ASre we the NRA's 3 legged pig?

If you are not familiar with the metaphor, it is explained in the link.

Link: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/ne...stereotype-that-gun-owners-enable-1932159.php

Are open carriers the heart of the 2nd A, or are we just their 3 legged pig?

My observation is that those who are currently at the helm of the NRA have determined that the UNLICENSED open carry movement threatens progress towards the enactment of "right to (concealed) carry " licensing laws, and "selling" universal reciprocity throughout the 50 states.

This is a respectable goal. The most pressing goal is to address the most agregious transgressions upon the right to keep & bear arms in certain jurisdictions, and the concealed carry reciprocity foot-dragging by many "right to carry" states.

The NRA has thus far opted out of an active role in the OC effort, paying occassional lip-service to the effort, but offering no tangible lobbying support. This posture may be politically pragmatic by not opening up an additional "front" requiring the diversion of its resources. It still suggest a certain timidity , and unwillingness to support the "front-line" right to actually BEAR ARMS troops (OC'ers) who are wondering ..."Where is the NRA?"

I think the open carry movement is still perceived by many politicians, their advisors, AND THE NRA as a sort of "third-rail" of the effort to restore respect for the right to bear arms. It is political expediency - pure and simple, and ironically publicly BEARS a naked ignorance regarding the historic, linguistic, and constitutional reality surrounding the right TO BEAR ARMS - that being the fact that TO BEAR ARMS is to DISPLAY ARMS- not keep them hidden under the clothing.

The BEAR one's soul, to BEAR news, to BEAR a child into this world, or TO BEAR ARMS each involves the necessity of a REVELATION.

In the firearms world, OC is the "hard right" perspective. The NRA seems to lean as close to "hard left" as possible in their actions.

I'd say OC is the three-legged pig, but to be perfectly honest, we're the ones playing by the rules and we're often harassed for it by people who simply don't understand the dynamics of crime and arms. We're honest about the fact that we're carrying, and it's not simply a form of phallic free speech.

Surround yourself with great people, and you'll feed off of that positive energy and make your quality of life better. Surround yourself with bad or negative people and that negative energy will seep into you. Police work around people who are incredibly negative, and some turn into bad apples. Some start that way.

rushcreek2 said:

historic, linguistic, and constitutional reality surrounding the right TO BEAR ARMS - that being the fact that TO BEAR ARMS is to DISPLAY ARMS- not keep them hidden under the clothing.

The BEAR one's soul, to BEAR news, to BEAR a child into this world, or TO BEAR ARMS each involves the necessity of a REVELATION.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I believe the right to bear arms is not limited to open carry. Bear does not by necessity involve revelation.

See the dictionary definiton of bear:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear?show=1&t=1313515837

Some definitions might indicate a presentation or revealing, but in context it pretty clearly means to carry and without any specification that they must be displayed or concealed.

In the past people have been more wary of concealed arms than openly carried ones, but a ban on concealed arms is also a violation of rights just as a ban on openly carried arms would be.

Let's go back to the author's concerns about dealers "selling in bulk" for a moment. There are no wholesale lots going over the counter, as far as I've read anywhere. And yes, I do check even the most rabid sites to see what they are drumming up for the folks who feed on/off of paranoia. I also do not see the cartels favoring semiautomatics when they seem to have a ready supply of full auto weaponry available.

But as for the NRA selling out its membership piecemeal - that's been happening for a long time. Anybody that claims to be unaware of how that has been taking place really needs to come up for air.

My concern here is that this thread deteriorates from a possible discussion of how to pull back from being the "three-legged pig" and move the NRA towards goals that are more in keeping with its original intent into a full-on bashing of them.

At the moment I am pretty much stumped for an answer to that one. The only thing I can come up with is to replace them as the "voice" of gun owners with one of the other national organizations that seem to be oriented more in the direction I favor. The question is, which one? And the other question is, how do we get everybody else to agree at the same time? The answer, I fear, involves allowing a large opening for our opponents to exploit.

I'm a tactical fighter. Anybody out there a strategic planner?

stay safe.

Hmmmm, there's the argument they make saying that our individually-owned weapons are ineffective at repelling professional military, and therefore the insurrectionary purpose of the 2A is worthless and therefore it can all be tossed.

But in their next breath they want to take the 'assault weapons' because they create instability south of the border.

So which is it? Are our weapons worthless or are they dangerous?

Screw the NRA, I've had it with them.

stainless1911 said:

Screw the NRA, I've had it with them.

Click to expand...

Fine. Great. No argument.

But what are you going to replace them with? Because if you do away with them you are going to need something/someone to fill the void as the organization that Congress perceives as speaking for [all of] the gun owners of America.

Or are you going to let the discussion be one-sided?

stay safe.

I dont want to let the discussion be one sided, but as I see it now, the NRA is the void.

skidmark said:

Let's go back to the author's concerns about dealers "selling in bulk" for a moment. There are no wholesale lots going over the counter, as far as I've read anywhere. And yes, I do check even the most rabid sites to see what they are drumming up for the folks who feed on/off of paranoia. I also do not see the cartels favoring semiautomatics when they seem to have a ready supply of full auto weaponry available.

But as for the NRA selling out its membership piecemeal - that's been happening for a long time. Anybody that claims to be unaware of how that has been taking place really needs to come up for air.

My concern here is that this thread deteriorates from a possible discussion of how to pull back from being the "three-legged pig" and move the NRA towards goals that are more in keeping with its original intent into a full-on bashing of them.

