How true is this?

[jamil]

I don't know a lot about NRA history earlier than, say, the 90s. I'd like to get the perspective of INGO on this. I don't want this to turn into an NRA bashing. This is WAPO, so probably an NRA hit piece. But I would like to try to piece together what's true about it and what's not.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4cf65c3ad15_story.html?utm_term=.3ad42ec775c6

 

[jasonh31]

Pretty true, without Neal Knox and the coup we'd have been screwed a long time ago.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

It might be true, but I don't think that precludes it from being an NRA hit piece, especially given the date it was published, shortly after Newtown.

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

From what I remember, the history outlined on the changes within the NRA is spot on. Dad was a member in the 60's and I first joined in 1980. The changes were necessary to prevent the erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here's some background on it.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/vote-no-on-nra-bylaw-changes/#axzz5BnzBOo8Q

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, that's pretty true. My grandfather was pretty involved in the NRA back then. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he was in Cincinnati for that conference.

Now, the ramification that flowed from that are probably open to debate, and may or may not be as dramatic as that article posits.

But the factual parts are true (IMHO).

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Factually true.

 

[jamil]

Factually true.

Okay. I think I can figure out what’s true about it. What’s false about it? There’s a meaning beyond the words to consider. How much beyond the words is spot on, and how much is hit piece?

 

[jamil]

Here's some background on it.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/01/vote-no-on-nra-bylaw-changes/#axzz5BnzBOo8Q

Thanks. That helps.

 

[T.Lex]

From the opening paragraph:

....a rump caucus of gun rights radicals took over the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association.

I don't think all of them were radicals. Sure, Knox might've been - relatively speaking. But, I think what brought most of the "caucus" together was the sentiment of "First they came for the assault rifles, and I did nothing...." (Not a direct quote, obviously.) These were the guys who'd at least lived through, and probably fought in WWII. Their dads and uncles were in WWI. Both of those conflict included "bring home" rifles that all of a sudden were problematic, if not illegal.

They were not radicals; they were responsible gun owners. They probably felt like a part of their life and lifestyle was threatened - because it was. And the NRA was an umbrella group that brought them together.

So, the part of the article that is a "hit piece" IMHO is how they characterize the people involved and the policies that were advocated.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I served nine years on the NRA Board and was elected as one of Knox's "dissidents." It was he who asked me to run on his ticket of candidates.

I regard the article as quite accurate.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Pretty true, without Neal Knox and the coup we'd have been screwed a long time ago.

^^^QFT!^^^

I served nine years on the NRA Board and was elected as one of Knox's "dissidents." It was he who asked me to run on his ticket of candidates.

^^^Very cool ^^^

I have a good friend who played a part in organizing the Cincinnati revolution and talking with him over the years has provided a lot of insight and perspective on a variety of firearms related topics.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Without Neal Know, the NRA would have moved to Colorado Springs long ago and become a .gov puppet.

Knox found our spine and teeth. We need a dozen of him back.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Without Neal Know, the NRA would have moved to Colorado Springs long ago and become a .gov puppet.

Knox found our spine and teeth. We need a dozen of him back.

I no longer recall which Annual Members meeting it was but it was prior to my election to the Board.

The first President Bush had announced his resignation from the NRA in response to Wayne LaPierre's "jackbooted thugs" comment. A member had made a motion from the floor to eject Bush from the NRA. The debate was lively.

I was already serving the organization, having been appointed by NRA President Bob Corbin to a non-board position on the NRA Law Enforcement Committee. Neal Knox approached me.

"I need for you to do something," he said. "Sure, what is it," I responded. "Make a motion to table this debate," he said.

I understood completely. The sentiments of the members concerning Bush's treachery were completely understandable. But we had painted ourselves into a corner. If the motion failed to pass we would look weak and vacillating. If it passed, ejecting a US president from the organization would bring serious public relations consequences. Neal wanted it to go away, but didn't want it to appear to be his idea. I was becoming known in the organization but I was no Neal Knox.

"MOTION TO TABLE" I shouted. For those not familiar with Robert's Rules of Order, a motion to table is not subject to debate but is voted upon immediately. I think the majority of the members on the floor were relieved and readily passed the motion. It's now been on the table for about twenty-five years if memory serves.

My wife leaned over to me. "He's grooming you. He had to make this happen quickly and he needed someone who understood the situation and someone he could trust."

Within days of our arrival home he called me and asked me to run for the Board of Directors. Everyone here should be damned grateful that we had Neal Knox during the Klinton administration. It was a perilous period.

 

[2A_Tom]

I found it to be factual and intended as a hit piece. To us it was an historical account to the left it was a damning piece.

A matter of perspective,

Question: Where was GOA?

 

[actaeon277]

If the 2nd Amendment wasn't under attack, then the "marksmanship organization" wouldn't had to have changed.

So, if the anti-gunners want to blame someone, they can blame themselves.

 

[jamil]

The reason I ask is something a gun owner said on social media abou the NRA. Called them a terrorist organization, and said they cared more about guns than people’s lives.

And I’m certainly not their biggest fan—annoying scare tactics and all. But I challenged him on that; said it was hyperbole. And he posted that article as proof of how the NRA was completely taken over by right wing radical gun nuts. I read the article, which sounded like one of those deals where one person’s freedom fighters is another person’s terrorists. It read like I would assume a hit piece would read from an opposing view.

 

[2A_Tom]

And you are right.

 

[jamil]

And you are right.

I came to INGO for a sanity check.

Let that sink in.
/purple

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]