Thoughts on Cracked.com's "Article" on the NRA

[half-glocked]

3 Reasons It's Time to Stop Taking the NRA Seriously | Cracked.com

Cracked.com taking postshots at the NRA. As a new member of the NRA (haven't even got my number/first magazine yet), I was just wondering what those who are pro-NRA have to say about it point by point.

I know we have some great thinkers and debators on both sides of this fence here on and I'd love all opinions.

As for you who are here to dogpile and/or start , you are as well. Mostly because I know it doesn't really matter if I welcome you or not.

I searched to see if this was already linked and I couldn't find it. I'll be more than happy to report this post if anybody knows of it being a duplicate.

 

[bloodman]

If it wasn`t for the NRA we would be disarmed by now. I don`t care what their motivations are they have protected gun owners 2A.

 

[TTravis]

I am a proud new member of the NRA. I appreciate the fact that they stand up for our rights. I do not agree with the article at all.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, let's take a look at what they said.
#1. The NRA doesn't represent most gun owners. More gun owners are NOT members of the NRA than are. That's just a numerical fact. Can't fault them for that. It's true.

#2. Are many members NRA members just so they can join a club? Yep. It's a fact. I used to belong to the NRA for just that reason. Many gun clubs/ranges require NRA membership as a condition for joining them. There's truth in that comment and I can't find fault with it.

#3. Well, this one I can't confirm or deny. Does the NRA set manufacturers above its members? Couldn't say but it wouldn't surprise me, given stances that the NRA has taken in the past. They get money from all sorts of sources and probably large amounts of it from industry. I don't know who they're in bed with.

The article is what it is. I, personally have little use for the NRA. I think the SAF, JPFO and GOA are better than they are. They refuse to compromise and the NRA has, in the past compromised our Rights. Folks are free to support them or not. That's the way things work. The article had more truth than not but, in the long run, it really doesn't matter. Folks like what they like and support what they support. And that's the way it should be.

 

[87iroc]

I'm sure most of what he said is true in some fashion. Some snippet of a poll somewhere they have taken as respresentative of everyone or something. Poll may have asked 'Which would you prefer....1st graders dying or UBC's'...

When polls come up, always ask what the questions were.

Also, I loved the line...

It's like how climate change "skeptics" are funded by huge polluters, or how we'll give you 20 bucks if you tell your friends about us.

​

Funny, Al Gore is funded by the green energy companies...but THATS OK as he's their friend. (see Bob Woodward for an example of what happens when someone makes a comment against their beliefs)
​

 

[Kirk Freeman]

They refuse to compromise

Why would you say that?

SAF has sued INGO members to prohibit them from exercising their right to arms.

SAF just threw Washington State gun owners under the bus.

 

[half-glocked]

Why would you say that?

SAF has sued INGO members to prohibit them from exercising their right to arms.

SAF just threw Washington State gun owners under the bus.

Do you have examples? Links to threads on what had happened? I love researching, but I love being a passive researcher even more (just letting the research come to me).

 

[bigg cheese]

Rolling Stone did a BS article this month too. Wife got a free subscription off the web. Article is titled "blood money." How apropos

 

[snorko]

#1. The NRA doesn't represent most gun owners.

Certainly true. But 10% of an entire group is huge. So since far less than 10% of animal owners contribute to the Humane Society, I guess we should lambast them. And the Brady Bunch: I seem to recall around the first AWB go around that they had a paid membership of 500 or so. I guess that makes them insignificant. Anyone know the AARP membership versus the population over 55? And they give it away.

#2. Are many members NRA members just so they can join a club?

Yep. Just as most members of AARP are in it for the discounts Membership is required for insurance purposes. Try getting liability through anyone else for a 900 member shooting club. And if those members were AGAINST the NRA, they would not join.

#3. Does the NRA set manufacturers above its members?

The NRA was founded in 1871 and instructed by Congress to maintain and insure marksmanship in the general populace as a matter of national defence. Post Civil War, many generals lamented the poor firearms skills many of the northern recruits had. Thus, the NRA was formed and given the mission of firearms training.

No one ever seems to realize this is the same as the Red Cross, chartered by congress to insure disaster relief w/o direct public funding as a NGO. So next time the Red Cross uses a disaster to raise money, they should derided for using the blood of others to gain money.