I'm not going to link to specific individuals here. That said, there are certain conclusions being promulgated that could use a counterbalance. Just because assertions are made doesn't mean they're true.
We're told what a great victory NRA holding up the DC vote bill based on the gun amendment is--what clout it shows they still have. First, it ain't a done deal. Second the DC representation bill is unconstitutional. It's defenders, though, are OK with that because that's how politics must be played.
I've never been big on you must destroy something to save it. And if we somehow do "win," the trade-off will be another socialist gain at the nationwide level (the Utah concession will not be a complete counterbalance, because they embrace plenty of leftist nonsense, too) while something already in the judicial pipeline will be implemented over a relatively small population--and most of them don't want it anyway.
We're also told that political capital is justified here, but not in the case of Eric Holder because he never had a chance. We'll never know, though, what would have happened had Senators been told they would not get a pass, and had a membership of millions been mobilized. Perhaps if the statement were revised to say the Holder confirmation never had a chance because of lack of leadership and excuse-making for it...
We're also told that Kirsten Gillibrand's turning is the fault of her critics--that instead, we should have sent her money or something. Good grief.
And finally, I would like to address NRA Board of Director nominations. We're told direct questions designed to evoke unequivocal answers about where they stand on RKBA/SNBI will not be asked because they are not politically effective.
I'll say this much--of the nominees I am seeing endorsed, one publicly dismissed hard liners to the LA Times as "those people" (as in "I would not consider those people mainstream America"), and the gun he was lobbying to defend ended up banned. Perhaps publicly referring to it as "toy" and talking about "our fine hobby" was perceived as more politically effective than speaking of unalienable rights? You sure can't tell by the results.
Another of the nominees has publicly stated he would arrest an otherwise peaceable person who he discovered was carrying concealed without a permit. One can only wonder if he would do this on an individual level what his professional response to a general confiscation order would be.
You'll get no NRA Director endorsement from me until my questions are answered--properly. Electing people who are not afraid to publicly and specifically declare their principles along these lines is the only thing that will bring real change to the board. Which means the apologists have "won" and the status quo will continue.
And we'll continue to enjoy the same political effectiveness that brought us Barack Obama and a democrat sweep of both houses.
You go ahead and listen to those fellows who disagree with me if you want--you'll hardly be alone. I don't expect more than a small percentage of gun owners to agree with me on any given day anyway. As an aside, of those who do, some of you are my best teachers. Thank you.
I am a Life Member of the NRA for over 30 years, so I have quite a bit of history watching them.
ReplyDeleteAm I happy with them? No.
Do I think they should do things differently? Yes.
Do I answer their endless fundraising (actually I get almost no appeals for funds anymore)? No.
But,
am I going to give up on them? No.
Do I think they are the only way to fight this battle? No.
But, no other organization has the membership numbers to have much real clout on the Hill.
So, for those who say, "NRA will not get another dime out of me" and are upset because the NRA hasn't done just what you think should have been done I say this -
If you are not a member of the NRA then you are not doing ALL you can in this fight.
So man up. Pay the $35 a year, or better yet, buy a Life Membership. You can still be a member of any other totally ineffectual organization if yo want to, and so much the better if you are. But peevish refusal to be part of the NRA is not helping the cause.
you cannot escape the market.
ReplyDeleteyou vote with your money, whether you like it or not.
whose behavior will you reward?
I guess I fall in the "in between" category: I'm an NRA member but I fervently believe they're concerned less with gun control than with money control.
ReplyDeleteMy gun club requires me to maintain a membership with the NRA or I'd drop them like a hot rock. The reason? Because they don't represent me the way I want them to. Instead of compromising half of my rights away I want them to fight for the whole bill. Instead of "improving" the NICS want them to kill the damned thing. Most especially, I want them to stop playing nice with the likes of McCarthy, Schumer and Kennedy. I don't care if LaPierre EVER gets to go to another beltway party or not, I just want him to either work for me or get off the payroll.
The NRA has NO clout on the Hill.
ReplyDeleteF**k 'em.
Bob
III
I am an NRA member because I believe that training people to defend themselves is the most effective way to increase our numbers. Since the NRA has the most available and affordable training program nationwide, that is worth supporting.
ReplyDeleteI do not have anything to do with their political arm, and have requested they not send me their fund raising spam mail. They have honored that request.
As for representing us - the 3 - 5 percent who really understand the issues - please tell me how this is possible? The majority of members are those who believe in much, if not all, of the "gun control" laws - especially as long as none affect their own sport or hunting. Most honestly think these "laws" help keep them safe and guns away from bad guys. They really, honestly do!
Get over it. The NRA does not, and cannot represent the "threepers" in any meaningful way. They will always represent the majority, and that isn't us.
We will only damage our own efforts if we continue to argue about it.
The time is long past that the NRA could possibly make any real difference to the course this government is taking, even if each and every person in the organization suddenly had an awakening and understood the truth. But they don't, and won't.
It's too late. It's not going to happen. Save your calls and letters. Spend that time teaching others to shoot, reloading... or anything else worthy of your time.
What's to argue, MamaL?
ReplyDeleteNRA has damned themselves by their actions far worse than any detractors could have.
And no, I'm not receptive to the idea that I should belong and live with betrayal because that's the way it is, because most of the membership is either stupid or doesn't give a damn about principle. The technical good they do, does not excuse the political, social, and spiritual evil in which they engage. Sorry, my money goes somewhere else.
I quit them for reasons. They haven't done one damn thing to change any of those reasons. I don't think they're trying. Ya think?
Ironically the word verification for this comment is "ratsa"
Were it not for the bratsa
of the ivy-league fratsa
we might all say thatsa
right to own and carry gatsa
except for the help from ratsa
I can certainly appreciate the point ML makes about training. That is worth pondering, in the cum ulla sella in pugno taberna sense.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have not had her good luck in communicating with the bureaucracy. I became a life member some years ago, but NRA seems to have forgotten that, and from their correspondence to me over the last few years I must conclude that their primary aim is to sell me life insurance.
It would be an easier choice if one could join and contribute just to the marksmanship organization while telling the political arm to go piss up a rope, but that is, of course, just as impossible with NRA dues as it is with federal taxes.
NRA's chief problem is that it has attained such size as an organization that it has become incapable of listening. It has passed that point of no return at which an organization takes on a life of its own, with goals and motivations fully independent from its influences or members, and is thence responsible only to this new identity. As others have noted here, this ain't gonna change unless the membership forces it to, and that certainly doesn't seem likely. (Man, this metaphor sure sounds familiar, dunnit?)
I cannot in conscience feed this beast any more, if for no other reason than there is exactly 0% chance that any money I contribute will not be interpreted as tacit endorsement of the organization as a whole.
As for the need to train others, there are other avenues, and I fully intend to pursue those I can. As far as organizations go, how do people feel about Appleseed?