The Day I’ll Join The NRA – An Open Letter To Ted Nugent

[m1gunr]

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/03/open-letter-to-ted-nugent

The Day I’ll Join The NRA – An Open Letter To Ted Nugent
By Aaron Zelman
Founder and Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.

USA - -(AmmoLand.com)- Dear Ted: First, I personally thank you for the valuable work you have done, and are doing, for the Second Amendment. You have used your talent, success, wit, and celebrity to fight for our freedoms.
Additionally, you are a member of the Board of Directors of the NRA. So this letter is directed to you in strictly that capacity.
Why? Because I believe that you will listen. And you have the standing and respect within the NRA to actually do something regarding the issues I’d like to bring to your attention.
We at JPFO recently received a letter from an angry and very articulate fellow who took the vast majority of gun owners to task for not being NRA members. He rightly points out that there are more than eighty million gun owners and only five million members of any pro-gun organization, the NRA obviously being the largest.
I read this fellow’s letter a couple of times, and could not fault him on his spirit or personal philosophy.

What bothered me was that he was asking me to join the NRA.


You'll have to read the rest on the site due to the 10k character limit imposed on this site.

http://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/03/open-letter-to-ted-nugent/

Read More

 

[gogoDawgs]

A powerfull read.....

I encourage you all to read with an open mind.

Good find M1.

(BTW, I am not and never have been a member of the NRA)

 

[Bazooka Joe]

It is a pretty good read, though I'm fairly sure that some of the things they are accusing the NRA of not doing the NRA has, in fact, published in their magazines at one time or another.

I've had issues with the NRA myself and have let my membership lapse now and again. First, it irritates me to end that with two weeks of becoming a member again I start receiving mail urging me to renew my membership. I'd like them to save that postage money to spend on something useful. Secondly, sometimes the political rhetoric in their magazines become so shrill that I just can't stand to read it anymore. Just give me the facts, man. I don't need you to scream about how evil so-and-so is and how the world is going to end, yada yada yada. Thanks, I can figure that out for myself. I don't need to be convinced; I'm already on your side. I don't know who is actually persuaded by some of the over-the-top crap they write, but it really turns me off. And finally, some of the things in mentioned in that article used to bother me and make me quit the NRA for a while, but I finally decided that while they may not be the best 2nd Amendment advocate, they are powerful and "good enough." I'll support them and I'll also support other organizations which may support my beliefs more closely, yet are less powerful.

 

[greydog111]

It is a pretty good read, though I'm fairly sure that some of the things they are accusing the NRA of not doing the NRA has, in fact, published in their magazines at one time or another.

I've had issues with the NRA myself and have let my membership lapse now and again. First, it irritates me to end that with two weeks of becoming a member again I start receiving mail urging me to renew my membership. I'd like them to save that postage money to spend on something useful. Secondly, sometimes the political rhetoric in their magazines become so shrill that I just can't stand to read it anymore. Just give me the facts, man. I don't need you to scream about how evil so-and-so is and how the world is going to end, yada yada yada. Thanks, I can figure that out for myself. I don't need to be convinced; I'm already on your side. I don't know who is actually persuaded by some of the over-the-top crap they write, but it really turns me off. And finally, some of the things in mentioned in that article used to bother me and make me quit the NRA for a while, but I finally decided that while they may not be the best 2nd Amendment advocate, they are powerful and "good enough." I'll support them and I'll also support other organizations which may support my beliefs more closely, yet are less powerful.

Bazookajoe: Can you do it all by yourself? The NRA is surely a flawed org. but it has done mighty things in the name of it's members. I've had the same issue with mailings and called them, told them to stop, and they did. We need a megaphone. The NRA is the only one that is effective in helping us to shout at the machine. Greydog.

 

[Cougfan2]

I've had my beefs with the NRA as well. I even let my membership lapse for a couple of years because of the way one of their phone staff treated when they were calling pleading for funds one time, but that was long ago. They are still THE MOST EFFECTIVE 2A ADVOCATES WE HAVE. Sure, support other organizations as well, but the NRA is still the strongest.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

Bazookajoe: Can you do it all by yourself? The NRA is surely a flawed org. but it has done mighty things in the name of it's members. I've had the same issue with mailings and called them, told them to stop, and they did. We need a megaphone. The NRA is the only one that is effective in helping us to shout at the machine. Greydog.

Yes, that's basically what I said. If it wasn't clear, I am a member.

 

[Gunner3456]

"Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership."

And most Jews vote for Democrats why?

That's a good article which sums up why I don't belong to the NRA.

They are better than nothing? That's sad. Maybe my boycott will be better than nothing too, and they'll improve.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I've been saying all that since 1988 when I dropped our NRA memberships. Few people know this, but the NRA brass was actually in favor of the 1934 act and testified in favor of it. They like gun control because it keeps them flush with cash. Do not read the following if you have high blood pressure or anger management issues

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm

Now Gun Owners of America is a sincere gun rights group that does not compromise

 

[deen_ad]

I've been saying all that since 1988 when I dropped our NRA memberships. Few people know this, but the NRA brass was actually in favor of the 1934 act and testified in favor of it. They like gun control because it keeps them flush with cash. Do not read the following if you have high blood pressure or anger management issues

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.htm

Now Gun Owners of America is a sincere gun rights group that does not compromise

you will see that the NRA was successful in getting changes made to the original bill that make it possible to have semi-autos available to us. The original bill would have eliminated ANY gun that could fire automatically or semi-automatically more than 12 cartridges from one magazine. I don't see anywhere in there that the GOA was involved.
What gets me is that GOA fights AGAINST the NRA rather than joining it and becoming helpful to the cause. For many years the NRA has been and still is the acknowledged most influential lobbying organization in the world. Think how much better it would be if GOA actually helped with that?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

you will see that the NRA was successful in getting changes made to the original bill that make it possible to have semi-autos available to us. The original bill would have eliminated ANY gun that could fire automatically or semi-automatically more than 12 cartridges from one magazine. I don't see anywhere in there that the GOA was involved.
What gets me is that GOA fights AGAINST the NRA rather than joining it and becoming helpful to the cause. For many years the NRA has been and still is the acknowledged most influential lobbying organization in the world. Think how much better it would be if GOA actually helped with that?

You're drinking that NRA koolaide again?

 

[longcolt]

I have been a member of the NRA since the 1960's. I have seen the good they have done for all gun owers.

I have never received a phone call from anyone in the NRA and I am a benefactor member. I do get the mailings but I toss them in the trash and give money only if I choose to do so.

I laugh at the young people that take the tough hard line of the GOA. Woop de do, they have 600,000 members and play the bad cop in the good cop/bad cop routine to outflank the anti-gun folks.

The only thing you get with the tough talk is a total shut down in the other party. Put them on the defensive and they will hear nothing you say, just like in a personal argument with a friend or relative. That solves nothing in my opinion.

Is the NRA, GOA, JPFO, Second Amend Foundation perfect? Nope, none of them do it the way each of us wish they would. So pick an organization and back them with your money and your support. I will stick with the NRA.

I am very happy that JPFO is actively involved in gun rights. It seems its the Jewish Elites that are pushing hard in Congress to remove our gun rights. Mayor Bloombag of NYC, Ron Weiden of OR, Frank Lautenberg, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and many others are the prime movers against the second amendment. Don't understand how they can take that position after what they know happened to the Jewish folks in Germany under Hitler.

 

[Creeper]

As an "on again - off again" and current NRA member, for me, there's a lot to appreciate and an lot to dislike about the NRA. I guess that I continue to be a member because of their greater ability to oppose unreasonable, illogical and poorly conceived firearms restrictions. After that, it's a mixed bag... with virtually all NRA mailings go in the trash.
Like longcolt, I choose when and how much I donate to the NRA.

The NRAs frequent political associations with, what I perceive to be complete idiots, doesn't blow my skirt up any more than the equally idiotic, extreme anti-gunners that populate my political side of the fence.
To not support the NRA is to allow the anti-gunners, regardless of their political affiliations, a better foothold... while supporting the NRA also allows the fools they ally themselves with a broader forum.

Lesser of multiple evils? I don't know... but it's the choice I make for now.

Cheers,
C

 

[2506]

Scariest part for me:
"It's time to quit building a standing army in America, masquerading as local SWAT teams and hooded "tactical units". Federal money is lavishly splashed at these local law enforcement agencies. And, as we all know, payback day cannot be far away."

 

[Weathermaker]

I am very happy that JPFO is actively involved in gun rights. It seems its the Jewish Elites that are pushing hard in Congress to remove our gun rights. Mayor Bloombag of NYC, Ron Weiden of OR, Frank Lautenberg, Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and many others are the prime movers against the second amendment. Don't understand how they can take that position after what they know happened to the Jewish folks in Germany under Hitler.

Probably because their predecessors were elite Jews in the USA who didn't give a care what was happening to Jews in Europe as long as they were safe . Just as they now don't give a heck about the general public...so long as "they" have their political positions of power and special privileges.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Scariest part for me:
"It’s time to quit building a standing army in America, masquerading as local SWAT teams and hooded “tactical units”. Federal money is lavishly splashed at these local law enforcement agencies. And, as we all know, payback day cannot be far away."

Scary for me too, because it's for real and we will have to face it

 

[Riot]

The NRA knows it is good for business to have at least some gun control laws on the books for them to "fight the good fight" for us. Without some rediculous bill (i.e. HR 45) being pushed, the NRA couldn't constantly hound on their supports for more money.

 

[jordanvraptor]

The letter makes some valid points but...

The premise is "I'll join the NRA when..."

Maybe if everyone who felt that way had joined the NRA and inflated its numbers by 100, 200, or even 300 percent, then the NRA would have had the political clout to accomplish those changes.

You may not like it and I don't either but numbers and money is what influences our political system.

 

[soberups]

Every single organization that I belong to has policies, procedures and philosophies that I dont necessarily agree with. The NRA is no different.

I simply try to get "the big picture" when deciding whether or not to belong to or support these organizations. I ask myself...."does the good they do outweigh the bad?" By any objective standard, the NRA has been a net positive force for protecting our 2nd amendment rights. Perfect? Far from it. Politics is the art of the possible, and many of JPFO's goals, while admirable, are simply not realistic at this time. Compromise is often the lesser of two evils.

Remember also that, as a paying member of an organization, you earn the right to criticize it and hold it accountable.

In many cases you will accomplish more by staying onboard and voicing your concerns rather than just taking your ball and going home.

 

[Oldfart]

Being retired and somewhat disabled, I spend a lot of time surfing the 'net. I have found that there are a whole lot of people out there that are smarter than I and probably smarter than most politicians. They write things that make sense and they read other things that I'd never get around to if thy hadn't brought it to my attention.

In a discussion about conservatism someone tossed this little tid-bit in. I think it also describes the NRA pretty well. You decide.

*************************************************

This is one of my favorite quotations from R. L. Dabney. He was discussing the issue of women’s suffrage (women’s right to vote), but his analysis of the “conservatives” of his day (mid-1800s) is exactly in line with the situation with most modern-day “conservativism.”

“This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.” <broken link removed>

**************************************************

Sustitute "NRA" for "conservatives" in that and you'll find a lot of parallels. The NRA may very well be the "800 pound gorilla" in D.C. but it has no balls.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Being retired and somewhat disabled, I spend a lot of time surfing the 'net. I have found that there are a whole lot of people out there that are smarter than I and probably smarter than most politicians. They write things that make sense and they read other things that I'd never get around to if thy hadn't brought it to my attention.

In a discussion about conservatism someone tossed this little tid-bit in. I think it also describes the NRA pretty well. You decide.

*************************************************

This is one of my favorite quotations from R. L. Dabney. He was discussing the issue of women’s suffrage (women’s right to vote), but his analysis of the “conservatives” of his day (mid-1800s) is exactly in line with the situation with most modern-day “conservativism.”

“This is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt hath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. It always, when about to enter a protest, very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it essays to stop, that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save its manners by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now subserves in American politics is to give enough exercise to Radicalism to keep it “in wind,” and to prevent its becoming pursy and lazy from having nothing to whip. No doubt, after a few years, when women’s suffrage shall have become an accomplished fact, conservatism will tacitly admit it into its creed, and thenceforward plume itself upon its wise firmness in opposing with similar weapons the extreme of baby suffrage; and when that too shall have been won, it will be heard declaring that the integrity of the American Constitution requires at least the refusal of suffrage to asses. There it will assume, with great dignity, its final position.” <broken link removed>

**************************************************

Sustitute "NRA" for "conservatives" in that and you'll find a lot of parallels. The NRA may very well be the "800 pound gorilla" in D.C. but it has no balls.

Excellent, thanks for sharing that.. imagine if the Founders had been made of such cloth