TexasCHLforum.com

OK guys, please keep the discussions civil.

yea that would suck, if i hypothetically had a kid and my hypothetical kids doctor tried to say something id find a new doctor

Yes, TAM can turn an eloquent phrase. His posts are enlightening, entertaining, and oftimes educational. He is an asset to this forum and he does enjoy a good debate.

The NRA is not perfect but it is our strongest voice in the fight against the evil of the anti-gun side's insidious efforts to stifle our 2A RKBA rights and deserves our support in that effort...if we believe in our RKBA.

Its Eddy Eagle and other youth programs notwithstanding; kids, their rearing and their doctors are subjects altogether removed from what the NRA represents and promotes, IMO.

On that note, .

Without going and doing the research, just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that for most of it's history the NRA was primarily involved in firearms education/training, with a heavy emphasis on safety, and also hosting various matches. Many law enforcement and even military personel got firearms training from the NRA and competed in matches hosted by the NRA. It's only in more recent times, in the face of the attacks on the Second Amendment, that the NRA became known as the political champion of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

When I was in Boy Scouts, at summer camp we could shoot for NRA awards. They were, if I remember correctly, Pro-Marksman, Marksman, Marksman First Class, Sharpshooter, and Expert. Then there were multiple levels of Expert you could progress up through - nine, I believe. (I was Sharpshooter for a couple years before I made it to Expert. Never got to Level 2 Expert or whatever it was called.)
The guy who ran the rifle range at camp was always an NRA certified instructor, that was a requirement for the job.

Before shall-issue laws concealed carry licenses swept the nation, many people, upon acquiring their first handgun, would ask where to get some training with it. They were refered to someone local who was an NRA certified instructor. They were in every city and many smaller communities teaching firearms safety and some basic self-defense. Once we got CHL, I think most of those NRA instructors became CHL instructors and you don't seem to see the NRA classes as much any more because everyone is busy doing the CHL thing.

The NRA continues their firearms education programs. It's just that they've become overshadowed by the politics.

mgood wrote:Once we got CHL, I think most of those NRA instructors became CHL instructors and you don't seem to see the NRA classes as much any more because everyone is busy doing the CHL thing.

The NRA continues their firearms education programs. It's just that they've become overshadowed by the politics.

That may be true. I don't know. But I do know several CHL instructors, and they all also offer the NRA's Basic Handgun Safety Course. But perhaps they are the exception rather than the rule.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mgood wrote:Once we got CHL, I think most of those NRA instructors became CHL instructors and you don't seem to see the NRA classes as much any more because everyone is busy doing the CHL thing.

The NRA continues their firearms education programs. It's just that they've become overshadowed by the politics.

That may be true. I don't know. But I do know several CHL instructors, and they all also offer the NRA's Basic Handgun Safety Course. But perhaps they are the exception rather than the rule.

I know several CHL instructors who are also NRA instructors. I am not aware of them teaching the NRA course since they started teaching the CHL class. I'm sure they would, if asked, if several people wanted the class. I'm just saying that I don't see flyers advertising that class in every gun store like I did before CHL. That course seems to have all but disappeared from sight. I took the NRA Basic Handgun Safety Course in the days before CHL. When I took my first CHL class, we covered a lot of the same material, seemed like almost the same class, but with more emphasis on the laws concerning carrying and laws concerning the use of deadly force.

I don't mean to get into a debate. I only wanted to point out that the NRA has historically been THE source for firearms safety education, but most people don't see that face of the organization any more because the political side is more visible.

terryg wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: But you see, I would submit that your friends are unaware of these things because the only thing they know about the NRA is whatever Keith Olberman and liberal politicians them. That's on your friends, not on the NRA, because the NRA is already publishing ads, putting up billboards, and buying TV time ("Hi, I'm [substitute name of celebrity NRA member], and I'm the NRA"), not to mention publishing a magazine with a circulation of 2 or 3 million.

A lot of liberals are shockingly intellectually incurious. They are comfortable in their cliched trope, and they are unwilling to consider anything that requires them to stretch themselves a bit. That's not the NRA's fault, nor can the NRA cure it. One has to have enough brain cells to rub together to actually investigate the world one lives in. If one is not that intellectually rigorous, then if would be a feckless use of the money for the NRA to spend $20 billion a year on advertising which promotes safety, because the message just isn't going to get through. The information is already there. It's very public. Nobody is hiding it. But liberals, for the most part, aren't curious enough to read it and give consideration to its implications.

