An interesting take on the NRA.

[soloman02]

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.

I don't see it as an insult but I have no idea what "you a word" means. Hell it isn't even an incomplete sentence lol!

 

[mark056]

Thx for the clarification.

 

[jasons]

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.

That happens a lot.

 

[wacky_doug]

Disclosure: I'm a recent life member.

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.

This. I've said this before on these threads: the demographics in the US are changing. In 2040, Blacks and Hispanics taken together will tip the 50% mark. The best thing to keep the shooting sports, 2A, and Liberty in general alive is to start engaging the current minorities.

The NRA is a joke in this area. Colion is awesome, but he's a token. LaPierre is a disaster as a spokesperson who's in it only for the massive salary, IMO. But yes, the NRA is still feared. Unfortunately, fear isn't a long term strategy.

 

[n1bsbri]

The NRA is a joke in this area. Colion is awesome, but he's a token. LaPierre is a disaster as a spokesperson who's in it only for the massive salary, IMO. But yes, the NRA is still feared. Unfortunately, fear isn't a long term strategy.

Hey, they have Colion Noir, Natalie Foster, Dom Raso, and Billy Johnson. So they have the inner city, babes, tacticool operators, and hipsters covered. And they have Cam Edwards to represent the middle-age white guy. We just need a hispanic and an asian and we will have a practical United Nations of Guns.

Wait, forget what I said about Asians, they can't shoot.

 

[squatch413]

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.

To me this is like the people who are afraid to open carry for fear of losing the ability to open carry in Mass

 

[jasons]

To me this is like the people who are afraid to open carry for fear of losing the ability to open carry in Mass

How so?

 

[taz-2005]

Disclosure: I'm a recent life member.



This. I've said this before on these threads: the demographics in the US are changing. In 2040, Blacks and Hispanics taken together will tip the 50% mark. The best thing to keep the shooting sports, 2A, and Liberty in general alive is to start engaging the current minorities.

The NRA is a joke in this area. Colion is awesome, but he's a token. LaPierre is a disaster as a spokesperson who's in it only for the massive salary, IMO. But yes, the NRA is still feared. Unfortunately, fear isn't a long term strategy.

Calling Colion Noir "a token" is a little dismissive don't you think?

 

[squatch413]

How so?

Saying a very good positive outcome isn't worth risking basically nothing as a loss will be for all intents and purposes return to the status quo.

 

[n1bsbri]

Saying a very good positive outcome isn't worth risking basically nothing as a loss will be for all intents and purposes return to the status quo.

But a loss in Heller would not have been a return to status quo. If the Supremes had issued a negative ruling, that would have shut out another bite at the apple for a very long time. That's why groups like Comm2A and 2nd Amendment Foundation are so careful in the cases they try to advance.

 

[squatch413]

But a loss in Heller would not have been a return to status quo. If the Supremes had issued a negative ruling, that would have shut out another bite at the apple for a very long time. That's why groups like Comm2A and 2nd Amendment Foundation are so careful in the cases they try to advance.

But if no one wants to bite the Apple out of fear what's the difference? That's my point.

 

[n1bsbri]

But if no one wants to bite the Apple out of fear what's the difference? That's my point.

I'm not familiar with all the intricacies of the Heller case, but I assume NRA's thinking was there would be a stronger case coming down the pipe. In hindsight, we can see that Gura and company made the right call, but like most hindsight, it is much clearer after the deed is done.

 

[jasons]

Saying a very good positive outcome isn't worth risking basically nothing as a loss will be for all intents and purposes return to the status quo.

Identifying and understanding the potential risks and rewards before taking action is just plain good sense in any situation. Other than that I don't see how the two are linked. Sort of off topic anyway.

 

[jasons]

I'm not familiar with all the intricacies of the Heller case, but I assume NRA's thinking was there would be a stronger case coming down the pipe. In hindsight, we can see that Gura and company made the right call, but like most hindsight, it is much clearer after the deed is done.

That's the thing - hindsight is always 20/20. It was a VERY close ruling that really could have gone either way, and if it had gone the other way it would have been bad. Very bad.

 

[PaulD]

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.

It's good and bad. If they're simply seen as the marketing wing of the "evil gun manufacturers", then they'll have a hard time winning over people who might otherwise be reachable.

I agree on people like Billy Johnson though. He's great.

 

[PaulD]

That's the thing - hindsight is always 20/20. It was a VERY close ruling that really could have gone either way, and if it had gone the other way it would have been bad. Very bad.

I agree in general. It was a big gamble with a potentially big payoff or it could have been a big debacle. Our side won at least partially because of timing. It was brought to court at the right time in terms of the justices on the bench.

 

[taz-2005]

It's good and bad. If they're simply seen as the marketing wing of the "evil gun manufacturers", then they'll have a hard time winning over people who might otherwise be reachable.

I agree on people like Billy Johnson though. He's great.

They are damned either way; they will either be viewed as too aggressive or not aggressive enough.

 

[wacky_doug]

Calling Colion Noir "a token" is a little dismissive don't you think?

Not really. Exhibit A: go to an NRA event.

Again, I'm a life member. But that was an act of convenience, given the requirements of one of my ranges and my instructor creds. I feel like SAF is more effective, and I like JPFO more on principle. But I make these same comments in every NRA thread.

tl;dr: The NRA is going to go the way of the dodo unless they get some new leadership and membership blood in there. That sucks for all of us.

 

[taz-2005]

Not really. Exhibit A: go to an NRA event.

Again, I'm a life member. But that was an act of convenience, given the requirements of one of my ranges and my instructor creds. I feel like SAF is more effective, and I like JPFO more on principle. But I make these same comments in every NRA thread.

tl;dr: The NRA is going to go the way of the dodo unless they get some new leadership and membership blood in there. That sucks for all of us.

There is some truth there. Colion for example puts up with a ton of invective thrown at him from other blacks for his position and the Left has done everything they can to disarm and dissuade blacks from gun ownership. So the NRA has to start somewhere to reach out and educate that segment of the population.

As far as leadership the problem is the "us v them" attitude. We are the NRA, we vote on leadership, we have to take ownership of that and not blame the mythical "them".

As far as going the way of the dodo? Definitely not, their role may change on lobbying/legal action but certainly not on training and shooting events.

 

[wacky_doug]

There is some truth there. Colion for example puts up with a ton of invective thrown at him from other blacks for his position and the Left has done everything they can to disarm and dissuade blacks from gun ownership. So the NRA has to start somewhere to reach out and educate that segment of the population.

I agree, and I'm very glad he's doing what he's doing. I just want more.

I get a pretty good cross section of folks in my classes, but I don't really have any cred with Latino or Black communities, being a seriously WASPy dude. I think more leaders from those communities have to emerge and say "the 2A helps protect us, etc."

As far as leadership the problem is the "us v them" attitude. We are the NRA, we vote on leadership, we have to take ownership of that and not blame the mythical "them".

Yeah, but I don't know how to oust Wayne and get new blood in there. I haven't been through and election yet, either.

As far as going the way of the dodo? Definitely not, their role may change on lobbying/legal action but certainly not on training and shooting events.

I was talking mostly about the power of the ILA going the way of the dodo.

Again, my premise is that the 2A is going to die out in a couple of generations unless we take action now to respond to the demographic shift in the US. The NRA is the biggest organization that could do that, but I don't think they get it.

 

[xtry51]

Personally what I'd like to see is a hard line 2A stance, aggressive case loads and vocal "tip of the spear" leadership. As in speeches that talk about court cases being pursued and direct threats saying if rights are not upheld laws will be ignored anyway and it will call its armed members to start killing people who infringe.

Short of that you're organization is all bark, no bite and you get exactly what we have seen. Incremental erosion of rights. The right should be treated as an absolute and even tiny infractions should be punished swiftly and harshly.

 

[Spanz]

aclu has done some good in the country. There are plenty of aclu lawyers who privately support 2A. But a long time ago they decided to not support gun rights as an organization platform because it would drastically reduce the contributions they get from ultraleftists (their base contributors). 2 bad the aclu, just like the frigin NRA, is willing to corrupt its morals for a few more bux. But hey, we're not in Kansas anymore dorthy

 

[taz-2005]

aclu has done some good in the country. There are plenty of aclu lawyers who privately support 2A. But a long time ago they decided to not support gun rights as an organization platform because it would drastically reduce the contributions they get from ultraleftists (their base contributors). 2 bad the aclu, just like the frigin NRA, is willing to corrupt its morals for a few more bux. But hey, we're not in Kansas anymore dorthy

I find that claim highly dubious. Not all Democrats are ACLU-types but all ACLU-types are Democrats.

Corrupt it's morals? I've never seen the NRA defend child molesters.

Their official position in case no one has seen it:

ACLU POSITION
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view. This position is currently under review and is being updated by the ACLU National Board in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in D.C. v. Heller in 2008.

In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia. The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. However, particular federal or state laws on licensing, registration, prohibition, or other regulation of the manufacture, shipment, sale, purchase or possession of guns may raise civil liberties questions.

 

[squatch413]

Personally what I'd like to see is a hard line 2A stance, aggressive case loads and vocal "tip of the spear" leadership. As in speeches that talk about court cases being pursued and direct threats saying if rights are not upheld laws will be ignored anyway and it will call its armed members to start killing people who infringe.

Short of that you're organization is all bark, no bite and you get exactly what we have seen. Incremental erosion of rights. The right should be treated as an absolute and even tiny infractions should be punished swiftly and harshly.

Now that's an NRA I would like.

 

[AngelKing]

While I agree, they very blatantly lean leftward, the ACLU is useful in terms of protecting free speech, encouraging a free press and assembly. I am for any organization that selectively fights for my right to say whatever the **** I want.

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

 

[atilla]

To me this is like the people who are afraid to open carry for fear of losing the ability to open carry in Mass

this one time i open carried in MA, for the luls of course, and naturally i posted a thread about it; all the keyboard commandos who didn't have the stones to open carry were telling me my jacket obscured my firearm too much. honestly for the picture i did cover up the firearm mostly, it was weird enough i stopped for a photo op, you know?

that thread went full retard. at least the girl scout cookies were delicious. not sure if the picture is still around, but there is a picture with two scouts dressed as M&Ms or something and my old federal bureau of prisons hat (you know, the kitchen-balling incident!?). lots of luls were had that year.

 

[drgrant]

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.

Not necessarily, I find the NRA not taking up a lot of 110% perfectly clean cases as well. With gun rights, because of the byzantine structure of laws we have, there are a TON of opportunities to take up pro RKBA cases without having to deal with people who will potentially jeapordize the quality of your case. It's an easier sell if the plaintiff is someone whose only crime was violating some crappy malum prohibitum law.

-Mike

 

[ixia]

Those commie bastards have struck again. They obviously WANT people to be murdered by terrorists. Look at the travesty of liberalism they have helped to unleash just yesterday!

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that law enforcement agents must obtain a warrant based on probable cause to attach a GPS device to a car and track its movements. The case, United States v. Katzin, is the first in which a federal appeals court has explicitly held that a warrant is required for GPS tracking by police. The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case (joined by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) and presented oral argument to the court in March.​

I for one cannot abide an organization that opposes our inalienable right to be GPS tracked without a warrant. Thank blog some of you here are not falling prey to Obama's brain washing and continue to fight the good fight!

 

[soloman02]

Those commie bastards have struck again. They obviously WANT people to be murdered by terrorists. Look at the travesty of liberalism they have helped to unleash just yesterday!

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that law enforcement agents must obtain a warrant based on probable cause to attach a GPS device to a car and track its movements. The case, United States v. Katzin, is the first in which a federal appeals court has explicitly held that a warrant is required for GPS tracking by police. The ACLU submitted an amicus brief in the case (joined by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) and presented oral argument to the court in March.​

I for one cannot abide an organization that opposes our inalienable right to be GPS tracked without a warrant. Thank blog some of you here are not falling prey to Obama's brain washing and continue to fight the good fight!

We already know the ACLU supports the other amendments.

I find that claim highly dubious. Not all Democrats are ACLU-types but all ACLU-types are Democrats.

Corrupt it's morals? I've never seen the NRA defend child molesters.

Their official position in case no one has seen it:

Find me an amicus brief that the ACLU submitted on a direct 2A issue and maybe those saying the ACLU supports the 2A will have a point. Anyone can have a position on an issue. The difference is actually supporting that position with verifiable actions. The NRA tiptoes around court cases but they do eventually support them and have gotten better since Heller.

I have never heard of the ACLU filing an amicus brief on the same side as the NRA or any other 2A org (SAF, etc).

 

[taz-2005]

We already know the ACLU supports the other amendments.



Find me an amicus brief that the ACLU submitted on a direct 2A issue and maybe those saying the ACLU supports the 2A will have a point. Anyone can have a position on an issue. The difference is actually supporting that position with verifiable actions. The NRA tiptoes around court cases but they do eventually support them and have gotten better since Heller.

I have never heard of the ACLU filing an amicus brief on the same side as the NRA or any other 2A org (SAF, etc).

We do have the gun registry case. Occasionally competing interests will cross paths.

The National Rifle Association on Wednesday filed an amicus brief in federal court supporting an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit challenging a government phone-tracking program that collects the telephone records of millions of Americans.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/05/nra-joins-aclu-spying-lawsuit-over-gun-registry-fears/