NRA thoughts

[Kalrog]

This probably isn't a good way to start a position topic, but I am of 2 minds on the NRA at a national level.

On the one hand, they are seen by the Brady side and many on the left as the most powerful lobby in Washington. And it is usually fairly reliable to judge something like this by the enemies you keep.

On the other hand, I haven't seen all that much that the NRA (especially the ILA) has accomplished. Right or wrong, the perception on my side is that the NRA has been fighting a defensive battle and going strictly for slowing down the advancement of gun grabbing measures. And I find it no less disturbing that it will take 3x as long to lose all of my guns. The place that I have seen some advances in the 2A cause is on the state and local level, but even that has been spotty. My take away on that is that the NRA might be a good ally for some of the smaller state organizations but that it isn't either willing or able to truly advance its stated goals.

The notable exception to the federal stagnation is the sunsetting of the assault weapons ban and the fact that it isn't back already does tell me that the NRA is probably doing some good. But this was truly a win 15+ years ago by putting in the decade sunset clause in the first place. And that fits with the stalling tactic as opposed to the outright victory tactic.

I guess I would draw an analogy with who I support for president. I could take the tact that Hillary is horrible and that maybe Mike Huckabee is a bit better, but what I really want is a Ron Paul. So if it is a choice between sending my money to the Brady folks, the NRA, and the TSRA then I will gladly pick the one that has done the most good and support the TSRA. But if it is a choice between the Brady folks and the NRA then the NRA might get the leftovers after the TSRA gets its piece.

Does that make any sense?

[Kalrog]

If just half of the people who owned guns would join the NRA, we could go on the offense, and pass any law we wanted, and elect anyone we wanted.

But you could say the same about any political movement or ideology. If just half of the people against drunk driving joined MADD, then the legal intoxication level for DWI would be 0.0 nation wide.

Although I agree that one of the strengths of the NRA is its relatively large numbers.

[Stupid]

I give my money to NRA, Ron Paul and Sam's Club.

To me both Hillary and Rudy are the same. Rudy is even worse. Fred would be my next.

What if the choice is between Hillary and Rudy? *faint.

[srothstein]

Well, I am going to post my answer to Charles with my thoughts on the NRA in this thread because I agree to avoid hijacking the other side.

Charles, you made two comments that I feel really need answering and are a symptom of a problem in the NRA thought process. The first was that the number of people who disagree with the NRA tactics is not growing, but is just the perennial NRA bashers. The second was to ask where the NRA is losing credibility. Both of the answers are related, so I will lump it together.

There is a small core group of people who have become disenchanted with the NRA. They do attack it and spread lies and half-truths about it. These are your bashers that only a complete change in NRA policy will satisfy. Both you and I know that this is not going to happen, and that then these same people would find something else to complain about. I agree with you that this number is not growing appreciably.

But, as with any loud vocal group, if they are not answered they will make some headway with the members that are not core and die-hard members of the main group. These people will be only slightly swayed and will not completely separate from the main group, but will become more and more dissatisfied with the main group over time. This group is growing and is where the NRA is losing credibility.

One way to test if the NRA is really losing credibility or not, and if the number of dissatisfied is growing or not, is to look at the donation rates for the NRA and other competing gun rights groups. If the NRA is losing in donations, staying stagnant, or even growing but at a slower rate than the other groups, then it is losing credibility. Are the other groups growing, either in size or number of groups? These are signs that the number of dissatisfied is growing more.

The real question is what to do about it. How does the NRA combat the effort to smear its name? How do we keep the NRA strong and moving? I have some ideas, but only a few and I am not sure I am correct about this.

The main complaint from the bashers is that the NRA is just in business to get money. It wants the status quo because if we do win, it loses its raison d'etre. The bashers seem to think the NRA needs to stop compromising on gun control issues and take the offensive. They especially want to see a public offensive.

I would love to see a very public offensive that makes no compromises on gun control. I also realize that this is not possible. Gun control is a political issue and politics is the art of compromise. As long as the NRA is a one issue organization, its only compromises can be in the area of gun control. If we were the actual legislators, we could say that we would support gun rights if the others will support the ecology, or some such position, but the NRA cannot truly do this.

