What it says to me is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, the party as a whole isn't interested in expending political capital to push hard for any new legislation- they are taking the support of gun owners for granted.
Problems with NRA messaging and defense of a civil right
- Thread starter zukiphile
- Start date
What it says to me is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, the party as a whole isn't interested in expending political capital to push hard for any new legislation- they are taking the support of gun owners for granted.
Illegal immigration is tangentially related. The other side likes to put all the blame for crime on the guns. To counter that, we need to point out the fact that current gun laws are often unenforced, aberrations occur that allow people who should have been stopped by current law to slip through, and that illegal aliens who commit crimes are often shielded by state or local governments.
DaleA from where I am at I see a slightly different outlook. Here in Southern Wisconsin and Northern Illinois not only are the demographics but so is the topographic. When I was a child during the Fall it was more than common to see folks out in the cow pastures hunting squirrel or walking the edges of the corn fields hunting Pheasant. Even waterfowl hunting is getting tougher as most waters are now surrounded by houses. Finding places to hunt has become almost impossible as farms have gone away and the farmers no longer welcome strangers on their land.
Also back then just about every young boy in our school was in the Boy Scouts or they were in school sports. One or the other. I wonder what that ratio is today? I was in the Boy Scouts/Explorer Scouts until I was 17.
About a year ago there was a post on one of the forums from a member that was running a High School Shooting Club here in Wisconsin and was explaining how successful it was. Not just as a program but also with the kids that were looking to join. Wish we could do more of this.
Lastly the gun usage here has moved from hunting/sport to self defense. The number of Shooting Schools locally has exploded and many offer classes designed explicitly for the ladies. Again a good thing.
Also back then just about every young boy in our school was in the Boy Scouts or they were in school sports. One or the other. I wonder what that ratio is today? I was in the Boy Scouts/Explorer Scouts until I was 17.
About a year ago there was a post on one of the forums from a member that was running a High School Shooting Club here in Wisconsin and was explaining how successful it was. Not just as a program but also with the kids that were looking to join. Wish we could do more of this.
Lastly the gun usage here has moved from hunting/sport to self defense. The number of Shooting Schools locally has exploded and many offer classes designed explicitly for the ladies. Again a good thing.
What obvious tools are they not using? I'm not being contrary, it's a sincere question. It's not like I have influence in the NRA, but I would be happy to write a suggestion letter if there is something we're all missing. I just visited the NRA pages today (all of them, the main page, NRA-ILA, and the "join the NRA page") and I didn't see anything "hard line" or offensive on there. There is one article titled "Getting Priorities Straight: House Democrats and the Public" that may be construed as overly partisan I guess. But I digress. No "Stand and Fight." No "Gun Banners are Coming for Your Guns!" (Although there was an article highlighting that Kamala Harris is pushing gun legislation... but it is a factual article).
As a matter of fact, on NRA's home page, the second line down is a link to NRA's school shield. I had almost forgotten about School Shield. That is an example of the NRA trying to reach out, without the "boogeyman agenda," and help solve a problem. Granted, it's likely not taken seriously by school districts in many deep blue areas because it's funded by the NRA. NRA has a grant program for schools to obtain needed security equipment (not just armed men), and they offer a free training program to LEOs on school safety tactics. Then there is NRA's Eddie Eagle, which I have shared with my youngest. Eddie Eagle is great for small children in it's simplicity.
The NRA also has influenced hunters safety education, LEO training, and many state's CCH classes. The NRA does a lot more than just lobby congress. They promote responsible sporting use of firearms and gun ownership. They also offer grants through the NRA foundation for items such as boy scout/4H ranges, etc.
I'm not saying that the NRA never makes mistakes, or at times makes a poor choice of wording or phrase. And they can benefit from constructive criticism, but you can't declare the whole organization "offensive" because of some hard-line wording disagreeable to your tastes a few times out of a thousand times. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The organization is just so much more than a mouthpiece for gun rights.
You are correct, they have tons of educational programs and resources. I dare say a big reason why you don't hear too much about it is everyone is so worried about the few missteps of the NRA in their lobbying or message operation (perceived or real), that they forget the other 99% of what the NRA does that doesn't get much attention because literally no one could be offended by it.
2damnold4this
New member
I agree. My NRA (I am a life member) needs to stay out of the culture wars and stick to gun rights, gun training and gun education.
davidsog said:
The information contained in the Bloomberg article contradicts the analysis. Allison asserts lots of money spent with little to show. However the facts show only several million dollars spent, an AWB proof Senate and two Sup Ct nominations of justices whose explicit philosophy involves due weight to the text of the 2d Am. At hearing, Kavanaugh explained for Sen Feinstein in a fairly plain manner why ARs are protected under Heller.
