National Does the NRA wield too much power? 'Guns: An American Conversation'

[Andy54Hawken]

Do I think that the NRA wields too much power...?....No.
That said...

The image of the NRA is powerful.
Just look at any of the examples shown of the NRA in a anti-gun political cartoon....
How we as gun owners appear ( and the NRA ) can mean more that what we actually are , think or want.
At times how things appear / people's perception can mean more than the truth.
Also the backing of the NRA can be a blessing or a curse , depending on where you are or who you are talking to.

For many of the anti-gun people the NRA is the only gun organization that they have heard of or know of...and for them the NRA speaks / represents all gun owners.
So I would say that the NRA wields power...which is both good and bad...what the NRA says or does , affects all gun owners , members or not.

Is it too much power...? No , but...
When a organization gets to where they are the "go to " face and representative (fairly or not ) of a group of people , the organization needs to keep their house in order.
Like it or not , often how the NRA fares , is how we as gun owners , across the board will fare.
Andy

 

[etrain16]

Too much power? I don't see how they could. At an estimated membership of 5,000,000, they only actually represent 5-6.25% of all gun owners in the US, depending on which number of total gun owners you go with (80,000,000 or 100,000,000). They could be, and, in my mind, should be, far more powerful.

Imagine the power they could wield if 50% of all gun owners were members - 40,000,000 - 50,000,000 members - you think the anti's are afraid of them now? Plus with those numbers in play, the NRA would have the resources to jump in to probably every state and really hit the state legislatures hard. But at only 5,000,000 members, that leaves limited resources to fight in all 50 states. In Washington D.C., I do think they do a decent job of keeping the pressure on, and no, I don't like their willingness to cave on certain things like bump stocks - it sends the message that 'things' are responsible, not people, and that's a bad decision. Still, the anti's fear the NRA, and we should be thankful they do - because I don't think they fear groups like GOA, NSSF, SAF, etc. - they just don't have the visibility or recognition the NRA has.

LaPierre needs to go - and if there were more voting members, maybe that could happen - get a truly solid 2A guy in there that isn't such a 'politician', but more of a gun advocate.

Considering the cost isn't that high to be a member, I'd love to see 40-50M gun owners back the NRA - now that would be a sight to see. And I guarantee it would turn the thumbscrews on the anti's in ways we've never seen before. I'd rather be a member than let some petty disagreements keep me from contributing to the fight.

 

[Boboclown]

Too much power? I don't see how they could. At an estimated membership of 5,000,000, they only actually represent 5-6.25% of all gun owners in the US, depending on which number of total gun owners you go with (80,000,000 or 100,000,000). They could be, and, in my mind, should be, far more powerful.

Imagine the power they could wield if 50% of all gun owners were members - 40,000,000 - 50,000,000 members - you think the anti's are afraid of them now? Plus with those numbers in play, the NRA would have the resources to jump in to probably every state and really hit the state legislatures hard. But at only 5,000,000 members, that leaves limited resources to fight in all 50 states. In Washington D.C., I do think they do a decent job of keeping the pressure on, and no, I don't like their willingness to cave on certain things like bump stocks - it sends the message that 'things' are responsible, not people, and that's a bad decision. Still, the anti's fear the NRA, and we should be thankful they do - because I don't think they fear groups like GOA, NSSF, SAF, etc. - they just don't have the visibility or recognition the NRA has.

LaPierre needs to go - and if there were more voting members, maybe that could happen - get a truly solid 2A guy in there that isn't such a 'politician', but more of a gun advocate.

Considering the cost isn't that high to be a member, I'd love to see 40-50M gun owners back the NRA - now that would be a sight to see. And I guarantee it would turn the thumbscrews on the anti's in ways we've never seen before. I'd rather be a member than let some petty disagreements keep me from contributing to the fight.

What I'd like to see is someone who has the same 2A views as mine in charge. We need someone pushing for the removal of the machine gun ban, removal of the NFA nonsense, etc.

 

[Goosebrown]

LOL....to the LEFT.....most everything is a "Crisis" when they want some else to pay for fixing it.

Example: OBAMA CARE.

Aloha, Mark

Or a loophole. Lots of loopholes.

 

[etrain16]

What I'd like to see is someone who has the same 2A views as mine in charge. We need someone pushing for the removal of the machine gun ban, removal of the NFA nonsense, etc.

I'd love to see that. It's possible, but we probably need more members in a voting position to oust LaPierre. I've heard there are a few solid pro-2A folks available for the position if the time comes, but I think LaPierre has too many buddies blocking for him at this time. If we could get enough gun owners across the country on the same page, we could upend LaPierre's reign and get someone else in his place.

 

[3MTA3]

View attachment 458751

Brownstain is the state level of Hillary .but worse.

Brownstain is a seat in each Oregon house away from a super majority, which has become a moot point with the three Republican TraiTurds who appear to be trolling for Bloombux. She literally has no opposition to do whatever she damn well pleases.

 

[bbbass]

Some folks forget that the NRA is us... it's not some corporation that has it's own agenda. This is the reason the antis fear the NRA. It's not the power, it is the political backing of 5M members!!!

I support the NRA even tho they could be doing a better job. Because the antis fear the NRA, the Congress fears the NRA... both good things.

If they quit spending membership money on endless mailings that don't get them more members, and instead spend it on fighting the antis, I would be willing to go back to them and give them my financial support also. It can't hurt.

 

[Tully Mars]

Only Chuck Norris wields too much power.

 

[IOM]

There is a perceived crisis with gun violence being the major cause of death in this country. The ability to have a "discussion" regarding guns is delusional. There should not be a need for discussion. Discussion should center on mental health and criminal justice.

I concur with this highlighted statement above, it's about the mental health aspect and the fact that there are enough gun laws already.

Start enforcing those laws 100% across the board and deal with the mental case running rampant...!!!

 

[po18guy]

So, one might wonder, why do we never see: "Freedom to peaceably assemble: An American Conversation"?
Or "American conversations" about:
freedom of speech...
of the press...
of quartering soldiers in private homes...
to petition the government for redress of grievances...
about searches and seizures...
about due process and self-incrimination...
public trial by jury...
regarding cruel and unusual punishment...

Only about the guns of freedom.

Hmmm.

Since these "conversations" are always and everywhere intended to reduce freedom, what we need is an American Conversation regarding the "free" press and their speech.

 

[MrRob96]

I don't think it's entirely a mental health issue. It is a societal issue.

Break the large components of gun deaths into groups: suicide, criminal violence.

While suicide has a component of mental health, the big indicator here is societal differences. Look at Japan with a suicide rate nearly 2x the US and essentially no guns. Societal pressure is increasing suicides as providing for a family becomes more difficult.

Criminal violence speaks for itself, and with a vast majority of crime related gun homicides occurring in major cities... It appears to be linked to economic opportunity or other social factors.

Anywho, guns correlating to violence or gun violence is obviously false. Just another Marxist ploy to disarm the US and bring down the greatest country that's ever existed.

 

[po18guy]

Let's consider the behavior of the first amendment champions. For decades, they have glamorized and profited from:

1. Murder in cheap novels.
2. Murder on stage.
3. Murder on the radio.
4. Murder in cinema.
5. Murder on TV.
6. Murder in magazines.
7. Murder in the newspapers.
8. Murder in video games.
9. Murder on the internet.
10. Murder in popular music.
11. Murder in hip hop songs and culture.

After a lifetime of exposure to glamorized killing, just let someone actually murder with a gun and guns are the problem!