At the moment I am pretty much stumped for an answer to that one. The only thing I can come up with is to replace them as the "voice" of gun owners with one of the other national organizations that seem to be oriented more in the direction I favor. The question is, which one? And the other question is, how do we get everybody else to agree at the same time? The answer, I fear, involves allowing a large opening for our opponents to exploit.

I'm a tactical fighter. Anybody out there a strategic planner?

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I think that is part of the "perception problem." They are the "voice of their membership." If enough of their membership makes their voice known as "OC is included in RKBA," then that will become part of their "got to work on" list.

We have been letting them know. They don't care.

stainless1911 said:

We have been letting them know. They don't care.

Click to expand...

Are you a member?

How many other NRA members have been letting them know?

I am a member, I let them know, and didnt even get a response. This fall, Im sure I'll get a letter in the mail, asking me why I didnt renew, and probably asking me for more money.

At that time, I'll be happy to remind them. I'll even give them the opportunity to contact me when they decide to loudly, publicly, and nationally support OC with more than just words. At that time, I'll renew gladly.

stainless1911 said:

I am a member, I let them know, and didnt even get a response. This fall, Im sure I'll get a letter in the mail, asking me why I didnt renew, and probably asking me for more money.

At that time, I'll be happy to remind them. I'll even give them the opportunity to contact me when they decide to loudly, publicly, and nationally support OC with more than just words. At that time, I'll renew gladly.

Click to expand...

Okay, there is ONE out of over 4milllion. What have the other 3,999,999 members been saying?

Then, when you don't renew, now only the views of those 3,999,999 are going to be heard.

Voting members can and do have an effect on the board of directors which is where change will begin.

OC for ME said:

I know that the OC crowd is considered a fringe element of the NRA, by a large percentage of NRA members because the NRA is a "rifle" association, they advocate for the protection of our right to hunt with a firearm.

Click to expand...

While the original organization does go by the moniker "rifle" association, it is not limited to working with hunting only.

OC for ME said:

We OC folks are those bitter clingers that Obama mentioned and the NRA seems to agree with Obama on this specific issue.

Click to expand...

No, Obama speaks to even those NRA members with that specific. And the NRA does not agree with him.

OC for ME said:

The NRA seems to only get involved in handgun issues if they believe that without their involvement, the issue will lead to the errosion of their members right to use a firearm to hunt.

Click to expand...

No, that is not accurate. Campus Carry is an area of interest by the NRA, and has nothing to do with hunting.
If the NRA was only about hunting, they wouldn't have been involved in the McDonald cases at all. Those weren't about hunting.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=245
That link is to the NRA Fact Sheet about handguns. The FIRST item on that list is "Self Defense," not "Hunting."
In Nevada specifically, the NRA rep was active with legislation...only TWO bills had anything to do about hunting. But, Castle Doctrine (self-defense), Campus Carry, and CC law changes WERE supported. Again, nothing to do with hunting.

OC for ME said:

When the hunting only members see this that block of money is in peril. The NRA will not have any of that. We bitter clingers are left to fend for ourselves, except when the NRA deems it appropriate to throw us a bread crumb every now and then to keep our coin flowing their way.

Click to expand...

When too many "bitter clingers" as you call them leave the NRA, only the "hunters" will be left in the NRA to direct their efforts. Leaving the NRA is counter-productive, and self-fulfilling for those who do not believe the NRA does what they want the NRA to do.


If you really believe that the NRA is "only about hunting," you aren't seeing their reality.

OC for ME said:

These three are good starting points as an alternative to the NRA.

Click to expand...

Yes, any one of them would be suitable. But which one?

The NRA is the 800-pound gorrila in the room. We are not debating about whether or not it should be replaced.

I am asking what, specifically, it should be replaced with. I don't care if it's chocolate, vanilla or strawberry. but I want someone to make the decision because I can't make up my mind which one I want. I have a feeling there are many others like me.

stay safe.

OC for ME said:

I know that the OC crowd is considered a fringe element of the NRA, by a large percentage of NRA members because the NRA is a "rifle" association, they advocate for the protection of our right to hunt with a firearm. We OC folks are those bitter clingers that Obama mentioned and the NRA seems to agree with Obama on this specific issue. The NRA seems to only get involved in handgun issues if they believe that without their involvement, the issue will lead to the errosion of their members right to use a firearm to hunt. When the hunting only members see this that block of money is in peril. The NRA will not have any of that. We bitter clingers are left to fend for ourselves, except when the NRA deems it appropriate to throw us a bread crumb every now and then to keep our coin flowing their way.

Click to expand...

Skidmark, if we knew that answer, what the NRA should be replaced with, we would be funding them, instead of feeding the gorilla, and slipping on the banana peels.

My choice has been made in two organizations.

www.jpfo.org because they tell it like it is


www.saf.org because it was not afraid to file Heller

From the article:

Gun owners: You are the National Rifle Association's three-legged pig.

...

The NRA, though highly dependent on you, has diminished you into a caricature, a punch line. The uncaring — my-cold-dead-hands — defender of the unrestricted right to pack as much firepower as you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. No need to balance this “right” against anyone else's rights.

Click to expand...

mySA Article Writer: You're nuts.

The "my cold dead hands" line belongs to the NRA, not me. Furthermore, there is no need to balance our right to keep and bear arms against anyone else's rights, as there is no such thing as a right to be free from the presence of a firearm. Any citizen who wishes may work hard, by a lot of land, and live in relative seclusion to their heart's content. Finally, any restricting on buying a firearm, whether it be type, number, or waiting period, violates the Second Amendment which says the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed!

Nope, wait-a-minute, it's a bit stronger than that, actually. It says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I'm thankful of the NRA's efforts to change all the "except for" laws out there, the ones drafted by legislators who're apparently unable to read the basic English of our Constitution.