What's with the NRA?

[renegadephoenix]

I actually have trouble supporting any gun rights organization besides the NRA.

They're hardly perfect, but out of all the organizations out there they seem to do the best job of sticking to their core mission of gun rights and not diluting their message with partisan politics. All of the other pro-gun organizations I've found seem to be Republican shills, and push a conservative agenda outside of their core pro-gun mission.

I joined FOAC thinking it was a good Pennsylvania based pro-gun organization to join, but I've come to regret that decision and likely will not be renewing my membership next year. They seem to push a partisan agenda beyond their gun-rights mission, appear to be blatantly partisan, and in some of their materials I've found a number of blatantly partisan lies.

I signed up to support gun rights in Pennsylvania. I didn't sign up for all that other stuff.

Please provide facts.

[eXceLon]

Please provide facts.

I can think of several examples, but one in particular stood out to me:

The FOAC newsletter was pushing the myth that a section of the health care bill was to establish some sort of "brown shirt" type army that reports to Obama.

I sent a feedback email on the subject, and actually received a response directly from Kim Stolfer on the subject. Despite being provided with lengthy research on the actual section in question, Mr. Stolfer seemed to prefer politically convenient innuendo and hand-waving to facts. The whole encounter really soured me on the whole organization.

An organization focused on gun rights has no business inserting itself into debate over a health care bill, yet FOAC and several other organizations couldn't resist the opportunity to play partisan politics and aid in spreading unfounded myths. It's one thing when an organization strays into issues that don't concern it, it's quite another when they distribute lies in doing so.

There have been plenty of times where the NRA will make an announcement debunking an anti-gun political myth that has been spreading on the internet, even though supporting the lie might have been politically convenient for them. I have respect for that. Spreading lies and engaging in other morally questionable behavior, even in support of a noble cause, is not justified.

I get what your saying but when their is so much BS going on its hard to sit there and just work for one thing. Alot of other shit affects the 2A, so if you stop ABC it will make it alot easier to deal with DEF.

Sure, when a seemingly separate issue has an impact on an otherwise single-issue organization I have no problem with them getting involved. The NRA and plenty of other organizations speak out about things like campaign finance reform and free speech issues, because it directly impacts their ability to operate and continue to serve their cause. That makes sense, and I have no objection to that.

However there are organizations that purport to be dedicated to the advancement of a particular cause, which appear to be more interested in political partisanship than actually advancing that cause. It's actually not uncommon for agents of political parties to create apparent "issue organizations" to collect donations from those sympathetic to the cause in question, which are really nothing more than a financing front for candidates of a particular party.

When I see a supposedly gun-rights organization that gets itself involved in political issues way outside of the bounds of it's mission, it raises the question of whether they really do exist to advance a cause or if they just exist to collect money for party candidates. Even if the organization is legitimate, you have to wonder if that organization really is doing all it can in service of the issue you believe in if they are wasting their money and credibility on unrelated issues that you may not necessarily agree with.

Please explain. My State Rep is a Dem and has been endorsed by the FOAC..

I don't doubt that they have. I don't think that FOAC is a mere Republican fund-raising front, of the sort that I mentioned above. I do think they are a legitimate gun-rights organization. I just think they have trouble separating the biases of their leadership and members from their core mission. And that is what causes me to question my support. I don't pretend that my measly membership makes any different to them in the long term, but I have my convictions just as they have theirs.

This is actually something really difficult for an organization to get right. When you have issues that are traditionally associated with one party or another, it's really difficult to keep an organization laser-focused on that issue and not allow those other biases to seep into their activities. Larger organizations tend to have better discipline in this regard because of their increased visibility and more diverse supporter base, but a lot of smaller organizations seem to have difficulty in maintaining that level of discipline.

[renegadephoenix]

I can think of several examples, but one in particular stood out to me:

The FOAC newsletter was pushing the myth that a section of the health care bill was to establish some sort of "brown shirt" type army that reports to Obama.

I sent a feedback email on the subject, and actually received a response directly from Kim Stolfer on the subject. Despite being provided with lengthy research on the actual section in question, Mr. Stolfer seemed to prefer politically convenient innuendo and hand-waving to facts. The whole encounter really soured me on the whole organization.

An organization focused on gun rights has no business inserting itself into debate over a health care bill, yet FOAC and several other organizations couldn't resist the opportunity to play partisan politics and aid in spreading unfounded myths. It's one thing when an organization strays into issues that don't concern it, it's quite another when they distribute lies in doing so.

There have been plenty of times where the NRA will make an announcement debunking an anti-gun political myth that has been spreading on the internet, even though supporting the lie might have been politically convenient for them. I have respect for that. Spreading lies and engaging in other morally questionable behavior, even in support of a noble cause, is not justified.



Sure, when a seemingly separate issue has an impact on an otherwise single-issue organization I have no problem with them getting involved. The NRA and plenty of other organizations speak out about things like campaign finance reform and free speech issues, because it directly impacts their ability to operate and continue to serve their cause. That makes sense, and I have no objection to that.

However there are organizations that purport to be dedicated to the advancement of a particular cause, which appear to be more interested in political partisanship than actually advancing that cause. It's actually not uncommon for agents of political parties to create apparent "issue organizations" to collect donations from those sympathetic to the cause in question, which are really nothing more than a financing front for candidates of a particular party.

When I see a supposedly gun-rights organization that gets itself involved in political issues way outside of the bounds of it's mission, it raises the question of whether they really do exist to advance a cause or if they just exist to collect money for party candidates. Even if the organization is legitimate, you have to wonder if that organization really is doing all it can in service of the issue you believe in if they are wasting their money and credibility on unrelated issues that you may not necessarily agree with.



I don't doubt that they have. I don't think that FOAC is a mere Republican fund-raising front, of the sort that I mentioned above. I do think they are a legitimate gun-rights organization. I just think they have trouble separating the biases of their leadership and members from their core mission. And that is what causes me to question my support. I don't pretend that my measly membership makes any different to them in the long term, but I have my convictions just as they have theirs.

This is actually something really difficult for an organization to get right. When you have issues that are traditionally associated with one party or another, it's really difficult to keep an organization laser-focused on that issue and not allow those other biases to seep into their activities. Larger organizations tend to have better discipline in this regard because of their increased visibility and more diverse supporter base, but a lot of smaller organizations seem to have difficulty in maintaining that level of discipline.

if you have issues, bring them to the FOAC meeting on sunday instead of going to the PAFOA Group Shoot so they can be addressed.

as for Obama Care, once your records get put into the system say good by to your right to own a firearm if you have any type of mental disorder. that is one thing that Kim was trying to explain. that is no myth or lie.

[Broncitis]

I can think of several examples, but one in particular stood out to me:

The FOAC newsletter was pushing the myth that a section of the health care bill was to establish some sort of "brown shirt" type army that reports to Obama.

I sent a feedback email on the subject, and actually received a response directly from Kim Stolfer on the subject. Despite being provided with lengthy research on the actual section in question, Mr. Stolfer seemed to prefer politically convenient innuendo and hand-waving to facts. The whole encounter really soured me on the whole organization.

An organization focused on gun rights has no business inserting itself into debate over a health care bill, yet FOAC and several other organizations couldn't resist the opportunity to play partisan politics and aid in spreading unfounded myths. It's one thing when an organization strays into issues that don't concern it, it's quite another when they distribute lies in doing so.

There have been plenty of times where the NRA will make an announcement debunking an anti-gun political myth that has been spreading on the internet, even though supporting the lie might have been politically convenient for them. I have respect for that. Spreading lies and engaging in other morally questionable behavior, even in support of a noble cause, is not justified.



Sure, when a seemingly separate issue has an impact on an otherwise single-issue organization I have no problem with them getting involved. The NRA and plenty of other organizations speak out about things like campaign finance reform and free speech issues, because it directly impacts their ability to operate and continue to serve their cause. That makes sense, and I have no objection to that.

However there are organizations that purport to be dedicated to the advancement of a particular cause, which appear to be more interested in political partisanship than actually advancing that cause. It's actually not uncommon for agents of political parties to create apparent "issue organizations" to collect donations from those sympathetic to the cause in question, which are really nothing more than a financing front for candidates of a particular party.

When I see a supposedly gun-rights organization that gets itself involved in political issues way outside of the bounds of it's mission, it raises the question of whether they really do exist to advance a cause or if they just exist to collect money for party candidates. Even if the organization is legitimate, you have to wonder if that organization really is doing all it can in service of the issue you believe in if they are wasting their money and credibility on unrelated issues that you may not necessarily agree with.



I don't doubt that they have. I don't think that FOAC is a mere Republican fund-raising front, of the sort that I mentioned above. I do think they are a legitimate gun-rights organization. I just think they have trouble separating the biases of their leadership and members from their core mission. And that is what causes me to question my support. I don't pretend that my measly membership makes any different to them in the long term, but I have my convictions just as they have theirs.

This is actually something really difficult for an organization to get right. When you have issues that are traditionally associated with one party or another, it's really difficult to keep an organization laser-focused on that issue and not allow those other biases to seep into their activities. Larger organizations tend to have better discipline in this regard because of their increased visibility and more diverse supporter base, but a lot of smaller organizations seem to have difficulty in maintaining that level of discipline.

Have you seen the voter’s guides and the ratings of each current Representative and Senator in the state?

I have, and there are lots of "D's" with FOAC Pro-Gun ratings, and more than a few "R's" with Anti-Gun ratings.

The percentages are not equal, but I think most reasonable people would not expect them to be considering how these parties generally fall on the issues and where the demographic makeup of these politicians are from.

However, you are dead wrong to insinuate that FOAC only supports R's and not D's or that they are a fundraising front for R's. To do so without more concrete information than you have provided does all Pro-gun supporters a disservice.


.....I just pulled this out of an email I sent to my Rep (an "R" who had an Anti-gun FOAC rating at the time which confused me from the discussions I had with him, this has since been changed after he completed a current FOAC questionairre and I with the help of Kim got clarification on some misunderstandings on both ends).

"I just counted 49 of your peers from across the aisle (House and Senate) who have pro-gun ratings from FOAC, and 8 Republicans who have anti-gun ratings. There are only 14 “unknown” ratings listed in all of the House and Senate, so it appears that many of your peers have in fact taken the time to respond to this questionnaire. I have requested more information from FOAC on your rating specifically."

As you can see, your claim that FOAC only gives Pro-gun ratings to "R's" is in obvious error and misleading at best.

[The_War_Wagon]

They're in the midst of a membership drive... for the GOA...

[leeam]

if you have issues, bring them to the FOAC meeting on sunday instead of going to the PAFOA Group Shoot so they can be addressed.

as for Obama Care, once your records get put into the system say good by to your right to own a firearm if you have any type of mental disorder. that is one thing that Kim was trying to explain. that is no myth or lie.

Mental disorders became a prohibiting factor with the GCA iirc, so from my point of view the health care bill is only going to aid in the enforcement of that GCA provision. I thought gun owners were usually for the proper enforcement of existing gun laws, so they should be for this aspect of the health care bill.

If you're against the concept of prohibiting offenses, or against specifically prohibition for mental disorders, then I can certainly understand being against the health care bill on the grounds that it will probably allow for the sucessful implementation of this (imo unjust like all the other factors for) prohibition. I also believe there's a huge flaw specifically with the mental disorders prohibition (I'm sure it's been mentioned on PAFOA before), but I'd rather not point out for the anti-gunners who lurk here.

[JLPicard]

Says it perfect, the NRA has blinders on.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIA5w...layer_embedded

[eXceLon]

As you can see, your claim that FOAC only gives Pro-gun ratings to "R's" is in obvious error and misleading at best.

I made no such claim. I did say that they sometimes seem to go beyond pro-gun advocacy and weigh in on other conservative political issues.

