NRA for Gun Control?

[jager]

   Every time I hear people start to criticize the NRA, it seems to always be about the time an election rolls around and a "liberal" wants to "disarm" the public. As they dress up in "Cammies" and campaign, we are suppose to forget how they voted all their "political life".  In addition to that, we have some of our own "numbers" who profess to believe in the 2nd Amendment as an "individual right", who denigrate the NRA for failling to do their "intended job". They give examples like their "inability" to block the "full automatic ban" (still legal with a Class 3) of the '30's and the "Mail Order" ban of '68. How in the world were they going to overcome the congress of either of those "eras"? (Voters, after JFK's assassination gave LBJ almost "carte blanche" for his first two years in office because of that assassination.)  I believe there has been a "mountain" of proposed legislation by "Liberals" (Democrats in particular) over the last 40 years, of which the NRA blocked through their voter notification and "Lobbying" efforts to "influence" the politician's vote, or we would all be asking the government for "permits" to purchase any type of gun and ammo in a government "restricted" market. Look into some of the laws passed in Australia, England, Germany, Canada, and Mexico and explain how that couldn't happen here.

   I read that Wayne La Pierre makes $800,000 per year (Wow!) He's not paid enough to take the "flack" he takes from politician IMO. His pay wouldn't even be considered a CEO bonus for most of our executives who run most of our corporations. And he's been at it how many years and has worked with how many presidents?

   I've also read that it is "good business" for the NRA to keep the "battle" going with the "anti-gun" crowd. I don't think we have to worry about that one, since people like the "Brady Bunch" have avowed to "get rid of all guns in our society", starting with handguns. (These people don't sleep folks, and they have plenty of money that comes in from such "luminaries" such as Sean Penn and George Sorros.)

    My biggest gripe against the NRA has been that they have been "too small" and are "too exclusive"! Consider that the AARP started as an "insurance" company and has grown into one of the largest "lobbying organizations" in our nation. Most people have no idea that part of AARP's $12.50 dues goes to what used to be "Handguns, Inc" (changed their name a few years ago with the same "gun control" agenda and funding by AARP today!). Also considering that there are at least 80,000,000 gun owner in the U.S. (old census, new numbers are higher), it is "disgraceful" that we only have 4,000,000 NRA members. If they offered membership for $12.50 a "pop" we would probably get our 80 "Mil" plus as few more, especially if they offered discounts on motels, restaurants, and fuel! I don't think the NRA is a "shill" for the gun control bunch anymore than I think Owlgore invented the internet.

   It is quite apparent with this election year in "full swing", that we will see the NRA try to prevent one of the most "anti-gun" candidates (namely Obama) we've ever had for President. Small lobby groups do not have the "clout" of the NRA to "counter" the media "blitz", including the very "timid" RNC who is afraid the media will brand them as "racist", or worse (they do that already, why worry?). I'm glad we have a large organization like the NRA, as well as the other smaller groups who fight the battles on our behalf. The battles the NRA has lost in the past were against 40 years of Democrats in congress and presidents who signed bills into law because we didn't care to protest or get involved ourselves.

   The NRA does not "pack up and go home" when they are defeated on an issue; they wait until there is an opportunity to push for legislation at a more favorable time (just like the "NAG Gang" or "Pro Abortionist" groups). We might consider the same "mind set" in our voting habits.

   I personally "thank" the NRA, and a lot of other dedicated people that worked for them, for my "Conceal Carry" permit. We would not have gotten it's passage in our state because of a "sitting"  governor who vetoed every CCW initiative that came across his desk until his veto was overridden. (He was subsequently voted out of office, which took 4 years).

   I've read of late that Obama is now for D.C.'s newly acquired right to own a handgun in D.C., while he voted against it in his own state every time it came up.

  To get rid of the organizations and people who serve our "special" interest, by lobbying those who can enact laws effecting our "precious rights", is a bad idea. I would urge those unhappy with the NRA's mode of operation to write them, call them, and implore them to make changes in the way they do business or provide service (I have). They only stay in business as long as we need them, so it is in their interest to service their "patrons" appropriately. Our rights are always at risk in this "Republic", which requires the constant "vigilance" our "Founders" warned us about.

[Chilachuck]

I got a head ache trying to read your post. Break the thing into paragraphs, will you?

[dukkillr]

I gave up quickly because of the punctuation problems... 

[Cabin4]

I gave up as well. Felt like I was reading the fine print of a  manufactures warranty or something.

[TribReady]

I read thru it.
I hope jager goes back in and edits/modifies it into paragraphs.

[Tencubed]

Jager:

I appreciate your thoughts and effort expended posting them here.  Seems to me we all have to pull together in order for this long battle to come to a satisfactory conclusion.

If gun owners can not work together we're going to be wondering what hit us.

As I've said before, we need a lot of cash to flow to the NRA in order to win the many battles yet to be fought in the courts.  Money talks and BS walks.  Simple as that.

Mike

[slim rem 7]

 i ve found that right many  people think its to hard to read  something if the poster is not an english expert..its not that its hard to read ,,they just wanta point out that hes not a literary expert ,as they are.. no matter how wise he may be..jager just ignore thier ignorance..if i made somebody mad ,,i care about as much as jager should about your snooty replys.. i loved an western state when i was there but the english was so perfect that
  it had no color or flavor to it..thier my family so i still listened and tried to stay awake..
    did yall notice my perfec english.. thats so everbody would read it..
  yall have a good day im jus cutting up..

[Chilachuck]

No, Slim, my eyes are giving me trouble and I have problems keeping track of where I am looking at a big, solid block of text. Small paragraphs are easier on the eyes.

Communications conventions were set up so people don't have to spend a long time translating what someone is saying before they get to where they can start reading what someone is saying. Refuse to follow conventions and people will start ignoring what you are saying.

Jag, most magazines refuse to sell advertising to the NRA and only publish articles on the NRA that make them look bad. If the NRA had a fair play in print, they would be a heck of a lot bigger.

Long ago, I thought the NRA was an extremist bunch of kooks. That's because all I knew was what I read in the other magazines, and even the big hunting and fishing magazines (Outdoor Life, Field and Stream, Sports Afield) refused to cover the NRA, even though they sold advertising to the NRA.

Look inside the covers of those three magazines and see who owns them. Life, Time Life, and Hearst. All three are big corporations, and all three had (still have?) anti gun policies. Check their other magazines and see the anti gun bias in them. None of those three covered the '68 gun laws, none of them said anything about the '84 gun laws, none of them covered the '94 gun laws. They were, for all practical purposes, helping to pass the gun laws. (As I recall, Outdoor Life even started covering /golf/ in '94!)

Considering that the only thing most people know about the NRA is filtered through that biased coverage, the NRA is doing pretty darn good.

The politicians bashing the NRA make it sound like the NRA was founded as a political organization. They were not. They were founded as a target shooting organization. Their IRS classification forbids political activism, and that's why the Clinton Administration had them audited nonstop for years to catch them at something they could be shut down for. That's why the NRA split off the ILA, to handle the political side.

Anyhow, people believe the NRA is supposed to be political, and then are disappointed the NRA is not as politically active as they would like. I think that's where a lot of the griping is coming from.

The "exclusive" part, well, the NRA has been under attack for decades, so only the most loyal stick. There are some in the NRA that have an Elk Hunter attitude (read "Bugle" and you will see what I mean), some of the members do think the 2ndA is only about hunting, they believe that only the cops in the cities should be allowed guns. And they do make their presence felt.

Oh, and, there for a while it seemed like I was getting a gimme-gram every week. No outfit is going to recruit new members pulling that sort of thing, or allowing the fund raising contractor hired for mail outs to do that sort of thing. That was dumb, and very bad publicity.

[Redhawk1]

jager, very good post. I have been saying the same thing for many many years. I am and always will be a NRA supporter.

You are going to get your anti-NRA pukes that will come out a try to tell you that you are wrong, and give you 20 lame excuses why they don't support the NRA. But don't listen to them, they are no better than the anti's.

You are going to have people tell you that you are brain washed and a sheeple, following the NRA blindly. These same people will tell you all the NRA is about is money, and they are right, it takes a lot of money to fight the anti's with all there money. But they don't understand that concept.

I have carry permits for 2 States now and just applied for another State, thank god the NRA has battled for our right to get a concealed weapon permit. Do you know how many States would not have a concealed weapon permit, had it not been for the NRA's vigilant efforts?


 

[torpedoman]

if the supreme court had people who could read and understand english they would say "shall not be infringed means you can't tamper with it and the n.r.a. people would have to get a real job instead of licking all those envlopes that appear in my mail box. Of course they like gun control otherwise they would be unemployed.

[S.B.]

All you have to do is ask to be dropped from their mailing list on these ads? If I had to guess, your not even a member?

[Redhawk1]

if the supreme court had people who could read and understand English they would say "shall not be infringed means you can't tamper with it and the n.r.a. people would have to get a real job instead of licking all those envelopes that appear in my mail box. Of course they like gun control otherwise they would be unemployed.

Why do you think the NRA got started, because of dumb politicians. Why will the NRA be here as long as there are dumb politicians. For a long time.  Even if the "supreme court had people who could read and understand English, they would say "shall not be infringed means you can't tamper with it." Does not mean dumb politicians will not challenge it?

As long a people keep electing anit-gun dumb politicians, we will need the NRA. And to me having the NRA is crucial to us keeping our gun rights.

By the way, all you have to do is get off you butt and call the NRA, and tell them to stop sending you stuff, and they will. People spend more time complaining about something, instad of actually doing some thing about it. Sad very sad.

[beemanbeme]

T-man, the NRA was a shooting/teaching organization long before it saw the need to become politically active. But. as RH1 pointed out, there was too many people sitting around doing nothing as our rights were nibbled away and the NRA as a body felt something had to be done.  You know, why not now, why not me?

Those judges that can't read are put there by ELECTED representatives that WE put there.  So you see what happens when folks sit on their butt and do nothing. 

[nw_hunter]

The NRA has, over the years been infiltrated by Liberals, and some of their support for liberal laws show this.
Not to say, they are finished as a friend of the gun owners.They just need to be cleaned up a bit.........Sort of like the Republican party!
I think we need to support the NRA and other gun groups, both nationally and locally.

The GOA has been doing a great job keeping people informed, and truly are a "NO Compromise Org. They are a new, fresh gun lobby, and as such haven't been tainted By Liberals posing as Conservatives.That will come later as they grow!

[Chilachuck]

NW-Hunter, I don't think the worst of the "Liberals" are actually liberals, the problem ones want their followers to be liberals of a specific breed of sheep, but the big problem ones want to be the new aristocracy. They don't have any problem with guns "in the right hands", they just define "right hands" as themselves and their personal body guards.

So, there's been some of the sort in the NRA all along.