Can you give me some input on the NRA?

[dalaigh lllama]

I am attending a roundtable discussion this week at our church and the topic will be the NRA. This was prompted by our UU minister purchasing a gun, learning to use it, and joining the NRA -- the shooting at the Tennessee UU church last year and a burglary in her home led to her decision. Several members of the congregation have had EXTREME reactions to her joining the NRA: their position is that no one should support them in any way. Her position is that if one disagrees with some of the NRA's positions, the best way to do so is voicing opinions as a member rather than an outsider.

I myself tend to not be too "het up" about her NRA membership -- I lived in rural Missouri for 20 years and everyone I knew hunted. I guess what I'm looking for are some pros and cons to NRA membership that might contribute to the dicussion this week.

Thanks in advance.

[onehandle]

1. You cannot drown out voices from inside, because the NRA hierarchy tow the gun industry line.

The bottom line for the NRA is the Profit margin for gun companies.

[dalaigh lllama]

7. So would you say there is no liberal advantage to belonging to the NRA?

[aliendroid]

11. yes there is

The NRA represents the members. They vote for the leaders.

Any group will be extreme if only extreme people join, the NRA however has a lot of democrat members. Some of my family are republicans, some are democrats, the only NRA member is a democrat. I'm a member too but I'm libertarian.

[onehandle]

27. None whatsoever.

They are corporate gun lobbyists.

[SteveM]

34. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain -- a very poor wizard...

You not only get it wrong, but do so intentionally. That makes you a teller of non-truths. But you knew that.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. If you must know, there are two components to the NRA.

A poltical organ that is a lobbying wing, and the other side, the core, original purpose, which is to train and support gun owners.

Only part of the NRA (the NRA-ILA) lobbies. The rest of it supports Eddie Eagle, Hunter Safety Education programs, maintains the largest group of firearms safety instructors in the nation, which is utilized not only by private citizens, but police departments as well.

I've talked to some co-workers that are staunch republicans. They are always surprised to learn the things the ACLU does that benefits them as well, as they think the ACLU is nothing but a bunch of slimy lawyers hell bent on destroying America(TM). You suffer from the same sort of lack of knowledge.

[cowman]

10. You are

out of your frikkin gourd. Their bottom line is 2nd amend rights and gun safety. Try to keep up with the truth

[X_Digger]

26. Actually, that lobbying organ would be the NSSF-

(National Shooting Sports Foundation)

http://www.nssf.org/

[benEzra]

31. You're confusing the NRA with the NSSF. The NRA has an elected board of directors

and most of their money comes from individual membership dues and donations.

[farmout rightarm]

59. Why should we take you seriously when you can't distinguish between "tow"

"the line" (wrong) and "toe" "the line" (right)?

[onehandle]

66. Oops. My bad. I think I was in line to pay for groceries when I typed that on my iPhone.

Why should we give a shit about the NRA at Democratic Underground when they support Republicans nearly 90% of the time, and 90% of the Democrats they do support are DINOs?

[farmout rightarm]

68. Well thank God you survived the checkout line where there very well may have been

people with guns on their persons.

whew.

[pipoman]

74. Cites to your numbers please

I know, I know, you have no cites, you know the truth but intend to deny it at every chance....my mom used to say about some people that, 'they would rather lie when the truth would do'.

Aside your repeated untruths, you are the one who wants to complain about unsafe gun usage yet the NRA has taught more people gun safety than any other group or organization on the planet, that is why every gun owning Democrat should appreciate the NRA, but you already knew that, you prefer to bitch and moan about relatively rare gun accidents than encourage people to learn gun safety..

[AtheistCrusader]

86. It's not because they like Republicans.

It's because a lot of Democrats are unacceptably anti-gun. Same reason the ACLU is inherently opposed to most Republicans, because most republicans support various infringements on civil liberties, such as the Patriot Act. Notable exceptions are few, such as Ron Paul.

If more Democrats supported the 2nd Amendment as they support the 1st, they would find NRA support as well.

Your assumption that members of Democratic Underground must preclude support for the 2nd enumerated civil liberty in the Bill of Rights, is artificial, and not universal.

[Euromutt]

120. Though they do like Republicans

At least, that is the only thing I can conclude from the fact that the NRA is one of the sponsors of CPAC every damn year. And the list of speakers for this year's NRA annual meeting isn't what you'd call encouraging: Newt Gingrich, Ollie North, Glenn Beck, and a prayer breakfast led by Pastor Jonathan Falwell. Fact is, the NRA leadership and a fair amount of the membership are conservative Republicans.

But as Rudi Giuliani should be able to attest, merely having (R) behind your name isn't enough to get the NRA to support you. And as you noted elsewhere in this thread, the NRA has multiple components, and when it comes to electoral support, the one that matters is the NRA-PVF. I've dredged through their lists of ratings, and I have to acknowledge that when it comes to grading political candidates, the stance on gun rights is the only thing the PVF cares about.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Completely wrong, but keep on banging that drum.

Now, if you'd said they want to hoover up money for themselves, I'd be more amenable to your position. Never have I met such enthusiastic beggars, and some of their begging borders on a confidence scam.

Plus, the NRA horns in on suits being carried to successful conclusion by other parties, so they may claim victories that are not their own, and use that to in turn, beg for more money from their members.

Also, the NRA has endorsed and supported far too much gun control for my taste.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevebreeze]

3. I do not own a gun nor am I an NRA member,

but it's not hard to see that the NRA's goal is not to help people who hunt, it's to help people who sell guns. I have no problem with you or any qualified citizen owning a hunting weapon or long gun for protection if they are afraid of their neighbors. What I have a problem with is the NRA's insistence after every shooting event that we would be far better off as a country if only more of our citizens were armed to the teeth. The NRA does not disclose it's funding sources but you can bet your right arm that big chunks of it come from the arm industry.

[aliendroid]

5. because it is true.

More gun freedom is now reducing gun crime. CCW permits are reducing violent crime rates.

The NRA used to compromise, but I think they now will block all anti-gun legislation. The reason is the UK experience.

They said that registrations would not lead to full gun confiscation
They said each time they banned some guns that it would not lead to full gun confiscation

now UK has a full gun ban.

THEY LIED!

and all anti-gun people, the brady campaign, Rebbecca peters, and iansa, are all LIARS!

Any movement toward gun restriction will not stop if it builds steam, it will lead to full gun confiscation and now we have evidence. So the NRA is doing what they should do which is block it all. No gun restrictive law has ever reduced crime, it's a waste of money. The clinton assault ban costed us billions, put Bush in power with a congress and senate all for that 1% of violent crime that "assault weapons" represent. It's all about lies.

[beevul]

8. The gun industry has its own lobbying group, and its not the nra.

"NRA's goal is not to help people who hunt, it's to help people who sell guns"

So when the nra backs NICS checks, its to help people who sell guns?


When the nra supports felons being classified as prohibited persons, its to help people who sell guns?


"What I have a problem with is the NRA's insistence after every shooting event that we would be far better off as a country if only more of our citizens were armed to the teeth."

Cite please.


"The NRA does not disclose it's funding sources but you can bet your right arm that big chunks of it come from the arm industry."

As I said, the firearms industry has its own lobbying group. And its not the nra.

[SteveM]

36. Nothing to back up your comments?...

See #31 above. The NRA does not advocate "...more of our citizens...armed to the teeth," and you CANNOT find that in their own documents. If you have data on "you can bet your right arm that big chunks of (money) come from the arm industry," now's the time to show it. You gots anything to show?

[PavePusher]

46. "...it's to help people who sell guns." Err, no.

Their goal is actually to help people who own guns. This may help sellers, but it's an indirect and non-primary byproduct of the primary goal.

Read up on the NRA, they aren't all ogres and "Conservatives".

[farmout rightarm]

60. That post is full of allegations...and totally bereft of any supporting evidence.

I may say that is typical of some who don't care much for the Bill of Rights.

[farmout rightarm]

106. That's just a farrago of nonsense. Gun manufacturers can barely keep up with demand

same with ammunition companies. They need lobbyists like fish need bicycles. And I don't believe your claim that NRA "insists...after every shooting...we need more armed citizens..." That sounds like Brady bunch bullshit to me. They have several million members, THAT is where their funding comes from. Good grief.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. a link might help

http://home.nra.org/#/home

The full NRA experience requires a broadband connection.

[dalaigh lllama]

15. Thanks. I had already looked there

and got the pro-NRA POV. Thought I'd come here to get everyone's pros And cons about it.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. Well, I'm not a member but follow their WEB sites often for

info on pending legislation.

Then NRA is a single issue group. Anyone is welcome under their banner that is concerned with protecting and preserving the 2A. They support candidates (no matter party affiliation) based on that candidates position on 2A and hunting related issues (you will often see the NRA and ducks unlimited on pushing the same legislation).

As a member they will hound you endlessly for donations by direct mail. I've also found that membership at many private gun ranges requires NRA membership first. They are an OK organization but have fallen victim to their own self interest. They originally did not support the Parker case (later became the Heller decision at SCOTUS) and went so far as to try to block it and then tried to have it combined with their own case to quash it. After the Heller victory they have been trying to take credit for it. They are a lobby group that often times would rather cut a deal than reach for the brass ring. I prefer organizations such as GOA for those reasons.

The NRA has some GREAT safety programs and training courses. They also have the Eddie Eagle program that teaches firearm safety for kids that is very good and IMO should be required for school kids. It would go a long way in stopping tragic child firearm accidents.

[aliendroid]

13. they aren't perfect

but they have helped maintain our 2A rights over the years while people in other nations lost theirs. You can't find a perfect group, I don't get much mail from them, I think it's an option to let them mail you stuff and they don't call me, they don't have my phone number. When I find a good cause, I send them some money.

[Hoopla Phil]

21. Yep, it really sucks because every time I seriously consider joining

they do something to really piss me off. They have some great programs and have done some good things but sometimes they really screw up. That crap about trying to derail Parker REALLY hacked me off - I know of 3 people that canceled their membership over it. Now they are trying to horn in on the Chicago case to get credit for what will likely be a slam dunk win. That is very low in my opinion and may have cost them more members.

They do seem to have gotten the message that the 2A is not about hunting though and that IS an improvement that I have to give them credit for.

[PavePusher]

47. So, join up and you can begin working to steer them in better directions.

Complaining about it from the outside isn't going to change their policies/tactics.

No insults/aspersions meant or intended.

[aliendroid]

115. this is true

auto-criticism is good for any group. but I'm pretty sure that if the NRA did not exist, I would not have my hobby today.

Yet again our guns are at more danger than ever, with international groups targeting our second amendment more strongly than ever coordinating with domestic groups.

We have an anti-gun president, senate and house. If you need me to I can post up Obama's position on gun control based on his past views. But they are not going after the guns because they know that it is political suicide. The clinton "assault" weapon ban ended up putting Bush in power and handing him the senate. The reason they are behaving is the NRA, join them!

[dalaigh lllama]

18. Could you elaborate on part of what you said?

"They are a lobby group that often times would rather cut a deal than reach for the brass ring."

Did you mean that in re the Heller decision? Not sure I followed what you meant. Thanks in advance.

[Hoopla Phil]

30. Correct, the Heller thing is a perfect example of that.

I had a rather heated discussion with a friend of mine about Heller going to SCOTUS and he was adamantly following the NRA line (the back door, non public line) that the risk of loss was too great and Heller should not be pursued to SCOTUS. "We need to wait for a more favorable court." was the sentiment. My response was "if not now, when will we ever have a more favorable court?" and "If we loose in Heller is it really that much of a set back? States would be able to affectively ban hand guns would be the outcome but guess what, THEIR DOING THAT NOW."

Anyhow, the NRA has shown a willingness to "compromise" rather than fight the tough fights. They do some good things with lawsuits (the NOLA gun confiscation cases come to mind) when the outcome is certain but show a real lack of backbone when it is time to go "all in".

Side note: My friend and I that had the heated exchange both carry and nether one of us "slapped leather" to settle it as many anti's would have you believe. LOL

[SteveM]

40. The NRA and the Heller decision...

The Heller decision by the SCOTUS was argued by Alan Gura, a member of the "libertarian" Cato Institute. Originally, the NRA was opposed to making Heller a test case. Some observers argued that this can be explained by the NRA's more "legislative approach" to protecting 2A, as opposed to a more "court-challenge approach" which Gura took. The NRA seems to be afraid that a decision will go against 2A in some way, and subsequently harm their legislative efforts. Now, with the pending McDonald case over Chicago's gun ban, the NRA has "elbowed" its way into the Plaintiff's time to argue the case; a little Johnny-come-lately.

My personal experience over some 60 years is that the NRA was a strong training, education force (and they are) with a strong component guarding against state/local gun-control legislation. Now, it has gone on the offensive with the rise of the "modern" national gun-control "movement." Its massive legislative/lobbying clout on behalf of pro-2A candidates and laws has crippled the Democratic Party since, heretofore, it has harbored the most "controllers." In my opinion, had the gun-control groups not been so in-your-face about attacking not only the NRA, but rank-n-file gun-owners, you would not have seen the NRA develop into what some consider the most powerful special interest organization in the U.S. (The GLBT umbrella of groups runs a close second, IMO.)

See: THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE, Kates & Kleck for an excellent overview of the "tenor of debate" from the beginnings of "modern" gun control in the latter 1960s. The writers are considered progressive.

See: www.georgiacarry.org and search locally for the Heller brief in which an excellent history of Jim Crow gun-control efforts is summarized. You will find that virtually all gun-control laws seen now had their origins in Southern apartheid laws, some dating to antebellum times.

Good luck with your efforts.

[aliendroid]

9. The NRA is the 800 lb gorilla

They get a lot of pro-gun stuff done and they block a lot of the crazy anti-gun bills. People don't know this but there are all kinds of crazy bills introduced from full gun confiscation to lighter bans that get shot down thanks to groups like the NRA.


Some people don't like the NRA because they sometimes compromised in the past with anti-gun groups and worked to push gun control bills through that they thought might get through anyway and would be better off making them more moderate. I think they stopped doing this because we now know that anti-gun people will keep on going until full gun confiscation. The Example is the UK where after a wave of gun bans and the initial gun registration in which the said it would not lead to full gun confiscation, in the end it did end up being full gun ban. Also no gun restrictive bill has ever lowered crime and most are racist in nature.


While the NRA are working up top and in states they are spread out thin, so join your local gun group.

[NewMoonTherian]

72. Well said.

Though I'm a member, I do disagree with some of their past stances and methods. I wish they would be more vocal for open carry and college carry, and I'd like to see them use Heller and, soon, McDonald as a springboard to repealing the more onerous machine gun restrictions.

I read upthread that you're a libertarian. Then I saw the "800 lb gorilla" remark and I've gotta ask... Boortz listener?

[Pullo]

92. Yeah, the NRA has evolved quite a bit.

20 years ago the origination's influence was widely seen as on the wane. Anti-gunners were advancing their political influence, and the NRA basically fractured into two camps: The 'sportsman' and the 2A 'fundamentalists.' The 'sportsmen'(aka Fudds) side was willing to throw 'military style' target shooters etc. under the bus in hopes of keeping their own 'acceptable' hunting weapons free from encroaching restrictions. Finally, after the Brady Bill and Assault Weapon Ban, and with the onerous Brady II gleefully being floated about by anti-gunners, firearms owners had their proverbial Alamo, and drew a line in the sand.

This basically led to a mutiny within the NRA, and the RKBA stalwarts seized control. The NRA lost a lot of public appeal throughout this process, but it became a much more dialed-in an effective political operation. 1994 was the high water mark for gun control in the US, and 2A supporters have been rolling back gun control nationwide since. From a political strategy perspective, the 2A die-hards were vindicated and then some. Just look at the trajectory of the liberalization of gun rights across the country over the last 15 years.

There is still anger towards the Fudds within the gun-owning community and the NRA. An 800lb gorilla is an apt description within the gun-rights movement. The organization is so large and entrenched, making it not very nimble and clumsy sometimes. For example, the NRA butted its way into the Chicago gun ban case before the SC, taking time away in oral argument from accomplished Libertarian 2A lawyer Alan Gura.

The NRA operates from a mindset that it is better to be feared than to be loved.


BTW, the NRA does a tremendous amount of gun safety and other training across the US, but this aspect of the organization is rarely spotlighted.

[dalaigh lllama]

12. This is quite the hot button issue, it seems

and already with one "name removed" comment. Oi!

[aliendroid]

14. yeah, probably a hate comment.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

16. GUNS are good, but the NRA is not all ways good.

they do have Great safety classes for children and family's and I do not believe any other organization does that part of their mission better.
BUT
As a liberal gun owner, I see them as only supporting Republicans.
I wish the democratic Party would say "We Support Gun Ownership Rights."

a federal grant for safety classes would Thu the Department of Education could make a few heads spin.

[cowman]

19. They have backed

many pro-2nd amend Dems. here in NV I think Harry Reid has an A rating from the NRA because of his stand on RKBA but I wouldn't swear on it, Anyways the NRA doesn't care if your a Repub or a Dem. they just care about a politicians stance on gun control

[DonP]

95. "I see them as only supporting Republicans." - Don't tell my representative

Debbie Halvorson D-IL 11th District will be stunned to learn she wasn't supported, but it didn't stop her from cashing the checks or showing up at NRA/ISRA "meet the candidate" meetings in our district.

The NRA and the ISRA (Illinois State Rifle Assn.) endorsed her, donated to her campaign and gave her an A rating over her R opponent C rating.

In spite of the bilge spewed here by people that have never really gone to the NRA site, belonged to the group, or had any real contact - beyond reading bumper sticker posts on the Kos, they support whichever candidate has the best record on one issue, the second amendment. If two candidates have comparable records they support the incumbent, for the additional legislative leverage it gives them.

They also make their choices based on real voting records, not campaign promises.

If you took a look at the 2008 election, you'll find thousands of Dems were recommended in local and state elections by the NRA. They did not support Obama because his Illinois voting record, was pretty much 100% for gun control, a la Richard M. Daley - Chicago.

[old mark]

17. The NRA USED TO BE a good organization till it got politicized

after the great increase in anti-gun legislation after the JFK assassination. That spawned the Federal 1968 Gun Control Act, which began requirements for Federal records kept on handgun sales and changed laws on importing foreign made handguns mainly small pocket pistols. They had to have longer barrels,larger "target" type grips, etc. This caused many foreign makers to set up plants in the US to avoid the import laws. Many gun enthusiasts felt that severe gun control laws were pending, and the rhetoric on both sides became irrational and radicalized, as it is now.
FWIW, present day "gun control" groups were started and are run by Republicans, while Democrats continue to get blamed for wanting to confiscate/ban all guns by the Republicans themselves.

Most anti-gun individuals act solely on emotional grounds and have little to no accurate knowledge of guns or gun enthusiasts. MANY Liberal Democrats own guns, and many of us are licensed to carry them for self defense. IMO, the NRA can use all the liberal membership it can get, and it is a very good training and safety organization, with a nationwide system of instructors giving courses in hunter safety and safe firearms handling.
I am certain you will hear differing opinions here.
mark

[aliendroid]

20. NRA actions reflects its members

Republicans outnumber democrats and so they will seem like a republican organization just like how all members are pro-gun, NRA is pro-gun. Still a good way to get democrat politicans to wake up and realize that gun control equals failure. If enough democrats join the NRA the democrats will get off the gun issue, it will help them out in the end.

[dalaigh lllama]

23. Thanks to you and everyone here for their input

Love this place for the different POV's.

[Walk away]

22. I grew up in the Unitarian church. I can't imagine my minister or...

anyone else in the congregation joining the NRA. Our large and very dynamic church generally supported Gun Control, Gay marriage and Women's Rights.

I am not surprised that many members of your church were appalled. The U U Church has a long history of Liberalism and Pacifism.

[Hoopla Phil]

24. I'm a member of a small baptist church and not only does our preacher carry

most of the deacons do too. In fact, all members that have CHL's are welcome to carry in our church.

[rfranklin]

37. WWJC?

What would Jesus carry? Of course, no guns in his day but he and his disciples carried swords and daggers and such because they were worried about the government taking away their weapons.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

38. Jesus would be packing the ultimate weapon -control of the universe-

that choice is not available to me.

[Walk away]

41. A moment of clarity? n/t

[X_Digger]

43. Luke 22:36

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

(I'm not a christian, but I get tickled whenever one professes pacifism, and I love to quote that section.)

[Walk away]

48. I always have to laugh at people who don't know what they are talking about.

Do you know anything about The Unitarian Church? I am not a christian. Quote your bible to the Baptist poster who didn't bother to read the OP either.

[X_Digger]

52. Had I been responding to you, you might have a point.. but since I wasn't.. n/t

[Euromutt]

64. I believe citing Luke was in response to the question "What would Jesus carry?"

That would have been by rfranklin in post #37. You might have noticed it if you hadn't been in such a hurry to score a rhetorical point.

[Hoopla Phil]

76. Hummmm. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4269365

[Hoopla Phil]

79. Odd you should mention that. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4269365

[rfranklin]

94. You miss the irony that Jesus intended...no clothes, no concealed carry

One has to bring some intelligence to such quotations.

[Euromutt]

54. See Luke 22:36 (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

78. Check this out

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4269365

[Hoopla Phil]

80. Something to drive the point home

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4269365

[Walk away]

39. I am not surprised at that either. The OP was about a Unitarian Church...

and that is about as far from a Baptist church as ACORN is from Teabaggers.

I have never even heard of a Baptist Church with any history of support for anything Liberal or Humanist. Why would you compare the two?

[cowman]

62. Wrong

The OP was about info about the NRA

[Hoopla Phil]

81. I'm comparing the police of CHL in church. And here is why. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4269365

[dalaigh lllama]

25. Yup. It should be an interesting discussion

So as a UU, what would be your reaction if your minister bought a gun and learned how to use it? Would you leave the church?

[Walk away]

44. He would not so I don't have to worry.

I would not affiliate myself with an institution led by a fearfulness. The OP's Minister bought her gun because she was frightened. She is not a person I have any respect for. The Minister of my church has stood up in peace to far more frightening things in his life. He has put his life and career on the line for civil rights and equality many times. That is why he is so admired.

[rosesaylavee]

53. Just thought I would step in here...

I am familiar with the situation and with the minister in question. The sermon was about addressing fear and ways to address it. She shared her recent exploration of addressing her own fears - the TN church deal was a wake up for a lot of UUs as it seemed to directly target those of our faith and this was followed by a particularly frightening event in her home where she wasn't hurt but there were some high creep level ramifications to the event. She explained that she had long held an aversion to guns and by way of a friend and her husband who have long held fire arm licenses, decided to tackle that fear head on. If she was at fault for anything, it was not drawing enough of a connection between her experience and each of our needs to address fear. I think for many, they heard she had a membership in NRA and knees jerked before they heard the rest of the sermon. Michael Moore and many other liberals belong the NRA - including many in this congregation -- and it is their membership there that most likely keeps it from tilting completely to the right -

I have known her for about 15 years. My take on this is that the gun skill thing is a symbolic activity. She doesn't expect to use it in defense but learning the skill is something that helps her calm these other fears. She is a very courageous person and complicated like the rest of us. And one more thing I admire about her is that there is now a second opportunity for congregants to meet and discuss how they feel, why they feel it, express their concerns and attempt to do it all in a peaceful, respectful manner. And these are meetings not because of wide clamoring - she just thinks it is important that we work this out.

[X_Digger]

55. Overcoming one's fear is a powerful, and empowering thing.

Good for her! (And I say that regardless of the particular fear.)

[rosesaylavee]

57. And I think allowing others to know you are vulnerable and where specifically

in an attempt to help others address their own vulnerabilities - it takes a certain kind of courage to be able to do that. I admire her greatly.

[X_Digger]

58. Agreed.. not sure I'm that strong, personally. n/t

[dalaigh lllama]

56. Thanks, rosie

glad you dropped into this thread

[farmout rightarm]

70. Thanks for that refreshingly honest evaluation and report.

:D

[SteveM]

102. Fear should be a constructive emotion, not a "style" or "moral" bludgeon...

to be wielded by parlor psychologists to gain some sort of snarky advantage. I think your minister is taking a constructive course in response to a "healthy" sense of fear. Others in this forum desire to pin the scarlet letter of "Fear" onto anyone who might take reasonable corrective actions in the face of a threat. They seem to have more concern about a contrived style of fear than in really dealing with it. The congregational meetings are often a "lost art" in many churches. These meetings should be used more.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Led by a fearfulness? What the hell does that mean?

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

29. Pacifism is a hard choice/goal/life style

while I respect those who struggle to live it.
It is like Celibacy, it does not work for most of us.

i wish you the best as you travel this road, be safe

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Walk away]

45. And yet not having a gun seems to work fine for most of us. n/t

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

51. and that is fine -for you

this is an interesting thread

When I check out the profiles of the comments, a pattern westward attitude change seams evident to me. But then I maybe reading something into it.

thank you for starting this discussion

[GreenStormCloud]

96. And having guns has worked out fine for about 80 million adults in this country.

It is extremely rare for a LEGAL gun owner to use their gun to commit a crime.

[one-eyed fat man]

100. hiring your killing done

does not make you morally superior to those who do it for you. Those who expect the police and military to protect them with deadly force, if needed, because they are unwilling to protect themselves mystify me.

When I was kid and my mother wrung the neck on a chicken for Sunday dinner, or the family slaughtered a pig in the fall to put up in hams and sausage, or hunted rabbits and quail for the table, we took responsibility for our actions in getting that food. So yours comes all wrapped in plastic, ready for the microwave, and you delude yourself that your survival does not somehow depend on another creature's death.

Choose to keep a gun for defense or not. Choose to keep a gun for sport or not. If you choose to have a gun then it is incumbent that you become technically and tactically proficient in its use; it would be the height of irresponsibility to do less.

Are there those who fail in their responsibility? Of course, just like that brain dead bimbo that passed you on the interstate this morning texting away while heedlessly careening two tons of metal at 88 feet per second towards the schoolbus. We could ban texting, cars, school busses and bimbos and you would eventually discover that no matter how foolproof you try to make life, there will always come a more ingenious or malevolent fool!

[PavePusher]

101. Most =/= All n/t

[PavePusher]

49. "Liberalism and Pacifism" are NOT mutually exclusive...

of gun ownership.

Pacifism does not rule out controlled violence in defense.

Liberalism in the Classical (and seemingly mostly obsolete) meaning should embrace firearms ownership.

[proteus_lives]

50. Gun control is the opposite of liberalism.

Liberals don't advocate the removal or restriction of people's rights.

[onehandle]

67. Tell it like it is, Rosa Parks!

Should we take up a collection for the oppressed minority?

[proteus_lives]

73. It's ok. I can tell you don't understand.

I'm not mad.

So tell me, why aren't your 2nd Amendment rights worth fighting for? It's always been my view that none of our rights are disposable. Why do you feel that some are? What other rights are willing to part with for some ephemeral sense of safety?

[SteveM]

103. A lot of oppressed minorities kept arms. You don't understand...

that non-violence as a strategy which works quite well as a movement in many situations. And it is a lifestyle which works very well for many individuals in their workaday worlds. But it isn't for everyone, and it does not remove the obligation to defend yourself, your family, your home when it is threatened. Taking your licks at a lunch counter or in the street is one thing, being attacked in your home by some night-rider is quite another. One would have been well-advised not to attack civil rights activists in their workaday worlds, lest they be introduced to a Stevens 311.

Gandhi knew this. He advocated and followed "Ahimsa," the way of non-violence whereby an attacker is stopped without hurting the attacker, even to the point of death for the defender. For those who could not follow Ahimsa, he advocated the use of violence for self-defense. Above all, he did NOT recommend a crude passivity whereby an individual does nothing in self-defense. His word for that? "Cowardice."

Self-defense is an duty and obligation.

[farmout rightarm]

61. They deserve credit for many of their social positions but not this one.

But hey, no church is perfect, right?

[Euromutt]

69. That was prior to the Knoxville shooting, I assume

It's easy to be a pacifist when you and yours aren't the ones it's going to get killed. Gandhi's assertion that "the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife" was made from the comfort of someone to whom the Nazis were never a physical threat, and never would be (as the Nazis had, by that time, been defeated). A friend of mine described pacifism as "the most intellectually, morally and ethically dishonest position a human is capable of holding," and I don't think I could put it much better. I might add that both of us used to work in the Office of The Prosecutor at the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; it's not like we aren't familiar with the effects of evil. And telling people who are being subjected to genocide that it's better if they don't resist is pretty evil in my book.

I have two good friends who are UUs, actually. They're a lesbian couple, who live in a blue-collar logging town and like to ride motorcycles on weekends. Both of them carry .40-cal semi-autos concealed, and they're well trained in their use; they're also founding members of the Seattle chapter of the Pink Pistols. Nobody's going to bash them, or pull a Knoxville at their church.

[dalaigh lllama]

84. I've heard there are other UU's at our church who belong to the NRA

just as many liberals here do. I guess I figure if UU's are supposed to respect the varying beliefs/non-beliefs of each other that should go for opinions on guns, too.

[pipoman]

75. Gun control isn't a liberal, Liberal, democratic,

Democratic, progressive or Progressive position. The sooner people in these parts re-evaluate and understand this, the sooner we will be able to get on with truly liberal, democratic, and progressive legislation.

[Tim01]

28. They are more political than I would like them to be.

I think they are very interested in maintaining their own cash flow. And I think they "play the game" too much with the politicians.
But they are still almost exclusively focused on defending 2nd amendment rights.

If they can get a few more members by crying "the sky is falling", they will.

[X_Digger]

32. Short primer on the NRA

They are an advocacy group for the free exercise of the second amendment.

These include such legal uses such as
-hunting
-self-defense
-collecting
-target shooting

The NRA is not a monolithic organization, as some of the simplistic answers in this thread would have you believe.

There is a legislative "branch", working on insuring pro-second amendment legislation is passed, and anti-second amendment is defeated at every level of government.

There is a political victory "branch" that works to rank, endorse, and campaign for candidates who support the NRAs positions, or against those who support a contrary position.

The single largest portion of the NRA, however, is devoted to training. Many (most?) of the firearms trainers that train cops- received their certification from the NRA. They also run hunter safety classes in most (all?) states, many of which require a hunter safety class before granting a hunting license. They provide classes that are required in many states before granting a concealed handgun/weapon license. Their "basic firearms"/"basic rifles"/"basic pistols" classes are some of the most attended. The NRA has over 55,000 certified instructors who train about 600,000 people annually, in one course or another.

They provide materials and instructors to schools around the country, talking to kids about what they should do if they see / find a gun via their 'eddie eagle' program. There are other youth services, appropriate for older children, to introduce them to the shooting sports.

[X_Digger]

35. That was the pro- Now the con-

They tend to be hyperbolic in the messages they send members. They like to pump up their own importance when it comes to ensuring our second amendment rights aren't abridged. Honestly, sometimes they sound like a 14 year old, half-breathless all the time saying "OMG! Did you hear? Oh wow! You're not gonna believe this!! Man, I just saved your ass BIG TIME!!!1!"

The mouthpieces they trot out nowadays tend to be rather abrasive, as well. Long gone are the understated statements from the likes of Neal Knox, in favor of the more flamboyant Wayne La Pierre.

[spin]

33. The NRA is a good source of information about the technical aspects...

of firearms and the history of firearms. Their American Rifleman usually has several interesting articles each month on these subjects.

Many firearms instructors are NRA certified and provide excellent training to both law enforcement and civilians.

The NRA rates politicians solely on their views on RKBA. While they mainly give Republicans high ratings, pro-gun Democrats get high ratings as well.

The NRA_ILA is the more political wing of the NRA and they publish a lot of bullshit to encourage donations. Like the Brady Campaign, 3/4 of their articles can be taken with a grain of salt. If you do join the NRA, you can expect numerous irritating phone calls and mail from this organization filled with propaganda to get donations. I may be wrong, but I believe there is way to stop the solicitations on the NRA website.

Compared to the Brady Campaign and the VPC they do a lot more good. Their hunting safety programs have saved lives as have their classes on basic firearm safety. Law enforcement training has also been effective.

The NRA has been responsible for getting many states to pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws, castle doctrine, "stand your ground" laws and "take your gun to work" laws. Despite the predictions of the Brady Campaign, these laws have proven to be successful. No state has revoked these laws once passed.

I would rate the NRA with a B- score, solely because of the NRA-ILA's inflammatory propaganda.

Of couse, if you oppose RLBA than you would rate the NRA with a F-.

A good resource for your research is the Wikipedia article on the NRA at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

But if you oppose RKBA than obviously you would rate them with an F.

[Euromutt]

63. The NRA bears certain parallels to the Boy Scouts of America

In that by and large, it's an organization that teaches useful skills and whose membership consists by and large of reasonable people, but the leadership has a large asshole quotient.

It's worth noting that after a couple of attempted power grabs in the 1970s and 1980s, the NRA leadership has insulated itself extremely well against change. Only life members and annual members who have been members for at least five years get to vote, and they only get to vote for the Board of Directors. Neither the president and, more importantly, the executive vice-president/CEO (who really runs the shop) are elected directly. The Directors serve three-year terms, and one-third is up for re-election each year, which makes it impossible to oust the executive VP in a surprise move at a single annual meeting. This explains to a large extent why Wayne LaPierre has been in solidly in charge of the NRA since 1991; barring a massive and sustained opposition to him in the established membership, he's impossible to oust.

Her position is that if one disagrees with some of the NRA's positions, the best way to do so is voicing opinions as a member rather than an outsider.

Well, that is a large part of why I'm a member. As the man says, "you gotta pay to play," and I'm fairly certain that the organization isn't going to be swayed by anyone who tells them "well, I would join, but only if you change this, this and this policy." The membership's already bigger than it's ever been; the organization doesn't really need to compromise to attract more. Your opinion is going to carry much more weight with other members if you can demonstrate that you're willing to put your $35/year where your mouth is. (Not, I might add, that I've paid $35/year; the NRA was offering discount five-year memberships for $120 in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, and I also bought a handgun that happened to come with a year's membership, so in effect I'm paid up until November 2013 for $20/year.)

If you have time, and the opportunity, I'd strongly recommend you try to get hold of a copy of Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Industry Lobbyist by Richard Feldman. He spent some time as the NRA's regional coordinator for the north-east, and he gives some good insight into the workings of the NRA during the 1980s and 1990s, warts and all.

[applegrove]

71. Whenever we bring up guns anywhere on the net immediately NRA people show

up. They go into great detail on guns to try and make you feel stupid and as if if you don't know the details of some assault rifle you have no right to say whether or not you want them on the streets in your neighbourhood.

You can look forward to several NRA types there with their talking points. A decent discussion will not take place as the NRA types take over the agenda.

[pipoman]

77. "NRA types" huh?

How about the anti-freedom brigade types, you know, those who believe 'feelings' and 'wants' are more important than rights? Does a 'decent discussion' about a very technical subject only result when the ignorant do the discussing?

[applegrove]

82. Rights are feelings and wants. That is why they can change.

[pipoman]

88. Good luck with that.

Keep in mind, this is in GD only, not in the guns forum.

[X_Digger]

91. Rights are feelings and wants??? Seriously??

If you want to change an enumerated right, repeal the second amendment. Short of that, you're blowing smoke up someone's ass.

[applegrove]

107. Seriously. What you describe as a right was once a feeling and a want. Seriously.

[X_Digger]

111. So if a majority of people "want" to outlaw abortion or make slavery legal?

You really should take a philosophy of law class (hell a good western course class wouldn't hurt.)

