You're delusional
-
If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.
Is it time to rejoin the NRA
- Thread starter kuduboss
- Start date
I'm ashamed of recruiting for the org.
The NRA is a toothless tiger. Even God Emperor Trump laughed at their uselessness as a political lobby.
Let that sink in Elmers.
I'll take a "wait 'n see" position for a year or two before I ever give the NRA a nod. Decades of grift and corruption and scandal won't be undone by a brief regime change
The NRA is a toothless tiger. Even God Emperor Trump laughed at their uselessness as a political lobby.
Let that sink in Elmers.
I'll take a "wait 'n see" position for a year or two before I ever give the NRA a nod. Decades of grift and corruption and scandal won't be undone by a brief regime change
He speaks!
NRA is for gun owners who wore masked, got vaxed and boosted, and say things like "I support the second amendment but....."
I think most folks realize by now that the NRA top brass were scammers. That doesn't mean the group as a whole didn't do good work.
A real possibility.
That all sounds well and good, but you've never actually negotiated anything in the political arena, have you? Theory only goes so far. The NRA has consistently compromised - even when they didn't have to. They have never taken a firm stand. The National Foundation for Gun Rights (NFGR) raised over $50,000 for the defense of Kyle Rittenhouse. The NRA? Kyle claims that they didn't provide any legal assistance nor put any money toward his defense. Kyke turned out to be a turd; however, the gun Rights groups have shown they can be a force to be reckoned with, the NRA notwithstanding. The NFGR helped establish a precedent that went a long way toward enforcing the Second Amendment.
So, we destroyed the militia and some private gun owners of machine guns benefitted off the value of their collections going up? Tell me more after Kamala "buys" them by force. We won't be able to insure the security of a free State, but former machine gun owners will have a few more dollars.
Every time that the right compromises with the left on gun control, the liberals say, "well it's a start." The left has a clear cut vision of what they want. The right just settles. The left takes their pound of flesh in incremental steps and we delude ourselves into believing that we have done something great by minimizing the blow. That is creed by which the NRA lives. It always has and might do so from now on.
OK, point by point...
No, I never negotiated anything political, but the very word 'negotiate' means a back and forth, a give and take, a... wait for it... 'compromise'.
I have negotiated multi-million dollar contracts, and exactly how far do you think I would get if I told Microsoft that I thought all software should be free and that we were going to use their stuff and not pay them a cent? NO COMPROMISE! Contracts don't work that way and neither does lawmaking.
As for Rittenhouse, Oh well. As far as I know he wasn't a member, he did get support from other groups and the NRA was in no position to help at that point anyway, so I don't see what your point is.
And I've never even heard of NFGR (you sure you don't mean NAGR?) As far as I know they never set any kind of 'precedent' with Rittenhouse, or anyone else.
The NRA DID go to bat for the PA woman who accidently crossed into NJ and was arrested for owning a gun without a license. Every rights group picks and chooses their cases. Do you think Rosa Parks was the first Black woman to protest bus seating?
But in the end the NRA isn't about individual cases, so it seems pointless to bring them up.
Your argument about 'destroying' the militia and the 2A doesn't really make sense to me.
Yes, the Hughes amendment was all the things bad things I said it was, but it didn't 'destroy the militia'. What Harris will try in the future is open to debate (nothing good I'm guessing), but that just reinforces my argument that we need a strong NRA.
Your last paragraph does make sense. For way too long the gun control industry has been pushing and the 2A community has been in a defensive position.
You say that the NRA compromises even when they don't have to, and that may be true to a point. It's like guessing whether you should kick a field goal or go for a touchdown. The answer is only obvious after the fact.
But back to your point. The gun controllers do have an incrementalistic approach, because it works. If they simply said "We want complete civilian disarmament right now. Turn 'em all in Mr. and Mrs. America. No Compromise!" they would be completely ignored.
That approach would never work for them, so why would it work for us?
And it sounds like you are forgetting completely about the way the NRA organized and fought a successful, 'no compromise' battle to defeat the 'universal' background check bill after the Sandy Hook shootings.
A lot of people wanted to accept the Manchin-Toomey bill because they though the full Bloomberg bill would pass. The NRA didn't back down though and the bill failed.
On the flip side the NRA couldn't prevent the Clinton AWB from passing but they did limit the scope to a production ban (versus Feinstein's 'turn em all in' plan) and adding a sunset period that eventually took it off the books... something never done before to a gun control law.
In short, digging in your heels and shouting 'no compromise' is a good way to lose 99% of the battles you fight in literally any arena. It's a nice slogan, but as real world advice it's too simplistic to be worth discussing.
No, I never negotiated anything political, but the very word 'negotiate' means a back and forth, a give and take, a... wait for it... 'compromise'.
I have negotiated multi-million dollar contracts, and exactly how far do you think I would get if I told Microsoft that I thought all software should be free and that we were going to use their stuff and not pay them a cent? NO COMPROMISE! Contracts don't work that way and neither does lawmaking.
As for Rittenhouse, Oh well. As far as I know he wasn't a member, he did get support from other groups and the NRA was in no position to help at that point anyway, so I don't see what your point is.
And I've never even heard of NFGR (you sure you don't mean NAGR?) As far as I know they never set any kind of 'precedent' with Rittenhouse, or anyone else.
The NRA DID go to bat for the PA woman who accidently crossed into NJ and was arrested for owning a gun without a license. Every rights group picks and chooses their cases. Do you think Rosa Parks was the first Black woman to protest bus seating?
But in the end the NRA isn't about individual cases, so it seems pointless to bring them up.
Your argument about 'destroying' the militia and the 2A doesn't really make sense to me.
Yes, the Hughes amendment was all the things bad things I said it was, but it didn't 'destroy the militia'. What Harris will try in the future is open to debate (nothing good I'm guessing), but that just reinforces my argument that we need a strong NRA.
Your last paragraph does make sense. For way too long the gun control industry has been pushing and the 2A community has been in a defensive position.
You say that the NRA compromises even when they don't have to, and that may be true to a point. It's like guessing whether you should kick a field goal or go for a touchdown. The answer is only obvious after the fact.
But back to your point. The gun controllers do have an incrementalistic approach, because it works. If they simply said "We want complete civilian disarmament right now. Turn 'em all in Mr. and Mrs. America. No Compromise!" they would be completely ignored.
That approach would never work for them, so why would it work for us?
And it sounds like you are forgetting completely about the way the NRA organized and fought a successful, 'no compromise' battle to defeat the 'universal' background check bill after the Sandy Hook shootings.
A lot of people wanted to accept the Manchin-Toomey bill because they though the full Bloomberg bill would pass. The NRA didn't back down though and the bill failed.
On the flip side the NRA couldn't prevent the Clinton AWB from passing but they did limit the scope to a production ban (versus Feinstein's 'turn em all in' plan) and adding a sunset period that eventually took it off the books... something never done before to a gun control law.
In short, digging in your heels and shouting 'no compromise' is a good way to lose 99% of the battles you fight in literally any arena. It's a nice slogan, but as real world advice it's too simplistic to be worth discussing.
As you said, compromise is a give - take situation. Minimizing the loss is not a negotiation. You like to play semantics in order to be a right fighter, but that's okay. The NRA is but a shell of itself because I'm right, but amuse yourself and argue away. Your points simply aren't true. Even Amicus briefs filed by pro - gun organizations are better than capitulating and giving up.
For everyone out there: Minimizing your losses is not a negotiation. It is a loss. When you walk away from the table, you have to gain something. Spencer may nitpick my choice of words to death, but I'm sure the average poster can understand this.
In my years of activism - four plus decades (since I was a teen) the pro-gun lobby has not had a single, solitary win in the way I define win. To give you an analogy, If I have a thousand dollars and you get two hundred of it by first asking for the whole thousand and giving nothing in return, I didn't gain a damn thing. That is how the incrementalism has worked. Most of what the left wants, they already have. Case in point: For all intents and purposes they have a national database. The regulatory agencies are just trying to pass enough laws to make it official and not so covert. WHEN they get the Universal Background Check that database will become active on day one of the UBC's passage into law. Also.... A militia without infantry weapon level weapons is ... ? Maybe nobody gets that.
Personally, I've offered legislation and the NRA failed to lobby for it. There is not a doubt in my mind that it would not pass. So, why offer it at all? The first reason is that if you have alternative legislation on the table to counter the left's gun grab with, they have to deal with you OR go home without anything. Given the right's inability to understand that, they get something every time they come to the table. If they don't want to negotiate on the legislation, they don't get anything on gun control. The correct term for that is gridlock. Rather than lose anything, I'll settle for gridlock. This a concept that has always, always, always eluded the NRA. If you want to pay people to negotiate away your Rights by not going in with the attitude of no compromises (and when I say compromise, please understand exactly how I apply it). The current compromise is that the left walks away with something each and every time. Time to change that dynamic.
I do agree with you that the gun control lobby does something right (for them) in constantly pushing bills that won't pass. Something we on the 2A side don't seem to grasp.
We only put forward bills like FOPA when we know there are votes to support it. That should have gone through without an issue but it turned out that the Hughes amendment was the only way it would actually get enough votes.
It could have sat there, in stalemate for another 10 years, while innocent gun owners were sent to jail in CA, IL and other repressive states. That seems to be what you are advocating.
Instead the NRA offered a 'compromise' that protected millions of gun owners and didn't harm any existing gun owners. That seems like a 'win' to me, not a loss. It improved the state of the Second across the US at no real cost to existing gun owners.
Yes it was a compromise, and one that was galling and could very well be overturned in court fairly soon, but it certainly didn't 'destroy the militia' as you claim.
We didn't get our rights restricted in one fell swoop, and anyone who thinks we'll get them back that way is dreaming.
But I do agree that every legislative session we should have bills on the table moving 2A rights forward. We need to keep the same pressure up that the anti-gunners do against us. I completely agree that we should be on the offense 100% of the time even if we only win once in a while.
As I mentioned, I'm a life member of GOA and I would be ecstatic if they could push an agenda like that.
The NRA has been a decent 'defender', but if the GOA is going to be the group that goes on the offensive in the legislature, that would be amazing. So where are they?
The simple answer is that words are easy and deeds are hard. Spinning up a national lobbying organization that legislators actually respect is no small thing.
If GOA wants to take over for the NRA in the legislatures they need to start doing it now. I'd be 100% behind seeing them start introducing bills pushing for 2A causes, but as far as I can see they haven't stepped up to the plate.
Which leads me back to my case that we need the NRA. They may compromise and play defense most of the time, but for all their faults that's a heck of a lot better than a group that isn't in the game at all.
We only put forward bills like FOPA when we know there are votes to support it. That should have gone through without an issue but it turned out that the Hughes amendment was the only way it would actually get enough votes.
It could have sat there, in stalemate for another 10 years, while innocent gun owners were sent to jail in CA, IL and other repressive states. That seems to be what you are advocating.
Instead the NRA offered a 'compromise' that protected millions of gun owners and didn't harm any existing gun owners. That seems like a 'win' to me, not a loss. It improved the state of the Second across the US at no real cost to existing gun owners.
Yes it was a compromise, and one that was galling and could very well be overturned in court fairly soon, but it certainly didn't 'destroy the militia' as you claim.
We didn't get our rights restricted in one fell swoop, and anyone who thinks we'll get them back that way is dreaming.
But I do agree that every legislative session we should have bills on the table moving 2A rights forward. We need to keep the same pressure up that the anti-gunners do against us. I completely agree that we should be on the offense 100% of the time even if we only win once in a while.
As I mentioned, I'm a life member of GOA and I would be ecstatic if they could push an agenda like that.
The NRA has been a decent 'defender', but if the GOA is going to be the group that goes on the offensive in the legislature, that would be amazing. So where are they?
The simple answer is that words are easy and deeds are hard. Spinning up a national lobbying organization that legislators actually respect is no small thing.
If GOA wants to take over for the NRA in the legislatures they need to start doing it now. I'd be 100% behind seeing them start introducing bills pushing for 2A causes, but as far as I can see they haven't stepped up to the plate.
Which leads me back to my case that we need the NRA. They may compromise and play defense most of the time, but for all their faults that's a heck of a lot better than a group that isn't in the game at all.
See commercials for them now, with their new XVP. He says all the money they get goes to support the second amendment fight or something along those lines,
Guess they trying to make amends, but I'll wait and give them some time to see how they do. Their reputation is pretty tarnished now and I don't know if it will ever be restored.
Guess they trying to make amends, but I'll wait and give them some time to see how they do. Their reputation is pretty tarnished now and I don't know if it will ever be restored.
