NRA

I'm a member of the NRA, have been for a few years. For better or for worse I know that the NRA does more than any other org to protect gun rights for US citizens. So I'll keep paying my $25 per year. But..... the NRA gets most of its funding from the gun industry, who is in the business of selling guns.

I've always kind of wondered if there was a conflict of interest with the NRA representing gun owners and the gun manufacturers at the same time. Every time the NRA identifies a new piece of legislation that might affect gun owners the price of that item skyrockets, and the gun manufacturers turn huge profits. So there really is no motivation for the NRA to solve gun ownership issues permanently, assuming that this is even possible.

I read American Rifleman when it comes to my house every month, and I've often thought that some of the articles about legislation seemed a bit outlandish. I ran across this article that summed it up pretty well. I'm not saying that the author is right, but I think that its always wise to study both sides of a topic and make decisions for yourself.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201112220019

 

^^^Good example.

 

i've been an NRA member up until this year. i got sick of their panhandling, calling, etc....i just wanted to pay my dues, let them decide what they wanted to do with them, and leave me alone....but NO, thats too much to ask. i gave up on them.

 

Same here.

 

This conflict comes up a lot in the dungeon when we talk about these nutty laws and the price of buwetts

 

when lapierre is gone I will renew membership

he is no better than the other dictators you run in to

 

This is my issue with the NRA too. I'm all about gun rights but the organization obviously has nutters at the helm.

 

The NRA is more about fear mongering and getting people to support them by donating money.

If the NRA ever achieved the total restoration of the 2nd amendment, then they would be obsolete and out of a job. They have to help push for legislation that they can drum up fear against.

That is why I ended my membership.

 

The really nice range in my area requires, as part of its membership, that you belong to the NRA. I really do like the range, but at this point, I haven't been willing to comply with their requirement, so I haven't joined yet.

*sigh*

 

Let me ask you NRA members, and anyone else, a question. How many of you actually read the American Rifleman mag completely? Also, how many of you are registered with the NRA website and actually go onto that site and read about all the bills submitted in efforts to curb gun ownership? There are a ton of them. Just little nit-picking legislative efforts here and there, constantly, year after year. It's never ending.

I went to Kiggy's link and sure enough, it's using information connected to one of the most anti-gun groups existing. (Violence Policy Center) From what I've read and heard in other publications, gun ownership is higher than it ever has been instead of declining.

I'm going to question the validity of the guy that was supposed to be an ex NRA chief. There's gotta be something connected with the guy that's not pure NRA. I do know that there have in the past been people connected to the Brady group and some other anti-gun groups that have infiltrated the NRA in an effort to derail that organization.

I'm not going to say that the NRA doesn't use tactics to scare people into donating to their causes, but if that what it takes to keep people listening and paying attention to the anti-gunners efforts, then so be it.

Just my opinion.

 

I have more guns than NRA members in my household.

 

I wouldn't know specifics about their funding sources, where can we see their financials?

If you only read "the armed citizen" section, that would be enough for anyone to get behind the efforts of the NRA. In short, there are a whole lot of people who think that you should not be armed. One of those groups is....Media Matters. Look at who they quoted in the article. I research the other side too, and the most simplistic way that I can break this down is that there are those who don't believe in the full right to bear arms and there are those who do. I support those who do.

Well said old man.

There seems to be a lot of frustration with the NRA over their fund raising attempts. I'm with you. All that I can say is just don't give, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. This is one of the few organizations that cares about the issue and is big enough to have some pull. Consider the group gone for a minute.

 

I find it funny that some people are afraid of legal gun ownership and cite a "potential increase" in violent crime that can never be substantiated...

 

I read the reference to gun ownership stats going down too and thought that information seemed wrong. Seems that all I've read lately has to do with the number of households reporting having a gun going up, not to mention an article that came out today saying that 2011 was a record year for FBI background checks. Just goes to show you can't always believe everything you read.

Unfortunately, everything I read regarding gun legislation comes from the NRA, so I have to take it with a grain of salt. It would be one thing if the NRA was part of a coalition of gun advocacy groups that worked together on different aspects of 2nd ammendment. But they don't play too well other gun advocacy groups, and in 2004 LaPierre made $900,000 per year from a $200,000,000 budget.

I like guns, I like the 2nd Ammendment and would prefer it stay intact. To that end, I'm glad the NRA exists because right or wrong I believe they do more to protect this right than anyone else. But I think you have to recognize that they also represent the manufacturers, and its in their best interest to maintain a state of controversy, whether the controversy is justified or not.

 

Kiggy, I would be greatly surprised to learn that the gun manufacturers did not support the one organization that helps keep them in business. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I can't find any numbers concerning the monetary donations made to the NRA by those manufacturers so it might be fairly high. I just don't know. Does it really matter though?

 

I think it does matter. The NRA is very convincing in trying to sell themselves as the one and only saving grace of the 2nd Ammendment, and that it is your duty as a gun owner to be a member. I would be very interested to see their financials to get a sense of where the money comes from, individuals vs corporations. To see that they are primarily funded by the industry would probably cause me to stop renewing my membership completely.

I have to admit that when I originally started thinking about this that I expected others would jump all over me for not being completely on board the NRA bandwagon. I'm glad to learn its not just me that doubts the NRA "virtues".

 

Not trying to beat you up, but, Oops.

I think the reason for that (and speaking for myself) is that most people recognize that no organization as big as the NRA can be perfect and all things to all members. So far, the biggest beef on this thread is that:
(1) Wayne makes too much,
(2) the NRA is in the back pocket of gun makers (quite unproven in this thread, anyway),
(3) the NRA over-dramatizes the dangers of new legislation,
(4) and that the NRA asks too often for too much money.

You may see it as a disadvantage that the gun makers may contribute to the work of the NRA. I think that it is good. How about that AR thread? I'm damn glad that we now have a boat load of choices when it comes to ARs. President Obama promised before he took office that he would like to have the AWB reinstated permanently. Given the votes, we could all be left with CA model ARs or maybe they could have banned the AR all together---as I understand it, the original authors of that law considered an AW to be a gun with a "menacing look". Some of them on that list were banned because they had bayonet lugs...yeah, really.

I'm guessing the NRA had something to do with the AWB not being reinstated. I could go into the fact that those US gun makers (who are selling guns) employ American craftsmen, but I won't. I could go into the idea that (with NRA work) concealed carry has spread from state to state and that violent crime has actually come down in most places, but I won't. I could mention that the NRA showed you the unlawful disarmament of citizens in New Orleans after Katrina, but I won't. I could bring up the fact that Friends of the NRA raise boatloads of money every year and every penny goes toward youth shooting sports, but I won't.

I've had my run ins with the NRA and during all of them they seemed to listen, but did not change position, even though I saw it as being very easy to do.

But at the end of the day, I have to consider that an enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

I'm a bit confused by your attitude. The NRA is the only organization that goes to bat for the Second Amendment. No one else does it that I know of. The legislative action committee of the NRA is constantly appearing in courts across the nation, including the Supreme Court, to defend the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and also citizens of this country, against unjust, trumped up charges of various gun crimes.

They've written good legislation punishing criminal use of guns and a hell of a lot of it has passed into law. Please don't be down on the NRA because they do a hell of a lot of good for this country. Of course they "sell themselves" so that they can have the money to continue to fight for gun rights. I have no problem with that since I don't have to contribute if I don't have the extra money. Don't give up on them yet. :up: