Why do so many gun owners dislike the NRA?

[dburkhead]

You're the one "not getting it".

So you fund the NRA so they can negotiate your rights away, then you fund the GOA so they can protect all of your rights. Brilliant... and you think I "don't get it".

As for who I voted for, never ass-u-me. I held my nose and voted for McCain.

So instead we abandon the big tank that's been retreating slowly and jump onto the Corolla that won't even be a speed-bump for the invading army.

You can complain all you want, but if it weren't for the NRA we would have nothing. Guns would be gone and they'd be talking about banning knives and fire extinguishers next.

 

[VUPDblue]

Play nice guys...

 

[MilitaryArms]

Didn't miss it. Clout they don't have is not a reason to join an organization.

I never said it was a reason to join. The reason to join is that they won't negotiate black rifles away. They won't negotiate standard capacity magazines away. They don't support any anti-gun laws. Those are reasons to support them. Apparently you do understand this as you're a member.

Also, it's not the membership alone that makes for a lack of political clout--the "no compromise" (i.e. "all or nothing") approach actually weakens them. "No compromise" is simply not politically achievable.

It certainly is achievable. Are you saying we must resign ourselves to the fact another AWB will pass because we must negotiate our rights away? We must accept the fact handguns will get banned or taxed by 500% because a hard-line position simply isn't achievable? I'm sorry, I don't share your defeatist attitude, especially on the heals of recent court victories.

I am a member of the NRA. I am also a member of GOA. When GOA is able to do even as much as the NRA to slow the loss of our rights, then, and only then, will I consider not being a member of the NRA.

I bailed on the NRA because I got tired of them selling my rights down the river so the "sporting purposes" group could keep their precious hunting arms. If you side with Zumbo, good for you. If you don't and you still support the NRA, what the heck are you doing?

The problem is that it's not the organization per se but the membership. If most of the membership of the NRA really wanted the NRA to take a harder line, don't you think they'd do it?

The average NRA member doesn't know anything about the organization or what it really stands for... or even what it does. They see the full page ad's, hear everyone talking about being a member, and they think it's what they're supposed to do. Its the same reason people pick up a Coke or Pepsi at the grocery store and not a local soda manufacturers product. It's called having a powerful "brand". Brands are expensive to create and they take years of PR. I know, I work in advertising.

Just because an organization is the biggest doesn't mean they are the best. Conversely, the opposite is usually true.

Convince the membership that more "compromise" that's not actually compromise is a losing proposition for what's important to them and the organizations will change. You have to do that anyway to get them to join the other organizations.

I wish more NRA members, or gun owners in general, knew more about the organization they support. They don't. Heck, most of them are absolutely shocked when I tell them of some of the NRA's past activities. Most people won't lift a finger to do squat until it's too late. That's why we find ourselves in the current screwed up political/government situation... declining dollar, screwed economy, going broke, borrowing billions from communist countries to keep things going day to day... and no one does anything to stop it. They won't until the wheels come off, and that's too late.

The wheels just about came off the NRA when the AWB passed. Lots of people, myself included, left them after that BS. But that wasn't the watershed moment it should have been... but one is coming. I'm sure we'll see the NRA's true colors once again over the next 4 years.

In the anti-NRA groups there's always the assumption that if the NRA had taken a less compromising position we would have won. What's lost is the very real possibility that not "compromising" would have been to lose it all. The situtaion is not so clear cut.

Nothing in life is a sure thing. You don't run around surrendering at the first sign of a fight. The NRA not only cowered from the Heller case, they were so scared of it they actively tried to derail it. Low and behold we won the most important SCOTUS ruling in the history of gun rights activism... and the NRA damn near destroyed our chances.

That's not leadership. I expect more from an organization tasked with protecting my rights. I don't pay them to be cowards and surrender monkey's.

Maybe they could have done better, but nobody knows how much better and anything less than complete victory would still have people claiming they could have "done better" right up until we hit the point where attempting to "do better" would have meant losing everything.

Or you can do worse than nothing and negotiate our rights away because you're scared to do your job.

If you take a no compromise, "all or nothing" approach then "nothing" is a very real possibility. Not only very real but the most likely possibility.

So let's just turn in our black rifles and 30 round magazines now. Once we surrender those, a year or two later they'll come for your bolt action deer (aka sniper) rifles and cop killing magnum handguns. Will you be so willing to negotiate your rights away then?

 

[MilitaryArms]

So instead we abandon the big tank that's been retreating slowly and jump onto the Corolla that won't even be a speed-bump for the invading army.

You can complain all you want, but if it weren't for the NRA we would have nothing. Guns would be gone and they'd be talking about banning knives and fire extinguishers next.

Yes, we abandon them. We vote with our wallets. When enough members go elsewhere, they'll be forced to change their ways to win us back.

As for the NRA being the only reason we have guns, do you have any proof of this claim? Sure, it sounds cool to say but then again they are the ones that sponsored and help draft the GCA of 1934 and 1968. They have taken the position since the very beginning that they support reasonable gun restrictions.

Care to define reasonable?

 

[dburkhead]

I never said it was a reason to join. The reason to join is that they won't negotiate black rifles away. They won't negotiate standard capacity magazines away. They don't support any anti-gun laws. Those are reasons to support them. Apparently you do understand this as you're a member.

I am a member in the hopes that someday they will have the clout to accomplish their approach and am willing to contribute my small effort toward that day.

It certainly is achievable. Are you saying we must resign ourselves to the fact another AWB will pass because we must negotiate our rights away? We must accept the fact handguns will get banned or taxed by 500% because a hard-line position simply isn't achievable? I'm sorry, I don't share your defeatist attitude, especially on the heals of recent court victories.

I really wish you wouldn't put words in my mouth. Also, I don't accept your characterization of "negotiate our rights away."

The GOA wasn't able to stop the 1992 ban, so why in the world would they be able to stop the new one? Take the NRA out of the picture in 1992 and they still wouldn't have been able to stop it. The NRA was at least able to get the sunset clause into it which is why we don't have an AWB right now.

If it were up to the GOA, Congress wouldn't have to consider an AWB any more because it would already be done. All or nothing most of the time gets you nothing.

I bailed on the NRA because I got tired of them selling my rights down the river so the "sporting purposes" group could keep their precious hunting arms. If you side with Zumbo, good for you. If you don't and you still support the NRA, what the heck are you doing?

So you instead join a group that doesn't have the power to protect anything. Well, whatever works for you.

The average NRA member doesn't anything about the organization or what it really stands for... or even what it does. They see the full page ad's, hear everyone talking about being a member, and they think it's what they're supposed to do. Its the same reason people pick up a Coke or Pepsi at the grocery store and not a local soda manufacturers product. It's called having a powerful "brand". Brands are expensive to create and they take years of PR. I know, I work in advertising.

And you base these conclusions on...?

Basically, you are saying the average NRA member stupid. And yet it's these very people you want to bring over to these other groups. Kind of like the 2000 election where Gore's hopes hung on people too stupid to poke a hole in a piece of paper with a stick.

Just because an organization is the biggest doesn't mean they are the best. Conversely, the opposite is usually true.

When it comes to politics there is a very strong correlation with "bigger" and "more effective at making politics."

I wish more NRA members, or gun owners in general, knew more about the organization they support. They don't. Heck, most of them are absolutely shocked when I tell them of some of the NRA's past activities. Most people won't lift a finger to do squat until it's too late. That's why we find ourselves in the current screwed up political/government situation... declining dollar, screwed economy, going broke, borrowing billions from communist countries to keep things going day to day... and no one does anything to stop it. They won't until the wheels come off, and that's too late.

You're confusing "know more" with "agree with you."

Most people are quite certain that their conclusions and prejudices are laws of nature.

The wheels just about came off the NRA when the AWB passed. Lots of people, myself included, left them after that BS. But that wasn't the watershed moment it should have been... but one is coming. I'm sure we'll see the NRA's true colors once again over the next 4 years.

And instead you'd rather have had an AWB passed with no sunset clause so long as the NRA didn't get it's hands dirty "compromising." Losing everything is okay so long as you can say "but I didn't compromise."

Nothing in life is a sure thing. You don't run around surrendering at the first sign of a fight. The NRA not only cowered from the Heller case, they were so scared of it they actively tried to derail it. Low and behold we won the most important SCOTUS ruling in the history of gun rights activism... and the NRA damn near destroyed our chances.

Cite.

That's not leadership. I expect more from an organization tasked with protecting my rights. I don't pay them to be cowards and surrender monkey's.

So instead of Dunkirk, you'd rather have Little Big Horn.

Or you can do worse than nothing and negotiate our rights away because you're scared to do your job.

Sorry, but I don't consider keeping some and getting some back (we got EBR's back in 2002, remember?) to be "worse than nothing."

Making sure you never "compromise" remains a good way to make sure you end up with nothing.

So let's just turn in our black rifles and 30 round magazines now. Once we surrender those, a year or two later they'll come for your bolt action deer (aka sniper) rifles and cop killing magnum handguns. Will you be so willing to negotiate your rights away then?

Or maybe we can just turn them all in at once so long as we can say "but I didn't compromise." Take the NRA out of the picture and see how fast all of them go by the wayside.

If that works better for you, then fine.

 

[MilitaryArms]

Cite.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Apparently you, as an NRA member, don't realize the NRA's involvement in the Heller case - one of the most publicized and well known gun rights fights ever.

U.S. Supreme Court Hearing of 2nd Amendment Case Almost Blocked by NRA

If you want to learn more about the NRA's lack of action, research the Katrina debacle. It took them 2 weeks to do anything once the local government started confiscating weapons. The GOA on the other hand immediately filed an injunction with the courts to stop the confiscations. Only after weeks passed did the NRA jump in on the GOA's case. Then, after it was all over, the NRA took all the credit.

Thank God the GOA was there to help the citizens of NOLA. Even more of their weapons would have been lost forever if they waited weeks for the NRA to decide to do something.

If the NRA was doing its job, they would have filed the injection and the GOA would have hopped on weeks later, not the other way around.

 

[dburkhead]

Yes, we abandon them. We vote with our wallets. When enough members go elsewhere, they'll be forced to change their ways to win us back.

By then it will be too late. Look across the pond to see what we'll end up with.

As for the NRA being the only reason we have guns, do you have any proof of this claim? Sure, it sounds cool to say but then again they are the ones that sponsored and help draft the GCA of 1934 and 1968. They have taken the position since the very beginning that they support reasonable gun restrictions.

I don't know the situation of the NFA or 1934 but suspect it was fallout from Prohibition (primary criminal use of submachine guns like the Thompson was in shooting up rival gangs illegal liquor establishments). A strong emotional component that was going to drive something through.

GCA '68 also appears to be a reaction to the Robert Kennedy assassination, particularly coming just a few years after JFK's. Something was going to go through.

Congress was already talking about "turn them all in" in 1992. Had the Boxers and Feinsteins had their way there would have been no grandfathering of existing weapons and no sunset clause. We would already have lost that fight entirely. As much as you might like to think otherwise, no group could have gotten it completely stopped at that time.

If the legislation is going to pass then it's better to be in on the writing of it so you can at least attempt to mitigate the effects.

Care to define reasonable?

I wrote an essay on that some time back. I thought I had already put it up on this board but "search" doesn't turn it up. I'll repost it in a separate thread.

 

[MilitaryArms]

i would just post the essay here. It shouldn't be too much of a diversion from the topic.

 

[dburkhead]

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Apparently you, as an NRA member, don't realize the NRA's involvement in the Heller case - one of the most publicized and well known gun rights fights ever.

U.S. Supreme Court Hearing of 2nd Amendment Case Almost Blocked by NRA

The article does not support what you seem to think it does. The four who voted against Heller were going to do so regardless of law or facts. Four of the one's who voted for Heller were also pretty reliable. That left Kennedy. Before Heller I was pretty nervous about the whole thing because I kept adding up the votes and coming up with a loss. Someone (Scalia maybe?) surprised me by coming up with a compromise (there's that word again) that got Kennedy to vote for "individual rights."

However, shouldn't you be criticizing Scalia, Thomas, et al for "compromising" on the issue? After all, they should have stuck to their guns and insisted that all federal gun control legislation was unconstitutional and should immediately be considered overturned. Or, not even Federal. They should also immediately have ruled on incorporation as well.

Only problem was, I'm quite certain that Kennedy would have balked at that. In fact, I suspect more than one of the ones on the majority side would also have balked.

So we won a small but important victory because of compromise.

But clearly we shouldn't have compromised. A direct Supreme Court ruling against the 2nd being an Individual Right would have been better than our being sullied by compromise.

 

[rcuhljr]

However, shouldn't you be criticizing Scalia, Thomas, et al for "compromising" on the issue? After all, they should have stuck to their guns and insisted that all federal gun control legislation was unconstitutional and should immediately be considered overturned. Or, not even Federal. They should also immediately have ruled on incorporation as well.

Erm not to get into the middle of this, but that's not how the court works. His original point is correct that the NRA wasn't supporting this case originally. Now you could argue that they are right, but it's a bit of a stretch to try and push the "They were compromising." They had a specific case that had been appealed to them and they ruled on that case.

 

[MilitaryArms]

The article does not support what you seem to think it does.

It does support my original statement.

The NRA not only cowered away from the case, they actively tried to derail it. That article clearly explains their actions in doing so. It has nothing to do with their fear of the case, that's well established.

Did we have reason to be concerned we might not win? Sure. Like I said previously, there is no such thing as a "sure thing". Even if we were sure we had the votes, we could have lost. That's no reason to avoid fighting the fight. Nothing risked, nothing gained.

Here's another good article:

How the Second Amendment Was Restored: The inside story of how a gang of libertarian lawyers made constitutional history - Reason Magazine

Scroll down to the section titled "The NRA vs. Heller".

 

[dburkhead]

Erm not to get into the middle of this, but that's not how the court works. His original point is correct that the NRA wasn't supporting this case originally. Now you could argue that they are right, but it's a bit of a stretch to try and push the "They were compromising." They had a specific case that had been appealed to them and they ruled on that case.

I wasn't clear. I was comparing the compromises in the majority opinion (including some pretty convoluted wording in an attempt to keep from completely overturning Miller and with it NFA '34) to the complaints of "compromise" from the NRA.

The NRA's reason for wanting to keep that case away from that court was the very real concern that it would lose. That particular position wasn't a "compromise" position per se, it was a "this is not the time to fight that battle" based on the makeup of the court. While it turned out they were wrong, I cannot really fault them for that position. I was fully expecting the case to go the other way. I kept looking at the makeup of the court and just not seeing Kennedy vote the individual right side. But thanks to some masterful compromising, we got "individual rights" as an official USSC decision.

And until Obama can replace one of the five who did vote on our side, that has given us one of our biggest weapons with which to fight new gun bans. That language about weapons in common use for legal purposes could be our biggest tool with which to fight a new AWB. Unlike the circular logic of machine guns, there are a lot of "EBR's" and AK-knockoffs out there meeting the "common use" part and most are used for plinking, target shooting, sometimes hunting, or just hanging onto as collection items--all of which are legal purposes.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

Full-auto,

I'd suggest you go back through this thread and read it objectively. What I come away with from your position isn't persuasive. What is shocking is that you and whoever you are arguing with are essentially focusing in the same direction. Your points are lost in delivery. Instead of putting out the pro's of your organization and the negatives of the NRA, you belittle the other person to make your point. Most people are persuaded to our cause not by winning an argument, but by watching how we argue and looking at it in the total picture.

Please throttle back on the emotion and anger. I appreciated most of what your were saying when I wasn't offended by the bombs being lobbed. I've supported the NRA before and considered supporting the GOA. If you're a member of the GOA, do all the GOA's members treat others the way you did in this conversation? Do they all talk down to others than are still forming their viewpoints and open to an evolving understanding?

I'd have to say no, because I know other members on this board and they don't interact with people like that. Please, I don't mean this to be offensive or anger you, but be aware that when you fight like you are in this thread to win the battle, it doesn't help win the war.

 

[dburkhead]

It does support my original statement.

Um, no. The NRA wasn't staying away from the case because of any "negotiating away our rights" but from a fear of losing our rights with an expected loss.

The NRA not only cowered away from the case, they actively tried to derail it. That article clearly explains their actions in doing so. It has nothing to do with their fear of the case, that's well established.

The very first line which states a reason for the NRA doing so: fear of losing the case.

Did we have reason to be concerned we might not win? Sure. Like I said previously, there is no such thing as a "sure thing". Even if we were sure we had the votes, we could have lost. That's no reason to avoid fighting the fight. Nothing risked, nothing gained.

There is, however, a very good reason for picking your fights.

Heller isn't just a matter of "we might not win" or "could have lost." I, for one, fully expected us to lose. It was going to be all over. An SC decision that there was no individual RKBA and mostly what would be left was the mopping up by the Brady Bunch and friends. However, Scalia (I really think this decision has Scalia's fingerprints all over it) pulled off a masterful compromise that turned it around and got Kennedy to vote on the pro-individual-right side where a hard line would have driven him over to sit with Stevens and Ginsburg.

There's that "Compromise" word again.

 

[dburkhead]

My essay on "reasonable restrictions"

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...t_restrictions_are_reasonable.html#post178931

 

[MilitaryArms]

The NRA's reason for wanting to keep that case away from that court was the very real concern that it would lose. That particular position wasn't a "compromise" position per se, it was a "this is not the time to fight that battle" based on the makeup of the court. While it turned out they were wrong, I cannot really fault them for that position. I was fully expecting the case to go the other way. I kept looking at the makeup of the court and just not seeing Kennedy vote the individual right side. But thanks to some masterful compromising, we got "individual rights" as an official USSC decision.

The NRA has taken this position since its inception. They've never thought the time was right for a SCOTUS ruling and likely never would have in our life time. Even when I was a kid (yes, I was an activist in high school) we talked about the NRA's desire to keep any gun cases out of the Supreme Court out of fear of losing. I can understand the fear, but we can't avoid the fight forever. If it were up to the NRA, we would have derailed Heller and now we would be heading into 4 years of one of the most anti-gun Presidency's in American history. We have a staunchly anti-gun President and a anti-gun Democractic House and Senate. Heller couldn't have come at a better time... but not in the NRA's eyes.

And until Obama can replace one of the five who did vote on our side, that has given us one of our biggest weapons with which to fight new gun bans.

It certainly did! That's why I celebrated the victory. Too bad the NRA took the actions they did, it even further soured me on them.

That language about weapons in common use for legal purposes could be our biggest tool with which to fight a new AWB. Unlike the circular logic of machine guns, there are a lot of "EBR's" and AK-knockoffs out there meeting the "common use" part and most are used for plinking, target shooting, sometimes hunting, or just hanging onto as collection items--all of which are legal purposes.

Ya know, my original gripe with the NRA was the machinegun issue. When the ban passed in 1986 the NRA vowed to fight it until they got it repealed. A few weeks later, they never brought it up again... dropped it completely and left machinegun owners hanging in the wind. I was seriously depressed by that ruling because in 1986 I wasn't even close to being old enough to own a machinegun... and I knew it would drive prices way up. Sigh.

I do hope this ruling gives us some much needed leverage. God willing we'll make it through the next 4 years without any major anti-gun legislation getting through. But given the make-up of the Congress... it's doubtful. And right now, more than ever, I want a STRONG pro-gun rights organiztion fighting for us, not one that will compromise.

 

[rcuhljr]

pulled off a masterful compromise

Ok, I keep missing it, where is the compromise here?

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

This was there answer to the question

Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

I can't see any compromise in their decision? he's not proposing anything, the defendants and plaintiffs asked the court to answer a question, it didn't hem or haw or compromise, they came straight out and answered the question.

 

[dburkhead]

T
It certainly did! That's why I celebrated the victory. Too bad the NRA took the actions they did, it even further soured me on them.

But, to be consistent, you should be criticizing the Heller decision because it was a compromise. It didn't go all the way and declare all gun laws unconstitutional so it's just Scalia "negotiating our rights away."

 

[Prometheus]

By then it will be too late. Look across the pond to see what we'll end up with.

This is EXACTLY the reason to jump of the nra bandwagon. Even the nra's own propaganda videos talk about how compromise put the brits in the position they are today, yet at EVERY TURN the nra consistently compromises and has done so EVERYTIME '34, '68, '86 completely ignoring bush's executive order in '89, the 1994 AW ban would have NEVER PASSED if the nra hadn't FOUGHT to have a sunset clause established. Katrina debacle (as Full Auto has already cited) was the work of the GOA and JPFO with the nra jumping on board well after the GOA had done all the foot work. Next we have the NRA trying to derail and sabotage heller.

I cannot fathom why ANYONE who owns anything other than a bolt action rifle or break open shot gun would support the nra.

Like I said it's ignorance or stupidity. FYI Those of you who have read this thread and been educated can no longer claim ignorance should you renew your memeberships.

Encourage your friends to join the GOA, JPFO, SAF, SAS. Educate them about the treason and multiple stabs in the back by the nra.

GET ACTIVE!

 

[MilitaryArms]

Um, no. The NRA wasn't staying away from the case because of any "negotiating away our rights" but from a fear of losing our rights with an expected loss.

I never said anything about them compromising on the Heller case. I have always said they were scared of losing. Re-read my posts. When I originally brought it up I only said the following:

Nothing in life is a sure thing. You don't run around surrendering at the first sign of a fight. The NRA not only cowered from the Heller case, they were so scared of it they actively tried to derail it. Low and behold we won the most important SCOTUS ruling in the history of gun rights activism... and the NRA damn near destroyed our chances.

I said they cowered (aka were scared) and I said they actively tried to derail it. The article supports both statements.

The very first line which states a reason for the NRA doing so: fear of losing the case.

You've misread my comments.

Heller isn't just a matter of "we might not win" or "could have lost." I, for one, fully expected us to lose. It was going to be all over. An SC decision that there was no individual RKBA and mostly what would be left was the mopping up by the Brady Bunch and friends. However, Scalia (I really think this decision has Scalia's fingerprints all over it) pulled off a masterful compromise that turned it around and got Kennedy to vote on the pro-individual-right side where a hard line would have driven him over to sit with Stevens and Ginsburg.

I was pretty confident we had a reasonable chance of winning, marginally better than we had of losing. Just about everyone I spoke with in our community agreed.

Since I've been alive we've never had a clear pro-gun majority in the SCOTUS. About the best we've ever had in my memory is the current court. If we were to wait in the NRA, we would slowly lose our rights while they fiddled their thumbs waiting for a 100% majority, which we both know will never happen.