• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

ASre we the NRA's 3 legged pig?

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
saf

As to not knowing what the NRA is all about. What they are all about is irrelevant if the majority of paying members are not self-defense folks but sporting shooting folks. Simulated home defense drills are not considered traditional sport shooting.
Makes one wonder what the NRA is teaching you to hunt in the "PPIH/PPOH" course curriculums.......
http://www.nrainstructors.org/CourseCatalog.aspx


OC for ME said:
Hunters may or may not have a handgun for self defense in the home. If they do have one then it is just one and it never leaves the house. I know at least two dozen folks (anecdotal evidence), NRA members, back in South Carolina that fall in that category. You work against their 2A right to hunt with a gun, that's how they look at the 2A, then they get all riled up. You work against OC or CCW, they may never even notice, let alone care because they don't carry.
So, you are basing your view upon what those people believe? What do they reply with when you let them know that the NRA teaches Pistol Self-defense courses? Those have nothing to do with hunting.
OC for ME said:
So, where does this leave us bitter clingers who are about self-defense first, hunting second? The minority in the eyes of the NRA. Campus carry? What is the average age of the NRA membership? I'll betcha that it is older than college age. Once again, a non-issue for those members. Maybe if they got kids going to college, maybe they may have some interest, would that interest rise to the level to change the course of the NRA, probably not.
Taking the relevant NRA course curriculums, speaking to your NRA legislative people to get relevant laws passed. The course of the NRA isn't "all about the hunting, and nothing but the hunting," no matter how much you want to paint them to be such.

Do you deny that the NRA backed HB294? What in that bill had to do with hunting?
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6986
Making it legal to buy and own transferable weapons isn't anything to do with hunting, why did they support that?
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
And....how many folks will the majority of this bills provision actually impact? Sorry to inform you but not very many. At best it may bump the CCW numbers in MO by 1 or 2 percentage points, three if we get lucky. Folks were not running into contiguous states to buy guns before and they like will not change their shopping habits after. Machine guns?, c'mon man, get real. Silencers? Still think these provisions are vitally important to your average gun owner in Missouri, let alone the rest of the country? There is a back story to HB294 which is way OT right now but suffice it to say that 23 to 21 is about the only good thing that came out of HB294.
So, before it was that "the NRA is only for hunters," and now it is that "those other things they support don't affect enough people?"
It should be sufficient to understand that the statements you have been making about the NRA are not accurate. Yet when this is pointed out, you just shift over to another imagined slight you see in them. So, it sure looks like to you, it isn't about what they are or are not, it is about finding something you can hold against them. That is not an honest method to review them and present them.
OC for ME said:
I clearly stated that those folks I mentioned were not concerned about self-defense "out side the home" and obviously considered themselves adequately trained to protect themselves "in side the home". Did they take any NRA PPIH or PPOH, I do not know and it does not matter because they are primarily focused on gun rights as it relates to hunting. If the "state" announces that all handguns are to be confiscated then they will get really riled up to be sure, but we ain't there and these folks don't see us getting there.
Then why did you seem to try and make their view be the view of the NRA as a whole? It isn't.
OC for ME said:
Growing up on a farm in SC, raised with shotguns and rifles scattered around the house. My Daddy had one hand gun, in his night stand drawer and a little .22 4-shot pocket pistol with snake shot loaded that he carried around all the time. He never carried a hand gun for protection. Call it the rural lifestyle, country thinking or plain old comfort in the knowledge that crime was not a problem. Whatever you want to call it, the fact remains that far more folks are pro 2A mainly because they hunt. Being in the minority is not always a pleasant experience but it is what it is. If you have facts and figures from the NRA that contradict my line of thinking then I will glady accept this and change my line of thinking.
I have no reason to counter your anecdote-based opinion with any facts. But, if you want to find some actual facts that you feel support your view that SD is second to hunting, I am ready.
OC for ME said:
The personal protection fixation that we have is not the norm in the "firearms q-munity", it is the exception, more so than any of us may think. If the general NRA membership were concerned about infringements that affect self-defense then I am fairly confident that politicians would not need the NRA to know this. I have seen very little evidence that indicates that the self-defense crowd is nothing more than a fringe element of the firearms owning public and it is not likely to change anytime soon.
I have the opposite opinion, and your opinion isn't sufficient "proof."
OC for ME said:
I have asked folks I know, who are NRA members, why they do not carry, the response is almost identical in each case, I do not see a need to carry. The NRA will take anyones money, even sheeple money. I respectfully recommend that you take your self-defense blinders off and look around the country, most folks with guns just ain't into self-defense "everywhere" "all the time" like you and I are.
Once again, you are conflating the view of some members that you met with the view of the NRA as a body.

I don't hunt at all. I am an NRA member.
 

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
My opinion: We are, indeed, the NRA's three legged pig. I've been to several NRA Gun Rights Policy Conferences, and what I've encountered there is usually the same.

I'm not going to bad mouth the NRA. They are HUGE and their goal IS, indeed, to promote firearms freedom. Bashing them is pointless as they DO promote our freedom. They're the good guys. I simply have a beef with their methodology and have an opinion on "why theyare the way they are".

Every GRPC (both) I've been to has been filled to the brim with 80 year old duck hunters. I dislike the term "Fudd" as it connotes a diparaging view of them. They aren't all simply duck hunters trying to safeguard their Weatherby's and goose guns. There's a large portion that are, but those ALSO respect your desire to keep your gun for self defense. To call them "Fudds" is to discount their hard work in fighting for your self-defense rights, as well.

The reason for the dislike of the NRA (I believe) is their methodology. They have become so used to gaining ground in small increments, they're afraid to rock the boat. Ever since they started fighting for our rights, they've been heavily opposed by anti-gunners AND public opinion. Through all of it, they've gained ground. They've done so in tiny little steps, and it's been successful.

They are just simply afraid of the NEW. They've been so successful in winning, but winning in small steps, that they don't want to "rock the boat" by trying to take any giant leaps. Even when they can push their momentum and take advantage of a huge gain...they're still stuck in the ways of the past. They don't want to take the chance of getting behind something that even has the tiniest fraction of a chance of being opposed by the majority. They're old. Brash "damn the torpedoes!" young boldness is not going to be their warcry. Folks bash the NRA for not taking huge leaps of faith. Well, that just isn't their thing. They're not going to just come right out and say they're in favor of constitutional carry for every state. They're not going to support OC unabashedly. They don't want to alienate ANYONE because they're so used to winning by taking tiny little steps. As long as they keep going the right direction, I don't see anything wrong with it. It might not be the huge jumps of freedom we desire, but instead of deriding them for not being as bold as we desire, I say we just accept it and support the NRA for what it is. Yes, we're their three legged pig. We're not going to get fed steak tartar, but as long as we keep getting table scraps and aren't sold for bacon, it's fine with me.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I am not making myself clear.
I think you have that one correct.

. The majority of NRA members are not as concerned about personal defense out side the home as you and I are.
Yet you haven't presented any true data (beyond anecdote) to support that contention.
OC for ME said:
All NRA members are interested in advancing 2A issues or they would not be members of the NRA.
Michael Moore is an NRA member. And?

OC for ME said:
What the NRA is, is the voice of a great many people who are concerned about the errosion of our 2A right. What the NRA is not is the protector of the 2A, We The People are. I have consistently stated that the majority of NRA members are not as interested in SD as you and I are. I have stated that the gun q-munity is mostly folks who hunt and not that interested in SD. The NRA has the voice that any one individual does not have. This is good for all of us, yet not good for all of us because the NRA is not responsive to the individual, let alone a small group of individual, members or not.
"Stating it" does not make it true.

OC for ME said:
I asked you first. I know I do not know the numbers concerning the views of every NRA member as it relates to hunting or SD or both. I do not know if anyone does. I do know that MOAG has numbers on CCW. It is reasonable that this gives a good indicator of the number of folks that are concerned about SD out side the home.
Then your claims to KNOW what a majority of NRA members think is false.


OC for ME said:
I did not state that my opinion was proof. Your opinion is probably based on the same data or evidence that I have access to.
Yet you appear to attempt to base your opinion upon the anecdotes of those you meet.

OC for ME said:
That is a classic example of a poll. While mine was not scientific, it is reasonable to think that the view of a couple of dozen fellas ain't gunna be too far afield of the whole population.
Actually, that IS unreasonable.


OC for ME said:
Then you are the exception and not the rule in the law abiding, gun owning q-munity.
Once again, what data do you present to support that empty claim?
OC for ME said:
I hunt, joined the NRA after I got out of the service, send them the 1-year membership each year. Big whoop, they do good in the Halls of Cngress, not so good at the state level. So, I do support them with a few coins each year, yet they are not always the friend they claim to be and I think, based on comments I have read on OCDO, many more folks have a similar relationship with the NRA. Can't live with them and ya can't live without them.
What would you prefer them do at the state level? I presented some of what they worked towards just the last session were you live. Have you spoken to your state NRA rep about your views yet?


OC for ME said:
So, where does this leave us? Two folks who have the same goal yet a differing opinion about the NRA. +1 to you Sir.
Yes, yet your opinion appears to not take into account what the NRA actually DOES do, does it......
 
Last edited:
Top