Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: North to resign as NRA president

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Site Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,665

    Post North to resign as NRA president

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/nra-presi...n-rights-group


    Even though I’m a member I don’t keep up with much with regards to the inner workings at the NRA and have no idea if North is worth a shit or not but I’ve thought for years La Pierre should go. He’s been there a long time and something about his actions has always rubbed me the wrong way.

    The NRA was never a gun rights group to begin with. AFAIK it wasn’t until they formed the NRA-ILA in 1975 that they got actively involved in lobbying for gun rights. Personally I’ve never thought they did as good a job at it as other organizations where the support of our gun rights is their sole mission.

    I’ve always thought that 5,000,000 members is awfully low considering how many gun owners there are but if it was 50,000,000 I still don’t think they would be as effective as possible unless that was their only focus.
    Last edited by Richard Simmons; 04-27-2019 at 03:45 PM.
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

    •" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " George Orwell

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    515
    The NRA was formed after the Civil War by Union officers to attempt to improve the shooting skills of men and boys who would be called for another war.
    The NRA was America's first Civil Rights group who tried to protect the right of southern blacks to own guns to fight off the KKK.

    It remained a shooting and hunting organization until the gun control acts of the 1960's and we realized that we either got involved in politics or the 2nd Amendment was going to become nothing but a memory.
    THAT's when the NRA started fighting the gun banners. The ILA was formed years later to make it an official part of the NRA's job.

    The NRA has done an excellent job of keeping the anti-gunners in at least partial check, and have stopped some really bad gun control laws from passing. For this they get little credit.
    All people want to talk about are the minor gun rights groups who you never hear a word about actually fighting some gun law proposal.
    About all they do is run the NRA down and stump for money. What they actually DO with the money is questionable.

    Politics is not a clean game, and it requires steady attention to small details to keep up.
    I think the leadership has drifted off target when they started spending money on things like fighting illegal immigration and other very side issues not directly related to stopping gun control and protecting the 2nd.
    They've been spending too much money on TV ads not related to gun laws, and there are questions about La Pierre's activities with the NRA money.

    People complain about the NRA "Selling us out" when as recently they didn't fight the bump stock ban.
    People just don't understand that politics is a deal making proposition.
    You can fight to the finish to protect a novelty toy few people ever heard of much less owned, OR you can have the gun banners trying to confiscate AR-15 rifles...... Your choice.... choose ONE.
    Politics is a dirty business and you either play the game as-is or you loose.
    The NRA has by necessity made some deals with the devil, but if not for them we'd have had our guns registered and confiscated back in the 70's and we'd be on these forums discussing the best loads for our flintlock muskets, IF they even allowed gun forums to exist.

    NO other gun rights group has had or does have anywhere near the impact and effectiveness of the NRA.
    I tell people to judge this the following way....
    Go out on the street and stop the first person you see.
    Ask them about the "gun lobby".
    99% of the time they'll respond..."You mean the NRA"?
    They will have never heard of any other gun rights group, and would probably be surprised there even are other groups.

    As for only having only 5,000,000 members, you can't force people to join.
    Most gun owners only care about their sport or their guns and don't bother to spend the money to join. They're quite content to let other people spend the money to support their constitutional right and many don't think they'd be affected by anti-gun laws.
    You may call them "Fudd's" but many are not, they just aren't concerned about some rumor of some gun law that they think they'll never have to deal with.

    It never ceases to amaze and piss me off that some politician will talk about gun control and there'll be a buying panic when people will spend outrageous amounts of money for guns and ammo, but won't spend a few bucks to join the only effective gun rights group in America....the NRA.

    I became a NRA Life Member back in the 70's. I was poor and had to use one of the payment plans to make it, but I did.
    Funny thing, I don't even remember how much it cost, and I sure don't miss the money, but I still own guns.

  3. #3
    Site Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,665
    I completely agree. The NRA is the biggest pro-gun resource we have. I just wonder how much more effective they could be in that regard if it was their only purpose?

    I’ve also read plenty of ads by the other gun lobby groups and would agree they tend to disparage the NRA as a recruitment strategy for new members rather than tout their own achievements.
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

    •" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " George Orwell

  4. #4
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    They would be more pro-gun if their leaders didn't cave in on things like bump-stocks and red-flag laws.

    Just found out that Indiana passed protection against red-flag, that even though it is on the books there better be a good reason for firearm confiscation or the accuser will face legal issues. We also just got protection against being sued for lawful use of a firearm.

  5. #5
    Site Admin & **Team Gunsnet Silver 12/2012** Richard Simmons's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,665
    I don’t see where they caved on the bump stocks. Isn’t the ban an EO from President Trump? In order to cave the NRA must have had a bargain position in the first place, what was it?

    Should they have mounted an attack campaign against Trump? Did they “cave in” or they they just not have a path to victory? I’m more inclined to put the blame on the President for what he did than what the NRA didn’t do.
    Gunsnet member since 1999
    USN 1978-86
    BCCI Life Member #2068

    •" We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. " George Orwell

  6. #6
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    My understanding is the NRA didn't stand up and say NO to the bump-stock ban when it was first proposed. They just came out and said OK. Sorry, but we have argued this before and I believe a ban on anything to do with arms is a violation of the second amendment. Yes Trump did say he was for a ban and pushed ATF to adopt one. Not sure if it was a proper written EO or just his verbal statement.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •