Is The NRA Secretly Supporting Gun Control?

[Pull Trigger Goes Bang]

As has been pointed out here, the NRA has at times supported or given in on "reasonable" gun control, but of all the things they've done, being wishy-washy on Harry Reid is not one of them.

If the Republicans fail to take control of the Senate, which despite gaining seats, may very well happen, the leading Democrat will continue to be the Majority Leader and control the Senate's agenda. Currently that is Harry Reid, who has kept anti-gun legislation off the radar as much as possible for fear of angering his pro-gun voters back in Nevada. Should Harry Reid lose his own election, the next leader of the Democrats will be either Dick Durbin of Illinois, or more likely, Chuck Schumer of New York.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would not have to keep gun control off the radar. He could go for broke and try to pass a permanent AWB, just for starters. He could twist arms of Dems in marginal states and force them to vote for anti-gun legislation, even knowing they will likely pay for it at the polls.

The NRA's biggest problem in some quarters is that they often act tactically, not ideologically. If the Republicans fail to get to 51 seats in the Senate (50 is not enough, as VP Biden is President of the Senate), and Harry Reid is defeated, we may one day be wishing the NRA had endorsed a leader of the Senate Democrats was too scared to push for gun control.

 

[xring62]

Anti NRA ?.... Then YOUR anti gun

 

[Juggernaut]

My dues are paid up.. but I will not go above and beyond when the NRA supports 58 incumbent house democrats..

I don't like the AARP either......

 

[Bill of Rights]

I hold an NRA Life Membership. I got it for the firearms insurance about a year and a half or so ago and other than the "round-up" when I order from Midway, I've sent them nothing else. My problem with them is that they have a short memory. I received in Saturday's mail a card advising me that Sen. Ron Alting has an "A" rating from them, extolling his votes for the LTCH privacy bill and the "guns in parking lots" bill. They forget that his was one of seven votes two years ago that kept a bill that would have removed any and all "gun free zones" from any state building or property and from any political subdivision of the state, with the exceptions of penal facilities and secure areas of airports. Mr. Alting answered a "political courage test" in 2006 with (in part) the following:

Gun Issues
(Back to top) Indicate which principles you support (if any) regarding guns.

_ a) Maintain and strengthen the enforcement of existing state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
_ b) Ease state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
_ c) Repeal state restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns.
X d) Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.
X e) Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
X f) Require a license for gun possession.
_ g) Other or expanded principles
​

His opponent, a Democrat, answered this years test with (in part) the following:

Gun Issues

Yes a) Do you support restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns?
Yes b) Do you support requiring background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows?
Yes c) Do you support allowing individuals to carry concealed guns?
Yes d) Do you support requiring a license for gun possession?
___ e) Other or expanded principles
​

I have, in short, two bad choices.

I do not believe I can in good conscience vote for either. Sadly, I don't know anyone with the proper views who also has the name recognition and party backing to beat this *ahem* person in a Senatorial race.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dross]

If the NRA were as ideologically pure as some would have them be, they'd have no influence on the process. The play the game of politics according to its rules, which is why they've been effective.

If the people who believe as you do are a tiny part of the population, which they are, the only way to influence the system is to band together with enough other people who share SOME of your views and compromise. Or you can hold together in your ideological purity and have NO influence, except to help the people who are most against you.

Reality is a scary, ugly, and often dirty thing. Unicorns are beautiful creatures and fun to raise and think about and play with, the only problem is that they don't exist and never will.

I'd like to play poker with some of you guys. Every hand you didn't draw a straight flush, you'd just fold. I'd scrape up the ante on every hand while you guys waited for perfection to arrive.

 

[kingnereli]

So.... no explanation as to why they would shoot down two very obviously GOOD amendments to this bill? Ignoring the 800lbs Gorilla in the room?

I expect to hear the "This is an isolated event" excuse or something along those lines.

NRA Bashing » LonelyMachines

More smoke and mirrors like all the other rumors like their supposed support of the '34 NFA. Basically, the source of this rumor is two anti-gun senators. The NRA has stated and re-stated their support for SB 308. People like you refuse to believe it, however. All of this hocus pocus wouldn't work if you looked at facts.

Who's whining?

Everyone who is upset that the NRA isn't doing precisely what they want.

I merely pointed out the ignorance of your previous statement which boils down to "if you don't join you can't complain".

What is ignorant is believing that joining a small, no name organization is doing any good at all while complaining about an organization and its members that actually are doing something for gun rights.

While "getting involved" sounds quite a bit more prudent than your earlier statement, I find it unlikely doing so would have nearly the impact on the behavior of the NRA as helping jpfo or GOA become more of a presence/influence, but YMMV.

Can you not do both? Can you not help jpfo or GOA grow while you're also standing behind (and attempting to improve) an organization that is efficacious and relevant?

Sadly, seeing the behavior of the national organization and having met some local NRA reps, there are no problems with "reasonable" restrictions - I don't believe there to be any such thing.

