Why I don't like the NRA...

[Gunner3456]

The "about the organization" website can be found here: http://www.nra.org/Aboutus.aspx

The educational arm - the NRA foundation - is 501(c). It has a webiste separately from the NRA itself, and NRA-ILA. Therefore only a part of the NRA's activities fall under 501(c)

As to your true/false questions...

My first stop to evaluate charities is a site like Charity Navigator

Their comment on the NRA is:



The not for profit NRA foundation is rated by them... It gets a 4 star rating, their highest.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5450

So for the 501(c) portion of the organization the answers to your questions are:

1) False
2) True
3) False
4) False
5) Don't know

Again - you're seeing what you want to see...

No, you are seeing what you want to see. The NRA is a non-profit 501(C)(4) organization. Its firearms training arm is a non-profit 501(C)(3).

There are at least 28 different designations of 501(C) non-profits. You seem to believe there is just one, without delineating the differences.

Link

A (4) may do unlimited lobbying but a (3) can't. A (4) which is usually formed for lobbying is not eligible for federal funds but a (3) which is usually formed for civic or educational purposes is.

Both arms of the NRA are non-profits. One is lobbying, the other is educational.

You flunked the true-false quiz, too. Try again.

I can't understand someone who will blindly support something which is getting bloated and straying from it's roots. I support the NRA, but not blindly. It has some real problems, especially in the past 6 years.

 

[fingolfen]

No, you are seeing what you want to see. The NRA is a non-profit 501(C)(4) organization. Its firearms training arm is a non-profit 501(C)(3).

There are at least 28 different designations of 501(C) non-profits. You seem to believe there is just one, without delineating the differences.

Link

A (4) may do unlimited lobbying but a (3) can't. A (4) which is usually formed for lobbying is not eligible for federal funds but a (3) which is usually formed for civic or educational purposes is.

Both arms of the NRA are non-profits. One is lobbying, the other is educational.

You flunked the true-false quiz, too. Try again.

I can't understand someone who will blindly support something which is getting bloated and straying from it's roots. I support the NRA, but not blindly. It has some real problems, especially in the past 6 years.

I know my membership dues I pay to the (c)4 aren't tax deductable I therefore came to the wrong conclusion about the overall tax status of the organization. Fine, that was wrong, but the rest of my analysis was absolutely spot on.

Your questions are only applicable to a (c)3, I applied them to the (c)3 part of the organization. You didn't get the answer you wanted so you try to change the rules...

I've given very strong examples of what the NRA has done in the past 6 years to promote and protect our firearm rights. I haven't seen YOU provide a list of concrete actions or these "problems" you cite in the last 6 years beyond conjecture and innuendo. Please provide your specific charges.

While you're at it, why don't you compare the NRA and the NRA Foundation to our political opponents?

I'll get you started...

The Brady Campaign – gets 2 stars. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5426

Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence – 1 star
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8289

The Violence Policy Center – 1 star
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10167


Also, compare it to other gun organizations:

Second Amendment Foundation – 1 star
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7405

Gun Owners of America – not even listed.


I've got no blind loyalty to anyone or anything apart from the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States. In those I strongly BELIEVE. Everything else is subject to analysis, and independent analysis shows that not only is the NRA working it's butt off to protect our rights, they're doing it better and cleaner than any group on either side of the issue. Bash away, but you're tilting at windmills and all you're accomplishing is doing anti-gunners' work in trying to bring down the most effective gun rights organization in the nation.

 

[Gunner3456]

I know my membership dues I pay to the (c)4 aren't tax deductable I therefore came to the wrong conclusion about the overall tax status of the organization. Fine, that was wrong, but the rest of my analysis was absolutely spot on.

Your questions are only applicable to a (c)3, I applied them to the (c)3 part of the organization. You didn't get the answer you wanted so you try to change the rules...

I've given very strong examples of what the NRA has done in the past 6 years to promote and protect our firearm rights. I haven't seen YOU provide a list of concrete actions or these "problems" you cite in the last 6 years beyond conjecture and innuendo. Please provide your specific charges.

While you're at it, why don't you compare the NRA and the NRA Foundation to our political opponents?

I'll get you started...

The Brady Campaign – gets 2 stars. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5426

Education Fund to Stop Gun Violence – 1 star
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8289

The Violence Policy Center – 1 star
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10167


Also, compare it to other gun organizations:

Second Amendment Foundation – 1 star
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=7405

Gun Owners of America – not even listed.


I've got no blind loyalty to anyone or anything apart from the principles embodied in the Constitution of the United States. In those I strongly BELIEVE. Everything else is subject to analysis, and independent analysis shows that not only is the NRA working it's butt off to protect our rights, they're doing it better and cleaner than any group on either side of the issue. Bash away, but you're tilting at windmills and all you're accomplishing is doing anti-gunners' work in trying to bring down the most effective gun rights organization in the nation.

Do we have an emoticon for "head up butt?"

Two wrongs don't make a right, or so I learned in kindergarten. The end doesn't justify the means, or so I learned in kindergarten. What the Brady campaign et al does has nothing to do with the bloated and changing nature of the NRA.

If you want to blindly support it and believe it has no faults, that's your choice.

I'm finished with this.

 

[fingolfen]

Do we have an emoticon for "head up butt?"

Thank you for conceding the point. Can the NRA count on your membership this year?

 

[fingolfen]

Do we have an emoticon for "head up butt?"

Two wrongs don't make a right, or so I learned in kindergarten. The end doesn't justify the means, or so I learned in kindergarten. What the Brady campaign et al does has nothing to do with the bloated and changing nature of the NRA.

If you want to blindly support it and believe it has no faults, that's your choice.

I'm finished with this.

No organization is without faults - but you haven't detailed them. The fact is the NRA foundation gets better ratings than either its opponents (Brady Campaign et. al.) and it's Peers (SAF). What more do you want?

Furthermore, you keep trying to characterize this as "blind support" - it's not, it's reasoned and considered. For the record I'm a lifetime member of the NRA as well as GOA. I also support the Second Amendment foundation, but not to the degree I support other organizations because of their high overhead relative to activity.

It's you who can't seem to get past the notion that anyone who support the NRA is doing so blindly - even in the face of a mountain of contrary data. If you want to take your ball and go home on the discussion, that's entirely your choice.

 

[Gunner3456]

No organization is without faults - but you haven't detailed them. The fact is the NRA foundation gets better ratings than either its opponents (Brady Campaign et. al.) and it's Peers (SAF). What more do you want?

Furthermore, you keep trying to characterize this as "blind support" - it's not, it's reasoned and considered. For the record I'm a lifetime member of the NRA as well as GOA. I also support the Second Amendment foundation, but not to the degree I support other organizations because of their high overhead relative to activity.

It's you who can't seem to get past the notion that anyone who support the NRA is doing so blindly - even in the face of a mountain of contrary data. If you want to take your ball and go home on the discussion, that's entirely your choice.

All this from someone who doesn't know that there is more than one type of 501(C) corporation, that the NRA has two of them, That the NRA is wholly non-profit, and who doesn't know which arm he's looking up for his "facts?"

And yes, to answer your question, I'll stay a member of the NRA but I'll stay critical of things it does which I don't agree with.

Bye.

 

[fingolfen]

All this from someone who doesn't know that there is more than one type of 501(C) corporation, that the NRA has two of them, That the NRA is wholly non-profit, and who doesn't know which arm he's looking up for his "facts?"

And yes, to answer your question, I'll stay a member of the NRA but I'll stay critical of things it does which I don't agree with.

Bye.

Correction - I know that there is more than one type of 501(c) corporation. I made an assumption which was incorrect. I admitted that assumption was incorrect, corrected it, but the analysis still held.

Good to see that you'll continue to support the NRA, however you still haven't detailed these "things" you don't "agree with."

For the record, I've disagreed with several stances, including comments around so-called "assault weapons" from an NRA Board of Directors member. I've also written some scathing letters to American Rifleman when I perceive the NRA is supporting groups or companies that have anti-gun ties. Got into a right good argument with one of the editors regarding Kimber's development of firearms for the LAPD in light of the extreme anti-gun stance of the LAPD Chief. Difference is I don't sit and gripe about it, I actually contact the NRA and let them know how I feel.

 

[Gunner3456]

No organization is without faults - but you haven't detailed them. The fact is the NRA foundation gets better ratings than either its opponents (Brady Campaign et. al.) and it's Peers (SAF). What more do you want?

Furthermore, you keep trying to characterize this as "blind support" - it's not, it's reasoned and considered. For the record I'm a lifetime member of the NRA as well as GOA. I also support the Second Amendment foundation, but not to the degree I support other organizations because of their high overhead relative to activity.

It's you who can't seem to get past the notion that anyone who support the NRA is doing so blindly - even in the face of a mountain of contrary data. If you want to take your ball and go home on the discussion, that's entirely your choice.

The part of the NRA which is the training and teaching arm is the one you and your referenced group are grading so highly - the 501(C)(3).

The part which is the lobbying group, the 501(C)(4), is NOT graded by this group. This is the arm - the lobbying group - with which I have differences.

If you knew ANYTHING about 501(C) you wouldn't be so utterly confused and so utterly foolish in your "research" and comments. So they (501(C)(3)) get a great rating, but they are NOT the lobbying arm.

My complaints are against the 501(C)(4) lobbying arm.

Until you can keep your facts straight, why not take a break?

 

[fingolfen]

The part of the NRA which is the training and teaching arm is the one you and your referenced group are grading - the 501(C)(3).

The part which is the lobbying group, the 501(C)(4), is NOT graded by this group. This is the arm - the lobbying group - with which I have differences.

If you knew ANYTHING about 501(C) you wouldn't be so utterly confused and so utterly foolish in your "research" and comments. So they (501(C)(3)) get a great rating, but they are NOT the lobbying arm.

My complaints are against the 501(C)(4) which is the unrated lobbying arm.

Until you can keep your facts straight, why not take a break?

So why are you applying 501(c)(3) criteria in your true/false quiz to the 501(c)(4) part of the organization? Even the charity rating organizations don't do that because their entire business and cost structure differ so much from the 501(c)(3) model. What great wisdom or data do you have that they don't? Please enlighten us as to what you know that they don't - they that actually do this for a living.

As to your difference with the lobbying arm... again... WHAT ARE THEY!?!?!?

 

[Gunner3456]

fingolfen: "So why are you applying 501(c)(3) criteria in your true/false quiz to the 501(c)(4) part of the organization?"

I'm not. My whole problem, and objections are with the lobbying arm - the part (4)

Even the charity rating organizations don't do that because their entire business and cost structure differ so much from the 501(c)(3) model.

I can have objections to the NRA's lobbying finances and fundraising on my own account. What I don't understand is how anyone can think the NRA is perfect, and defend them without question.

"What great wisdom or data do you have that they don't? Please enlighten us as to what you know that they don't - they that actually do this for a living."

You are so right. The current management of the NRA's lobbying arm does this for a (big) living.

"As to your difference with the lobbying arm... again... WHAT ARE THEY!?!?!?"

See my true/false quiz. All answers are true of the lobbying (501(c)(4) arm.

The leaders who took over in 2001 after Charleton Heston was president (yeah you didn't know he was president) started running the finances into the ground. Even Wayne LaPierre is paid almost $1 mil per year and he's not the president.

When Charleton Heston was president, the NRA had a huge cash surplus including high quality stocks and bonds worth almost $100 million. Now they run deficits, have sold off or pledged as collateral those assets, and are living the high life.

In just the first 4 years after Heston left, the new leaders had gone clear through that surplus and borrowed almost $40 million dollars, some of it for operating capital and some of it for fancy new digs.

I first learned of the mind-boggling mess the new and current leaders of the NRA were causing and hiding about four years ago and it hasn't improved since.

Link


Now you may say "Gee Gunner, I didn't know all that. Wow, that sucks!"

 

[ArcturusRising]

I agree with Gunner, I've lost faith in the NRA to effectively protect my 2nd Amendment rights or utilize the money they receive, effectively. My, admittedly subjective perception of the organization, is that they have become a bureaucratic monster that exists only to sustain itself while paying lip service to it's original mission. I would much rather give my money to the Oregon Firearm Federation (OFF).

 

[fingolfen]

In just the first 4 years after Heston left, the new leaders had gone clear through that surplus and borrowed almost $40 million dollars, some of it for operating capital and some of it for fancy new digs.

