(This is just me venting - It doesn't have to be fixed or anything ...)
[rant on]
It can be very hard to read NRA material sometimes, especially the NRA-ILA generated text, because of the inflammatory language. I don't like it and probably 80% of time, I think the same message could be conveyed - and done so more effectively - by lowering the rhetoric. But I do understand (at least somewhat) that this is how you play the game.
To give a bit of history, there are a few non-gun related legislative action type organizations that I supported in years past that I ended up dropping because of the endless hard-line language used. It wasn't that I didn't support the group or that I didn't think what they were doing was important. It's just that the style used to communicate these bulletins gets under my skin and I end up not wanting the group to represent me.
But, in spite of knowing this and in spite of other concerns I have had about the NRA, I did join earlier this year. Many here convinced me that regardless of their methods, they have been the single most effective organization at getting our rights restored. And it is true, without them we would still be hiding our guns in our homes, etc. You also convinced me that, one should join first and then complain as a member rather than a outsider.
So I did - and I am glad I did. But it can still be hard to read the NRA-ILA stuff sometimes. I have gotten better at reading past the rhetoric, but the following article on H.R. 822 really got to me:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Feder ... px?id=7106" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In it, they really take pot-shots at pro-gun supporters because they have expressed concerns about potential negative repercussions from this bill. Some of these concerns have been discussed right here on our forum by people we all know to be the strongest of 2A supporters.
Here are some quotes:
Unfortunately, but predictably, H.R. 822 continues to be attacked in some quarters, namely the anti-gun media, like the New York Times and the Washington Post; anti-gun organizations, like the Brady Campaign, and New York City Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns; and, regrettably, even some so-called pro-gun organizations.
Next, despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit.
So if the activists who are concerned about this possibility are "pro-gun" (with quotes) instead of being truly pro-gun, then anybody who shares these concerns would also be labeled "pro-gun" (with quotes). That's you and me folks.
They go on to refute those claims and do so in a fairly convincing manner.
But why can't they simply say: "We understand why many true pro-gun supporters might be concerned about this bill opening the door to future federal meddling in individual state's licencing programs - but let us take a moment to explain why this will not occur." Wouldn't that work just as well if not better than "despite what a handful of "pro-gun" activists say, blah blah" without alienating large groups of people who generally support the same goals?
I just don't understand why the inflammatory language knob has to be set to 11 at all times.
[rant off]