As far as the NRA endorsing a safety product by licensing its logo for use in moving that product, that would probably be OK, as long as there was a material benefit to the NRA in terms of royalties to compensate the organization for the dilution of its brand.

TAM - I really do understand that point of view and I think there is truth to it. Some liberals are so Utopian that will never change their stance. They cling to the ridiculous concept that the world can be total free of weapons if we eliminate them one at a time.

(And BTW, I really appreciate your reasoned responses.)

You are most certainly welcome.

terryg wrote:And perhaps the scope of what I suggesting is simply too large. But you mention the existing I'm the NRA ads. Those are designed to promote the NRA brand itself with recognizable faces. What I'm talking about are public services type ads that stress the importance of gun safety. The bottom would say Paid for by the NRA. The ad would be simply to increase awareness and educate. Promotion of the NRA would be secondary and it would be in such a way as to strengthen the image of the NRA as supporting responsible gun ownership.

The goal (besides potentially saving lives) is not to convince the Utopian liberals - they are too far gone. But to remove one of the last best arguments used to sway those that are a bit closer to the fence.

Well, that might certainly be something useful to do. Charles Cotton is member of the NRA's national board. Perhaps if he sees this thread, he can answer as to whether or not something like this has been considered, and if so, why the NRA decided not to run such ads. And by the way, television networks are under no legal obligation to accept public service advertising. For instance, imagine the Aryan Brotherhood, which is well-financed by its drug trafficking endeavors, trying to buy airtime from ABC/NBC/CBS/et.al. for the purposes of airing a racist ad advocating for nation racial segregation into "separate but equal" areas of residence. The networks should rightfully be able to reject such advertising based on the notion that it is poisonous, vile, and ugly. My point is that perhaps the NRA has already been similarly rejected in more recent times. (I haven't seen one of those "Hi, I'm Tom Selleck, and I am the NRA" ads in quite a while.) That's why I'd be interested in Charles' response. Maybe we don't see these ads because they've been rejected. Maybe we don't see them because the NRA has made a considered decision to spend those funds in a more effective manner. I don't know what the answer is.

terryg wrote:[Ok, the following statements are admittedly Utopian as well] The NRA would be as linked to safety as GEICO is to the GECKO. Your typical confused citizen would not be able to ignore it. [/EXIT UTOPIA MODE]

But seriously any dilution of the NRA brand would be for the benefit of the NRA by strengthening the concept that the NRA is serious about gun safety, not to promote a product for the products sake.

But then I am one of the 90 million currently benefiting from the NRA's actions without contributing. I have and will continue to consider this decision. My opinions in this area continue to shift and change - and one day I may decide to join. But the lack of a full steam safety awareness campaign is one of the reasons I haven't yet.

Without meaning it as an attack, as I already pointed out, they do try to push safety - maybe not to your full satisfaction - but they do. There are other areas of advocacy where they do not 100% satisfy certain segments of their paid membership over other issues. But the fact remains that they are still the single most effective gun rights advocacy group in the nation, and they more or less satisfy most of the membership. Not to mention that, even though they don't rise to your fairly lofty standards, they are also still the single most effective gun safety advocacy group in the nation. And, they have the benefit of being largely apolitical - witness their support of Senator Harry Reid for reelection, because he is really solid on gun rights (even though he is a cretin on most other issues). Because they are apolitical, the NRA's membership includes conservative republicans, libertarians, and even some liberal democrats. My cousin Tommie the Commie, who is an actual member of the American Communist Party, supports gun rights, owns a revolver, and is largely not interested in attacking the NRA because they are apolitical. There are distinct advantages to this position, because it demonstrates the truth that rights (and safety) are not the sole domain of one party or the other.

So, my counter argument would be, why are you refusing to join the single most effective promoter of gun rights AND gun safety, simply because they do not meet your standard 100%? They are still 1,000% better than any other organization out there at promoting gun safety. So yes, you are getting a free ride on the benefit they provide, and although you are certainly entitled to your opinions as you see them, you have failed to prove that they are sufficient from an argumentative standpoint.

terryg wrote:[Warning - another unpopular opinion coming up ...]
While I appreciate the work done on my behalf. Part of me feels that it is somewhat irresponsible to work for a goal that will increase the penetration of guns in homes across our country without working just as hard to educate about their proper usage - especially when children are involved. How many people purchase their first weapon at a gun show? Why not provide brochures with basic gun safety/storage guidelines? Reducing accidental injuries and deaths from firearms can only help the cause.

Utopian? I know. Unrealistic? Probably. But is there more room for the NRA to both increase safety awareness and at the same time link safety to their image? I think so.

I think that these final paragraphs are very telling about why you haven't joined, and they show a lack of complete understanding on your part about the NRA's goals and purposes. Allow me to explain...

NRA is NOT working for the goal of increasing penetration of guns in homes across our country. That is NOT their mission. Their mission is to defend the 2nd Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms, without infringement, for those who choose to do so. They're not saying you must keep and bear arms. They are saying that your right to choose not to keep and bear arms should have no impact on my right to choose to keep and bear arms.

In other words, just because you choose not to exercise a right, that does not mean that you don't still have that right. And that is the NRA's message. Naturally, safety is a part of that mission to the extent that it helps the cause, but it is not their primary focus. Their primary focus is the defense of the 2nd Amendment. So you sound like you're refusal to join is because you would rather that they stop being the primary (and for all practical purposes the only) defenders of the 2nd Amendment to being the primary promoter of gun safety. Well, they are already the primary promoter of gun safety in the nation, bar none, head and shoulders ahead of the rest. And that is all well and good. But if they switched their primary mission from defense of the 2nd Amendment to promotion of gun safety, then I would quit, because I already do everything I can to promote gun safety, while the NRA does those things I cannot, which is to bring pressure to bear against any infringements of my right to keep and bear arms; and they do that very, very well - from which you have benefited. Why would you not spend $35.00 a year on that? I'll bet you spend more than that on ammunition for just one trip to the range.

All I know is what my nearly 58 years have taught me, and that is life is not Utopian, and it can never be so, because Utopian ideals fly in both the face of chaos theory (if one is an atheist) or in the face of Biblical principles (if one is religiously inclined). Call it either chaos, or a fallen world, but Utopia is a completely unobtainable ideal, and therefore nothing but a distraction from the accomplishment of any real and obtainable good in this world. If you never join something, or never do anything because you're waiting for the world to become Utopian first, you'll never accomplish a single thing.

In that light, why should the NRA listen to your concerns if you're not willing to pony up the very cheap fee to join? If you join, and you don't like how they are doing something, then you can agitate from within to try and steer the organization in that direction. Why do you suppose Charles Cotton is on the board of directors? Or any of the other board members, Uncle Ted Nugent, for instance? They don't rise to that level because they are power hungry. They rise to that level because they feel called to serve the membership. If you're not part of that membership, then they'll never serve you - except indirectly, as they are doing now.

And at this point, I'm not going to pursue this line of discussion further in this particular thread, because it is getting way off topic. I hope I have answered your objections adequately. If not, perhaps you can raise this in another thread so that we don't drag this one any further off topic - which, by the way, mea culpa too.

So far, Hoi Polloi wins this thread. Tell the busybody doctor whatever they want to hear, and then move on.

I would hardly call the NRA, the nation's largest lobbying organization, "apolitical."
But they do tend to stay out of political issues that don't concern firearms, shooting, and the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that's what you meant, that they are not necessarily republican or democrat, but I think apolitical might not be the best choice of terms.

Doctors are as individual as the rest of us.

That said, my physician is a skeet shooter and whenever I see him he always asks if I'm packing - with a broad grin on his face, cuz he knows the answer...and has no problem with it.

I take much of this controversy as one of those things that some individual doctors are doing that, that isn't part of their mandate.

So, what to do?

If they fall into the category of docs that decide to get into your business (beyond their medical expertise) I'd calmly inform them that I'd be taking my business elsewhere and why. Just like I'd do if they were a car mechanic attempting to lecture me regarding anything other than what's best for my vehicle ...?

A doctor is in effect a businessman and if he loses enough business because he's decided to become an advocate for things beyond his scope - than his business will suffer.

I love the free enterprise system.

P.S. If the new health care system includes an Orwellian/getting into my business type scenario I'm not certain how I'd handle that...I guess time will tell.

Abraham wrote:P.S. If the new health care system includes an Orwellian/getting into my business type scenario I'm not certain how I'd handle that...I guess time will tell.

Um...I think the chances of that NOT happening are somewhere between slim and yeah right! If the present politicians have their way, we'll be paying taxes for being overweight, we'll be denied coverage for life-threatening illnesses because we're old and we'll be thrown in jail for objecting to it all.

mgood wrote:I would hardly call the NRA, the nation's largest lobbying organization, "apolitical."
But they do tend to stay out of political issues that don't concern firearms, shooting, and the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sure that's what you meant, that they are not necessarily republican or democrat, but I think apolitical might not be the best choice of terms.

You're correct, I meant that as "not necessarily republican or democrat."

Keith B wrote:OK guys, please keep the discussions civil.