What we can do is some public relations work amongst the faithful. Let the members and the non-member gun owners know that the NRA is trying to do something. Make sure they know (and I do know but from other comments it must not have been publicized well enough) how the NRA fought in New Orleans, repeatedly going to court to get the guns back into their owners hands.

Tone down on the requests for money, especially with the claims of give or we lose everything. I remember one time when the NRA called and asked for money because of a lawsuit that was basically the Dems against the Reps but was filed naming the government as the defendant. I knew that the money I give would not go towards the lawsuit at all, but for other political support purposes. But I really do not like being called every so often and told that we will lose all if Hillary wins, so can I give to help the NRA support the Rep candidate. Of course, I know how to say no, so it did not cost me too much, but it does hurt the NRA a little bit.

The attitude of this being just the bashers that are saying things and the rest of the NRA members are not agreeing will cost the NRA in the long run. We need to convince those same members that the NRA is the way to go as the bashers are trying to convince that it is not.

As for my thoughts on the NRA, I strongly support it. I do not agree with everything I see it do, and I am not sure it is as 100% dedicated to gun rights and freedom as I am. Of course, there is no group I support and agree with 100%, so this is not an indictment of the NRA's tactics.

I also recognize that the NRA is the 800 lbs gorilla in the gun rights fight and nothing is going to change that in the near future. I would love to see a no compromise stance on things, but I also know that this is a sure way to lose big. It has taken over 100 years to get into the position that we are in on gun restrictions and it is not going to be reversed in one day. We lost lots of rights in little incremental steps, and small incremental steps is how we can get them back too. This may not be the ideal, but it is the real world and how things work in it.

I support the NRA and the TSRA and will give them more money as I get to where I can. If I also get to the point I can support some of the other organizations, I will probably do so, but the NRA and the TSRA will always be my first choice for where to give for an effective response.

I will also work to make them better organizations by being a dedicated member who will use the system to improve the organization. As long as I can vote for the directors, I will continue to vote for directors I think will do their best to move us along the way. Anyone who is truly upset with the NRA should consider doing the same thing. Vote for the directors who will make the organization into what you want it to be. If enough people agree with you, it will change.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The Libertarian Party has basically served the same function for the Republicans as Ralph Nader and the Greens have served for the Democrats, and that is to split votes so the other side can win. Thank God the LP is less effective and organized than Ralph Nader, or President Al Gore would be winding up his Presidency by icing his 6 year old handgun ban with a complete, draconian gun registration and confiscation scheme in order to comply with the UN Treaty on Small Arms he just signed with Secretary General Bill Clinton, ratified by the Senate with the help of Majority Leader "White Flag" Harry Reid, and defended before Supreme Court Justices Diane Feinstein and Hillary Clinton (who got bought off with a judgeship so she wouldn't run against Kerry in '08) by Solicitor General Chuck Schumer (who was appointed SolGen on the recommendation of Attorney General Janet Reno, back for a reprise).

And how!

Does anyone remember who pushed shall issue carry laws that have now been adopted in 40 states?

Does anyone remember who pushed Castle Doctrine laws that have now been adopted by something like 20 states?

Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, when Chuck Heston and Wayne Lapierre visited Florida a week or two before the election in 2000 that they didn't bring out 5 or 6 hundred more votes for Bush than would have bothered to come out and vote otherwise?

If it wasn't for the NRA, our only contact with guns and gun rights would be when we read a history book about how Americans used to live.

Or when some criminal pulled a gun on one of us.

[Liberty]

There is a small core group of people who have become disenchanted with the NRA. They do attack it and spread lies and half-truths about it. These are your bashers that only a complete change in NRA policy will satisfy. Both you and I know that this is not going to happen, and that then these same people would find something else to complain about. I agree with you that this number is not growing appreciably.

But, as with any loud vocal group, if they are not answered they will make some headway with the members that are not core and die-hard members of the main group. These people will be only slightly swayed and will not completely separate from the main group, but will become more and more dissatisfied with the main group over time. This group is growing and is where the NRA is losing credibility.

I am not a part of a group that is out to bash the NRA, The Libertarians have been dragged into this discussion in other places which is indeed unfortunate. All libertarians I know are supportive of the NRA, most that I know belong to it. I speak of the NRA on a personal note. I have no desire to tear them down. In fact the whole point of my input on these threads is that they should be stronger and more aggressive, we are all on the same side, and have the same goals.

Surely anyone who believes that citizens have a right to defend themselves has been disapointed in performance of the NRA in the past couple of years . Is wanting them to be better a bad thing?

One thing about GOA and other groups is that we need them. Any political movement needs the shrill and radical. They also need the educators we are part of the same team and we need to look at each others in the spirit of team work. popular libertarians such as Penn and Teller and Drew Cary havew done much to bring discussion to the national front. We are all suppoosed to be on the same side in all of this.

[flintknapper]

If just half of the people who owned guns would join the NRA, we could go on the offense, and pass any law we wanted, and elect anyone we wanted.

I don't know if things would be quite that "absolute", but I certainly agree that the NRA and other pro-gun organizations desperately need the support of America's gun owners.

I don't see membership numbers changing much unless encouragement at the grass roots level is employed.

The number of hunters/sportsman/recreational shooters that do not belong to ANY organization or take actions such as participating in polls, writing letters, making phone calls, talking with friends/coworkers.....is staggering!

It is complacency among gun owners that prevents us from being a stronger faction than we are.

How long have 3-4 million NRA members been carrying America's other gun owners on our backs? Much too long!

I think that every person who values his/her gun rights....should make it a point to tactfully "turn up the heat" on other gun owners to pitch in and help. If this were to happen, the NRA and other organizations wouldn't need to have their "hand" out....constantly asking for much needed funds.

If every current NRA member were to "persuade" just two of his/her acquaintances to join.... in the coming year, we would have close to 12 million members. Politicians WILL listen to those kind of numbers.

So, in the end....we can blame low numbers on this or that, but in reality...we are LETTING the "anti's" take our rights.

Time to "Gut Up" and tell/ask someone you know to consider joining a pro-gun organization. Make it easy for them, provide all materials necessary, follow up on it, offer to help financially if you can, but get it done.

[GrillKing]

It is complacency among gun owners that prevents us from being a stronger faction than we are.

How long have 3-4 million NRA members been carrying America's other gun owners on our backs? Much too long!

I think that every person who values his/her gun rights....should make it a point to tactfully "turn up the heat" on other gun owners to pitch in and help. If this were to happen, the NRA and other organizations wouldn't need to have their "hand" out....constantly asking for much needed funds.

If every current NRA member were to "persuade" just two of his/her acquaintances to join.... in the coming year, we would have close to 12 million members. Politicians WILL listen to those kind of numbers.

Well put Flint.

[SkipB]

I belong to both the NRA and the TSRA. I like our two party system and as other parties grow I'm glad to see them in our political arena. I think there are people on both sides that support gun rights and ownership. The Brady Bill was from a republican backed agenda. That bill didn't do anything but effect good law abiding people. It made us wait and if a bad guy was denied he just went to another sourse. Most all attempts at gun control only effect us, the good guys. I will not vote for Rudy, won't even conceder doing so. I'm retired so my pocket book is not as thick as it once was but I do support each group with my membership and vote, I do vote and think we all should.

[lawrnk]

I give my money to NRA, Ron Paul and Sam's Club.

To me both Hillary and Rudy are the same. Rudy is even worse. Fred would be my next.

What if the choice is between Hillary and Rudy? *faint.

Completely agree, with the exception of anything wal-mart related.
I don't always agree with the NRA, but I am glad we have them and I support them.

[Photoman]

I think that every person who values his/her gun rights....should make it a point to tactfully "turn up the heat" on other gun owners to pitch in and help. If this were to happen, the NRA and other organizations wouldn't need to have their "hand" out....constantly asking for much needed funds.

The NRA is not, primarily, a political activist organization.

My objection to the NRA is the way they represent the organization and raise funds. The majority of their fundraising strategies revolve around the "defense of the Second Amendment" yet the majority of the collected funds are spent on other projects.

From the NRA website:

"Because of these clearly defined parameters, and because only a small fraction of ILA’s operating budget comes from regular NRA membership dues, both ILA and NRA-PVF must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA’s legislative and political activities. The resources expended in these arenas come from the generous contributions of NRA members—above and beyond their regular dues."

The vast majority of the millions and millions of membership dollars collected each year DO NOT go toward defense of "gun rights."

[Charles L. Cotton]

There have been some very good comments on both sides of this debate and I appreciate the thought that went into all of them. I also appreciate the fact that even with some significant differences of opinion, this discussion has remained civil.

I would like to address some points made by Stephen and others by Liberty. First, I’ll discuss the points made by Stephen.

NRA-bashing v. legitimate differences of opinion or complaints As a very general statement, I agree with much of what Stephen said. I also think it is important to note the context of my prior post; i.e. in response to the article by Walt Thiessen to which Liberty linked. Note the inflammatory title to the article, as well as the opening paragraph. This is a blatant lie, not a legitimate difference of opinion on how to address a political issue. A later post (not by Liberty) made unfounded broad-brush statements about the NRA that are also grossly inaccurate.

There can be legitimate differences of opinion with any organization and the NRA is no exception. These differences should be discussed in an open and rational manner, to the extent possible without jeopardizing its operations and goals, as such discussions are beneficial to the Association. However, contentions such as those contained in Mr. Thiessen’s article are not legitimate discussions, they are purely slanderous attacks without any foundation in truth. This is NRA-bashing pure and simple. I have never said that a person who expresses a complaint or difference of opinion with the NRA is an NRA-basher. It is only the groundless absurd attacks that I so label.

I agree with Stephen that NRA-bashers are small in number, but vocal in their slanderous attacks. I also agree that we should answer those attacks and that is precisely what I do when I see them. Pointing out facts, or directing detractors to proof of the truth, is the only way I know to respond. I know of no other way to address these complaints.

The NRA does what it can to educate the membership on its activities and accomplishments in it magazines, on NRA News, and on the NRA’s new website. We have a Speakers Bureau that provides volunteer speakers at thousands of events throughout the country annually, all at no charge. (I am on the Speakers Bureau.) Unlike anti-gunners such as Schumer, Feinstein, and Sarah Brady, the mainstream media will not give NRA coverage, except in very rare circumstances. (CNN’s interview of Wayne LaPierre during the days before the assault weapon sunset comes to mind.) So we have to spend our money to get our message to our own members and prospective members. The New Orleans travesty is a great example. We had people on the ground literally while the events were happening. Had we not been able to get people there as quickly as we did, our lawsuit against the City and its Mayor and Police Chief would have been impossible because we would not have had the names of the victims of confiscation.

As an NRA Director and a member of the Board of Trustees of the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, I receive numerous letters, emails and telephone calls from members and some non-members. These contacts are almost always expressing a concern about pending legislation or regulatory rule-making, or asking for some specific action. To my recollection, I’ve never had a single person express a concern about a claim made by the more vocal and prominent NRA-bashers, but I have heard many comments to just ignore them.

Credibility I stand by my position that the NRA has not and is not losing credibility with its membership, or the general public who are not members. I disagree that membership numbers and donations provide a measure of credibility. The NRA’s membership numbers and donations always vary over time. While the membership numbers, thus donations, rise and fall over the relative short term, the overall graph shows increasing membership totals for several years. In other words, both the peaks and the valleys are higher over the long term. The irony is that the more successful the NRA is in Washington and in the states, the more secure members and non-member gun owners feel, thus many do not renew their memberships. Donations are also effected in the same way. The sad truth is that our success breeds complacency and this effects membership and donations.

The Zogby polls that came out about a year and a half ago, perhaps two years ago, are a far better barometer of the NRA’s credibility. Zogby himself is no friend of the NRA. In fact, he hates guns and he hates us. Nevertheless, he seems to have more intellectual honesty than many pollsters so it was significant when his annual poll was released. I can’t recall the exact numbers now, but there were a number of questions dealing with guns and with the NRA. Something over 70% of people responding throughout the United States agreed with the NRA’s position either all the time or most of the time. Zogby was so stunned by this result, he made a courtesy call to advise of the poll results before the were released. As I recall, there were also questions directly related to the NRA’s credibility and the responses were also very supportive, but I can’t recall the numbers. I believe these polls to be a far better measure of the NRA’s credibility.

Money The majority complaints we get from NRA members is that we ask for money too often. A close second are complaints about receiving requests to join the NRA when the person is already a member. A frequent comment goes something like “Don’t you guys know who your current members are?� These are two separate issues, although both obviously deal with money.

Solicitations for donations are necessary. Unlike the anti’s, we don’t get tens of millions dollars annually from George Soros and multi-million dollar gifts from others. We are funded primarily by millions of dedicated members who write small checks as they can and when they can. Yes, we are developing a program for large-donor relationships, but developing such relationships takes years. If successful, it will lift the NRA to heights of power never before seen on the American political scene. Until then, we must raise the money necessary to continue the fight. I wish it were not so, but it’s necessary.

I am very reluctant to post this, because I don’t want to be appearing to “toot my own horn� plus my wife may read it! However, since we are on the subject of money and soliciting from members, I want people to understand the Board Members are typically strong financial supporters of the NRA. Since 2001, in addition to money directly donated, the time I have donated to the NRA and NRA/TSRA joint efforts represents over $450,000 in lost billings to my law firm. When I do work for these organizations, it’s done during regular business hours, not after hours or solely on the weekends. Not all Board Members put in this much time, but many do and some contribute far more time. Also, I have never submitted a single expense report and request for reimbursement of any expenses I’ve incurred for the NRA and I know of numerous other Board Members who can say the same. While the NRA will pay for our airfare, I can only think of one or two times that I have not paid my own airfare. Again, I know of many Board Members who can say the same. I’m not saying this to pat myself on the back, but to let the members know the Directors are not asking members to do something we are unwilling to do.

As for pure membership drives, we have always had a problem identifying people who are already members. As previously discussed, annual membership rises and falls over time. Often, people will let their membership expire, but join (rather than renew) again later using a different address and often a different name (such as initials one time and a name later). Until recently, our computer system had no way to determine that these are the same people. We are testing a new system that should improve our ability to identify former members who are rejoining, but the final test results are not in.

I would like to offer this in response to Liberty’s post in the Heller thread. Levy didn’t decide to strike when the iron was hot – it was stone cold! When Parker was filed, it was a hands-down loser. The Second Amendment would have been held to be a collective right. However, Bush is in the White House because of the NRA’s efforts (even Clinton admits this), so it was Bush that got to appoint two Supreme Court Justices, not Gore or Kerry. Because of this, Parker became a viable case.

“. . . some of the directors don’t seem very enthused about the RKBA, and have balked at support scary black ones with mags bigger than 5 rounds.� Some? Do you know of more than one?

Robert Levy’s “tough individualism� would have cost us the Second Amendment, were it not for the facts discussed above. Also, I have not seen a transcript myself, but Levy is reported to have publically stated that he didn’t care one way or the other how the Court ruled, he just wanted a definite answer. If this is true, then I don’t appreciate anyone gambling with my ability to defend myself, especially someone who merely had an intellectual curiosity.

There are many efforts underway that the NRA simply cannot publicize without energizing our opposition. CHL carry on federal property including parks is but one. Opening more federal land to hunting and curbing BATFE abuses are others. I/we would love to be able to tout everything we are doing, but to do so would spell disaster for our efforts. I’m not just speaking generally, I’m on the Legal Affairs Committee and the Legislative Policy Committee (among several others) and I see first hand what we are doing to advance the cause.

“Where was the NRA when they were actually grabbing them at NOLA?� We were wading through the streets of New Orleans in rubber boots and chest waders getting video and audio evidence to support a Temporary Restraining Order and subsequent lawsuit against the City, its Mayor and Police Chief. We were interviewing witnesses and victims to get needed evidence. Yes, we would liked to have stopped them in the middle of the confiscation effort, but courts require plaintiffs and evidence. Had the NRA not responded as quickly as it did, this travesty would have gone unaddressed, no federal or state legislation limiting police emergency powers would have passed, and a dangerous precedent would have been established.

