To all 2nd amendment dems...Do you support the NRA?

I've been reading into the history of the NRA lately because I'm trying to decide whether or not I want to register as a member.

I have heard Wayne LaPierre say some fairly stupid things. So I'm a little weary of joining his organization.

and of course, I can't find the damn thing again.

Anyway, the gist of the article dealt with language and how words meant different things back then from what they mean today. This article also dealt with the writing styles of back when the 2nd Amendment was drafted and after reading this essay my view changed as to what the framers meant regarding the 2nd Amendment contrasted to today's standards.

After reading this essay and it's description of linguistics and language, it became clearer to me that the original framers did intend for the average American to be safe in arming themselves.

This might be contrary to the majority thought here at DU, but I know believe, the original framers did intend for American citizens to have the right to own firearms and that the intent was not to just be that of a military having arms.

the original framers did intend for the average American to be safe in arming themselves.

I can't even parse it.

Have you ever considered doing your own thinking about what is in the best interests of your society in this 21st century, rather than trying to read the entrails of what was thought by people who have been dead for two centuries now?


Oh, btw. What does that have to do with joining the NRA anyway?

even though I agree with them on the core issue of guns. Here's why: If you join the NRA your name will go on a list and that list will be passed around like an STD to every far right group with a cause; you'll get solicitations for money and facist propaganda in the mail.

not worth the effort

I expected at least some sort of effort. I mean you did come in here and call the NRA scum. Why the hate?

with post #4, why would post #10 be too much trouble for any reply other than to say it's too much trouble?

They're the 800 pound gorilla that assists greatly in keeping the Tupolev Brigade (the gun control lobby) from running roughshod over those of us that own and or enjoy owning and using firearms.


They're scum because a few decades ago, Democrats alienated them by cozying up to the Tupolev Brigade, and they then got support largely from the republican camp. Thats not to say completely, but the alienation was a strong one, as were the results of it.


Of course, there will be those that say that this is completely false...

Read up and judge for yourself.

What you find, compared with what some around here, may just be indicative.

FWIW, I am not a member.

However I think the abandonment of the Left on the gun-rights issue means the NRA is really reflecting the Right's binary worldview and fear-based methodology.

Of course, the anti-gun Left uses fear-based methods as well. It's become an emotion-driven issue.

Ultimately, the NRA does the best at defending the 2nd Amendment even though their defense is flawed. In the past the have compromised when they shouldn't have. Also, they take kernels of truth and exaggerate them to help their position or support of candidates. For example, the NRA's depiction of Obama's gun control history was embarrassing. In truth, Obama's record is bad on guns, but to overstate, exaggerate, or mislead with sketchy statement was not necessary. They made for nifty "bullet points", but not honest information. I'm sure the NRA justifies such exaggerations because the anti-gun organizations do it with impunity, but I still don't like it.

Some people criticize the NRA for being merely a right-wing organization, but when Democrats started to embrace gun control (late 1960s and up until the 1990s), it left a vacuum in the NRA that was filled by the conservative Republicans.

Some Democrats have always stayed to keep the NRA more even keeled, but I and others are joining to reclaim the NRA and start the organization on a new path of being party neutral.

Four more years and I can start to vote for NRA leadership.

It does seem that many more right-wingers are members than left-wingers. But I feel like the only way to fix that is by joining.

As has been stated, the organization has been a mill for defeating Democrats, even those who have supported the Second. I cannot support this group if it remains an adjunct to modern-day GOP politics and the far right. That could change if the NRA changes. In the meantime, I think the future of 2A politics lies in progressives/liberals (re-) embracing the Second and thereby working to change the politics of gun-control in "our own house." Perhaps a strong organization -- such as a national caucus -- can develop which can do some housecleaning. I have in mind "Blue Steel Democrats," the gun caucus of the Oregon Democratic Party. They actively promote the Second, and hold range "seminars" on the Second for Demo candidates and (most especially) for the media.

I say this with the full knowledge that the NRA has the power to effect gun policies which I agree.

changing the stance of "our own house". It's not likely that we need to bring a lot of conservatives over to the RKBA cause. We're also not going to change a lot of minds that are already made up, be it logically or emotionally, against guns. Where we can make progress is with those who are willing to consider a middle ground, or who haven't yet made up their minds. Education on the topic and experience with handling firearms- even if only once- removes fear and hopefully leaves people more open to a pro RKBA point of view.

Bring someone new to the range whenever they express an interest. That helps. I don't know anything about "Blue Steel Democrats" but it sounds like they do some good. I agree, let's encourage groups like that.

After all, the only way to fix it is by joining, eh?

The entire platform of the republican party contradicts my beliefs. The basis for the NRA does not. It has simply been flooded by republicans over the last couple decades.

it's the nature of advocacy.

"Also, they take kernels of truth and exaggerate them to help their position or support of candidates."

the NRA and the NRA-ILA. The NRA is really a great organization, they have, IMO, saved more lives through safe shooting instruction than any other group or organization on the planet. They have programs from beginner hunter safety through law enforcement training. I have been through several NRA shooting programs and classes and have never had politics come up.

OTOH, NRA-ILA is a political action group. They currently tend to support mostly repubs. They do support dems who are pro 2nd contrary to what you will often hear around here. Also contrary to what you will hear around here, they have a very long history of support for legislation which increases public safety without infringement on the rights of law abiding gun owners. They are arguably the strongest political advocates for gun owners in the country. Without them, 2nd Amendment rights would look much different than they currently do.

All that said, I am not currently a member. I have considered membership as of late.

I joined to see what it is like. I am also a member of Gun Owner's of America.

to be able to keep any one of your given rights?????,,,

I have a question?? Why would you have to join an organization to be able to keep any one of your given rights?

Because that right is constantly under attack, and joining an organization of like-minded people provides more strength and power for negotiating in numbers. It's just like joining a Union.

I have been an on-again, off-again member for many years, let my membership lapse a few years ago, decided to renew it when Carolyn "Shoulder Thing That Goes Up" McCarthy was trying to resurrect the ban on protruding rifle handgrips and post-1860's magazine capacities. Agree with the post upthread re: the distinction between the NRA and the NRA-ILA.

I really dislike their tendency toward hyperbole, their fixation with "sportsmen," their (IMO) overemphasis on hunting, and their unnecessarily partisanship, particularly on issues unrelated to gun rights.

As far as their positions, most of the positions ascribed to the NRA by its detractors (legalize machineguns, arm the criminals, any gun for anybody anywhere at any time, ad nauseaum) aren't held by the NRA.

that come from the rifleman traditions (competitive shooting, training programs, range support, youth training etc.)

Now the NRA-ILA is a loud buffoon than screams, turns red in the face, and demands all the attention. They have also been strong supporters of the Republicans since the 1970s (since that dude who killed a guy when he was a youngin took over and changed the NRA from Riflemen to Lobby - 1970s?)

The NRA-ILA imho is a bit too much into demagoguery and cheap political theater. Also, like all organizations, they exist primarily to ensure the continuance of the NRA. In their defence, they do support dems who are pro-RKBA. But fuck they annoy me :)

They are the 800lb gorilla in this area. So we really would be fucked without them. I like other organizations better, like GOA. So I do the pragmatic thing and donate to both. I am not an NRA member because I don't want my mailbox full of their literature always predicting doom and asking for money.

I've been a member for a while and there is an easy to use opt out feature that will cut you off from all their spam and snail mail fund raising efforts.

I did it years ago and the only thing I get in the mail from them is American Rifleman and the state and local political ratings in election cycles.

When will the ACLU get their heads out of their arses.

Start with your local chapters, work to get them to acknowledge RTKABA which will in turn put increasing pressure on the national organization to re-evaluate their anti-gun stance...

I appreciate a lot of the work they do, but they just support too many Republicans for this pro-gun rights Dem.

The lesson plans they provide are unmatched in terms of teaching safe firearm handling. NRA-certified instructors provide standardized, effective training for a lot of people in law enforcement and the civilian world. They sponsor competitive shooting events, provide standards for match procedures, targets, etc. None of that does any harm, and I believe it does a lot of good.

Their politics, meh. But it is important to understand that the core organization and the political action committee (NRA Institute for Legislative Action) are financially separate organizations with very different functions. Regular membership dues support the former. The latter is paid for through non-deductible donations, not membership fees.

I would be happy to give a few dollars to their educational programs, or to support their legal challenges, but like I said before, ain't no way I can belong to an org. that so actively campaigned against Obama.

Just become a member, and don't donate money to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

I am still not an NRA fan (as I said earlier, for their support of the GOP), but would like to offer up something in their defense. I just don't see that they are the Evil Empire that people make them out to be. Anti-gunners actually help the NRA when they say "The NRA controls Congress," and "Dems are afraid to stand up to the NRA", because, in their minds it is INCONCEIVABLE that any right-thinking Democrat could be pro-2A.

I've read lots of people saying they are "extremist" and that they are saying outrageous things, but to be honest, I just haven't seen it. Despite what Helmke and Chris Matthews says, I have never seen them say that "Obama is going to take your guns away." Yes, they have said he has a track record of being pro-gun control, but that is a different thing. Notice how few times people actually point to examples of this "extremism."

Consider the reactions after some of the highly publicized shootings. After the Holocaust shooting, Helmke exploited it for his agenda, even though he could not offer up on law that would have prevented it. I think he was actually baiting the NRA. The NRA, to their credit, came out with a simple statement saying "Now is not the time to discuss politics."

It is not surprising. As we know, the arguments of most anti-2Ars fail upon close scrutiny. The only tactic they have is raw emotion. It is easier for Helmke, DiFi and others to say their gun control efforts have failed because of the big, bad NRA than to admit that they are out of touch with the American people.

So to wrap up, I would ask that someone point me to some concrete examples of what makes the NRA so bad (beyond their support of Republicans, which is the deal killer for me). What are some of these "outrageous" things that they have said?

but like I said before, ain't no way I can belong to an org. that so actively campaigned against Obama.

But who do you blame for this decision? Do you blame the NRA for campaigning against President Obama and his published anti-firearm agenda, or do you blame President Obama for having an anti-firearm agenda?

Face it: The NRA did not draw straws to decide which presidential candidate to support. President Obama could have easily earned the NRA endorsement by making a simple statement such as, "As President, I will veto any legislation that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms." He could have turned the NRA into a huge campaigning organization on his behalf with one sentence.

In short, don't blame the NRA for opposing Obama's firearm policies.

They are a single issue organization and decided that McCain suited their issues better than Obama did. I am fine with that. I, however am not a single issue voter. I held my nose on Obama's gun record, hoped he would see the light on the issue and voted for him because he is the man this country needs right now.

My only point was that I just can't give my money to a political organization that fought against my candidate for Pres. I'll also say that I don't think the NRA's campaign against Obama was particularly unfair.

I held my nose on Obama's gun record, hoped he would see the light on the issue and voted for him because he is the man this country needs right now.

My sentiments exactly. :)

My only point was that I just can't give my money to a political organization that fought against my candidate for Pres. I'll also say that I don't think the NRA's campaign against Obama was particularly unfair.

I vote Democrat for the social justice our country needs right now and I'm a member of the NRA to keep them terrified of touching the right to keep and bear arms. :)

McCain isn't very pro gun he just happened to be much more pro gun than Obama.

McCain has one of the worst RKBA records of a Republican candidate (candidate not record after being elected) in the last 30 years.

If the Democratic party had fielded a pro gun candidate it would have cause a split in the NRA. They would either have endorsed the Dem candidate or risk destroying the organization when they endorsed the worse candidate.

Maybe in 10-20 years we will see a pro RKBA dem candidate and then that day will come. The NRA already endorses the majority of Dem Congressmen from my state (VA) sometimes even endorsing them over anti-gun Republicans.

the NRA pointedly refused to endorse the Dole unit in 1996 due to his carpet-bombing of gun owners. Their slogan in '96 was "Elect a Clinton-Proof Congress", which they arguably did; gun owners continued to pick up votes in Congress (both (R) and (D)) through 2004, until most Dems finally started to drop the new-bans issue.