Rights are not so easily thrown away- especially those rights enumerated in our founding documents.

[applegrove]

112. How did the Right to Bare Arms come about? It was a feeling then a want.

I'm not saying it has to be repealed but laws could go on the book that keep guns out of the hands of creeps and nuts as well as those involved in the illegal gun trade. And an assault weapons ban would be good again. There are many, many things that could become law (and have) that don't destroy Amendments to the constitution but make America a more peacefull place to live.

[X_Digger]

113. Western Civ and philosophy of law again..

US v Cruikshank:

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Our bill of rights doesn't determine what rights we have (if it did, the ninth and tenth amendments would make no sense whatsoever.) They merely set the scope of protections of those rights we have by nature of being human (some ascribe them as being endowed by a creator, but that's not my belief system.)

I'm not saying it has to be repealed but laws could go on the book that keep guns out of the hands of creeps and nuts as well as those involved in the illegal gun trade.

Nobody said such restrictions weren't constitutional. US v Heller expressly endorses such restrictions. However..

And an assault weapons ban would be good again.

A Federal assault weapon ban would not stand up to the criteria espoused in Heller- namely banning guns "in common use, for lawful purposes". While a level of constitutional scrutiny was not explicitly stated in Heller, the same criteria that were applied to handguns in DC would apply to a national assault weapons ban. Once McDonald is decided, and the second amendment is incorporated against the states, and some level of scrutiny is attached, state assault weapon bans will also go down in flames.

[aliendroid]

119. when we argue in support of lower gun restrition...

It is in part because gun ownership is a right and that right is suppressed if we can only have a gun in the home.

But also because there is a lot of evidence that gun freedom reduces crime while during the time when crime rates were increasing
gun laws either did not change the rate of increase or increased the rate of increase in crime rate.

[GreenStormCloud]

127. Please define "assault weapon".

The gun-control movement does not have a consistent definition of what and assault weapon is. To be able to discuss it, we need to know what we are talking about.

BTW - the 1994 AWB was not based on how a gun worked, but was based on how a gun looked. That's right. It was a bill about a gun's cosmetics, not about its lethality.

[aliendroid]

117. rights are constant and above any government or law.

So when someone feels and wants to silence someone, I guess the 1st amendment will just bend and let them do that because that is how they feel and what they want? No. Rights are constant and never changing. The right to express oneself, the right to defend oneself, the right to love whoever you want to love, and many more, never change based on the feelings and wants of authoritarians. Authoritarians may succeed in making a right illegal, but the natural right goes on and the violation of that right is simply that, a violation.

[aliendroid]

118. Hitler felt jews were bad and wanted to kill them... so

You still think that rights are wants and feelings?

[dalaigh lllama]

87. Well, since it's for church members only, I don't think it'll be a problem

the only NRA types there will be members of the congregation, and I doubt they'll cause a ruckus. Maybe I'll report back here after our meeting and let you all know how it went.

[pipoman]

90. That would be good.

My $.02. I'm not an NRA member, I have been. They do harass the shit out of you. The NRA, and NRA training is the organization to go to in the US to learn how to shoot, learn basic through advanced shooting sports, gun safety, gun related classes of every kind, and for every age. The NRA, in my opinion and others, has almost singlehandedly been responsible for more averted gun tragedies than any other organization on the planet. Gun Control beyond current laws isn't, by a long shot, a democratic or progressive position, to understand the NRA it is also important to explore their advisories Brady, VPC, Sugarman, there are several threads in guns forum about these less than credible sources most cited by gun control advocates.

[aliendroid]

121. just remember, everything is relative

If you consider getting a letter in the mail, gross harassment. Then you might agree with pioman. Also consider that if you want to avoid phone calls, don't give them your phone number.

[pipoman]

125. Uh, how about saying what ever the hell you are trying to say

after you swallow that mouthful of Cheetos? Who said "gross harassment"? I consider "harass the shit out of you", if, say, I ask someone 100 FUCKING TIMES to please and kindly quit calling me and spamming my email and I still get calls and emails 'harassing the shit out of me'. Did you read my post?

[SteveM]

105. Please keep us posted. BTW, I'm not an NRA member. nt

[applegrove]

108. I hope it goes well.

[GreenStormCloud]

97. Assault rifles have already been essentially banned since 1934. N/T

[DonP]

98. Shame on you ... Now you've made the poster feel "stupid"

They stand by their right to not know anything about the technical details of the subject - but demand to be taken seriously about their POV when discussing those details vis a vis legislation proposed or pending.

[applegrove]

109. No I don't. Assault rifles have been sold in the USA since 1934. And as

to not be schooled in the details why should I have to know any details to decide what sort of culture I want to live in? Gun love does result in increased murders, suicides and accidents. Why can't I talk about that? I live in Canada and we have peaceful schools and cities.... much less in the way of violent crime than the USA. The NRA has infiltrated our society = why can't I talk about the level of peace I want to live in. As long as I am willing to pay for adequate policing and the gun registry - why not?

[aliendroid]

122. you're canadian...

I'm not against everyone in the world being disarmed, honestly, I just don't want people in the USA to be disarmed. I respect what happens in other countries as their business. I do use the information from time to time to make arguments. Although there is a total handgun and strict rifle ban in UK, I'm not going to go over there and interfere with their affairs.

So you should also respect that americans want to own guns.

[DonP]

124. Ah, another Canadian, eh?

With lots of opinions on how the USA should run our country.

Yeah, why should you have to know anything at all about what you want to control and eliminate. You have the right to stay small "i" ignorant of things (and you are doing a fine job of it too) and call for changes in another country's laws and customs. Hell, you're Canadian you have the right to criticize any country, right? Geeez, you almost sound like Reverend Phelps & Co. when you put it that way.

Thanks for the input. Do let us know when you resolve that Billion C$ gun registry you guys ginned up. Solved any crimes with it yet?

You absolutely have the right to express yourself on how you want to live. What you do not have, obviously, is common courtesy and the standing to correct others from different cultures and forms of government on how they should live their lives.

Brash, rude American that I am ... It's rather arrogant and rude for you to critique our constitution, but then again we're pretty used to it from a number of Canadians around here, not all, but a select and insecure few. Seems to be a common national sport, right behind hockey for some of you.

The difference between you on guns and a "Fundie" on the right to choose is a bridge from Windsor to Detroit. You are intolerant of other points of view and that is not a progressive value last time I looked.

[GreenStormCloud]

128. Since 1934 assault rifles have been EXTREMELY tightly regulated.

You have to jump through so many federal hoops that the average citizen couldn't afford them then, and can't afford them now. I said that they were "essentially" illegal, meaning that their legal ownership was rare. Furthermore, their actual use in modern crime is very rare. You are fighting a fight that was over with in 1934.

[SteveM]

104. Who are these "NRA types?"...

"if you don't know the details of some assault rifle you have no right to say whether or not you want them on the streets in your neighbourhood."

Well, frankly, most gun-controllers here DO NOT know the basic stuff about the very thing they want banned. This has always been a curious phenomenon. It would make fundamental sense to know something of the thing you want banned.

I can only explain this queer phenomenon by:
(1) they really DO know what the differences between "assault rifles" and so-called "assault weapons," but know they can't carry a good argument for prohibition; or (and most likely)
(2) they don't know the difference and don't want to know, lest knowledge of that which is hated somehow soils their moral sense of selves.

Either way, it is an intellectually dishonest way to carry on a "decent discussion." BTW, "to try and make you feel stupid" is not the intent of most posts here, but if some feel stupid, they might deal with "stupidity" just as some deal with "fear:" get more information and facts, then take action or, heaven forbid, change.

[applegrove]

110. Wanting to live in a peaceful culture is a choice you can make and that is freedom.

You don't have to be a gun expert to look at the violent gun crime, gun suicide and gun accident rates in the USA and say Why? Why would I want to live in a society that lusts for guns.

[SteveM]

114. Well, that doesn't answer the questions about "NRA types,"...

and I'm not sure of the relevance of choosing to live in a peaceful culture and its equating with freedom; I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying, so:

I live in a relatively peaceful culture. I don't know how much "choice" I had in that matter, but I hope the relative peacefulness continues and even improves. Does that help?

When gun-controllers want to pass laws to restrict/prohibit guns, it is ethically and intellectually incumbent upon them to learn the most they can about the thing/activity they wish to restrict/prohibit. Common sense of the most fundamental sort.

I look at gun crime and gun accident rates and see significant, long-term declines in both. This evidence has been presented here, over and over again. If you want to understand "why" these rates are falling, study the information presented in this forum. Maybe you have some insight as well.

As for suicide, that's a "choice" some make and will unlikely be deterred by the absence of a gun. (In Japan where guns are severely restricted, suicide rates are higher than our's.)

I can't answer for you: "Why would I want to live in a society that lusts for guns(?)." Your "lusting for guns" flippant is overly-emotional and lends nothing at all to this debate, or for that matter, solving any of the problems you have alluded to.

There are bigger problems that might make some folks question why they live here: no universal health care, poor public education system, inadequate efforts at conservation, lousy job security, poor retirement, lack of viability in our national government, etc. "Lusting for gun" seems a pathetic and pale substitute for authentic reasons to question why you stay, or for that matter how to solve the problems I just mentioned. But it is a way to continue a hateful, self-damaging culture war.

[aliendroid]

123. if you want to move to a peaceful and violent free society, you should move to...

Vermont or New Hampshire. Also they just so happen to have the least amount of restriction on gun laws and much lower violent crime and murder rates than canada.

[aliendroid]

116. hahaha awwwwwwwwwww sniffle

crying won't win people over either.

You want to ban "assault" rifles. We inform you they have been banned. The semi-auto rifle that you are calling an "assault" rifle accounts for less than 1% of violent crime. We ask, why spend billions going after those. Clinton's assault weapon ban put Bush into power, and that may have costed us the price tag of the iraq war. Was it worth it for that 1% of violent crime?

A decent discussion involves facts and argument, not just crying and emotionalism, which is what many anti-gun people use today because the gun-control experiments of the past did nothing to reduce crime but may have increased it, while evidence shows that new gun freedoms are reducing crime.

Here in the gun forums, the hate comments are from anti-gun people, who does that help your agenda, when you guys do that?

[applegrove]

129. "crying and emotionalism". So I'm not allowed to have any feelings on this matter. Point taken. And

rejected.

[Hoopla Phil]

89. There has been another church shooting that you may also want to address in your meeting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4269365

Please do get back to us after your meeting. The decision to start arming at our church was discussed at some length during the Y2K scare. It was decided that it was better to allow those with CHL's to carry if they chose to. It was also recommended that the Deacons take the responsibility to get their CHL's so that they may carry.

Keep in mind that this was not done because our church believed in fire and brimstone would rain down at the strike of midnight. We were concerned that some "loose cannons" might just get pushed over the edge with all the y2k BS and cause problems. With the background checks, instruction, and testing that Texas does for their CHL's it was decided that that would be sufficient to meet any requirements that the church would impose to carry. (as a note the ATF exempts a Texas CHL holder from a NICS check as the background check is so thorough.) Considering what we went through I'm curious as to how your meeting goes.

[Abq_Sarah]

93. I'm a member

Why? Because I'm a firearms instructor and I teach several different NRA certified classes. I'm also a concealed carry instructor and in order to be certified in my state, I required either NRA or NM Law enforcement certification.

[Glassunion]

99. From my perspective...

The NRA does legislatively stand up for the 2nd. The ACLU pretty much does the same for a majority of the rest of the amendments. That is why I am a member of both.

As with both they can at times take it to the extreme, but I feel they are both relevant in today's day and age.

The trick I guess would be to find what they stand for, they do have literature online, and find if you agree with their sentiments.

[jeepnstein]

126. What I always do in questions...

that involve the Church is to refer to the instruction manual. If the Bible speaks on the matter, then it is settled. If the Bible is silent, then we can do as we see fit. What does the Bible, most importantly the New Testament, say about going armed?

[Hoopla Phil]

130. So how did your discussion turn out?