"THE NRA DOESN'T SPEAK FOR ME" Anyone seen this?

[del_and_bones]

People I know who own guns: ~100
NRA members: ~30 (~20% have CHL's)
CHL holders: ~15 (~40% are NRA members)
Activists: me (attends rallies/writes letters)

None of these numbers surprise me.

I am not leading this fight as a matter of aesthetic pleasure. I am leading because somebody must lead, or else the fight would not be made at all. - President Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Nwcid]

Well I am glad the question keeps getting dogged. I never said anything bad about the NRA, I never said the sucked, I never said they were small.

I simply asked WHY, if there are so many gun owners and activist, their numbers are so low. That simple question seems to really ruffle some feathers.

We as a should be working to figure out WHY and to help improve that %. So they are this strong at 10%. What could they do with even double (20%) that number? There are obviously reasons why the number is only 10%. Instead of being mad at me for posting it why don't we address the problem?

 

[thirtycal]

Another idiot that thinks splitting gun owners in pro-NRA and anti-NRA groups is a good idea:

Dump the NRA

Of course you can find things to complain about with the NRA. That's true with ANY organization. But reality dictates we get all of our eggs in one basket - that's the only way we can get enough muscle to actually make a difference at the state and federal level. That basket, for good or bad, is the NRA.

I just re-upped but am pretty seriously considering writing that $300 check for Lifetime status.

-Thirtycal

 

[ArgyleAdams]

I wonder what it would cost the NRA to conduct a poll of gun owners who aren't members to find out why. I bet if they did that they could adjust their approach (or at least their public image) and their membership would soar.

I want to like them, I really do. I know they do good things for gun rights, and they have by far the most influence in congress. They still do lots of stuff that gets under my skin.

For now, let's ignore LaPierre's (unforgivable) suggestion that free speech is the problem.

Just off the top of my head: A couple of months ago they mailed me a poll about gun rights. It looked like a Bizarro World version of Blumenauer's poll (which I understand many of you got too). Every question was leading, the thing oozed of agenda. They're doing an amazing job of making moderates uncomfortable by presenting themselves so radically. What they're doing behind the scenes seems to be working OK, and I'm not suggesting that they change any of that. They just need to mellow out their PR. They'd get more support. Lots more.

 

[Misterbill]

How many gun owners, that is, what percentage, are members of ANY organized pro-gun group with a membership fee? This notion that only 10% are NRA members is bad, is silly in the extreme. I have a few dozen acquaintances who are gun owners. I think 5 of us are members of ANY gun rights organization.

10% is HUGE. Show me an issue advocacy organization that charges dues that has anywhere CLOSE to a 10% penetration of their demographic. Only AARP comes close, and that's only because if you pay a tiny amount dues, you get some pretty major benefits. Remember that the vast majority of AARP "members" pay no dues or fees whatever.

 

[Squidly]

Not even close. The NRA is NOT the speaker of all gun owners, just ONE of the "gun faith's". This forum is open to ALL gun owners not just the ones that believe in the NRA.

You statement would work if you said "going to a NRA form and bashing them". Even then IF people are bashing the NRA, or any other group, it seems that group would listen to the problem and see if it was fixable.

Again the simple fact is the NRA only about a 10% membership out of gun owners. There HAS to be a reason(s) for that............

True, but they ARE the 800lb gorilla. Like them or not, they have clout in DC. Even the enemy acknowledges this fact.

The Gun Lobby: Why The NRA Is The Baddest Force In Politics

Right now that's what we need. Now is the time to choose sides, not next year when it's too late.

 

[kcarnold]

I got back into shooting & guns about 2 years ago. Hadn't been involved much since the 80s. I like the way things are, or were before the panic buying.

I've got some family that are pro gun ban. The issues right now seem black or white, you're on one side or the other. I've got school age grandchildren. I don't want anything bad happening to them. But I can't see how banning semi auto guns and limiting magazine capacity is going to protect them. Then again I don't keep loaded guns around the house, I don't carry & I don't think I'll have to fight the government. So I have a hard time winning any arguements with those family members. But darn it I want to be able to buy the guns I want at a reasonable price. Me & 99.99% of gun owners are not the problem.

So after some soul searching last month I joined the NRA. Do I agree with everything they say and do? No, but they will fight for what I want. So right now they speak for me. I sent them my money. I'll get in my truck and drive to Salem for the next rally just like I did for the last two. And I'll fill out & mail that voter registation card I picked up last week. Yep, I'll vote just like the NRA tells me.

Bickering on this forum isn't going to win the fight. But for me, in my small way, joining the NRA sends the message of how I will be voting. And we could list all the anti gun politicians we don't like. But it wouldn't compare to how much the anti gun folks hate the NRA! I kind of like that. Proud to say I'm a member.

On a side note I do think the NRA needs to hire a PR firm. The ads seem totally out of touch with mainstream America.

I have sent all of my reps a short little note telling them that not only will I vote against them if they even think about voting in gun control, I will donate to their opponent and volunteer for their opponents campaign. I will do all in my power to insure they lose their job.
NRA member
GOA member
OFF Member
NSSF member
Donate to any progun organization you can afford to donate to join any and all pro-2A groups. Make these SOB's sweat about the 100mil plus gun owners voting them out.

 

[kcarnold]

Another idiot that thinks splitting gun owners in pro-NRA and anti-NRA groups is a good idea:

Dump the NRA

Of course you can find things to complain about with the NRA. That's true with ANY organization. But reality dictates we get all of our eggs in one basket - that's the only way we can get enough muscle to actually make a difference at the state and federal level. That basket, for good or bad, is the NRA.

I just re-upped but am pretty seriously considering writing that $300 check for Lifetime status.

-Thirtycal

Unfortunately I have to agree I HATE the NRA because they compromised so much during the 80's they basically bent us all over for the anti-gunners, but things have appeared to change. Plus if we don't all jump in and help pull we will go down in flames, so it's time to pump their numbers and hope they don't sell us out again.

 

[silversnl]

I've been an NRA member for the last 8-10 years. Been a life member for the last 5ish. I don't 100% agree with them, but the fact that they are political, and political on my side of the fence means that I do not regret being a life member. I'm also a member of OFF and USCCA.

Whoever said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" hit the nail on the head. That's exactly how the anti gun folk look at it. Why can't we?

 

[kcarnold]

The question of why is easy to answer. They sold out gun owners. During the 60' 70's 80's all they did was compromise, all they did was collect money and work very hard to make themselves the required gate keeper of gun safety. Notice most states and the fed require NRA certified... for anything requiring a license. That occurrence is not by chance as the NRA gave the gun banners everything they wanted the NRA got to become the required trainer, and gate keeper of all things gun safety related. The NRA in effect sold out gun owners and manufaturers for it's own short term gain.

Well I am glad the question keeps getting dogged. I never said anything bad about the NRA, I never said the sucked, I never said they were small.

I simply asked WHY, if there are so many gun owners and activist, their numbers are so low. That simple question seems to really ruffle some feathers.

We as a should be working to figure out WHY and to help improve that %. So they are this strong at 10%. What could they do with even double (20%) that number? There are obviously reasons why the number is only 10%. Instead of being mad at me for posting it why don't we address the problem?

 

[silversnl]

Fking mobile double post. My bad.

 

[Squidly]

I've been an NRA member for the last 8-10 years. Been a life member for the last 5ish. I don't 100% agree with them, but the fact that they are political, and political on my side of the fence means that I do not regret being a life member. I'm also a member of OFF and USCCA.

Whoever said "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" hit the nail on the head. That's exactly how the anti gun folk look at it. Why can't we?

You are exactly right. It's going to take numbers. I recently bought NRA memberships for my GF and daughter. I should buy memberships for my ex-wife and her husband. They are anti gun. :

 

[Misterbill]

The question of why is easy to answer. They sold out gun owners. During the 60' 70's 80's all they did was compromise, all they did was collect money and work very hard to make themselves the required gate keeper of gun safety. Notice most states and the fed require NRA certified... for anything requiring a license. That occurrence is not by chance as the NRA gave the gun banners everything they wanted the NRA got to become the required trainer, and gate keeper of all things gun safety related. The NRA in effect sold out gun owners and manufaturers for it's own short term gain.

Honestly not so much sold out as much as they represented a very different view of guns and gun rights than is commonplace today.
Among other things, they'd had yet to experience what happened to gun owners in the 1990s. The insurgency among the membership didn't happen until 1979 and it was fought tooth and nail internally for years. it wasn't until the late 80s that gun rights became a real focus for the NRA, which was founded, I remind you, as a gun safety and training organization with a strong bias towards hunting as the only legitimate shooting sport.

The entire current concept of gun rights was considered an extremist position, even among most gun owners up until the Antis really slammed home some of their initiatives. The old guard was well represented by Bill "no honest man needs more than 10 rounds" Ruger.

1994 was a giant wake up call for gun owners in this country. Pre AWB and Brady Bill, most gun owners didn't really grasp what the antis intended or how it would effect them.

The NRA has come a long way since 1979 when the insurgents took control of the board and forced a long, slow, complete re-focusing of the organization. You don't change an institution as monolithic as the NRA overnight, but that change has come. I don't like a lot of their tactics and disagree with some of their strategic decisions. But they haven't "sold us out," since the 70s. Say what you want about the 1986 machine gun ban, but we were going to get stuck with that either way.
Reagan was a gun-grabber even as governor and he had a Dem house and senate majority pushing it. Because the NRA endorsed the bill, we got FOPA, which was a small but significant victory in the face of an otherwise certain and total defeat.

Judging the NRA based on something that a board which has been completely replaced with hard-core gun rights supporters over the last 30 years is nothing more or less than holding a grudge.

And their moves in McDonald SAVED that case. Gura was on track to lose it because he was over-reaching on 14a. they advocated against Heller because they thought it was too likely to go down in flames. Hindsight is 20/20. Just remember that if Heller had gone the other way, we would be facing a VERY much worse environment than we do today. They preferred the devil we knew. Not a bad strategic call. But one I don't think you'll hear anyone at NRA-ILA unhappy about being wrong on.

 

[Caveman Jim]

I may get my hands slapped but I gotta ask this question. Who denounces the NRA & are you liberals or Repubs?

Some one had to ask it. I've got lib friends & they all have guns, hunt & go to the ranges with their families, hate the NRA & they all say that Dems will not take our guns, it the repubs who are going to do it & I have to wonder if I will continue to be friends with these people. Makes ya wonder!!!

 

[deen_ad]

I'm a new citizen. I chose to come here legally. I chose here both over Canada and Australia. I left Africa because my government had neither the means, or the will to deal with extraordinary levels of violent crime.

Instead it chose to disarm me - a lawful registered gun owner. Gun politics in South Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After significant detailed research, I joined the NRA.

I am a life-member or the NRA. They do indeed represent me on second amendment issues.

I am also a Prius driving, granola eating liberal, and I voted for Nelson Mandela. I also voted for Barack Obama. On 90 % of issues both were better than the other options IMHO.

Don't get me wrong. Wayne leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I will not vote for him.

However, I would rather gag a little than not support a the man chosen to preserve my 2nd amendment rights.

Seriously, Pay up NRA life dues, and vote at the next NRA election if you want change.

So, how do you feel about your vote now and Obwans "support" of the 2nd amendment?

Deen
NRA Life Benefactor Member / Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector Member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington Member
Second Amendment Foundation Member

 

[thirtycal]

So, how do you feel about your vote now and Obwans "support" of the 2nd amendment?

Deen
NRA Life Benefactor Member / Recruiter
Washington Arms Collector Member
Arms Collectors of South West Washington Member
Second Amendment Foundation Member

Ya know that 'true' Obama voters will be able to somehow justify their vote no matter what Obama does in regards to 2A rights. They'll justify it by suggesting that it's "best for society", or some similar crap (which is how they've justified Obamacare). Some people, I'm sad to say, just don't get it and never will. I'm hesitant to admit that most of my family are Obama voters, so I know that mindset intimately.

-Thirtycal

 

[mancat]

Had the NRA actually done a better job, we wouldn't have had the '94 AWB. We still have the same anti-gun politicians in office writing the same type of bills. Hell, one of the original sponsors is the Vice President of the United States of America. So much for getting hit with a 2x4...

We had FUDDs running the NRA in 1994, and they completely laid down with a compromise to make sure hunting rifles didn't get hit.

Related note, I donated to the OFF. At least they do something for me.

In a way it was good that we already had the 94 AWB. It's a perfect example we can point to which shows that these restrictions do nothing, solve no problems, and mean serious trouble for those who support them.

It also allows us to see which people/politicians operate with a faith-based, emotional thought process by recognizing those who ignore known factual data.

 

[ArgyleAdams]

I may get my hands slapped but I gotta ask this question. Who denounces the NRA & are you liberals or Repubs?

Some one had to ask it. I've got lib friends & they all have guns, hunt & go to the ranges with their families, hate the NRA & they all say that Dems will not take our guns, it the repubs who are going to do it & I have to wonder if I will continue to be friends with these people. Makes ya wonder!!!

Howdy, OP here. I personally identify as a moderate liberal (but not as a Democrat) and I voted Libertarian pretty much across the board this time around (including for president). Five years ago, I was on the other side (guns are bad, mmkay), but I've since seen the light. Just looking at the data it's obvious that firearm restrictions don't do much, and affect law-abiding citizens far worse than they affect criminals. Currently, I don't believe in any restrictions at all on the types of firearms that can be owned. I'm fairly certain that, unencumbered, the Democratic party would, on the whole, make gun ownership here look like Canada's (or worse, the UK's). I'm not, however, convinced that the Republicans wouldn't (they're both owned by pretty much the same people).

Having so recently been on the other side of this debate, I can honestly say that the NRA freaks out the anti's. It's not because they stand for firearm ownership (though the anti's do find that concerning). It's because they come across as just as rabid as the far left, the far right, and any other extreme group. You know what's going to win anti's over? If they see that their people are constantly freaking out, and that the gun rights lobby is consistently calm, cool, collected and logical. Poise wins the hearts of the majority of liberals.

Also, if you have a friend who's squeamish about guns, take them shooting. If everyone in the US did that it would be a heck of a lot more effective than any amount of money given to any advocacy group.

Maybe I'll start my own group: Liberals for Gun Ownership. That would really freak out the Democrats in office.

 

[Suge206]

both the far right and left are enemies of citizens owning firearms


idiots on both sides are ruining it for the rest of us

background checks are a no brainer, bans are stupid

leave us alone

 

[Dapapadon]

I should buy memberships for my ex-wife and her husband. They are anti gun. :

I like that idea!