This isn’t an attack but just a reasonable question? I’ve been a long time supporter of the NRA. It’s almost like they have lost their voice. Maybe and I hope they are working on our behalf by talking directly with our conservative and Republican legislators to stop this gun control insanity. I was looking for pro gun advertisements and infomercials getting the truth out there or is that a waste of money?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Where’s The NRA When We Need Them?
- Thread starter Minorcan
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Apparently they were busy throwing bumpstocks under he bus on the idiotic precept that a firearm's "rate of fire" was an important concept to its legality. I've gone the extra mile supporting the NRA; but they aren't getting another dime from me until they acknowledge their unforced error on that.
spacemanspiff
New member
I wouldnt be surprised if the NRA goes for a complete rebrand in the near future. No amount of infomercials or advertisements will win over those who are adamant about apply more control to firearm usage/ownership.
Or in a few months all this could just blow over, and the public forgets about Floridas mass shooting. Didnt take long for everyone to forget about bump stocks after Vegas.
The only thing going for this current tragedy is the fury of these teenagers who keep saying the same things "This is disgusting! I am sickened by you (insert name of current person speaking for gun rights)". This movement will lose interest and support.
These are my predictions for whatever thats worth.
Or in a few months all this could just blow over, and the public forgets about Floridas mass shooting. Didnt take long for everyone to forget about bump stocks after Vegas.
The only thing going for this current tragedy is the fury of these teenagers who keep saying the same things "This is disgusting! I am sickened by you (insert name of current person speaking for gun rights)". This movement will lose interest and support.
These are my predictions for whatever thats worth.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
The ironic thing about this is a bunch of teenagers being used like puppets lecturing Republican congressman who were attacked by a gunman with a semi-automatic weapon on how they don't care about gun violence and are owned by the NRA.
That narrative is patently moronic; and yet the media keeps selling it.
That narrative is patently moronic; and yet the media keeps selling it.
muzzleblast...
New member
The truly sad thing is the "popular" and media outcries seem to actually be turning some supporters of the 2nd Amendment against each other.
The NRA is filing a law suit against the age change in the recent Florida gun Bill. I assume the NRA will continue to work for gun rights by supporting like minded candidates, engaging in lobbying efforts, making legal challenges when necessary and speaking out publicly when appropriate.
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/03/09/nra-sues-florida-over-gun-bill-same-day-gov-scott-signed-law/412365002/
https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2018/03/09/nra-sues-florida-over-gun-bill-same-day-gov-scott-signed-law/412365002/
Aguila Blanca
Staff
^^^ The NRA was preparing the lawsuit before the bill was even passed. The lawsuit was filed within two hours after Governor Scott signed the bill into law.
I was looking for pro gun advertisements and infomercials getting the truth out there or is that a waste of money?
It's a waste of money.
Also, its problematic that NRA ads would even be accepted by the major media. People shouting how the NRA promotes murder get free press, it's "news". the NRA's story isn't allowed, even if they pay for it, other than selected soundbytes from "spokesmen" who sometimes are not anything more than the most wackjob looking and sounding person on the street they can find who has an NRA memerbership.
I think spending on counter advertising is a waste of our money. Better to "waste" the money in court challenges, instead.
No amount of money will change the minds of the anti NRA fanatics. And we don't have the kind of money needed to counter the 24/7 propaganda paid for by billionaires with people control agendas, and provided free as "news" commentary.
Spend the money where it has at least a chance of doing some good.
JoeSixpack
New member
Well.. they're gonna challenge the age increase.. so that's good.
Im pretty miffed with the NRA these days but I will give them credit for filing the lawsuit.
Curious how it will turn out and are they gonna argue the increase for longguns? or all guns? cause it's been 21 for handguns for a while now without a lawsuit.
Be interesting to see what angle they come from.
Im pretty miffed with the NRA these days but I will give them credit for filing the lawsuit.
Curious how it will turn out and are they gonna argue the increase for longguns? or all guns? cause it's been 21 for handguns for a while now without a lawsuit.
Be interesting to see what angle they come from.
As long as mass shootings keep occurring, there is nothing anyone can say that is going to convince the masses that guns are good. A few bad apples are ruining it for the rest of us. Its just like if a few terrorists from a country come in to the US and cause an attack the rest of the country is banned from coming here. You can say 2nd amendment all you want but the constitution can be changed and has been changed numerous times as courts rule on issues - the founding fathers wrote it so that it can be changed. The end of this is banning guns and it is coming...the conservative view on this issue and most other social issues is waning. In my opinion the best thing the NRA can do is to support measures that stop these mass shootings. If they don't and the shootings continue, guns are as good as gone. So in my view what the NRA is doing is indirectly helping to cause the downfall of the 2nd amendment.
Johny Smith
Moderator
In my opinion the best thing the NRA can do is to support measures that stop these mass shootings.
They have for years and continue to do it, but the agenda is to ban guns entirely in the United States and it's being helped along from Europe, the goal being to stop small arms manufacturing. Only the military's and police forces will be allowed to have them. The United States is the last country in the world that has a right to own firearms for any citizen regardless of class.
