TexasCHLforum.com

pbwalker wrote:I've actually enjoyed this thread quite a bit...it's great to be on a forum where civil discourse and intelligent, thought provoking posts are the norm!

absolutely agree with this.

and thanks to Seamus for stating his opinion and starting the dialogue. sincerely

petty children argue and bicker

true statesman debate and disagree with honesty and civility .... then hoist up a few cold ones and salute this great nation

pbwalker wrote:

ELB wrote:But when someone strings two half-facts together with an absolutist attitude and launches a flaming arrow using terms like "sell out," "doesn't listen to its members" (which of course, really means "me"), "gag order," and the like, that is not helpful to either the NRA orthe RKBA cause.

I would say that, too, applies to any pro-RKBA groups. The "what have you done?" attitude doesn't help. Ultimately, we're all after the same goal. It's the 'how to go about it' that is argued. So, no, the JPFO, SAF, or GOA haven't done the same thing that the NRA has. They don't have the same membership numbers. But remember, we're all pro-2A. Let's hug it out!

Well said. I agree and support you. But I'm not going to hug you

ELB wrote:+1 to everything Seamus/Jim said.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out things the NRA could do better or expressing disagreement in a sober, fact driven manner that support reasonable unemotional conclusions.

But when someone strings two half-facts together with an absolutist attitude and launches a flaming arrow using terms like "sell out," "doesn't listen to its members" (which of course, really means "me"), "gag order," and the like, that is not helpful to either the NRA orthe RKBA cause.

It's all relative. And what's good for the goose ...

If someone is telling outright lies about an organization, sure ignore them or chastise them. But half-truths deserve at least half an explanation. And resorting to attacking any criticism of an organization as automatically counterproductive is in itself counterproductive.

I'm all for sober, fact-driven, reasonable, unemotional discussion ... but its a two-way street. Even if confronted with a criticism of your organization that does not meet this standard, one should still respond in a way that DOES live up to this standard. By doing so you not only rebut the criticism but also demonstrate your resolute belief in the righteousness of your cause, which cannot be swayed by petty criticism. By taking the high ground, you prove the worthiness of your cause.

lkd wrote:

seamusTX wrote:The NRA is not going to reflect the views of 4 million members precisely. The NRA's explanations of its actions are not going to satisfy 4 million members. Those are simply facts of life. I don't know of any organization or even family where everyone agrees about everything.

I'll say it again: I don't agree with NRA about everything. But I realize that it's the biggest and most effective RKBA organization, and I will continue to support it publicly and criticize it privately.

We definitely agree on this, Jim. It's just my opinion that the NRA needs to do a better job of showing that they're _listening_ instead of _telling_. But as you also point out, 4 million people represents a LOT of diverse voices.

I wholeheartedly agree with almost every word of BOTH of these posts.

My only concern is this idea that an organization such as the NRA should only be criticized privately. I believe any organization that holds itself to represent "the right way" in any facet of life is entitled to - and must be ready, willing, and able to humbly accept - public criticism. Such is the basis of representative democracy not only in government, but also in member-driven groups of any kind (as distinguished from businesses or other private or semi-private interests).

For years, I had a less than stellar view of the NRA - caused in great part by biased media representations, but also by missteps by NRA leadership. Many of these missteps amounted to little more than the NRA being "tone deaf" to the din of public opinion, but when the majority of the media is against you, adding your own tone deaf response can be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Thankfully, the NRA has improved and is a much better organization today than it was even 10 years ago. Why did my own personal feelings change? In great part from hearing actual members who were willing to admit the organizations' mistakes and tout its successes. The organization can still seem, as ikd put it, to be "telling" people what to do instead of "listening" to their concerns. But as long as the members are willing to listen to criticism openly and with restraint, the organization itself will thrive.

My point is simply this: us against them logic can only get you so far. And holding up any organization as above criticism will instantly scare off potential new members who don't want to be required to drink the Kool Aid in order to join. But an organization - and more importantly the members of an organization - that is willing to take a candid look at itself will survive and will show potential members it is open to new ideas and discussions.

The NRA is a great organization. It is not a perfect organization and never will be. As Jim says, 4 million voices can't all speak in unison all the time.

But telling naysayers to look at either end of a horse only guarantees those people will stay naysayers. Inviting them to level their respectful criticism, then responding with civility and statesmanship can sway minds.