Don't abandon the NRA!

[Dave Workman]

^^^ THIS
sadly there were bigger fish to fry than a WA state initiative battle, that really couldn't be won. i can understand why they didn't burn more $$ on it. it makes more sense to challenge 594 courts or amend it in legislature, where the process is largely immune from billionaire money.

we do need to start planning for the next wave of legislation to come down, start calling the NRA and suggest that they work on a strategy to combat initiatives, and ask if they can start working with the SAF on coordinated efforts.

Actually, that's not entirely correct.
Washington was the "biggest" fish to fry because it was used as a test to learn whether Bloomberg and other billionaires could buy an election, and how to do it. If somebody didn't see that coming, they're brain-dead.

It is much easier to STOP legislation than to repeal it or defeat it in court. Waiting until something becomes law to fight it is not terribly bright.

You cannot amend legislation created by public initiative for at least two years, without a 2/3 majority and you AIN'T gonna get that in the Washington legislature. Because I-594 passed...thus showing that the invincible NRA / Gun Lobby is not so invincible after all, there will be more resistance to gun rights efforts rather than less.

 

[Dave Workman]

Say anything you want to inside these walls, but it's what they're saying outside that counts:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/7/washington-stateguncontrolwin.html


"Significant resources helped: Initiative 594's war chest burgeoned to $10 million, with donations from New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Seattle billionaires Bill and Melinda Gates, Paul Allen and Steve Ballmer, according to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the biggest gun rights advocacy group in the country, was conspicuously absent from the debate. According to data compiled by the Center for Public Integrity, gun rights groups were able to cobble together only $138,000 to run television ads.

"They had a huge budget. They were able to get their message out all over the place and repeatedly, and the 591 campaign simply didn't have that financial reach," said Dave Workman, communications director for the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "I think that if it had been a level playing field, we would've seen a different outcome."

Trumble had a different view, saying gun control advocates were finally reaching parity with the gun lobby, attracting the money and clout that the NRA has boasted of for decades.

 

[Dave Workman]

Don't hold your breath.

Yeah, especially with a twerp like Lindsay Graham in there.

 

[BoatRanch]

Washington was the "biggest" fish to fry...

And apparently the NRA prefers hamburgers...

 

[GunnyG]

My $.02 worth:

Since its inception, WAGR has tried everything to impeach anything the NRA does (i.e., how many times did they cry "Brian Judy said ____ that hurt my feelings!!!"? ) , playing the histrionic personality disorder victim card.

Anything that the NRA does, seems to only further galvanize and polarize our opponents. By national only taking a supporting role to local organizations, at least it could be shown as a grassroots vs big outside money fight.

Functionally, SAF/CCRKBA are really national organizations too, POGR just being created on-the-fly to address a local problem. We really didn't/don't have an effective and local gun rights organization.

Either WAY, WE need to address this, yesterday. Either we flood OUR active SUPPORT on POGR (and RIGHT F'ing Now), or create another organization to address this.

 

[Riot]

It is much easier to STOP legislation than to repeal it or defeat it in court.

Yup...which is why I'm surprised the NRA couldn't pitch in more than a website and a press release.

 

[The Heretic]

The only mistake the NRA made here is their failure to head off the initiative strategy and failure to cooperate with the SAF.

If anything, you should be calling the NRA and demanding they mend ways with the SAF and work on a coordinated strategy to defeat these initiatives.

In that sense, it was the NRA that abandoned the citizens of Washington State because of a personal feud with the SAF.

If the leadership of the NRA can't put the good of the people above their own egos and political power seeking, then why should I support them? How does that help the people you are asking to support the NRA when the NRA won't support them in turn?

 

[usagi]

that is why NRA members need to call the NRA and tell them to start working with the SAF.

 

[usagi]

Actually, that's not entirely correct.
Washington was the "biggest" fish to fry because it was used as a test to learn whether Bloomberg and other billionaires could buy an election, and how to do it. If somebody didn't see that coming, they're brain-dead.

It is much easier to STOP legislation than to repeal it or defeat it in court. Waiting until something becomes law to fight it is not terribly bright.

You cannot amend legislation created by public initiative for at least two years, without a 2/3 majority and you AIN'T gonna get that in the Washington legislature. Because I-594 passed...thus showing that the invincible NRA / Gun Lobby is not so invincible after all, there will be more resistance to gun rights efforts rather than less.

dave, do you think it is going to be in everyone's best interests if the SAF and NRA continue to be estranged from each other?

 

[BoatRanch]

I had no idea there was some sort of "non-cooperate" issue between the two, SAF and NRA.
Is there any truth to this?

 

[BoatRanch]

One more comment...

When you have a (so-called) conservative talk show host like Dori Monson on KIRO 97.3 FM admitting that the voted FOR I-594 it sure doesn't help efforts to defend the 2A here in Washington State.

Of course he is an official Seattle Seahawks Commentator. Connection? I have no idea

 

[usagi]

I had no idea there was some sort of "non-cooperate" issue between the two, SAF and NRA.
Is there any truth to this?

read with a bucket of salt (usual huffpo article), the usual exaggeration and things, but there are some accurate points made.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/second-amendment-foundation_n_2745038.html

i have talked with alan gottlieb before, and there is some truth in the article. the SAF and NRA are not on good terms. and this rift is not to anyone's benefit. we are weaker divided, which is exactly how bloomberg wants it.

 

[BoatRanch]

read with a bucket of salt (usual huffpo article), the usual exaggeration and things, but there are some accurate points made.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/second-amendment-foundation_n_2745038.html

i have talked with alan gottlieb before, and there is some truth in the article. the SAF and NRA are not on good terms. and this rift is not to anyone's benefit. we are weaker divided, which is exactly how bloomberg wants it.

Bummer!

 

[usagi]

this is why NRA members need to tell them to work with the SAF. and to the SAF to start thinking about what they need to do to get the NRA on board, up to and including the SAF holding their nose and swallowing bitter pills.

 

[The Heretic]

I stopped supporting the NRA when they made that deal with Reagan to ban new manufacture select fire firearms in exchange for the "protection act" (FOPA). In my opinion it was a large step backwards.

Then they supported Bush senior for president and he stabbed us in the back again (Brady Bill) with the partial support of the NRA.

This is the NRA working politics as "the art of the possible", going to the wins (or draws and sometimes losses) on the small battles while losing the war.

Does anybody really think that with regards to gun control laws that we are better off now than we were 40 years ago when I first joined the NRA?

Any major wins have come from SAF or GOA in my opinion, not the NRA, and look where the money goes and how it is spent. For my dollar, the SAF or GOA are the better investment and that is how I spend my money for support of second amendment causes.

 

[deen_ad]

< Why they don't have school shootings in Israel.
Notice the long gun slung over the teachers shoulder?

or the NRA could help back the SAF to get either state legislation through, or competing initiatives on the ballot.

either way, the SAF can't pull it alone.

Here, fixed it for you:
"or SAF (and it's members) could back the NRA instead of bickering all the time and sowing dissension."

Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
"Defender of Freedom" award
NRA Golden Eagle member
WAC member

"Having a gun is like a parachute, if you need one and don't have it you may never need it again"

 

[Partsproduction]

Anyone who is against our position is an enemy, and deserves reproach, but no good comes from speaking poorly about those who in any way agree that we have the right to keep and bear arms. So, if you have two friends and one agrees more with you that does not mean you should speak evil of the one who is not 100% in your camp, save your ire for those who think the government people are the only ones who can posses weapons.
If you have a problem with the NRA you shouldn't go around putting them down, the anti gunners love to hear of fighting within the ranks. I'm a member of several pro gun organizations, there is no law that says you can only support one.

 

[U201491]

I stopped supporting the NRA when they made that deal with Reagan to ban new manufacture select fire firearms in exchange for the "protection act" (FOPA). In my opinion it was a large step backwards.

Then they supported Bush senior for president and he stabbed us in the back again (Brady Bill) with the partial support of the NRA.

This is the NRA working politics as "the art of the possible", going to the wins (or draws and sometimes losses) on the small battles while losing the war.

Does anybody really think that with regards to gun control laws that we are better off now than we were 40 years ago when I first joined the NRA?

Any major wins have come from SAF or GOA in my opinion, not the NRA, and look where the money goes and how it is spent. For my dollar, the SAF or GOA are the better investment and that is how I spend my money for support of second amendment causes.

IN "40 years" Without them there would be no guns in the US today as there is none in Australia and the UK.
Yeah were better off than we would be without them. You have tunnel vision. Without them you would probably be branded and chipped by now and into slavery to the gov. or worse.

 

[U201491]

Anyone who is against our position is an enemy, and deserves reproach, but no good comes from speaking poorly about those who in any way agree that we have the right to keep and bear arms. So, if you have two friends and one agrees more with you that does not mean you should speak evil of the one who is not 100% in your camp, save your ire for those who think the government people are the only ones who can posses weapons.
If you have a problem with the NRA you shouldn't go around putting them down, the anti gunners love to hear of fighting within the ranks. I'm a member of several pro gun organizations, there is no law that says you can only support one.

Those that badmouth the NRA or any pro gun group are not truly friends of the 2nd Amendment even as some may think they are. They frag their own and that is not how we win battles, it is how the enemy undermines all gun owners.
If you fall for that tactic, rethink what damage you do, but if you are enemy, you will lose.

.

 

[usagi]

the NRA is far from perfect, as is the SAF or GOA.

but ask yourself this: why does bloomberg view the NRA as the #1 threat? why is his prime goal to destroy the NRA?

if bloomberg views them as a threat, this alone should be enough reason to continue supporting the NRA.

abandoning the NRA is exactly what he wants you to do.