I first learned of the mind-boggling mess the new and current leaders of the NRA were causing and hiding about four years ago and it hasn't improved since.

Link[/COLOR]


Now you may say "Gee Gunner, I didn't know all that. Wow, that sucks!"

First, let's get a few things striaght - I'm almost 40 - don't think I'm some wet behind the ears newbie who hasn't been around the block a few times. I'm a LIFE member of the NRA and GOA... get that?

Second - yes - I know what Mr. Heston did for the NRA. Quite frankly we need about 20 more just like him.

Third - By the "them" I was referring to, I was referring to those who evaluate 501(c) corporations - and they don't use the same metrics for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4. Why do you insist on doing so?

Finally... that link you provide as proof of recent financial malfeasance or mismanagement by the NRA is from 1995. June 26, 1995. Either you got the wrong link or you're basing your opinion on over 14 year old data. For the record, Heston was president of the NRA from 1998 to 2003 - so your data predates his ENTIRE TERM - so where are you getting your 2001 step down date for Heston?

 

[fingolfen]

I agree with Gunner, I've lost faith in the NRA to effectively protect my 2nd Amendment rights or utilize the money they receive, effectively. My, admittedly subjective perception of the organization, is that they have become a bureaucratic monster that exists only to sustain itself while paying lip service to it's original mission. I would much rather give my money to the Oregon Firearm Federation (OFF).

So Heller, McDonald, the Tihardt amendment, the firearm restrictions being loosened across the South and West (link in a previous post) is all "lip service"?

I support OFF as well, but honstly in terms of effectiveness, the NRA is a much bigger bang for the buck.

 

[Gunner3456]

First, let's get a few things striaght - I'm almost 40 - don't think I'm some wet behind the ears newbie who hasn't been around the block a few times. I'm a LIFE member of the NRA and GOA... get that?

I get it that you didn't know that a 501(c)(4) exists, that the NRA's lobbying arm is a non-profit, that the data you quoted was for the 501(c)(3) teaching arm and a whole bunch of other things. You might look like a newbie to some people.

Second - yes - I know what Mr. Heston did for the NRA. Quite frankly we need about 20 more just like him.

Third - By the "them" I was referring to, I was referring to those who evaluate 501(c) corporations - and they don't use the same metrics for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4. Why do you insist on doing so?

Simple. My problem is with the NRA's lobbying arm, the 501(c)(4). Please write that down with a pencil and paper so you can remember it. I've said that too many times already.

Finally... that link you provide as proof of recent financial malfeasance or mismanagement by the NRA is from 1995. June 26, 1995. Either you got the wrong link or you’re basing your opinion on over 14 year old data. For the record, Heston was president of the NRA from 1998 to 2003 - so your data predates his ENTIRE TERM - so where are you getting your 2001 step down date for Heston?

Yep, I pasted the wrong link. Here you go: Link from 2005 for finances as of 12/2004, the four years I mentioned

"According to the Better Business Bureau's web site, the NRA does not fall within the BBB's scope of Standards for Charity Accountability. They do note the following financials for the NRA as of December 31, 2004. The NRA's CEO, Wayne LaPierre, received a yearly salary of $895,897 in 2004. They also indicated that fundraising costs accounted for 46% of the contributions received. The NRA is a 501(c)(4) organization and indicated that the NRA's total income in 2004 was $205,402,491 and had expenses of $206,886,970. Total NRA assets at the end of 2004 were $222,841,128."

 

[fingolfen]

Yep, I pasted the wrong link. Here you go: Link from 2005 for finances as of 12/2004, the four years I mentioned

"According to the Better Business Bureau's web site, the NRA does not fall within the BBB's scope of Standards for Charity Accountability. They do note the following financials for the NRA as of December 31, 2004. The NRA's CEO, Wayne LaPierre, received a yearly salary of $895,897 in 2004. They also indicated that fundraising costs accounted for 46% of the contributions received. The NRA is a 501(c)(4) organization and indicated that the NRA's total income in 2004 was $205,402,491 and had expenses of $206,886,970. Total NRA assets at the end of 2004 were $222,841,128."

Okay - so lets look at the WHOLE section part by part.

Annual revenues for the NRA were around $150 million in 1994, up from $66 million in 1986. It spent $15 million on a new headquarters in the 1990s.

The NRA Office of Advancement [23] was created in 2005 to focus on building the NRA's endowment and underwriting programs and projects across the organization - including the NRA, the NRA Foundation, NRA-ILA, the NRA Whittington Center, and the Civil Rights Defense Fund. In 2007, the NRA Office of Advancement launched a new donor recognition society called the Ring of Freedom. In July 2008, the NRA Foundation was designated a Four Star Charity by Charity Navigator for the sixth consecutive year.

According to the Better Business Bureau's web site, the NRA does not fall within the BBB's scope of Standards for Charity Accountability. They do note the following financials for the NRA as of December 31, 2004. The NRA's CEO, Wayne LaPierre, received a yearly salary of $895,897 in 2004. They also indicated that fundraising costs accounted for 46% of the contributions received. The NRA is a 501(c)(4) organization and indicated that the NRA's total income in 2004 was $205,402,491 and had expenses of $206,886,970. Total NRA assets at the end of 2004 were $222,841,128.

This is what we call an "incomplete dataset" - but there are some important things that you're missing even in this incomplete data set.

First, I can draw a trend on raw revenue:

1986: $66 million
1994: $150 million
2004: $205 million

So absolute revenue is trending up.

Total assets stand at $222 million in 2004.

You state:

When Charleton Heston was president, the NRA had a huge cash surplus including high quality stocks and bonds worth almost $100 million. Now they run deficits, have sold off or pledged as collateral those assets, and are living the high life.

In just the first 4 years after Heston left, the new leaders had gone clear through that surplus and borrowed almost $40 million dollars, some of it for operating capital and some of it for fancy new digs.

I believe you based this erroneous conclusion on the data from your 1995 link. There is absolute no evidence in the quote above that they have run huge deficits (the 2004 deficit was $1.3 million). The $40 million number even comes from your 1995 article:

Since 1991, the N.R.A. has accumulated cash deficits of $55.3 million; various accounting changes have pushed the paper losses to $71.9 million, according to the most consistent of the group's financial reports.

The documents also show that the N.R.A. financed its budget gap by selling off more than half its nest egg of high-quality stocks and corporate and Treasury bonds. In 1990 the group had cash, stocks and bonds worth more than $92 million; by last year those reserves had shrunk to only $41 million in cash and securities, most of which are pledged as loan collateral.

The “new digs” you cite were also built in the 1990’s – when the NRA was bleeding cash left and right. Not, as you state, after Heston stepped down as President.

Moving to the next point.

The overall cost of administration “They also indicated that fundraising costs accounted for 46% of the contributions received.”

That does seem high, but if you look at the NRA foundation, its shown as being a 4 star charity. It is something that does bear further looking into. Ideally you don’t want to see the number being that high. However, what is missing is the trend over time. Is 46% the average over several years? Is 46% high for the NRA? Is it low for the NRA? We just don’t know because we don’t have all of the data.

Another important thing to note – President and CEO are not the same office. Wayne LaPierre has been Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association since 1991. So anything that has happened to the NRA since Heston stepped down as President in 2003 (not 2001 as you asserted) has nothing to do with who is occupying the office of CEO.

Clearly you’re basing a lot of your views and assumptions on bad data and a lack of understanding of corporate culture.

To summarize – LaPierre has been CEO since 1991 – and I’m certain he’s been earning a CEO’s salary all of that time. BTW – anything south of $1 million a year is a bargain for a quality CEO. Heston was President, and only President from 1998-2003. The cash position of the NRA as of 2004 was much stronger than it was in 1995 – when all of their assets were leveraged according to the old article you cited. Quite frankly I think instead of damning LaPierre, you should thank him for putting the NRA on such solid financial ground.

To paraphrase you...

Now you may say "Gee Fingolfen, I didn't know all that. Guess I really put my foot in my mouth and got my wires crossed”

 

[Gunner3456]

-snip- The cash position of the NRA as of 2004 was much stronger than it was in 1995 – when all of their assets were leveraged according to the old article you cited. Quite frankly I think instead of damning LaPierre, you should thank him for putting the NRA on such solid financial ground.
-snip-

How do you know what the "cash position" of the NRA was as of 2004? It's nowhere stated above.?? NO WHERE!!

