An interesting take on the NRA.

[PaulD]

I think he ignores a few relevant aspects of the NRA (they do push education and support, through cheap insurance, the running of gun ranges/clubs) and how brainwashed the hoplophobes are, but he's echoing what many here say about them.

http://globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/18/10/2013/nra-journey-incompetence-irrelevance

his blog post is a criticism of the NRA strategically, not politically. My view is that, regardless of your politics, this analysis of the NRA’s strategy holds. I assume the NRA is a business that wants to maximise three things: money, membership, and political power. I highlight five areas in which it has done a very poor job if it is truly maximising around these three vectors of performance. I make suggestions for improvements for future management.

disclosure: I actually know this guy through other channels and have spoken to him on occasion.

 

[taz-2005]

He's delusional if he thinks the ACLU actually cares or supports these rights for everyone. There is a reason why they don't support the individual interpretation of the second amendment.

The heavy lifting in this area was really, in my view, done by the ACLU in the 1960’s, which solidified the individual rights interpretations that the NRA’s present-day (and finally legally-coherent) arguments depend upon. In fact, the NRA would have been made irrelevant in the 1970’s and 1980’s if the ACLU had simply turned its attention to also working on the Second Amendment along with the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth.

They are doing better here, bringing on Colion Noir is a great move. They should focus or promote more of the history of the NRA especially during the civil rights movement and their support of Robert Williams and the NAACP in Monroe, NC.

Finally, the NRA has done an awful job courting the support of urban and minority populations. This is an especially conspicuous failure, as these are arguably the people who would benefit most from being protected from the State or, protected from nefarious trespassers from whom the State is unwilling to offer protection.

 

[goodlife30]

ACLU is the worst thing to happen to this country. Very selective on their lawsuits and they always have a leftist agenda. Funny how they don't sue to enforce border security which is clearly indicated in the constitution. Must be an oversight

 

[mark056]

I don't think that the NRA has supported the 2nd Amendment is for hunting for many years. It could do more to reach out to the urban non-white poor, but on the other hand Roy Innis has been part of the NRA for many years. Certainly the NRA has been fairly successful in reaching out to women.

I don't think it understands the Millennials and Gen Y shooters as well as it should. They do not come from the rural or outdoor hunting tradition or the traditional shooting sports, tend to be tech savvy and the product of single parent working households. They could take a cue from Recoil Magazine as they seem to understand this demographic very well. I see the great generational divide on this Forum every day.

I am expecting some great things from this thread, with the "usual suspects" coming out in droves to tell us how the NRA sucks and is full of Fudds, and all they do is send junk mail, and don't do a damn thing for Massachusetts (the same usual suspects that don't do a damn thing for Mass because they either live or have moved to NH BTW or are moving but that is beside the point). Yeah I know I really like Comm 2A and the reinvigorated GOAL does a lot, but on the national level, the NRA is both a force to be feared and reckoned with, and while all politics might be local, the fight at the national level is the fight that has to be fought every day. There are lots of things the NRA could do better, but where would we be without the NRA?

 

[PaulD]

He's delusional if he thinks the ACLU actually cares or supports these rights for everyone. There is a reason why they don't support the individual interpretation of the second amendment.

I don't necessarily disagree, but what do you think that reason is?

 

[EC1]

ACLU is the worst thing to happen to this country. Very selective on their lawsuits and they always have a leftist agenda. Funny how they don't sue to enforce border security which is clearly indicated in the constitution. Must be an oversight

The aclu should be considered a partisan political organization.

 

[atilla]

I don't think that the NRA has supported the 2nd Amendment is for hunting for many years. It could do more to reach out to the urban non-white poor, but on the other hand Roy Innis has been part of the NRA for many years. Certainly the NRA has been fairly successful in reaching out to women.

I don't think it understands the Millennials and Gen Y shooters as well as it should. They do not come from the rural or outdoor hunting tradition or the traditional shooting sports, tend to be tech savvy and the product of single parent working households. They could take a cue from Recoil Magazine as they seem to understand this demographic very well. I see the great generational divide on this Forum every day.

I am expecting some great things from this thread, with the "usual suspects" coming out in droves to tell us how the NRA sucks and is full of Fudds, and all they do is send junk mail, and don't do a damn thing for Massachusetts (the same usual suspects that don't do a damn thing for Mass because they either live or have moved to NH BTW or are moving but that is beside the point). Yeah I know I really like Comm 2A and the reinvigorated GOAL does a lot, but on the national level, the NRA is both a force to be feared and reckoned with, and while all politics might be local, the fight at the national level is the fight that has to be fought every day. There are lots of things the NRA could do better, but where would we be without the NRA?

low blow. i know part of that is me whether done intentionally or not, it's definitely me.

the fact of the matter is that the NRA is a business, and the ILA is seperate, and while still separate they have failed to support things such as a push for constitutional carry in NH, and heller... just to name a few recently.

In Heller, Gura and many others felt the NRA tried to torpedo the case, first attempting to “consolidate” its own inferior filing into the case, then trying to repeal the D.C. gun ban, rendering the case moot. Wrote Tony Mauro of the Legal Times:

“Even after the D.C. Circuit ruled in March, says Gura, the NRA lobbied for legislation to repeal the D.C. handgun ban as a way to keep the case out of the Supreme Court. ‘The NRA was adamant about not wanting the Supreme Court to hear the case, but we went ahead anyway,’ says Gura, a name partner in the firm of Gura & Possessky. ‘It's not their case, and they are somewhat territorial.’”

another valuable resource would be: http://www.nrawol.net/

keeping in mind that the NRA is not the NRA-ILA, but based on the NRA's past decisions and choices, i have chosen to not support them and instead donate to comm2a, and SAF.

 

[taz-2005]

I don't necessarily disagree, but what do you think that reason is?

They were formed by Communists, namely Roger Baldwin who was an admirer of the Soviet Union and Stalin.

They continue the proud tradition of attempting to destroy America by fighting to prevent the execution of murderers while all the while gleefully supporting the murder of those <9 mos of age. They sue cities and towns to prevent a Menorah or Manger on the town square but remain silent on teaching kids all about Islam.

They support the right of pedophiles to surf porn in public libraries and defended NAMBLA against the Curley case in 2000.

They are disgusting and abhorrent to any sense of common decency.

 

[PaulD]

I am expecting some great things from this thread, with the "usual suspects" coming out in droves to tell us how the NRA sucks and is full of Fudds, and all they do is send junk mail, and don't do a damn thing for Massachusetts (the same usual suspects that don't do a damn thing for Mass because they either live or have moved to NH BTW or are moving but that is beside the point). Yeah I know I really like Comm 2A and the reinvigorated GOAL does a lot, but on the national level, the NRA is both a force to be feared and reckoned with, and while all politics might be local, the fight at the national level is the fight that has to be fought every day. There are lots of things the NRA could do better, but where would we be without the NRA?

It's interesting that you say "the reinvigorated GOAL". They do seem to have gotten their stuff together in the last year or so and it's my belief that gun owners in MA would be best served by molding GOAL into what they want, vs. throwing it away and starting over (which some here advocate). GOAL like the NRA is in large part a lobbying organization and for that, membership numbers matter a lot. The NRA is the largest civil rights organization in the US and throwing away that aspect would be insane. So, work towards molding it to something more useful.

As someone who works 40 hours a week or more, and has a family, and a house to maintain, I don't have a lot of time to get involved with the NRA. In fact, when I do get involved with that subject, I'll continue to spend any time I have on local/state issues. However, every time the NRA calls, I actually answer the phone and tell the person on the other end why I'm not going to give them any extra money beyond my basic membership dues. I tell them exactly what it's like for gun owners in MA, how this is the front lines of the gun rights battle and how I see very little evidence of the NRA helping (to be fair, they did attend the state house hearing and I know they've helped in a few other areas here).

Yeah, the ACLU sucks but at least in theory, I like the idea of an organization that protects civil rights and they have done some good. Maybe they also need some feed back that they need to cut the crap with the extreme moonbattery and focus on their basic charter (and they should also do a lot more research on the history of the second amendment).

 

[xtry51]

Good article. The NRA should listen.

 

[taz-2005]

Yeah, the ACLU sucks but at least in theory, I like the idea of an organization that protects civil rights and they have done some good. Maybe they also need some feed back that they need to cut the crap with the extreme moonbattery and focus on their basic charter (and they should also do a lot more research on the history of the second amendment).

Then support the American Civil Rights Union. Www.theacru.org.

The ACLU won't change, it's an arm of the Democratic Party.

 

[PaulD]

Then support the American Civil Rights Union. Www.theacru.org.

The ACLU won't change, it's an arm of the Democratic Party.

Thanks. I'll investigate.