McCain, Romney, and Guliani were all pretty anti-gun, the latter two quite vocally so.

I honestly think gun owners are better off under President Obama than under McCain, as Obama appears to be wisely avoiding the OMG-let's-ban-popular-guns trap, and his position as President gives him the pull to get Feinstein and the rest of the DLC to back off, which they might have resisted had the DLC and the Brady Campaign been able to frame it as a (D) vs. (R) thing (as Rove et al would have certainly wanted).

is worthwhile. Originally, that was the NRA's purpose, marksmanship and safety. The NRA-ILA has become something else. And I wouldn't call it just a firearms advocate either, since the NRA has basically written several notable pieces of gun control legislation, despite complete ignorance of this fact on the part of some you will find in this subforum.

It's entirely possible to get a basic membership, and attend only the parts you feel are useful, such as using NRA ranges, putting your kids in Eddie Eagle safety classes, or taking a safety class yourself. The classes are a-political.

Be warned however, you will get BURIED in political action junk mail from the 'other' part of the NRA, begging for money, etc.

I was a member once for access to a particular range. That got old to me, pretty quick. Literally, I would get something in the mail from them every. single. day.

than pulling them together.

I am a member of the NRA. I receive their monthly publications, which mostly slam President Obama and his administration on their positions on gun control.

The reason I am a member of the NRA is because it is the largest, most effective organization at protecting the rights of firearm owners, bar none. Congress fears the NRA, and that by itself is proof-positive that they have the clout necessary to protect my interests.

The fact is, the NRA is non-partisan. Yes you read that right. Non-partisan. Now you will find the NRA railing against Democrats far more often than Republicans, for the sad reason that there are far more pro-firearm Republicans than Democrats, and most of the anti-firearm politicians are Democrats. This does not mean that the NRA is anti-Democrat. I guarantee you - if tomorrow the Republicans were anti-gun and the Democrats were pro-gun the NRA would be bashing Republicans and singing the praises of Democrats.

The NRA is absolutely laser-focused on promoting politicians that protect the right to keep and bear arms and destroying those that do not. It has everything to do with the politicians stance on firearms and nothing to do with their party affiliation.

In my last general election both of my Democratic candidates were endorsed by the NRA. The NRA can and does support and endorse Democratic candidates who support the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't support the right to keep and bear arms, then the NRA is going to work against you, no matter what part you belong to.

So, when I open each month's issue of America's First Freedom and read bashing about some Democrat's policies on firearms, I have to remember that it's about that politician's choice in firearm policy, not their choice of political party affiliation.

So really it boils down to this:

If you want to belong to and contribute to the most powerful firearm lobbying organization in the world, join the NRA. No other organization can represent your interests in the legislature and in the courts the way the NRA can.

I am a member and so is my wife for this reason and this reason only.

The reason I am a member of the NRA is because it is the largest, most effective organization at protecting the rights of firearm owners, bar none. Congress fears the NRA, and that by itself is proof-positive that they have the clout necessary to protect my interests.

4 million members created a force that Congress can not ignore.
4 million is more than any other single issue group by a magnitude.

Anyone wonder why Obama admin shut up about guns?
Anyone wonder why there are never enough co-sponsors for assault weapons ban II?
Anyone wonder why those horrible anti-gun bills die in committee year and year?
Anyone wonder why the Brady bunch is constantly exasperated that they can't turn mass murders into anti-gun legislation?
Anyone wonder why # of Americans that support more gun control is in decline?
Anyone wonder why the # of states allowing "shall issue" CCW went from 4 to 32 in 20 years?

The NRA. They send Congressmen lists of the members in their district. One year they sent them as separate postcards. Each member of Congress got a single postcard for each NRA member in their district. Being a member of congress and getting 20,000 postcards is a not so subtle reminder that in certain districts going against the NRA is a fast lane to the unemployment line.

The NRA isn't anti Democrat. They are simply anti "anti-gun". If you are anti-gun (Dem or Rep) you will draw their ire. If you are pro-gun you will get a good endorsement. Sadly the majority of Dem candidates (and virtually every Presidential candidate) are staunchly anti RKBA. This varies based on geography but it doesn't help when stupid shit like the AWB is a party platform plank.

Is anyone surprised that a pro RKBA organization would not support candidates with a strong anti RKBA record?

If the ability of the NRA is in question here is what Bill Clinton had to say about the NRA (speaking about the 1994 election night after NRA warned members of Congress that passing AWB would have consequences):
The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.

Now I am not happy that dumb ass Gingrich became the speaker but more than at any other point the AWB proved an absolute point. Cross the line in the sand and the Democratic party will get burned. Popular president, good approval ratings, back to back wins in Congress and in 1994 a substantial majority in both houses. All it took was signing that stupid ban (who DOJ states had no material effect on crime) and everything changed.

Hopefully Obama took notes. Someday I hope the Democratic party supports the 2nd fully and equally with the other 9 in the BofR. Sadly I think it will take 2 or 3 more "tests" with devestating results before the party learns they can't afford stupid gun control battles, not with an organization as large, and as well motivated as the NRA.

And sod knows I'm not happy about it, and I'd love to see LaPierre, Cox, and various members of the board (such as that traitor Ollie North) booted from positions with any influence in the organization. It's not going to happen, mostly because the organization's by-laws have been reworked to prevent a coup by disaffected members, but the fact remains that the NRA is the 400-pound gorilla in Congress when it comes to supporting private ownership of firearms.

The harsh reality is that nobody's managed to get an organization off the ground that could fulfill the role of the NRA while appealing primarily to non-conservative gun owners. And yes, the NRA-PVF is non-partisan.

They remain little more than a front for the hardcore rightwing of the republican party. Do you really want to be part of an organization that cozies up to the likes of Ollie North, Glenn Beck, Karl Rove and John Bolton?

This has been an interesting discussion for me. As I said earlier, I haven't found anything wrong with the NRA's rhetoric or advocacy of gun rights, but they just support too many republicans for my comfort level. Then I found this quote.

"There's Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his church, to which Obama contributed $26,000 over the years, even as Wright spouted anti-American hatred," LaPierre writes in a list of Obama's "friends."

See, this is just BS. Go ahead and attack Obama's record on gun control. There is a lot there to go after. But by spouting the stupid, overblown GOP talking points on Wright, you aren't going to win a lot of support from Dems who are otherwise sympathetic to your primary mission of protecting gun rights.

I'll hold off from joining for now.

Pfleger is a hard core gun banner who was an integral part of Obama's local campaign group for a while. At a local protest outside a gun store, where a lot of Chicago cops buy their weapons and equipment, he called for the crowd to "snuff out" the owner (on camera) and was arrested when he tried to force his way in the door.

I think Axelrod finally figured out that Pfleger was an open can of gasoline waiting for the next match and quietly moved away from him and his posturing. Then Pfleger did his racist bad mouthing of Hillary on the evening news and he totally dropped out of sight after apologizing.

I'm still an NRA member. I don't like the rhetoric at the national level either but ... they backed my Rep in a strongly GOP district and she won, in part with the support of the NRA and the Illinois State Rifle Assn endorsements. I figure you have to look at more than just one spokesperson to judge how they are doing. That's like deciding that Feinstein or Schumer speak for all Dems on gun control.

My feeling is that Democratic gun owners need to find their own voice. If the NRA wants to broaden its outreach towards Democrats, that's great, but they need to ditch some of the rhetoric in order to do so. A little less Wayne LaPierre and a little more Harlan Carter is needed.

more Democrats join. There is NO REASON the NRA should think of itself as a RW organization. I want the Democrats to take it over and make it into the valuable service organization it was in the past, and still is largely now.

Get rid of the RW thugs, and it is a fine organization.

mark

But if he helps keep the 2d amendment alive and well, then great.

There's another role of NRA, non-political and not much publicized, that promotes training on safety and marksmanship, that conducts competitions, and that part is also well worth supporting.

The junk mail grubbing for money can get a little annoying. The NRA doesn't have a GrovelBot.

:hi: