NRA Grassroots


Recently the NRA has received a huge reminder of its purpose. Years ago, in the 1990’s (President Clinton) I joined the NRA. It was a statement that I felt the 2nd Amendment right to self defense was important. A few years later, I let the membership lapse, at least in part, because I thought that like many other organizations such as APS (American Physical Society), the NRA was failing its primary purpose as its hierarchy was taken over by organizers wanting to redirect NRA lobbying efforts away from its primary mission, 2nd Amendment protections. I think since then the NRA has recovered somewhat as the “Right to Carry” effort has expanded, supporting it especially with qualifying gun safety courses.

Recent events and rhetoric from the Federal Administration has caused me to reconsider. I rejoined to make a statement to both the administration and the NRA, the organization best equipped to lobby for 2nd Amendment rights. I can’t say I know the numbers. But I suspect the NRA’s membership has grown, noticeably and significantly. over the last two months. If these new members are like me, they are choosing a course more significant than signing a petition. They are paying for lobbying efforts in support of the right to self defense. Please remember that, NRA.

The administration should also take notice of the voice of the people, as expressed by NRA membership and gun sales. It may not be a huge fraction of the voting public, but a segment of the population that would rather quietly live their lives has been activated, much like the Teaparty a couple years ago that changed the leadership of Congress. It is not the NRA or conservative organizations that have manufactured the NRA membership and gun sales spike. Nobody knocked at my door or robodialed my phone. It is thinking individuals response to the administration’s kicking the ant hill.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “NRA Grassroots

  1. But, and here’s the clincher, will the NRA admit that there is agreement? I wish someone would ask Wayne La Pierre on television what he thinks about the president’s proposal to “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers…” That’s how it’s worded by the administration. All I want is for the school kids to be protected… Why can’t the NRA leadership get behind this? What’s stopping them? They already agree! The worst that can happen here, I think, is if this particular segment of the president’s proposal is underfunded ~ by congress.

    • three point:
      1) “Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers…” doesn’t tell me a whole lot. It could mean hire more psychologists. It appears to be designed to mean what ever you want it to mean. One can only hope it means armed guards.

      2) Funding from a [bankrupt] government implies a one-size-fits-all solution. Schools have to evaluate their own situations and different localities will have different solutions. Having guards is a cost of doing business. I can’t remember the last time I walked into a business where I didn’t answer to a guard. School districts might replace some administrators with guards. Parochial and private schools might come up with other solutions.

      3) In the President’s long list of proposals some were downright scary. Doctors monitoring gun use??? In no way will I endorse the full list. And any support for individual elements will be extremely qualified.

  2. Repealing the 2nd Amendment, blaming groups of people ~ no no no ~ I just want to see some common sense regulatory measures. Just because its illegal to buy a howitzer cannon doesn’t mean you have to give up your 12-gage shot-gun. You know that. Why must we have a nation bristling with assault weapons and high-capacity magazines? Aren’t those made for mass-killing? Why do we need those floatin’ all over the place?

    • If the only purpose of “assault” weapons and “high-capacity” magazines is to kill lots of people, then everyone who legally purchases them is a mass murderer, or potential mass murderer. This is demonstrably false. Legal purchasers of firearms almost always do not purchase them to for that purpose. Therefore there must be other purposes, Target shooting is one.

      And I fail to see the “common sense” is harassing and persecuting law abiding citizens, to reduce the number of criminals. Isn’t “the only” purpose of excessive laws, rules, and regulations, to make every one a criminal? I propose that a “common sense” approach is to prosecute murderers, for murder, speedily.

      • Common sense also entails hiring more “school resource officers,” preferably armed, in our schools ~ don’t you think? This is in the president’s proposals ~ and I think its presence in his proposals is not getting enough attention. And yet this is the one thing in his proposals that the NRA has already pretty much proposed also…

        I think we must push hiring more armed resource officers in the schools ~ get both wings of the eagle flapping on this so that the eagle will fly!

    • The perpetrator is dead. The guilty party is dead. It is appropriate for us to use this opportunity to re-evaluate our school security procedures, and this is being done. If you wish to work to repeal the 2nd amendment, I will endorse your right to do so, though I will not wish you luck. But blaming groups of people for the actions off an individual has a medieval ring to it.

      The founders showed some wisdom in establishing principles of individual responsibility and an assumption of innocence.

      People can be quite inventive at figuring out ways to kill other, which I think is why the crime is the murder, rather than the use out a tool.

Comments are closed.