www.nrawol.net - Whaddya Think?

[Cookster]

A good friend and fellow 2A supporter recently sent this link to me.

I have been member of the NRA for 10 or so years now, but if the information on this web-site is accurate, then maybe it's time to endorse other orgs that better support the 2A, etc.

Any thoughts on the information they are presenting? Is the NRA as 'bad' as they make them out to be? Maybe someone(s) in this organization has a personal ax to grind w/the NRA and wants to make them 'look' bad?

Regards,

Rob

P.S. - A search of pafoa.org for 'nrawol' did not return any results

[Pa. Patriot]

Nothing new... I can't vouch for the validity of all thier claims but it is no secret that the NRA has been selling out gun owners for the sake of "staying in biz" for decades...

[danp]

Looks like the owner of that site Dudley Brown is associated with GOA at some level which would make sense. The NRA and GOA go at each other's necks at times, the most recent one because the GOA couldn't read legislation very well if I recall correctly.

In my GENERALIZED experience, most of the people I meet who think the NRA is secretly selling out gun owners really just don't understand the realities of politics and compromise. Again, it's the same reason you don't see many Libertarians represented in any powerful positions in government.

You always ask for the sky and work for what you can actually get knowing that once you get it, you can just ask for the sky again and start the process all over. It's how the gun control lobby works, it's how we should work.

No Compromise = No Influence usually.

[Pa. Patriot]

In my GENERALIZED experience, most of the people I meet who think the NRA is secretly selling out gun owners really just don't understand the realities of politics and compromise. Again, it's the same reason you don't see many Libertarians represented in any powerful positions in government.

Or we disagree rather than do not understand. A minority in force does not a "misunderstanding" make.

You always ask for the sky and work for what you can actually get knowing that once you get it, you can just ask for the sky again and start the process all over. It's how the gun control lobby works, it's how we should work.

Right! and the problem is that is NOT how the NRA works..

No Compromise = No Influence in my experience.

No compromise = very few willing to stand with you in my experience.

[Pa. Patriot]

In my GENERALIZED experience, most of the people I meet who think the NRA is secretly selling out gun owners really just don't understand the realities of politics and compromise. Again, it's the same reason you don't see many Libertarians represented in any powerful positions in government.

Or we disagree rather than do not understand. A minority in force does not a "misunderstanding" make.

You always ask for the sky and work for what you can actually get knowing that once you get it, you can just ask for the sky again and start the process all over. It's how the gun control lobby works, it's how we should work.

Right! and the problem is that is NOT how the NRA works..

No Compromise = No Influence in my experience.

No compromise = very few willing to stand with you in my experience.

"Compromise" has only equated to ONE thing for gun owners... LOSS.

Why should we continue to lose?

[danp]

Or we disagree rather than do not understand. A minority in force does not a "misunderstanding" make.

Which is why I said GENERALLY, some people will disagree with full understanding at which point you simply have to look at who is more effective, history will be the judge of that. While this is not scientific, I can't really remember the last time I heard of a big win for gun owners coming from GOA, but I can think of plenty coming from the NRA.

Right! and the problem is that is NOT how the NRA works..

I would argue that's exactly how they work. They know what is politically feasible and they push for that, or slightly past that, but they do not waste their time on issues that are not politically feasible. The NRA will never publicly admit they would be for the repeal of 922(o) because it is political suicide, however I'm fairly sure if it was politically feasible tomorrow they'd go for it. I guess that's a little bit of faith however.

No compromise = very few willing to stand with you in my experience.

I would argue that's because the market of ideas has determined "no compromise" to be an ineffective, if not losing political strategy.

Until the government is putting people into cattle cars and shipping them off to re-education/death camps, I doubt the "no compromise" wing of the pro-gun movement will be very influential, but thankfully I don't think we are ANYWHERE near that point.

[Pa. Patriot]

I think it is more a pick your battles rather than no compromise issue... I do not compromise. But I pick my battles, one chip at a time.
I only wish the NRA did the same. They only defend and in doing so they decide which pieces to let go. I prefer to on the offensive, picking up pieces one at a time in a strategic manner.

Sorry, while I agree the NRA HAS been the most effective, it is not to say they have been even remotely close to being as effective as they could be.

[danp]

"Compromise" has only equated to ONE thing for gun owners... LOSS.

Why should we continue to lose?

I don't see anything as a loss. One thing I think gun owners need to face is that things could be a lot worse. That doesn't make it right, but it's true.

After Virginia Tech, very, very bad things could have happened. The NRA stepped in with their mental health records checks legislation and put their finger in the dam that was about to flood. Ultimately they compromised on a few things but attached amendments that actually GAVE us things, like the ability to regain rights. So while a lot of the "no compromise" people like GOA hemmed and hawed about it, the NRA potentially stopped worse legislation, possibly took one step back, but also took 2 steps forward.

I call that a win.

I just am almost done reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which is basically his bible about how to effectively organize people to fight for something. While he was pretty much a dirty liberal hippie and I disagree with him on probably ever issue on earth, the tools we use will be the same. In this case I find this quote useful:

As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be --- it is necessary to begin where the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be. That means working in the system.

Ultimately we may just have to agree to disagree, but I strongly believe that compromising politically is not the same as compromising your values and goals.

[danp]

I think it is more a pick your battles rather than no compromise issue... I do not compromise. But I pick my battles, one chip at a time.

Which is smart and the way everything we do should be done.

I only wish the NRA did the same. They only defend and in doing so they decide which pieces to let go. I prefer to on the offensive, picking up pieces one at a time in a strategic manner.

I dunno about that, they go on the offensive in many ways, like protecting manufacturers from lawsuits, filing lawsuits against cities, etc.

Sorry, while I agree the NRA HAS been the most effective, it is not to say they have been even remotely close to being as effective as they could be.

I would imagine that the effectiveness of an organization in relation to it's level of compromise is a parabolic arc with no compromise being just as useless as all compromise. I would even go so far as to concede that perhaps the NRA is past the zenith and into the compromise area a little too far. But it's still the best we've got and not supporting it certainly isn't going to help our cause. I don't think it serves us at all to fault them for not being perfect, while letting "no compromise" organizations who actively get things wrong and do even less slide simply because they pound their chests harder.

[jon'76]

Unfortunately I have to disagree 100% with two people who I have a great deal of respect for.

Compromise is what got us into this shithole and compromise certainly isn't going to drag us out of it. We need to start acting like the sovereigns that we are and tell our public servants exactly where to go. WE THE PEOPLE are in charge whether they like it or not, but tragically most have forgotten this little fact. I'll have liberty or death.

We have ceded so many god-given rights to these bastards that we are far less free today than in 1776 when our ancestors rebeled. Travel used to be a right, now its a privelege. Self-medicating used to be a right, now its a privelege. Bearing arms used to be a right, and now its a privelege. For all intents and purposes the Bill of Rights is dead, and IMO we are steps away from fascism.

Compromise all you will, but know that you're only hurting yourself. I will tolerate the system so long as it doesn't inconvenience me in a major way; should the day come when it does I hope I have the fortitude to do what's right and not what's easy.