TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote: And yes, their position on the second Amendment is 100% wrong. Nobody gets it right all of the time, you know.
They can't be THAT bad, I don't think Alex Jones has a problem with them (or does he?)

They aren't 100% against the 2nd amendment. The Texas Branch has been pro active in protecting these rights.

I wish they were more libertarian and less leftist though. And take on a few 10th and 14th ammendment issues

NRA wrote: "Look, we know exactly what you are talking about and if it was a perfect world we would fully endorse Libertarian candidates. But this is the real world and the Libertarian platform is not the most popular thing around. We only get x amount of money and have to determine the best way to spend it. How about you do your part and increase the base of the party and we can skin that wagon when it comes around."

That's a load of horse puckeys. Rating the Libertarians wouldn't cost them anything. As I have posted before its not even about endorsement, they won't recognize us. Even in a 2 party contest against a nonsteller RKBA performer. As a former candidate let me tell you, It is very tough running in a local election with a pro RKBA against a candidate with mediocre support for the RKBA when the NRA/TSRA won't even acknowledge that there are 2 candidates on the ballot.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Neither I nor the NRA attack the Libertarian Party, but I'm growing weary of Libertarians blaming the NRA for their Party's failure to grow. The NRA is not impeding the Libertarian Party's ability to attract members. The Party's platform is very conservative on most fiscal issues, but ultra-liberal on social issues. This is an odd mix that is not likely to appeal to a lot of people. Conservatives won't like the liberal social positions and liberals won't like the "no taxes," "no social programs" and a "hands off" form of government. Again, I'm not blasting the Party, but I'm not willing to let Libertarians blame the NRA for people not warming up to the platform set out below.

Here is the Libertarian Party Platform from the Party's website. Please point out where I'm wrong.

The NRA probably shouldn't be supporting the Libertarian Party, nor any other party. This thread was about issues folks might have about the NRA issues on why folks might be reluctant to join. I and most Libertarians don't hold the NRA accountable for our partys growth and future. The issue we have had with the NRA is very clear and well defined. They will not rate us. Every election cycle they list Every Democrat and Republican yet they choose to ignore our candidates as though we don't even exist. We never expected or asked the NRA to endorse us even approve us, just to acknowledge us and rate us fairly. I haven't seen any one blame the NRA for our shortcomings we have our own issues and take full responsibility for how well or poorly we do. . Our platform on other issues shouldn't have anything to do with whether they rate us or not. I do understand that some folks have issues with some of the Libertarian main platform. So don't I, but taken as a whole I find it more palatable than a party bent on government growth with out paying for it. I prefer a government that stays out of my home, my bedroom and between me and my family Doctor over a Government that bails and federalizes our banks and automakers without any concern on how they will pay for it. But this is a topic that probably doesn't belong on this thread. It is suppose to be about how the NRA can attract more people. My suggestions for the NRA to list Libertarian candidates was made in this context, not to tear down the NRA.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The point I find ironic is that the two groups of people that have a bad image of the NRA are committed anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign, Schumer, Boxer, etc. and a small group of ardent supporters of the Second Amendment who believe the NRA compromises on the Second Amendment.
Chas.

There is a third group I believe which is signicantly large. There are those that believe the NRA doesn't represent them very well. Libertarians, are one group, I caught the recently reposted Susana Hupp video where she brags she didn't belong to the NRA (I think she doesn't like hunting ) I have to admit that it was a struggle for me to join the NRA because I feel they actively work against my party and its core beliefs. While the NRA does some of its best work work behind closed doors, there is a gamble of trust when this happens.

I don't think that third group is very large at all and I think it probably consists primarily if not exclusively of Libertarians. You and I have discussed this before, but the NRA doesn't work for or against any Party, except to the extent we try to get pro-gun candidates elected. I suspect that the majority of NRA members and conservative non-members don't support the Libertarian Party core beliefs, but it's not because of anything the NRA did or didn't do. Opening borders to everyone who wants to come to the U.S., legalization of all drug use for medical or recreational purposes, pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, bringing all U.S. troops back to the continental United States, are just some of the planks in the Libertarian Party Platform. Those positions are why the Party doesn't enjoy broad-based appeal, it has nothing to do with the NRA.