All that's stated is total assets but not liabilities. You can have an asset of a home that's worth $500k, but have a debt against it (liability) of $800k. So you're way in the hole. Assets mean nothing without the rest of the balance sheet.

Have you ever had serious classes in analyzing financial statements? I have. I used to be a for-real bank examiner.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall that's going in circles.

 

[fingolfen]

How do you know what the "cash position" of the NRA was as of 2004? It's nowhere stated above.?? NO WHERE!!

All that's stated is total assets but not liabilities. You can have an asset of a home that's worth $500k, but have a debt against it (liability) of $800k. So you're way in the hole. Assets mean nothing without the rest of the balance sheet.

Have you ever had serious classes in analyzing financial statements? I have. I used to be a for-real bank examiner.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall that's going in circles.

Fine - the assets were in excess of $220 million, but this is a far cry from the scenario you painted earlier:

The leaders who took over in 2001 after Charleton Heston was president (yeah you didn't know he was president) started running the finances into the ground. Even Wayne LaPierre is paid almost $1 mil per year and he's not the president.

When Charleton Heston was president, the NRA had a huge cash surplus including high quality stocks and bonds worth almost $100 million. Now they run deficits, have sold off or pledged as collateral those assets, and are living the high life.

All of the numbers and actions you state are from the 1995 article. You have no independent numbers from when Heston was President. You also clearly don't understand the difference between a CEO and a President. Furthermore Heston was President until 2003.

If you were a "for real" bank examiner, then you'd also understand that you have an incomplete data set. You also should understand something about corporate structure and be able to keep the years individuals served as officers of the corporation straight.

The reason that it seems like you're taking in circles is you don't realize I've disproved virtually every point you've made – yet you keep stating the same things over and over again. You're trying to paint the current NRA leadership as a bunch of playboys that have run the organization into the ground, but the data doesn't support that conclusion.

 

[bersaguy]

Fingolfen,
I appreciate the time that you have spent analyzing and reporting on the erroneous info and circular arguments that have been tossed about. It was very interesting reading your conclusions. Well done!

 

[ZeroRing]

ditto, what he said

 

[Gunner3456]

Fine - the assets were in excess of $220 million, but this is a far cry from the scenario you painted earlier:

Huh? We have NO idea what the liabilities were. Assets are just part of the picture and alone they mean nothing. Didn't you catch on when I pointed out that you could have a house as an asset on the books, but owe more on it that it's worth? In accounting, its' still an asset, but you're "upside down" in it..

All of the numbers and actions you state are from the 1995 article. You have no independent numbers from when Heston was President. You also clearly don’t understand the difference between a CEO and a President. Furthermore Heston was President until 2003.

Well at least we got you somewhere. Of course I know the difference between president and CEO and sometimes they can be the same person.

At first you denied that Heston was more than a "spokesman." You didn't even know he was president and now you're lecturing? Did you write that correction I gave you down by the time you got to a pad and pencil, or have you forgotten it already?

If you were a “for real” bank examiner, then you’d also understand that you have an incomplete data set. That's exactly what I already told you. You also should understand something about corporate structure and be able to keep the years individuals served as officers of the corporation straight.

How can I do that when Heston was never more than a "spokesman" according to you? Can you spell hypocrite? Geez, you're a hoot.

The reason that it seems like you’re taking in circles is you don’t realize I’ve disproved virtually every point you’ve made – yet you keep stating the same things over and over again.

The NRA still has the same basic leadership that it got in 1991 - Wayno. He sucks. He spends 46% every dime they get trying to grub another dime out of you. That STINKS FOR ANY NON PROFIT!!!! Oh I forgot. You don't think the NRA is a non-profit. Sorry. Did you write that down too after I corrected you?

You’re trying to paint the current NRA leadership as a bunch of playboys that have run the organization into the ground, but the data doesn’t support that conclusion.

The current leaders are the ones who are guilty of making the answer "true" to every question in my true/false quiz except for Heston working for $1 per year, which he did on his own.

A major house cleaning is needed at the NRA's lobbying arm. That said, I still belong and support them because they are all we have. They could be a lot better.

Anything else I can teach you today?