That being said, I've been surprised to see that the NRA has gotten pretty bad about this lately as well. I've been surprised at the number of mailings I've gotten lately from the NRA dealing with illegal immigration. What in the world does that have to go with gun rights?

as for Obama Care, once your records get put into the system say good by to your right to own a firearm if you have any type of mental disorder. that is one thing that Kim was trying to explain. that is no myth or lie.

This is fairly obviously false, as the health care bill does not create any sort of national medical records system.

It appears that FOAC had been parroting the unfounded claims made by other smaller more partisan pro-gun organizations, and other conservative commentators, without doing the fact checking themselves. It's telling that the NRA was almost entirely silent on the issue of health care reform, because they actually have the resources and the lawyers to monitor these things and likely found there was nothing of interest to report. Exactly as they should have.

Regarding the issue of mental health and gun ownership, federal law is very specific concerning what mental health related situations make one ineligible to own a firearm:

According to federal regulations, a person has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court, board, commission or other lawful authority has determined that he or she, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: 1) is a danger to himself, herself, or others; or 2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his or her own affairs. 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. The term “adjudicated as a mental defective” explicitly includes a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetence to stand trial.

You'll note that both of these situations involve due process of the legal system. Mere "medical records", even if the government had access to them, are not sufficient to make one a prohibited person.

The federal government is already the largest provider of health care in the country. From retirees on Medicare, to the poor on Medicaid, to veterans and other federal employees. So presumably as the payer of millions of Americans health care, they already have some access to health records. Though insurance companies don't get the kind of detailed records that doctors keep, you can infer a lot from the type of drugs and treatments that have been paid for. Yet despite this, those records haven't been used to (illegally) feed into the NICS system to deny otherwise eligible individuals from buying guns.

On the other hand, after the Virginia Tech massacre the NRA supported and President Bush signed a law strengthening the reporting of such court orders into the Federal NICS system. Cho was ineligible to own firearms because a court of law determined himself to be a danger to himself and others and ordered psychiatric treatment, but because of flaws in the process the records of that court order had failed to make it into the NICS system.

I don't seem to recall any great outrage at the time over that change in law. In fact it was welcomed because among other things, it made allowance for people with past mental health issues which have since been resolved to have their gun rights restored.

[JLPicard]

Well I JUST got my issue of Freedom, and low and behold, the centerfold of NRA-backed candidates has me voting for Ted Strickland (D) the shittiest Gov the state of Ohio has had, and crappy Charlie Wilson (D) a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi's socialist gov't aspirations. I can't believe they have supported crappy Charlie over Bill Johnson (retired Air Force). They BOTH get a rating of "A", but Bill Johnson is NO career politician, so he has no voting history. Man this burns me. The frickin NRA thinks they can hang onto the 2nd amendment even if all the other amendments of our constitution are being trampled on?

[tsafa]

Well I JUST got my issue of Freedom, and low and behold, the centerfold of NRA-backed candidates has me voting for Ted Strickland (D) the shittiest Gov the state of Ohio has had, and crappy Charlie Wilson (D) a rubber stamp for Nancy Pelosi's socialist gov't aspirations. I can't believe they have supported crappy Charlie over Bill Johnson (retired Marine Corps). They BOTH get a rating of "A", but Bill Johnson is NO career politician, so he has no voting history. Man this burns me. The frickin NRA thinks they can hang onto the 2nd amendment even if all the other amendments of our constitution are being trampled on?

It seems like a good tactical move. Supporting a Democrat who has a pro-gun record ensures that no matter who wins, the person in office will vote pro-gun. If the winner happens to be a Republican Candidate, then he gets to prove he is on our side by actually voting pro-gun and then next election he gets NRA support.

The NRA's current policy leaves the door open for Pro-Gun Democrats to join and support too. That is very important since the mix of Democrats and Republicans in the population is roughly 50-50, but statistically 80% of the population supports gun rights. By being a "true" one issue organization the NRA can bring an additional 30% of the population to bear against anti-gunners. If the NRA follows any other policy other then being a one issue organization they will loose support, rather then gain it. I support all the other rights in the Bill of Rights and Free Market Capitalism, but there are separate organizations to champion those.