Once they get the guns out then the New World Order can begin in earnest. We will be absorbed by the commie socialist European Union and they will use us as they always have to protect them from Russia and even perhaps in the future from China.
Guns are the easy target, the quick ban-aid, Mental Illness cost money to fix and no one wants to spend any to fix it.
The guns have always been here, it's the amount of nut-jobs that hasn't, so what changed, society. By the time a kid is 12 years old they have learn how to kill someone 100 different ways just by playing violent video games , watching Hollywood glorify violence and living on the internet.
Throw in dysfunctional home lives, a school system who just baby sit's and a society that promotes drug use along with under employment for the average who are then forced into a life of crime.
Connect the dots, follow where it leads it very easy then to understand the agenda.
Hopefully if that day ever does come about for the gun grab those who know and understand that agenda will take the necessary measures to protect and defend the only thing that makes living like a peasant worth while, to be free.
Load up and keep it dry ..
Where is the NRA? The NRA is wallowing in political trash unrelated to gun rights. The NRA has changed drastically in the past 6-8 years. They have bought into everything "conservative".
i've been an NRA member for 50-60 years. i contributed heavily to that organization when the NRA supported the pro-gun candidate regardless of political party. Stopped contributing after the NRA got involved in hot button political issues outside its pro-gun charter. The NRA wants me to give my soul to the Republican party: i refuse.
The NRA assumed the FL legislature and the Republican governor would never pass any gun control. Because of the recent school massacre the pressure became too much to bear and the Republican politicians in FL passed gun control.
Be prepared for other red states to follow the FL pattern.
i've been an NRA member for 50-60 years. i contributed heavily to that organization when the NRA supported the pro-gun candidate regardless of political party. Stopped contributing after the NRA got involved in hot button political issues outside its pro-gun charter. The NRA wants me to give my soul to the Republican party: i refuse.
The NRA assumed the FL legislature and the Republican governor would never pass any gun control. Because of the recent school massacre the pressure became too much to bear and the Republican politicians in FL passed gun control.
Be prepared for other red states to follow the FL pattern.
I think spending on counter advertising is a waste of our money. Better to "waste" the money in court challenges, instead.
If they frame it as a civil rights issue, then the government pays if the government loses.
It's called the 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act (yes friends, attorneys need Acts of Congress to help them do what they must do).
This Act of Congress was supposed to help plaintiffs in civil rights cases, but advocacy groups, such as the ACLU, use it as part of their business model. Now, the NRA has gotten into the -- ahem -- act.
For its work in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the NRA got $663,294.10 from the Village of Oak Park and another $663,294.10 from the City of Chicago.
Want to see something wonderful?!
Go to: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/City-of-Chicago-check.pdf
And gaze at that signature of Rahm Emanuel on that check made out to the NRA.
The NRA wants me to give my soul to the Republican party: i refuse.
Yea I don't quite get it. They basically said Obama was the devil and was going to take away guns. Obama passed two gun laws which both expanded CCW rights. The NRA took out ads saying obama was going to take our guns and helped cause the 2012 buying panic. I stopped being a member around 2006 when I saw them getting extreme.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Perhaps you could refresh my memory as to what gun laws Obama passed?
And of course, as 2013 demonstrated, the NRA was right, though you didn't have to be a fortune teller or Republican to realize Willaim Ayers protege and a former director of the Joyce Foundation wasn't going to be good for gun rights.
And of course, as 2013 demonstrated, the NRA was right, though you didn't have to be a fortune teller or Republican to realize Willaim Ayers protege and a former director of the Joyce Foundation wasn't going to be good for gun rights.
Machineguntony
New member
The problem with being being married to one party is that people who care secondarily about gun rights will use the gun community for political gain.
Lots of liberals and libertarians are 2A supporters, and by constantly making political attacks, they are alienating lots of potential voters.
There are so many ways to overwhelmingly win the political 2A fight. But conservatives would rather stick with their conservative politics than win the 2A fight.
One example is the undocumented immigration issue. If the NRA wanted to win a ton of Latino support and votes, all the NRA has to do is adopt the Democratic position on immigration and support the rights of all persons, documented or not, to legally own a firearm and CCW/LTC. But no, because conservative Republicans can’t fathom such a position.
Lots of liberals and libertarians are 2A supporters, and by constantly making political attacks, they are alienating lots of potential voters.
There are so many ways to overwhelmingly win the political 2A fight. But conservatives would rather stick with their conservative politics than win the 2A fight.
One example is the undocumented immigration issue. If the NRA wanted to win a ton of Latino support and votes, all the NRA has to do is adopt the Democratic position on immigration and support the rights of all persons, documented or not, to legally own a firearm and CCW/LTC. But no, because conservative Republicans can’t fathom such a position.
We better get our act together folks. Anti-gunners are screaming that the NRA has blood omits hands, is an accomplice to murderers, etc. Meanwhile, most folks here are hard on the NRA if they even give one fraction of an inch of ground, even it is ground ceded in a strategic move. I know most here will defend bump stocks. I personally don't believe thats a hill we need to die on.