 

[drgrant]

low blow. i know part of that is me whether done intentionally or not, it's definitely me.

the fact of the matter is that the NRA is a business, and the ILA is seperate, and while still separate they have failed to support things such as a push for constitutional carry in NH, and heller... just to name a few recently.

They supported it, actually, the problem is they were interfering where they weren't wanted. Instead of trying to unite the 3 RKBA orgs in NH and file a single bill, they failed to do this and tried to get one of them to push compromise legislation. Legislators got scared and confused and backed out of the deal intead of it getting mainlined.

The problem in NH right now is that there's more than one RKBA org at the state level, and they all pretty much hate each other. This sucks because it divides the support base 3 ways instead of unifying it. You guys need to destroy all that shit, or have a "come to jesus" meeting, and end up with something that is a VCDL clone in the end. Permit-Less carry would be a done deal now if NH had an org that operated like VCDL does.

The NRA's interference in constitutional carry did not help, but if there was only one org they would virtually be forced to deal only with that org... and that org could tell them to go screw, as appropriate.

The NRA's attempt to torpedo Heller was just beyond the pale. The only way they righted themselves was by providing support for MacDonald afterwards... but their attempt to derail Heller showed where their true colors lie- they were quite obviously afraid of the infinitesmally small chance that the decision could put them out of business overnight.

-Mike

 

[jasons]

....their attempt to derail Heller showed where their true colors lie- they were quite obviously afraid of the infinitesmally small chance that the decision could put them out of business overnight.

I don't think that is obvious at all. The fact is Heller was a huge gamble that could have easily screwed us all and a case that many thinking people in and outside of the NRA were a little apprehensive about. The NRA was being cautious, in retrospect perhaps overly cautious, but they didn't know how it was going to turn out ahead of time. It could have just as easily been 4-5 instead of 5-4 and I think a lot of people tend to forget that.

 

[taz-2005]

The problem in NH right now is that there's more than one RKBA org at the state level, and they all pretty much hate each other. This sucks because it divides the support base 3 ways instead of unifying it.

This is the same argument many make in regards to the Presidential elections as well and get soundly criticized and ridiculed for.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think that is obvious at all. The fact is Heller was a huge gamble that could have easily screwed us all and a case that many thinking people in and outside of the NRA were a little apprehensive about. The NRA was being cautious, in retrospect perhaps overly cautious, but they didn't know how it was going to turn out ahead of time. It could have just as easily been 4-5 instead of 5-4 and I think a lot of people tend to forget that.

Correct the NRA favored a legislative repeal over the gamble of a court ruling.

 

[jasons]

I found the article weak in content and style and poorly organized. I see five main gripes:

1. The NRA was too aligned with hunters in the 60's
This I'll concede. That was before I was born so I wasn't around to see it first hand. With that said I honestly don't care what the NRA did half a century ago, I care about what they're doing now.

2. The NRA's marketing team is not great
I see the argument, but if their marketing is really that bad why does every Anti organization in the country spend so much time focusing on them? Also he focuses on stuff that they did 20 or 30 years ago rather than what they're doing today.

3. The NRA is not as good as gun manufactures at lobbying.
Gun manufactures have a much more focused strategy and a larger lobbying budget than the NRA does, and as the author said himself, more leverage with Congress. I don't think it's a fair comparison. Also comparing the effectiveness of a lobby by it's volume of legislation is a flawed measure at best. We don't need more gun laws - we need fewer. He might be right but he certainly hasn't proven it.

4. They're not the ACLU (??)
Well, yeah but the ACLU doesn't care about the 2nd amendment. I don't really understand what he was getting at here.

5. The NRA doesn't resonate with the "urban / minority" crowd.
I would argue that has a lot more to do with the demographic in question. The fact is that the majority of that particular demographic don't support or even understand the 2nd Amendment and is to a large extent brainwashed by the very people who have kept them subjugated for the better part of two centuries.


Style-wise it took him six paragraphs to get to his first point. I wanted to bail the second time he opened a paragraph with "this blog." (I don't care about the blog, just give me the argument.) He also started and ended on weak points. Of the five the strongest was probably the marketing point, which he should have built up and ended on.

All in all not great work in my opinion....

 

[ColdDayInHell]

They were formed by Communists, namely Roger Baldwin who was an admirer of the Soviet Union and Stalin.

They continue the proud tradition of attempting to destroy America by fighting to prevent the execution of murderers while all the while gleefully supporting the murder of those <9 mos of age. They sue cities and towns to prevent a Menorah or Manger on the town square but remain silent on teaching kids all about Islam.

They support the right of pedophiles to surf porn in public libraries and defended NAMBLA against the Curley case in 2000.

They are disgusting and abhorrent to any sense of common decency.

QFT.

 

[sieveboy]

Biggest problem is LaPierre. He is an ineffective debater.

 

[dgg5252]

As someone who works 40 hours a week or more, and has a family, and a house to maintain, I don't have a lot of time to get involved with the NRA. In fact, when I do get involved with that subject, I'll continue to spend any time I have on local/state issues. However, every time the NRA calls, I actually answer the phone and tell the person on the other end why I'm not going to give them any extra money beyond my basic membership dues. I tell them exactly what it's like for gun owners in MA, how this is the front lines of the gun rights battle and how I see very little evidence of the NRA helping (to be fair, they did attend the state house hearing and I know they've helped in a few other areas here).

This

I just got off the phone at work with the NRA an hour ago. Looking for funds to fight the NSA. Told him I've never seen a mention of Massachusetts in the updates and am very disappointed by their lack of support here and will donate my extra money elsewhere. I am a member, but that's it for now.

 

[drgrant]

I don't think that is obvious at all. The fact is Heller was a huge gamble that could have easily screwed us all and a case that many thinking people in and outside of the NRA were a little apprehensive about. The NRA was being cautious, in retrospect perhaps overly cautious, but they didn't know how it was going to turn out ahead of time. It could have just as easily been 4-5 instead of 5-4 and I think a lot of people tend to forget that.

Everyone says this, but I guess we'll just have to disagree because the way I look at it, a failure of Heller just meant that we'd be stuck with the same status quo garbage that we mostly had up until that point- so functionally, there was no downside. Oh noes, the case could have went badly and we would have ended up with... the status quo! At least Alan Gura & Co. had the balls to open the door- The NRA did not, nor did it ever during at any time during its existence. I'm grateful that the opportunity wasn't squandered because someone was "afraid".

-Mike

 

[jasons]

Everyone says this, but I guess we'll just have to disagree because the way I look at it, a failure of Heller just meant that we'd be stuck with the same status quo garbage that we mostly had up until that point- so functionally, there was no downside. Oh noes, the case could have went badly and we would have ended up with... the status quo! At least Alan Gura & Co. had the balls to open the door- The NRA did not, nor did
it ever during at any time during its existence.

-Mike

The downside is that if it had failed it would have moved into the realm of "settled law," which makes it a lot harder to attack. It might have taken a generation or more to get another crack at it and in the mean time we would have had no recognized individual right to keep and bear arms. The effect on legal gun owners would have been beyond chilling and our numbers would have been decimated. Fortunately that didn't happen, but if Kennedy had gotten out of the other side of his bed that morning things could have easily been different.

Whether there was a real downside or not (I think there was a huge downside, but we can disagree) it's a bit of a stretch to think that Heller could have put the NRA out of business overnight either way. Obviously there's still a role for the NRA after the Heller win, and if anything they would have played a bigger role had we lost.

 

[Hiltonizer]

The NRA has PR problems... In general they don't seem to be viewed favorably.

Amongst die-hard 2a supporters, their perceived as weak and too willing to compromise. Countless numbers of those threads here in the past.
The general sheep public thinks they are a lobby group for gun manufacturers.
The Fudd's of the world think they're over the top and don't represent their values.

They need re-branding, and possibly broken up. The ILA in particular.

 

[taz-2005]

The NRA has PR problems... In general they don't seem to be viewed favorably.

Amongst die-hard 2a supporters, their perceived as weak and too willing to compromise. Countless numbers of those threads here in the past.
The general sheep public thinks they are a lobby group for gun manufacturers.
The Fudd's of the world think they're over the top and don't represent their values.

They need re-branding, and possibly broken up. The ILA in particular.

Favorably by who? The anti's start frothing at the mouth and twitching at the mere mention of them; that's a good thing. I agree they could do more on outreach but they are doing a very good job bringing in younger and diverse voices as evidenced by Natalie Foster, Dom Raso and Billy Johnson.

The NFN (Non Fox News) is not going to portray them in a good light so the use of social media is a smart play as evidenced by their very active YouTube channel and Twitter feeds to get the message out.

