-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Gun Advocates Open a New Front
- Thread starter AppleSeeds
- Start date
This feeling regarding the NRA has been building for a while and hasn't occurred overnight. I am a life member and I've sponsored other folks. I'll continue to support the NRA for their efforts at the national level.
HOWEVER: I believe that the NRA has grown into a huge entity, almost like a huge corporation. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe that they need to step back and focus on where the fight for gun rights is going. They are pretty good at keeping track of, and fighting, legislation at the Federal level, but most of the action over the last few years has been at the state and local level. With over 4,000,000 members, they should be able to offer at least token financial support to viable local groups. I realize that there are some problems with doing that. If they were to pour a huge amount of money into a state like Massachusetts, some folks in other states might take offense and say "Hey, why don't the people who live there stop electing a&&hats who are taking away their rights?" I can understand the need for the NRA to exercise some discretion so as to not appear that they're pouring money down a rathole.
The other possibility is that the NRA stick solely with Federal legislation and national issues, and merely offer news and information regarding state and local issues. Come to think of it, that seems to be pretty much what they're doing anyway, isn't it? But I think they even fail at some of that. They were very slow to sign on to the Heller case, and they've offered no $$ support to the Second Amendment March (at least not that I could determine). They were quick to tout their support of Heller after the fact, and I'll bet that if the SAM is a big success they'll trumpet their support. Everybody like success, and ultimately we're all fighting for the same things, but sometimes even the General has to join the troops in the trenches - or at least make sure they've got the "ammunition" to continue the battle.
For now, my efforts will be focused on things in MA. If events change on a national level, I may have to rethink my position. I've got other thoughts on these issues, but I've rambled on long enough. I'm curious as to what others think regarding this.
HOWEVER: I believe that the NRA has grown into a huge entity, almost like a huge corporation. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe that they need to step back and focus on where the fight for gun rights is going. They are pretty good at keeping track of, and fighting, legislation at the Federal level, but most of the action over the last few years has been at the state and local level. With over 4,000,000 members, they should be able to offer at least token financial support to viable local groups. I realize that there are some problems with doing that. If they were to pour a huge amount of money into a state like Massachusetts, some folks in other states might take offense and say "Hey, why don't the people who live there stop electing a&&hats who are taking away their rights?" I can understand the need for the NRA to exercise some discretion so as to not appear that they're pouring money down a rathole.
The other possibility is that the NRA stick solely with Federal legislation and national issues, and merely offer news and information regarding state and local issues. Come to think of it, that seems to be pretty much what they're doing anyway, isn't it? But I think they even fail at some of that. They were very slow to sign on to the Heller case, and they've offered no $$ support to the Second Amendment March (at least not that I could determine). They were quick to tout their support of Heller after the fact, and I'll bet that if the SAM is a big success they'll trumpet their support. Everybody like success, and ultimately we're all fighting for the same things, but sometimes even the General has to join the troops in the trenches - or at least make sure they've got the "ammunition" to continue the battle.
For now, my efforts will be focused on things in MA. If events change on a national level, I may have to rethink my position. I've got other thoughts on these issues, but I've rambled on long enough. I'm curious as to what others think regarding this.
Similar threads
