Live blogging GBR meeting with the NRA

Glen Caroline and Ashley Varner are here and we having a great dialog even if the wheelbarrows of cash didn’t show up.

So far the best message coming our direction is they vigorously welcome our input. Pick up the phone, send an email, etc. They don’t have enough ears to pick up and filter all the useful information “out there”.

There is a lot of talk about internal bickering in the gun community. We need to improve things and there are some good ideas on how to deal with it better.

Update @ 15:35: We are now discussing the NRA support/non-support in the Parker/Heller case.

Update @ 15:41: NRA says, “How do we address the perception problem?” This is regarding the NRA being perceived as pro hunter and abandoning the black rifle crowd. Not to mention the NFA people. In other words the “NRA is Zumbo organization.”

Update @ 16:10: Ashley says she likes my blog and loved the pictures from Montana. She agrees the “Gun Porn” with Kim wasn’t a problem. The woman that was disturbed by it was disturbed before she saw it. Uncle suggested the NRA get the CMP program funded again and stop destroying the military surplus ammo.

Update @ 16:25: Glen talked about translating talk into action. We need to put links on our sites to congress critter contact information and NRA-ILA newsletters/action alerts.


2 thoughts on “Live blogging GBR meeting with the NRA

  1. NRA says, “How do we address the perception problem?” This is regarding the NRA being perceived as pro hunter and abandoning the black rifle crowd. Not to mention the NFA people. In other words the “NRA is Zumbo organization.”

    I don’t think they can, not while still being useful. Even the NFA folk don’t necessarily want an end to the ’86 registration ban or the NFA — there are a lotta people who considered those things an investment. Moreover, the NRA’s usefulness comes from getting things that the average person can support, and those tend to be overwhelmingly Fuddite or Plinker. Anything else tends to scare people.

    Even as they are, the average non-gunner perception of the NRA is still going to be that of the gun nuts wanting blood in the streets. It was considered a surprising victory that we could get CCW through, and requiring a fee and registration for a right won’t be amazing any second amendment absolutists.

    I think it’d be really helpful if they were a lot more careful. The gun rights movement as a whole has to win hearts and minds. They have to be careful what they say. No Joaquin Jacksons doing a Ruger. No Chris Cox treating an NFA subject like it’s radioactive. They may well have to accept laws like that don’t help these things, but we just don’t need Joe Blow thinking that Subject X is so nasty even the NRA lawyers think it’s too evil to touch.

    There are a lotta little things that could be done to make the NFA and black rifle folk a little happier, too. Some parts of the law are irritating enough that even your average joe would oppose them — no one wants to get into federal prison for making a potato and hairspray ‘destructive device’, or and requiring NFA owners to report to the ATF every time they cross borders won’t be too hard to pass muster. These won’t do too much, I’ll admit, but it’d at least help show that the NRA is on the good guy’s side. Putting a lotta voice into getting rid of local assault weapon bans, even in places where we’re not likely to win and don’t want to funnel much money, likewise could help.

  2. Attempting to appear “moderate” has vastly more history of failure than of success.
    John McCain verses Ronald Reagan: McCain, in spite of years of pandering to the Left, is now despised by both the Right and the Left and has a very slim chance at the Whitehouse, even after 1994 and 2000, when Republicans swept Congress. Reagan did it with tough talk, even when Congress was overwhelmingly Democrat. The Republicans never did learn this lesson, though A. Rand spelled it out brilliantly decades ago.

    Likewise, sounding “moderate” on such a clear-cut issue as a Constitutionally-guaranteed right makes one hypocritical. Example (and I’ve hear this a hundred times): “Gun control laws aren’t about crime. They’re about control” (which is true) followed in the same breath by, “We should enforce the gun laws we already have– we don’t need more”. The second statement is a direct contradiction of the first statement. They cannot both be valid. It’s put there to appear “moderate” and yet makes the person asserting such things a fool, playing directly into the hands of the enemy. The one statement (not moderated) should be, “Gun control isn’t about crime or safety, it’s about control. No one but a law-abiding citizen will obey gun laws, hence, we’re far better off without any gun laws.”

    Period. Reason stands on its own, it can be backed up with historical fact, demonstrated a hundred ways, and can only be poisoned by “moderation”.

    In short, no one can point to a case wherein a consistent, reasoned, principled, tenacious RKBA stand has failed, because I have yet to see a consistent, reasoned, principled, tenacious stand attempted by the major pro RKBA organizations. Two Reagan landslides, back when the Leftist MSM had zero meaningful opposition, give us some insight into the power of real principles. Learn it.

    I see a lot of the problem relates to people who are more intent on avoiding criticism than on accomplishing anything. You have to be willing to become a target. Otherwise stay out of the way. (Oh, and didn’t Reagan say something just like that– “Put up or shut up”? (Should have been, “Put up and shut up”, but you can’t argue with success)

    Last, if you’re not a member of the NRA and you’re not a gun owner, the only time you hear a peep about the NRA is when the MSM are trashing them. I told one of their spokespeople that just yesterday. And I pledged 50 dollars, under the condition that she pass the word along.

Comments are closed.