Chas.

I still think Libertarians are only a small part of the group. As you pointed out there isn't a huge number of us. Susana Hupp ( a Republican) in the her Congressional speech, was almost bragging about not belonging to the NRA because of her feelings about hunting. (she could have joined since that video I don't know) . Others have stated on this forum how they feel they are group they don't relate with them. One of my buddies once told me he wouldn't join because he was strictly a shotgunner and didn't own a rifle. A CHLer once suggested to me she wouldn't join because she "isn't a hunter" (she has since joined). We all have heard how the NRA is supposed to be an extension of the Republican Party. I'm sure there are lots of gun owning Democrats that won't join even if their characterization may be unfair. There are a lot more Democrat gun owners than Libertarians. I think that some gun owners resist the NRA just because they believe all lobbiest are evil. Lobbying has been painted by the likes of John McCain as something quite nefarious The antis somehow paint the NRA as being bad simply because they are powerfull lobbiest, I guess they don't feel what they do is lobby.

I wouldn't expect the NRA to support us or any other party But not acknowledging any of us even when involved in a two way race with a less than stellar Democrat is making a pretty active statement. I have no issue at all with the NRA not fully supporting Libertarians my issue is simply about them (us?) completely ignoring (them) us, Some of your catagorizations of the platform are little distorted also. Libertarians as rule to not support state funded abortions, or abortions of a minor without parental consent. As with the the other party's there is room for drift from the official platform, and it changes from election cycle election to year. Even I as an active member and past candidate don't fully buy into the whole platform. The NRA is probably stepping out of its character when it refuses to acknowledge the only party who unabashedly supports the 2nd amendment and the RKBA. I would love to discuss the Libertarian platform but I understand I am drifting way off topic.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The point I find ironic is that the two groups of people that have a bad image of the NRA are committed anti-gunners like the Brady Campaign, Schumer, Boxer, etc. and a small group of ardent supporters of the Second Amendment who believe the NRA compromises on the Second Amendment.
Chas.

There is a third group I believe which is signicantly large. There are those that believe the NRA doesn't represent them very well. Libertarians, are one group, I caught the recently reposted Susana Hupp video where she brags she didn't belong to the NRA (I think she doesn't like hunting ) I have to admit that it was a struggle for me to join the NRA because I feel they actively work against my party and its core beliefs. While the NRA does some of its best work work behind closed doors, there is a gamble of trust when this happens.

nitrogen wrote:Listening to some episodes of NRANews.com, I'd be lead to believe that if I don't believe in much of the non-gun related platform of the Republican party, the NRA doesn't want me as a member. Luckelly, I don't care, even if it WAS the case.

This is some of what I was talking about earlier. NRANews.com is a good show, but talking about how stupid liberals are for non-gun related things can only alienate. The NRA shouldn't be an echo chamber; it should be trying to draw more people in.

Hey we all enjoy preaching to choir rather than doing the hard work of evangelistic reach out programs. We who stand to the right like getting all excited when over the "my cold dead hands" speech" it makes us feel good and justified. Obama worked this technique as a master. The RKBA is a civil liberties issues. Whether we are leftist rightist or libertarian the RKBA should be a part of our basic belief system. The problem is that the left has moved past any deep thinking into touchy feely politics. Guns make them uncomfortable. The NRA has to present their argument in that the old, the weak and the persecuted have every right to defend themselves as the young and strong. RKBA is every bit as much about minority right or Woman rights or gay rights or handicapped rights or elderly rights.

We can be very effective if we present ourselves this way. The Automobile carry bill was an amazing bit of politics. We took a 150 year old arguement that looked like it could never be settled joined forces with the ACLU and made history. Joining forces with those who are too the left isn't about comprimise, but framing our battles to be acceptable to the widest audience. Its OK we still be the angry white male conservative. I want every woman, minority, acadamian, gay person and civil rights leader to want the same goals as I. When we all see eye to eye, then things happen.

seamusTX wrote:
The Million Mom March fizzled down to the three-mom march or something like that. The "gun-control" movement consists of a handful of (unfortunately) senior legislators and a few fanatical propagandists who (unfortunately) get an audience in the press and on TV.