The NRA worked hard and spent a fair amount of money this past election. Boy aren't you glad that HRC isn't president, and a bunch of anti-gunners control congress, right now? While I cede the NRA played a small role in that victory, you cannot say they weren't putting in the work for the last election. We wouldn't be discussing bump stock bans if last election went much different. We would be writing congress begging our rifles to be grandfathered with assuredly coming AWB.
The NRA is not perfect. I was not aware they started parroting republicans on causes other than 2A rights. They should stick to that only IMO. Otherwise, overall, I'm pretty happy with how the NRA has handled things. Were it not for the NRA, there's a good chance our gun laws would look a lot like Australia's right now.
The NRA worked hard and spent a fair amount of money this past election. Boy aren't you glad that HRC isn't president, and a bunch of anti-gunners control congress, right now? While I cede the NRA played a small role in that victory, you cannot say they weren't putting in the work for the last election. We wouldn't be discussing bump stock bans if last election went much different. We would be writing congress begging our rifles to be grandfathered with assuredly coming AWB.
The NRA is not perfect. I was not aware they started parroting republicans on causes other than 2A rights. They should stick to that only IMO. Otherwise, overall, I'm pretty happy with how the NRA has handled things. Were it not for the NRA, there's a good chance our gun laws would look a lot like Australia's right now.
1. The NRA is a single issue organization and doesn't take a position on ANYTHING other than firearms rights. That includes no position on immigration.If the NRA wanted to win a ton of Latino support and votes, all the NRA has to do is adopt the Democratic position on immigration and support the rights of all persons, documented or not, to legally own a firearm and CCW/LTC. But no, because conservative Republicans can’t fathom such a position.
2. Please provide some documentation that the "Democratic position on immigration" includes "the rights of all persons, documented or not" to legally own and carry firearms.
3. It is federal laws, not the NRA's, Democratic party's or Republican party's positions that prevent illegal aliens from owning/purchasing/carrying firearms.
Machineguntony
New member
I agree that the NRA is supposed to be a single issue organization, but in practice, its’ membership commingles nonfirearms issues with firearms issues. While it can be argued that the NRA does not expressly endorse any views on political issues held by its membership, the NRAs failure to distance itself from such conservative views at least creates the impression of an implicit endorsement.
I will also clarify the second part of my statement, since what I wrote was unclear (due to my lack of proof reading...bc its forum chatter). I did not mean to write that Democrats support the rights of undocumented immigrants to own firearms. I meant to write that if the NRA wanted to gain Latino support, the NRA could take a position more in line with the overall Democrat philosophy on immigration, both legal and illegal, but do it in a nonpolitical way.
For example, this could be done in a nonpolitical way by issuing a statement like, ‘The NRA does not take a position on the immigration debate, since it is a political debate that is not relevant to the Second Amendment. However, since the NRA is a civil rights organization, and it is our position that the second amendment is a codification of a natural right, we therefore support the right of all persons, not having been disqualified under USC 922(g)(1-4)(6-9), whether citizens, visa holders, documented immigrants, or undocumented immigrants, the right to possess and bear arms for the purpose of self defense or for any other lawful purpose. Consistent with this position, it is further the NRA’s position that persons disqualified under USC 922 (g)(5) should not be disqualified unless adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or society.’
I’m pretty sure that position would not fly with most of the current membership. I’m like 51% certain said membership would burn down NRA headquarters. But it would get lots of Latino support.
If the NRA wasn’t so heavily invested and allied with the conservative movement and were a true single issue organization, such a position would be possible.
But I understand that the NRA has to be practical, and right now, it’s practical to sleep with the Republican Party.
I will also clarify the second part of my statement, since what I wrote was unclear (due to my lack of proof reading...bc its forum chatter). I did not mean to write that Democrats support the rights of undocumented immigrants to own firearms. I meant to write that if the NRA wanted to gain Latino support, the NRA could take a position more in line with the overall Democrat philosophy on immigration, both legal and illegal, but do it in a nonpolitical way.
For example, this could be done in a nonpolitical way by issuing a statement like, ‘The NRA does not take a position on the immigration debate, since it is a political debate that is not relevant to the Second Amendment. However, since the NRA is a civil rights organization, and it is our position that the second amendment is a codification of a natural right, we therefore support the right of all persons, not having been disqualified under USC 922(g)(1-4)(6-9), whether citizens, visa holders, documented immigrants, or undocumented immigrants, the right to possess and bear arms for the purpose of self defense or for any other lawful purpose. Consistent with this position, it is further the NRA’s position that persons disqualified under USC 922 (g)(5) should not be disqualified unless adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or society.’
I’m pretty sure that position would not fly with most of the current membership. I’m like 51% certain said membership would burn down NRA headquarters. But it would get lots of Latino support.
If the NRA wasn’t so heavily invested and allied with the conservative movement and were a true single issue organization, such a position would be possible.
But I understand that the NRA has to be practical, and right now, it’s practical to sleep with the Republican Party.