Pertinent to the subject here, these weren't the accomplishments of the NRA alone. They happened alongside the efforts of organizations that aren't mere single issue clubs, but share and value the philosophical underpinnings that give 2d Am. advocacy its heft. Government isn't just legislation, and an exec and senate that can deliver a more reasonable court isn't the result of a narrow and unprincipled focus on people getting to keep most of their arms.
There is no zealotry in recognizing how people and government work.
Last edited:
It DOES exist but like the 'any gun, any time' faction, those that think the NRA is too soft(like this gent..Military Arms Channel-https://www.alloutdoor.com/2017/10/09/military-arms-channel-withdraws-nra-support/), they are both at each end of the spectrum and neither appeals, again, to those of us in the nebulous 'middle'..Neither speaks for me or to me..
Unfortunately, for us, the "gun wars" are part and parcel of the current culture wars.
This is off topic but relevant.
I have a unique view of immigration and immigrants, both legal and not. A fellow officer is a US citizen (born here), however his parents were visa-overstay immigrants from Mexico. They were ultimately deported when he was 17, however he stayed. It set him back in life, and he had a pretty negative image of America for a little while. He's in his late 20's now, and more mature. He understands that its, well, complicated. After speaking with him, and many others in the community, I have pretty much developed a "middle of the road" view that's quite sympathetic to certain populations of illegal immigrants who have been here for years and never have caused any problems.
I feel strongly about the subject, have met and spoke with with numerous illegal immigrants who were sincere and good people. On the same note, however, I recognize that every other nation controls their immigration and that bad things and bad people cross the border almost daily mixed in with the poor good folks who really just want a better life.
I do not disagree with some views held on both sides of the immigration debate. But, middle of the road as I am, I would probably never join either a "pro" or "anti" illegal immigrant rights foundation. Why? Because in my view a solution seems so simple, yet so complicated at the same time, and both sides engage in hyperbole and fear-mongering or moral tongue wagging to support their side/views. I do not relate to either side of the discussion. Therefore I would not join any immigration rights group because either side will have views more extreme than the ones I hold, IMO.
How is this relevant at all?
You are in the same place, only with gun rights...
I have a unique view of immigration and immigrants, both legal and not. A fellow officer is a US citizen (born here), however his parents were visa-overstay immigrants from Mexico. They were ultimately deported when he was 17, however he stayed. It set him back in life, and he had a pretty negative image of America for a little while. He's in his late 20's now, and more mature. He understands that its, well, complicated. After speaking with him, and many others in the community, I have pretty much developed a "middle of the road" view that's quite sympathetic to certain populations of illegal immigrants who have been here for years and never have caused any problems.
I feel strongly about the subject, have met and spoke with with numerous illegal immigrants who were sincere and good people. On the same note, however, I recognize that every other nation controls their immigration and that bad things and bad people cross the border almost daily mixed in with the poor good folks who really just want a better life.
I do not disagree with some views held on both sides of the immigration debate. But, middle of the road as I am, I would probably never join either a "pro" or "anti" illegal immigrant rights foundation. Why? Because in my view a solution seems so simple, yet so complicated at the same time, and both sides engage in hyperbole and fear-mongering or moral tongue wagging to support their side/views. I do not relate to either side of the discussion. Therefore I would not join any immigration rights group because either side will have views more extreme than the ones I hold, IMO.
How is this relevant at all?
You are in the same place, only with gun rights...
davidsog said:
That is incorrect. See below.
davidsog said:
This introduces a problem with Allison's analysis, a problem that should suggest that the analysis is not correct. Rather than merely disagree, I then note the central element of the author's analysis, and contrast it with the positive effects of public advocacy.
davidsog said:
That isn't a paraphrase of your post. It is a response to it, which will necessarily involve some of the same points.
I ignored the part of your post that is a non sequitur:
davidsog said:
It doesn't make any sense to conclude that there is little to gain from shaping a court to one's satisfaction in the future simply because it hasn't been satisfactory in the past.
The balance of my post pertains to a number of organizations working toward a common goal where their interests intersect and achieving the results I described, a topic on which your post didn't touch.
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
Steve4102 said:
I accept that there is real meaning in the difference, but it also appears common to refer to these generally as civil rights. From the SAF:
From the designation of this forum, I believe local custom is to refer to 2d Am. rights as civil rights.
If your point is that this right is one to be free of some level of control, interference or regulation, rather than to use state power to compel the behavior of others, I don't disagree.
On the original question posed:
… there appears to be no other organization that would be both a better fit for critics of the NRA's message and appealing to a larger membership than the NRA has. Happily there are many other groups, GOA, JPFOA, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, CCRKBA, each of which serve smaller populations and narrower tastes.
Last edited:
