Skip to main content

View Diary: The Hazards of Conflating "The NRA" With "Gun Owners" (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The board includes at least a couple of (0+ / 0-)

    manufacturers of high capacity magazines and at least one who makes AR-15 type assault rifles.
    That's who the leadership represents.
    Most of the membership are sheep.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 09:28:49 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Most of the membership got a lifetime card (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, FrankRose

      from Grandpa in 1965 and never sent in a resignation letter.

      I have negative things to say about Micheal Moore from time to time, but I wouldn't call him a sheep.

      "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

      by JesseCW on Tue Jan 22, 2013 at 10:25:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was in the NRA when I was in Scouts in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW

        the 60's. It was a totally different thing then.
        I'm talking about the membership that buys into their propaganda now. I agree with you about a lot of the membership, that's why I've been hollering about a new organization to replace the NRA for responsible gun owners that wouldn't oppose some common sense regulations.
        With the proper backing, I think it could take off and really make a difference.

        You can't make this stuff up.

        by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 05:51:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  They have nearly five million members. Maybe (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose

          half are in any way active.

          I'm not a member of any organization dedicated to shooting or firearms.  I hunt half a dozen times a year and go target shooting just about as often.

          We don't need advocacy or lobbying groups.  We don't have anything to push back against politically (that anyone else doesn't).

          If we want to support reasonable restrictions we don't have to ghettoize ourselves in some "Hunters for trigger locks" or something.  We can (and I do) just support the Brady Campaign.

          "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

          by JesseCW on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:01:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That makes sense, except how do you get the media (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JesseCW

            to stop letting the NRA "speak for all gun-owners".

            You can't make this stuff up.

            by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:20:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You can't. If you formed a Hunters and Shooters (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              David54

              Allied for Gun Safety organization and got 10 million members, then maybe NPR or Rachel Maddow would have your spokesman on a few times.

              'Cause you don't come with hundreds of millions in gun manufacturer revenue.

              I think it's more productive that we not allow ourselves to be "othered", shoved over there in that Gun Owners category when it comes to public policy.

              Obviously, I have no problem with duck hunters getting together to protect wet-lands.  I don't even exactly have "a problem" with someone who wants to create a pro-regulation gun owners group.

              I just think it's better that we see ourselves as just another citizen concerned about gun violence, and that we work with others to achieve positive aims even if some of those others have irrational fears and hatreds regarding firearms.

              Our real duty, from my PoV, is to be the people who see a Gun as a Gun.  Not a talisman of right wing violence and terror, not as a great fun toy, not as a mystical shield of defense from "the criminals".

              We're familiar with firearms and we don't fetishize them - and we need to be a part of the mainstream conversation because we're part of the mainstream of the country.

              "I have often seen people uncivil by too much civility, and tiresome in their courtesy." Michel de Montaigne

              by JesseCW on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 01:49:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly why you need a national organization (0+ / 0-)

                to get the word out: :^)

                Our real duty, from my PoV, is to be the people who see a Gun as a Gun.  Not a talisman of right wing violence and terror, not as a great fun toy, not as a mystical shield of defense from "the criminals".

                We're familiar with firearms and we don't fetishize them - and we need to be a part of the mainstream conversation because we're part of the mainstream of the country.

                You can't make this stuff up.

                by David54 on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:48:24 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (83)
  • Baltimore (79)
  • Freddie Gray (58)
  • Bernie Sanders (56)
  • Civil Rights (48)
  • Elections (39)
  • Culture (35)
  • Media (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (32)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Racism (28)
  • Education (24)
  • Environment (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Politics (22)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Police Brutality (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site