Sorry about that. I could have worked harder to say the same thing - but minus the edge.

mgood wrote:Without going and doing the research, just off the top of my head, I'm pretty sure that for most of it's history the NRA was primarily involved in firearms education/training, with a heavy emphasis on safety, and also hosting various matches. Many law enforcement and even military personel got firearms training from the NRA and competed in matches hosted by the NRA. It's only in more recent times, in the face of the attacks on the Second Amendment, that the NRA became known as the political champion of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

When I was in Boy Scouts, at summer camp we could shoot for NRA awards. They were, if I remember correctly, Pro-Marksman, Marksman, Marksman First Class, Sharpshooter, and Expert. Then there were multiple levels of Expert you could progress up through - nine, I believe. (I was Sharpshooter for a couple years before I made it to Expert. Never got to Level 2 Expert or whatever it was called.)
The guy who ran the rifle range at camp was always an NRA certified instructor, that was a requirement for the job.

Before shall-issue laws concealed carry licenses swept the nation, many people, upon acquiring their first handgun, would ask where to get some training with it. They were refered to someone local who was an NRA certified instructor. They were in every city and many smaller communities teaching firearms safety and some basic self-defense. Once we got CHL, I think most of those NRA instructors became CHL instructors and you don't seem to see the NRA classes as much any more because everyone is busy doing the CHL thing.

The NRA continues their firearms education programs. It's just that they've become overshadowed by the politics.

Makes sense ...

This could very well explain a recent lack of a more public face toward safety education. I do remember taking a firearms safety course as a young teen. I don't remember whether or not it was NRA sponsored - but it likely was. However, it was primarily hunting focused and covered rifles and shotguns. We even got to shoot some skeet!!

It would not have sufficed as a handgun safety course and, to my memory, didn't not cover secure storage around children. - But it was, of course, targeted at children themselves, so it would make since that it would dwell long in the parental responsibility area.

TAM - again, I salute your calm and eloquent response and also agree that we have hijacked this thread long enough. There is no way that any of your comments could be taken as an attack - so no worries there.

I can't really find fault with your counterpoints (save one) and will consider them with my 'ever evolving' positions on this subject.

The one clarification I need to make is this:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

terryg wrote:Part of me feels that it is somewhat irresponsible to work for a goal that will increase the penetration of guns in homes across our country without working just as hard to educate about their proper usage - especially when children are involved.

I think that these final paragraphs are very telling about why you haven't joined, and they show a lack of complete understanding on your part about the NRA's goals and purposes. Allow me to explain...

NRA is NOT working for the goal of increasing penetration of guns in homes across our country. That is NOT their mission. Their mission is to defend the 2nd Amendment RIGHT to keep and bear arms, without infringement, for those who choose to do so. They're not saying you must keep and bear arms. They are saying that your right to choose not to keep and bear arms should have no impact on my right to choose to keep and bear arms.

In other words, just because you choose not to exercise a right, that does not mean that you don't still have that right. And that is the NRA's message. Naturally, safety is a part of that mission to the extent that it helps the cause, but it is not their primary focus. Their primary focus is the defense of the 2nd Amendment. So you sound like you're refusal to join is because you would rather that they stop being the primary (and for all practical purposes the only) defenders of the 2nd Amendment to being the primary promoter of gun safety.

If you read my comments again, I said "to work for a goal that will increase the penetration of guns in homes". I actually tried to word this phrase very carefully to avoid implying that I thought increasing the penetration of guns in homes was part of the NRA's goals or mission. However, the difference is subtle and I can see why it was missed. According to http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/p/nra.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (I could not easily find the current mission statement on the NRA website) the NRA's mission is:

"To protect the Second Amendment right to bear arms, and to promote safe, responsible, and competent use of firearms."

However, one result of success in those given missions will certainly be to increase the number of homes with guns. I think that is pretty clear that this will be a side effect of relaxed restrictions on gun ownership - a side effect that would certainly be welcomed by the NRA. So my supposition is that while it is not the explicit goal of the NRA to get more guns in more homes - it unquestionably something that will occur as progress toward that goal is net.

And, of course, I have absolutely no problem with this. Growing the ranks of gun owners only increase our collective protection against both tyrannical rule as well as criminal activity.

However, if this increase occurs without proper education, then there is also likely to be an increase in the number of weapons in homes of less experienced users. This is essentially the basis of my concerns about equal measures of advocacy and education. I am not asking for education to become primary - just equal.

---

Again, I am not trying to resurrect the hijacking of this thread - but I did need to correct this one area.