Okay. This is actually progress. It's a specific criticism based on personal experience rather then malarky about the NRA secretly pushing for gun control so that the lobbyists will always have a job fighting against gun control.

That being said, the idea that an organization is worthy because it has some clout in Rome on the Potomac is laughable, at best.

It's akin to saying libertarians should vote Republican because Republicans have the organization and presence to win. Maybe so, but we have to live with our consciences, no matter how long or short that time may be.

At the end of the day, libertarian or anti-NRA, it boils down to the fact that you're actions or "conscience" have absolutely no impact on the course of this country or gun rights. Ideologically pure necessary means exclusive. Exclusive necessarily means small. Small necessarily means ineffective.

My problem with the NRA is that their principle focus seems to be on "maintaining access/impact" as opposed to actually taking a principled stand on 2A rights. One case in point was their choice to support McCain, but not Paul, because McCain "had a chance to win".

It's going to sound like I keep beating the same drum but endorsing a candidate that can win leaves the door open for actually taking steps forward. Sure they could have pacified the purists by endorsing Paul when he wasn't one of the two candidates that could have won but that would have been advocating taking a path where a net gain in gun rights was impossible.

If compromise for the sake of claiming a win while losing ground is something you can get behind, good for you. I, for one, cannot continue to support an organization that continually goes against my principles.

A lot of people seem to be caught up in the fact that the NRA is willing to compromise. In fact, I would like to see them take a more hard line stance on the second amendment. However, you have to consider that in an all or nothing battle there is a very real possibility of ending up with nothing. The backlash from coming on too hard too fast could cost us a lot of the freedoms we now enjoy. Gun rights have been taken away a piece at a time over several decades. To get them back will likely take a similar methodical, incremental approach.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

no explanation as to why they would shoot down two very obviously GOOD amendments to this bill? Ignoring the 800lbs Gorilla in the room?

When the gorilla is created out of misrepresentation, yes we ignore the gorilla in the room.

Savage, where is this nonsense coming from? Who is spewing this nonsense? It must be deliberate? Is this Hanlon's Razor or the collary to that law?

 

[xring62]

NRA's spin off clubs create the misrepresentation ,funny all the 'gun' club organizations should be as '1' , hang together or hang separate !

 

[IndyGunSafety]

SavageEagle Wrote:

I'll pass on the kool-aid. Kthx.

Too late... you seem to have overdosed already.

 

[SavageEagle]

I knew you guys would shrug that article off. It happens again and again. It's not baseless as it was given accounts by people WHO WERE THERE and you come back with a BLOG about someone's OPINION on the matter. Nice. Really nice. Sure, the NRA would claim it false after the fact. But those who were there know, and told the truth and you people can't swallow it. Of course I'm sure the red pill is hard to swallow knowing that the truth hurts. One day you'll wake up. Maybe the day they stop fighting for your right to carry anything other than a hunting rifle into the woods. The more money that pours into the NRA, the more money the big wigs make. You guys have fun with that.

 

[dross]

As has been pointed out here, the NRA has at times supported or given in on "reasonable" gun control, but of all the things they've done, being wishy-washy on Harry Reid is not one of them.

If the Republicans fail to take control of the Senate, which despite gaining seats, may very well happen, the leading Democrat will continue to be the Majority Leader and control the Senate's agenda. Currently that is Harry Reid, who has kept anti-gun legislation off the radar as much as possible for fear of angering his pro-gun voters back in Nevada. Should Harry Reid lose his own election, the next leader of the Democrats will be either Dick Durbin of Illinois, or more likely, Chuck Schumer of New York.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would not have to keep gun control off the radar. He could go for broke and try to pass a permanent AWB, just for starters. He could twist arms of Dems in marginal states and force them to vote for anti-gun legislation, even knowing they will likely pay for it at the polls.

The NRA's biggest problem in some quarters is that they often act tactically, not ideologically. If the Republicans fail to get to 51 seats in the Senate (50 is not enough, as VP Biden is President of the Senate), and Harry Reid is defeated, we may one day be wishing the NRA had endorsed a leader of the Senate Democrats was too scared to push for gun control.

Clearly you fail to understand that having our gun rights taken from us is better than compromising with any solution that is not completely pure in its ideology. Even though the people on this board make up a tiny percentage of the population in belief systems, we should reject any solution that doesn't adhere to our positions exactly. Anything less is selling out. We'd prefer to have our gun rights completely gone than to compromise at all. It's all or nothing. We'll be gunless, but we'll be right.

 

[Lex Concord]

Everyone who is upset that the NRA isn't doing precisely what they want.

Thanks for the definition. I'm not in that group.

What is ignorant is believing that joining a small, no name organization is doing any good at all while complaining about an organization and its members that actually are doing something for gun rights.

You're entitled to your opinion regarding the efficacy of any given organization, as I am to mine. As stated, my initial response was to your comment. You expounded, and I responded recognizing your distinction. As far as "complaining" is concerned, I haven't done any.

Can you not do both? Can you not help jpfo or GOA grow while you're also standing behind (and attempting to improve) an organization that is efficacious and relevant?

In theory, yes, but in my opinion, helping JPFO and GOA grow exponentially will be more effective in pushing the NRA's behavior than giving the NRA more dues and sending a comment form or letter. I also believe that joining the NRA while supporting the other groups would server to, in part, undermine the end of helping the lesser-known groups gain more exposure and clout.

I don't hold the opinion that the NRA secretly (or overtly) wants guns banned (I honestly didn't read the blog/article the OP linked, I was just reading through and found your initial comment about membership in need of rebuttal). I do, however see that the NRA is not the be all end all for 2nd Amendment advocacy. I further think that those who are under this illusion should be corrected. An internet forum with a significant readership who own guns and shoot seems to be a decent avenue to attempt such clarification, though I'll admit this particular thread may have been a poor choice on my part.

Does the NRA do good? Yes. Could they do better? I think so. We disagree in the manner most effective in carrying out said change, though, and possibly regarding whether change is needed.

Okay. This is actually progress. It's a specific criticism based on personal experience rather then malarky about the NRA secretly pushing for gun control so that the lobbyists will always have a job fighting against gun control.

I try to avoid "malarkey" at all costs, though I have been known to fail.

At the end of the day, libertarian or anti-NRA, it boils down to the fact that you're actions or "conscience" have absolutely no impact on the course of this country or gun rights. Ideologically pure necessary means exclusive. Exclusive necessarily means small. Small necessarily means ineffective.

You have no idea what actions I may or may not take based on said principles of conscience other than what I choose to post here. Therefore, you don't have sufficient data to draw that conclusion. The "collective" action of any organization could not exist without the countless individual actions required to move it, or bring it into existence, for that matter.

It's going to sound like I keep beating the same drum but endorsing a candidate that can win leaves the door open for actually taking steps forward. Sure they could have pacified the purists by endorsing Paul when he wasn't one of the two candidates that could have won but that would have been advocating taking a path where a net gain in gun rights was impossible.

I understand the disgusting underbelly of politics to know that to be effective, compromise is sometimes necessary. I also realize that compromise can be destructive, sometimes more so than standing resolutely upon conviction.

I don't necessarily want the NRA to be ideologically pure, but that enough people would realize that the NRA may not be the most effective advocate for their beliefs. If enough such people come to that realization, it is possible that a group like GOA or JPFO could garner sufficient support to have more impact.

Much like with gun rights in general, education about these groups and their activities is key. Each individual will then be able to make his own sound judgment regarding whether to support any or all of them, based on his individual convictions and acceptable level of compromise. Even in groups, all action is individual.

I remember when I would only use webcrawler to search the internet, and thought it a wonderful and capable search engine. Then Google came out. There was some positive buzz about it, but I hated it...until I became familiar with it and better understood it. Now I, along with much of the world, depend on Google for many daily needs.

The obscure and reviled do have the potential to become widely accepted and even revered if, upon proper exposure and understanding of their true nature, value is exposed.

Regarding supporting someone who can win, yes, progress is often protected, but at the possible cost of more significant progress if your (or your chosen lobbying group's) reading of the tea leaves of victory is incorrect. I honestly believe that most of the turds we have in congress are there because most people are too afraid to vote for a "loser" no matter how good he may be.

Thanks be to God that people like George Washington, Sam Adams, and Patrick Henry didn't act based on a belief that a no-name militia of rag-tag farmers and merchants couldn't possibly win against what was arguably the most well-funded and trained military of the time. Though, let's be honest, the thought had to cross their minds at some point.

Instead, they acted individually on ideology and helped to forge a nation. While I am not worthy to hold their hats, I am wise enough to realize that compromise, while sometimes a necessity , can be a huge failure.

Though their number was exclusive and necessarily small (3%, anyone?), their individual actions were not ineffective.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
- Barry Goldwater

I couldn't agree more.

A lot of people seem to be caught up in the fact that the NRA is willing to compromise. In fact, I would like to see them take a more hard line stance on the second amendment. However, you have to consider that in an all or nothing battle there is a very real possibility of ending up with nothing. The backlash from coming on too hard too fast could cost us a lot of the freedoms we now enjoy. Gun rights have been taken away a piece at a time over several decades. To get them back will likely take a similar methodical, incremental approach.

I would like to see it pushed back harder and faster, and I simply don't agree that sending the NRA my money in order to work it "from the inside" will be the most effective action to that end. I could be wrong. I'll take that chance.

For those not already familiar with other organizations working to defend/promote the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment, I offer the following (please those I've omitted in my haste to the thread):

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership - Homepage
Gun Owners of America - Gun Owners Of America
Second Amendment Foundation Online

And, in the interest of equal access:

NRA