I think they realize the days of compromise are done, but they remain cautious about which horses they back as a loss would be heralded as the downfall of the "gun lobby". What the membership needs to do is purge the old guard from the BOD, it's inexcusable that Joaquin Jackson was re elected.

The general public is just that, they are Low Information Voters who voted Barry back in and there is only so much that can be done to win them over.

 

[center442]

Some excellent and insightful posts in this thread.

Re: the ACLU:

I don't necessarily disagree, but what do you think that reason is?

The reluctance of the ACLU to defend ALL civil rights is one of the things that turned me off to them many years ago. It's not that they're adverse to defending unpopular issues (the Nazi march in Skokie comes to mind), so the only reason I can come up with for not supporting the 2A is that they have a political/philosophical agenda.

Whenever I think of the ACLU one sentence comes to mind: "I support the Second Amendment, but...." Until they support all civil rights they're hypocrites.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Favorably by who? The anti's start frothing at the mouth and twitching at the mere mention of them; that's a good thing. I agree they could do more on outreach but they are doing a very good job bringing in younger and diverse voices as evidenced by Natalie Foster, Dom Raso and Billy Johnson.

The NFN (Non Fox News) is not going to portray them in a good light so the use of social media is a smart play as evidenced by their very active YouTube channel and Twitter feeds to get the message out.

I think they realize the days of compromise are done, but they remain cautious about which horses they back as a loss would be heralded as the downfall of the "gun lobby". What the membership needs to do is purge the old guard from the BOD, it's inexcusable that Joaquin Jackson was re elected.

The general public is just that, they are Low Information Voters who voted Barry back in and there is only so much that can be done to win them over.

you a word

 

[xtry51]

Favorably by who? The anti's start frothing at the mouth and twitching at the mere mention of them; that's a good thing. I agree they could do more on outreach but they are doing a very good job bringing in younger and diverse voices as evidenced by Natalie Foster, Dom Raso and Billy Johnson.

The NFN (Non Fox News) is not going to portray them in a good light so the use of social media is a smart play as evidenced by their very active YouTube channel and Twitter feeds to get the message out.

I think they realize the days of compromise are done, but they remain cautious about which horses they back as a loss would be heralded as the downfall of the "gun lobby". What the membership needs to do is purge the old guard from the BOD, it's inexcusable that Joaquin Jackson was re elected.

The general public is just that, they are Low Information Voters who voted Barry back in and there is only so much that can be done to win them over.

I don't view them favorably and I'm as ardent as any 2A supporter you'll come across. The problem is they aren't even as close to effective as the ACLU because they don't want to take the "dirty" cases where scumbags deserve to be well represented.

Every time I hear some NRA speaker use the word hunting or "sporting purposes" I wish they would drop dead on the spot. They aren't helping us with that BS. They need to be up there saying "2A is to shoot politicians and other government officials". Period.

 

[mark056]

you a word

Totally brilliant, run out of arguments and resort to name calling.

 

[taz-2005]

I don't view them favorably and I'm as ardent as any 2A supporter you'll come across. The problem is they aren't even as close to effective as the ACLU because they don't want to take the "dirty" cases where scumbags deserve to be well represented.

I look at this way, a Conservative running for office has to be squeaky clean or he will be crucified in the MSM for anything in his/her past whereas a Progressive gets a free pass even if he/she is a pervert, murderer, rapist or drug addict.(and that is just the ones from the Kennedy Family)

Same goes for court cases favorable to us, a liberal activist group (ACLU) is more likely to get the ruling they want in a judiciary that is pre-disposed to their causes from the start. Any action brought by Conservatives better have every T crossed and I dotted to give us the best shot with a hostile judiciary.

Also with the NRA commentators I mentioned they rarely if ever talk about "sporting" they are all about government abuse and overreach and the ability to defend yourself.

Obviously they are not the be all end all, that is why groups like the SAF, Comm2a here in Mass, the ACRU and Cato Institute are so vital to protecting freedom.

 

[Hiltonizer]

Totally brilliant, run out of arguments and resort to name calling.

That was to say, he missed a word. Settle down Francis.

I was saying they aren't viewed favorably, he was replying as if I said they were viewed favorably.

 

[taz-2005]

That was to say, he missed a word. Settle down Francis.

I was saying they aren't viewed favorably, he was replying as if I said they were viewed favorably.

The classic forum misunderstanding of typed words strikes again!

I was responding that it's it a good thing they are not viewed well by the left. I probably could have been clearer.

To be honest I thought the same thing as Mark056.