5 ms·

Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the NRA

21 points by smacktoward 7y ago

mindcrime 7y ago
As a long-time member of the NRA (as well as almost every other #2A advocacy group there is) I have always had certain issues with the NRA. I appreciate their gun safety training, support for high-school rifle teams and so forth, and their defense of the 2A. But too many times (and more so lately) they act like shills for any tripe the GOP is putting out.. and I, for one, am not a Republican despite being an NRA member. I've considered dropping support for them because they get involved in issues like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc., where I am diametrically opposed to the stock GOP position, so of course I don't want to spend money on an organization that supports that stuff. All this recent stuff about internal disputes, executive pay, lawsuits, money being spent on clothing, blah, blah, blah, just tarnishes their image that much more to me. But... one has to wonder if that isn't exactly the point. Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but sometimes it makes you stop and go "Hmmm...."
- smacktoward 7y ago
  > Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? No conspiracy theory is required to explain why you're seeing these stories. The article goes into this in some detail, but the TL;DR version is that the NRA has been running enormous deficits for years now. The budgetary picture has finally become so bad that it's prompted an internal war over who's responsible, and so previously tightly held information about the NRA's operations is now leaking out all over the place as various factions try to cover their own butts. One thing that's become clear from these leaks is that the NRA spends far less on the things you care about ("gun safety training, support for high-school rifle teams and so forth") than they do on marketing and fundraising, where they apparently spend like drunken sailors. The picture that emerges is of an organization captured by its advertising agency, who steered it towards hard-line gun control stances and tighter integration with GOP politics because those things made for bigger fundraising numbers. The ad agency could then profit from that fundraising indirectly by milking the NRA with exorbitant fees for various services it provided. Many high-profile NRA leaders (including Oliver North) were actually paid employees of the ad agency rather than the NRA itself, which would help explain why none of them saw anything wrong with this arrangement. If you're at all interested in this subject, I would definitely recommend a close read of this article, it is full of illuminating information.
  - mindcrime 7y ago
    If you're at all interested in this subject, I would definitely recommend a close read of this article, it is full of illuminating information. Personally I've already seen most, if not all, of this stuff covered. I don't dispute the factual accuracy by and large (mostly because I don't have access to any specific information to the contrary), and I'm not convinced there is any kind of conspiracy. It may be a simple as "this is getting more play than it otherwise might due to the current political climate". But I'm also not 100% convinced that there aren't people intentionally pushing this out of a desire to weaken the NRA. Anyway, we still have the 2FA, CCRKBA, JPFO, GOA, and Grassroots NC to help on the #2A front, and I've let my NRA membership lapse. Whether or not I'll ever renew remains to be seen.
- wrs 7y ago
  Here’s the thing: even if someone you don’t like is intentionally spreading it, that doesn’t imply it’s incorrect. And if some organization is not doing what the “faithful” think it is, sowing discord among the faithful is exactly what’s needed to clean it up.
  - mindcrime 7y ago
    Here’s the thing: even if someone you don’t like is intentionally spreading it, that doesn’t imply it’s incorrect. That's true. And I have already said that I have no specific reason to question the factual accuracy of this reporting. If I am suggesting anything by the way of any kind of "conspiracy" it would simply be the extent / frequency of reporting on the topic. And even there, I'll admit, it could be that this all perfectly above board. I'm just pondering possibilities, that's all.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Non-profit organizations are lousy with this stuff, no conspiracies needed. (See the recent expose on the Southern Poverty Law Center.) More generally, fund raising for these advocacy organizations is a dirty business. I’m a card-carrying ACLU member, but I had to stop getting their email newsletter because it’s full of half truths and lies by omission calculated to build outrage and keep donor dollars flowing. The NRA’s forays into non-2A political areas is unfortunate. But they work with the donor base they have. It’s like how the ACLU has abdicated any work on the 2A, because it’s donor base is primarily liberal.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  Even as somebody who doesn't so much mind their association with the GOP lately (except their unprincipled take on things the President thinks are unpopular enough to ban), they are incredibly inefficient and disappointing. The Second Amendment Foundation seems to be a lot more productive. > But... one has to wonder if that isn't exactly the point. Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? I think it's basically certain that there are people trying to corrupt and discredit the NRA from without. The opposition would be downright foolish not to try this. It's like that cute time when Americans thought it was silly to think they were being spied on by the NSA. Also, there's a reason why suddenly the New Yorker is concerned about NRA members getting their money's worth. ;- ) In their Recommended Stories section is an article where the subtitle leads with “In the mass-shooting era...”, despite a downward trend in the rate of death by mass public violence, including shootings; we are by no means in an era of mass shooting.
- chillwaves 7y ago
  > Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff Yes. Those people are called "journalists" following a scoop of major corruption and scandal. What other motive is necessary?
  - mindcrime 7y ago
    Yes. Those people are called "journalists" following a scoop of major corruption and scandal. I think it's clear from context that I meant something more than simply journalists reporting on something in proportion to how relevant/topical the story would be on its own merits. Note that I'm just thinking about loud on this though... I'm not positing any specific conspiracy theory or anything. But it is rather coincidental that this comes out during a time when anti-gun rhetoric seems to be flowing at a fever pitch. What other motive is necessary? A desire to weaken an organization that has been one of the, if not the, most effective pro-gun lobbying organizations in America for decades? I mean, it's not like there aren't very rich and very powerful people who have declared their intent to foster the anti-gun agenda. Is it really such a reach to think that they're providing a little extra funding / mojo to "encourage" reporting on this?
- natch 7y ago
  Yep if conservatives think they are the only ones supporting gun rights, they should think again. What is happening at the NRA brings to mind what Steve Jobs said to Rupert Murdoch: "The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you’ve cast your lot with the destructive people." In that little story with Rupert Murdoch, Steve was talking about Fox News, with so-called "conservatives" being the destructive people. It makes a lot of sense if you look at the issues. My take on this NRA thing (more simple than any conspiracy theory) is that when you get a bunch of destructive, self-interested people together in an organization, it's no surprise that things are going to get ugly.
- krapp 7y ago
  >But... one has to wonder if that isn't exactly the point. Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? The NRA faithful aren't going to be swayed - respectfully, you may not be one of the NRA faithful. I've met and spoken to such people, they treat the NRA like their religion. They have no problem with the NRA's politics or its lockstep relationship with the GOP. > I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but sometimes it makes you stop and go "Hmmm...." Occaam's Razor... would you doubt this story if it were related about any other large, politically active organization?
- fenomas 7y ago
  > Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? People intentionally spread information meant to disrupt and discredit the anti-vax movement, don't they? Lots of people trying to discredit something is, ab initia, an argument against it, not for it.
fhjeond 7y ago
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... I just ask that if you oppose the right to bear militia-quality weapons, then you explain why the founders were wrong and prove how you know that such weapons are in fact not necessary to the security of a free state. I mean, they’re the folks that founded the freest state that’s ever survived. Seeing as it’s the only part of the constitution-including later amendments- which includes such a section explaining their reasoning... I tend to believe them when they say such weapons are needed.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  In a future where victory isn’t decided with small arms, it’s really just a part of the constitution for history and symbolism’s sake. Do you see China invading us with an army? No, they’re flooding our markets with cheap goods and putting us out of business. Do you see the American government taking away your rights by force? No, they’re just slowly chipping away at them generation by generation, where each generation is none the wiser to the rights that were taken from the previous one. What future do you imagine where small arms will actually protect you from it’s threats?

21 points by smacktoward 7y ago

As a long-time member of the NRA (as well as almost every other #2A advocacy group there is) I have always had certain issues with the NRA. I appreciate their gun safety training, support for high-school rifle teams and so forth, and their defense of the 2A. But too many times (and more so lately) they act like shills for any tripe the GOP is putting out.. and I, for one, am not a Republican despite being an NRA member. I've considered dropping support for them because they get involved in issues like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc., where I am diametrically opposed to the stock GOP position, so of course I don't want to spend money on an organization that supports that stuff. All this recent stuff about internal disputes, executive pay, lawsuits, money being spent on clothing, blah, blah, blah, just tarnishes their image that much more to me. But... one has to wonder if that isn't exactly the point. Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but sometimes it makes you stop and go "Hmmm...."

smacktoward 7y ago
> Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? No conspiracy theory is required to explain why you're seeing these stories. The article goes into this in some detail, but the TL;DR version is that the NRA has been running enormous deficits for years now. The budgetary picture has finally become so bad that it's prompted an internal war over who's responsible, and so previously tightly held information about the NRA's operations is now leaking out all over the place as various factions try to cover their own butts. One thing that's become clear from these leaks is that the NRA spends far less on the things you care about ("gun safety training, support for high-school rifle teams and so forth") than they do on marketing and fundraising, where they apparently spend like drunken sailors. The picture that emerges is of an organization captured by its advertising agency, who steered it towards hard-line gun control stances and tighter integration with GOP politics because those things made for bigger fundraising numbers. The ad agency could then profit from that fundraising indirectly by milking the NRA with exorbitant fees for various services it provided. Many high-profile NRA leaders (including Oliver North) were actually paid employees of the ad agency rather than the NRA itself, which would help explain why none of them saw anything wrong with this arrangement. If you're at all interested in this subject, I would definitely recommend a close read of this article, it is full of illuminating information.
- mindcrime 7y ago
  If you're at all interested in this subject, I would definitely recommend a close read of this article, it is full of illuminating information. Personally I've already seen most, if not all, of this stuff covered. I don't dispute the factual accuracy by and large (mostly because I don't have access to any specific information to the contrary), and I'm not convinced there is any kind of conspiracy. It may be a simple as "this is getting more play than it otherwise might due to the current political climate". But I'm also not 100% convinced that there aren't people intentionally pushing this out of a desire to weaken the NRA. Anyway, we still have the 2FA, CCRKBA, JPFO, GOA, and Grassroots NC to help on the #2A front, and I've let my NRA membership lapse. Whether or not I'll ever renew remains to be seen.
wrs 7y ago
Here’s the thing: even if someone you don’t like is intentionally spreading it, that doesn’t imply it’s incorrect. And if some organization is not doing what the “faithful” think it is, sowing discord among the faithful is exactly what’s needed to clean it up.
- mindcrime 7y ago
  Here’s the thing: even if someone you don’t like is intentionally spreading it, that doesn’t imply it’s incorrect. That's true. And I have already said that I have no specific reason to question the factual accuracy of this reporting. If I am suggesting anything by the way of any kind of "conspiracy" it would simply be the extent / frequency of reporting on the topic. And even there, I'll admit, it could be that this all perfectly above board. I'm just pondering possibilities, that's all.
rayiner 7y ago
Non-profit organizations are lousy with this stuff, no conspiracies needed. (See the recent expose on the Southern Poverty Law Center.) More generally, fund raising for these advocacy organizations is a dirty business. I’m a card-carrying ACLU member, but I had to stop getting their email newsletter because it’s full of half truths and lies by omission calculated to build outrage and keep donor dollars flowing. The NRA’s forays into non-2A political areas is unfortunate. But they work with the donor base they have. It’s like how the ACLU has abdicated any work on the 2A, because it’s donor base is primarily liberal.
microcolonel 7y ago
Even as somebody who doesn't so much mind their association with the GOP lately (except their unprincipled take on things the President thinks are unpopular enough to ban), they are incredibly inefficient and disappointing. The Second Amendment Foundation seems to be a lot more productive. > But... one has to wonder if that isn't exactly the point. Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? I think it's basically certain that there are people trying to corrupt and discredit the NRA from without. The opposition would be downright foolish not to try this. It's like that cute time when Americans thought it was silly to think they were being spied on by the NSA. Also, there's a reason why suddenly the New Yorker is concerned about NRA members getting their money's worth. ;- ) In their Recommended Stories section is an article where the subtitle leads with “In the mass-shooting era...”, despite a downward trend in the rate of death by mass public violence, including shootings; we are by no means in an era of mass shooting.
chillwaves 7y ago
> Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff Yes. Those people are called "journalists" following a scoop of major corruption and scandal. What other motive is necessary?
- mindcrime 7y ago
  Yes. Those people are called "journalists" following a scoop of major corruption and scandal. I think it's clear from context that I meant something more than simply journalists reporting on something in proportion to how relevant/topical the story would be on its own merits. Note that I'm just thinking about loud on this though... I'm not positing any specific conspiracy theory or anything. But it is rather coincidental that this comes out during a time when anti-gun rhetoric seems to be flowing at a fever pitch. What other motive is necessary? A desire to weaken an organization that has been one of the, if not the, most effective pro-gun lobbying organizations in America for decades? I mean, it's not like there aren't very rich and very powerful people who have declared their intent to foster the anti-gun agenda. Is it really such a reach to think that they're providing a little extra funding / mojo to "encourage" reporting on this?
natch 7y ago
Yep if conservatives think they are the only ones supporting gun rights, they should think again. What is happening at the NRA brings to mind what Steve Jobs said to Rupert Murdoch: "The axis today is not liberal and conservative, the axis is constructive-destructive, and you’ve cast your lot with the destructive people." In that little story with Rupert Murdoch, Steve was talking about Fox News, with so-called "conservatives" being the destructive people. It makes a lot of sense if you look at the issues. My take on this NRA thing (more simple than any conspiracy theory) is that when you get a bunch of destructive, self-interested people together in an organization, it's no surprise that things are going to get ugly.
krapp 7y ago
>But... one has to wonder if that isn't exactly the point. Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? The NRA faithful aren't going to be swayed - respectfully, you may not be one of the NRA faithful. I've met and spoken to such people, they treat the NRA like their religion. They have no problem with the NRA's politics or its lockstep relationship with the GOP. > I'm not usually one for conspiracy theories, but sometimes it makes you stop and go "Hmmm...." Occaam's Razor... would you doubt this story if it were related about any other large, politically active organization?
fenomas 7y ago
> Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? People intentionally spread information meant to disrupt and discredit the anti-vax movement, don't they? Lots of people trying to discredit something is, ab initia, an argument against it, not for it.

fhjeond 7y ago

> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... I just ask that if you oppose the right to bear militia-quality weapons, then you explain why the founders were wrong and prove how you know that such weapons are in fact not necessary to the security of a free state. I mean, they’re the folks that founded the freest state that’s ever survived. Seeing as it’s the only part of the constitution-including later amendments- which includes such a section explaining their reasoning... I tend to believe them when they say such weapons are needed.

jbob2000 7y ago
In a future where victory isn’t decided with small arms, it’s really just a part of the constitution for history and symbolism’s sake. Do you see China invading us with an army? No, they’re flooding our markets with cheap goods and putting us out of business. Do you see the American government taking away your rights by force? No, they’re just slowly chipping away at them generation by generation, where each generation is none the wiser to the rights that were taken from the previous one. What future do you imagine where small arms will actually protect you from it’s threats?