What has the NRA accomplished since Bush was elected? A great deal has been accomplished. Sunset of the assault weapons ban was no minor undertaking and it didn’t happen in a vacuum. Senators and Representatives avoided it like the plague, because they knew the NRA was watching closely. The UN’s latest efforts to get a small arms treaty adopted failed due to the efforts of the NRA, Rep. Bob Barr (NRA Board Member) and John Bolton. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed. This is arguably the most important firearms legislation to pass since FOPA in 1986. Without it, frivolous lawsuits would have destroyed the firearms industry and this is not merely campaign rhetoric.

True, Texas had much greater success in passing pro-gun bills, but the Texas Legislature is far more gun-friendly than is the U.S. Senate and U.S. House. Washington will never be Texas, nor is it Sacramento or Albany. Plus, the NRA was also very supportive of TSRA’s efforts. Texas is blessed to have a very effective political force in the forum of the TSRA; most states are not so lucky and the NRA has to carry the load in those jurisdictions. As someone has already noted, the spread of the Castle Doctrine to more than 20 states is the direct result of the NRA’s efforts.

As I have stated in other posts, I don’t agree with everything the NRA does or does not do, but I know our actions are based upon the collective wisdom of 76 Directors, Officers and dedicated staff. We are very good at what we do; we’re not perfect, we often debate vigorously among ourselves, but we reach a consensus and we successfully present a united front to our enemies. I expect lies and half-truths from our enemies on the anti-gun side. What distresses me is to see the same from some of the very people we work so hard to protect. Sometimes it’s prompted by misunderstanding and lack of knowledge, but often is pure self-dealing.

I would like to make a purely personal statement, not as an NRA Director or Vice-Chairman of TSRA’s Legislative Committee. I understand that the Libertarian Party is trying to develop into a viable third party in the U.S. I also understand that they are frustrated that the NRA and TSRA don’t support their candidates as they would like to be supported. If I were in your position I likely would feel the same. However, as an NRA and TSRA member and long-standing supporter of each, I want those organizations to win! I don’t want them to help in the development of a third party, I want them to keep anti-gunners out of office and get pro-gun candidates elected. This goal is not served by helping to split the pro-gun vote between two candidate, one of whom is not a viable candidate, and allowing the anti-gun candidate to win. I hope some day the Libertarian Party becomes a viable force in Texas and the U.S. We need this to keep the Dems and Republicans honest. But this effort will not rise or fall based upon the recognition , or lack thereof, by the NRA or TSRA.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think that every person who values his/her gun rights....should make it a point to tactfully "turn up the heat" on other gun owners to pitch in and help. If this were to happen, the NRA and other organizations wouldn't need to have their "hand" out....constantly asking for much needed funds.

The NRA is not, primarily, a political activist organization.

My objection to the NRA is the way they represent the organization and raise funds. The majority of their fundraising strategies revolve around the "defense of the Second Amendment" yet the majority of the collected funds are spent on other projects.

From the NRA website:

"Because of these clearly defined parameters, and because only a small fraction of ILA’s operating budget comes from regular NRA membership dues, both ILA and NRA-PVF must continuously raise the funds needed to sustain NRA’s legislative and political activities. The resources expended in these arenas come from the generous contributions of NRA members—above and beyond their regular dues."

The vast majority of the millions and millions of membership dollars collected each year DO NOT go toward defense of "gun rights."

It's a multi-pronged effort and that's why we are successful. If the NRA was purely a political entity, then we would not have the credibility we enjoy today. The 170+ programs we run have earned us the respect and support of millions members and non-members. Just as examples, not only is the NRA the largest trainer of law enforcement personnel, more civilians train on NRA programs and courses than all other programs combined. If we were purely a political organization, like GOA perhaps, we would be equally ineffective.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The vast majority of the millions and millions of membership dollars collected each year DO NOT go toward defense of "gun rights."

How much do we raise for NRA programs and how much do we raise for ILA's political activities?

Chas.