rifles and shotguns and and even handguns in our homes. It isn't too much of a stretch to show them that this right is extended to the right to carry. or the right to own Black or pink guns or any other scary looking gun.