- Jim

You remind me of the big difference between the Brady's and the NRA / TSRA. The Bradys are a few activist who work hard and are financed by grants. The Bradys don't have the money nor the manpower we do. yet the media treats us as equals. What Are they doing right that we aren't? If we were as effective for our size as they are there wouldn't be a Brady bunch.

mr.72 wrote:Wow. I disagree completely. Promoting gun ownership and use as a fun hobby is to completely miss the point of the RKBA. Taking someone new out shooting does nothing to inform them of the need for guns.

The first step is to convince folks that guns aren't totally evil. The next step is to demonstrate that the folks that go to gun ranges aren't all knuckle dragging gang bangers thats just looking for an excuse to kill someone. Progress is all about the little steps.
.

SCone wrote:Here's the reasoning that I take with the 2nd Amendment.

1) What is the purpose of an amendment? - An amendment changes something that has been previously agreed upon.

It was argued that the Bill of rights shouldn't be necessary, because they were about rights and restrictions that some assumed were so God given and basic to the meaning of what we stood for and for what the Constitution stood for that it shouldn't be necessary others remembered the House of Commons. The Bill of Rights is not really amendments in the normal way. They were fully a part of the original ratified Constitution and therefore a part of the very core of what the framers had intended.

seamusTX wrote:You are probably right that most Americans do not understand the second amendment the way we do.



- Jim

But I do think Most Americans accept that it is a constitutional right to be be able to own rifles and shotguns and and even handguns in our homes. It isn't too much of a stretch to show them that this right is extended to the right to carry. or the right to own Black or pink guns or any other scary looking gun.

As to the discussion of converting liberals. There is no need to convert the left, nor the the libertarians. While those who have taken a stand to be vehemently opposed to us won't be changed, there are those who just don't understand. I have taken liberal Obama supporters to the range. They saw met and talked to people who were polite, they discovered that although they were diverse folks out there, that the shooters were pretty normal, but perhaps just a little more disciplined than the average Joe. Last summer I took my Idealisticly liberal academician niece to the range. She was almost angry at herself for enjoying it so much. She did notice a couple of ladies at the range. I pointed out that often times women tend to be better shooters than men.

There is a lot about gun rights that liberals can latch on to. It allows groups and minorities such as women and gays that are often targets of criminals to defend themselves. I explained how bashing gays was considered sport by in Montrose sorta just stopped with the emergence of the pink pistols. She is still a liberal university liberal. but she now owns a gun, will get her CHL, and understands the RKBA

My complaints with the NRA are pretty public, but I also understand that they are all we really have to stand up for us.

One of the most embarrassing things to me is that the National parks people claim they got more people opposed to concealed handgun carry in National Parks than Thoseho supported it in our national parks. Where was the NRA and the members when it came to filing comments on this? The NRA might do a lot of quiet fighting for us, but if one lists the failures and successes nationally the failures become glaring. Its as though they are afraid of success. I want my organization to fight for us, and get and receive a few bloody noses.

Things that result as a Milquetoast organization.
There was no public censorship or even ousting of Jonquil Jacksons "5 round" statement. I believe he still a director.

They don't seem to want to work with anyone. Politics is all about working with others forming coalitions, They aleays seem to be confrontational with like minded organizations, such as GOA Libertarians and even Reason. Can't we get along?


They seem to let a what seems to be a very small organization like the Brady bunbch push them around. There just aren't that many of them. We should be walk all over them.

They sometimes seem to be embarressed to be who they are. I was taken aback a few weeks ago when I found out that it was the NRA who was behind not call our hand guns weapons. I got new for the NRA, I and most any CHLer carrys their hand gun because it is a weapon, not because its a tool or instrument of some kind.

As I said the NRA is all we have I just wish they would grow some courage and stand up and fight.