Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 02:51 PM Jul 2012

The NRA behind the times?

A friend sent me this link, which I found interesting:
http://www.independentfirearmowners.org/content/nra-running-out-ammo

The NRA's problems, however, go much deeper. Travelling around the country talking about Gunfight, my recent book on the history of gun laws in America, I was surprised by how many gun owners expressed profound dissatisfaction with the NRA. While gun owners respect all the NRA has done over the years, many feel let down by the leadership and direction of the organization.

For some, the disappointment stems from the failure of the NRA to support the lawsuit that led to the landmark Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought by a trio of libertarian lawyers with no formal ties to the gun-rights group. Rather than helping the lawyers, who were challenging Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns, the NRA did everything it could to stop the case. First it tried to convince the libertarian lawyers to drop their suit, saying it was too risky. When that didn't work, the NRA tried to take over the litigation and decouple it from the Second Amendment issues. Then, after the lawyers won a big victory in the lower court, the NRA pushed its allies on Capitol Hill to propose a law that would overturn D.C.'s handgun ban and moot the lawsuit.
Wow, so much for that meme. I read the same thing about Helmke trying to talk DC in to settling. Was the NRA afraid of losing? Or, maybe they would have to change their fund raising letters?

The NRA explained its position by saying it didn't want to risk losing at the Supreme Court. But gun owners told me they thought the NRA was really afraid of winning. The NRA, they said, thrives on crisis-driven fundraising appeals that warn about government coming to take away all your guns. What would happen to this fundraising machine if the Supreme Court said the Constitution prevented government from ever doing that? To many gun owners, the NRA seemed more interested in its own finances than in protecting those gun owners' rights.
I agree with that. Then Wayne would have to explain his big assed salary to the membership.

Then there are the younger gun owners who gained their love of firearms from gaming instead of hunting, and who grew up in a nation with steadily decreasing rates of violent crime. To them, the NRA is just a bunch of gray beards fighting imaginary battles. Young gun owners didn't live through the 1970s—when the gun-control movement really did push for civilian disarmament—and they see government efforts to take away other things people love, like drugs, to be a joke. Slow to respond to the online world and social media, the NRA doesn't broaden its appeal with spokesmen like former rocker Ted Nugent. As the under-40 reader might say, "Ted who?"
Wish I could say "Ted who?" Based on what I gather from my son and his friends, this actually makes sense. But I think people like Ted is a liability for other reasons. Nugent represents one of the worst stereotypes of gun owners and hunters. He and, to a lesser degree, Wayne do our side more harm than good. Sometimes I have to wonder if Nugent really is a raving lunatic or a Brady mole.
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The NRA behind the times? (Original Post) gejohnston Jul 2012 OP
"We can appeal to the young with a second-string, ephebophiliac hair metal refugee poacher... friendly_iconoclast Jul 2012 #1
that's the future plans gejohnston Jul 2012 #2
The NRA has interfered with Arizona, as well. mvccd1000 Jul 2012 #3
Home-Field Advantage: Politicians are easier to manipulate than Judges. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #4
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
1. "We can appeal to the young with a second-string, ephebophiliac hair metal refugee poacher...
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 03:06 PM
Jul 2012

...That way, they'll follow us on AOL and MySpace."

mvccd1000

(1,534 posts)
3. The NRA has interfered with Arizona, as well.
Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:21 AM
Jul 2012

They did NOT like the constitutional carry bill, nor several of the other bills AZCDL has helped push through. As far as I've read, they've also done nothing - ever - to support open carry in any state.

I have no use for them.

 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
4. Home-Field Advantage: Politicians are easier to manipulate than Judges.
Sat Jul 28, 2012, 01:46 AM
Jul 2012

The NRA is very conservative and patient. When they set a goal, they achieve it (eventually). They choose not to use political capital to expedite laws... this continual unspent reserve of political capital is what allows them to maintain momentum in congress. They view using the courts for offensive maneuvering to be very risky - which it is.

Politicians are afraid of the NRA because of the votes it controls. If the reps piss off the NRA... the cavalry is called in during voting season. Even the mere threat of such action is enough to bend reps to the NRA side. The NRA puts up a great slow-legislative fight. If a motion or bill fails... there are always more pockets to line and more knees to break before reintroducing it.

If you fail in front of the Supreme Court... that's it... the issue is "settled" until hell freezes over. No redemption.
Furthermore, Federal Judges don't get voted out. NRA ain't got nothing on them.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»The NRA behind the times?