3 ms·

Gun owner in the US. I think GP is engaging in demonization by saying first and foremost, the NRA is acting on behalf of gun manufacturers and the most extreme

by wl 6y ago

Gun owner in the US. I think GP is engaging in demonization by saying first and foremost, the NRA is acting on behalf of gun manufacturers and the most extreme gun owners. 1) The NRA is a membership organization that appears to primarily be funded by the dues and donations of their millions of members. They promote gun ownership not to enrich manufacturers, but because thats what their members want. 2) The "most extreme gun owners" frequently deride the NRA as "Negotiating Rights Away" and encourage people to instead donate to other organizations like Gun Owners of America or the Firearms Policy Coalition. I don't believe the the NRA's positions on gun policy are significantly more radical than their members or most gun owners, generally. That isn't to say no criticism of the NRA is warranted. The accusations from the NYS AG that the organization has unfairly enriched its executives and their families seem spot on, even if the proposed remedy (dissolution) is unwarranted. And as a gun owner, I've been dismayed to see the NRA lean into guns as a partisan issue. I wish they'd stay out of politics if it was unrelated to guns. In what world should they be honoring FCC Chairman Ajit Pai?

ardy42 6y ago
> That isn't to say no criticism of the NRA is warranted. The accusations from the NYS AG that the organization has unfairly enriched its executives and their families seem spot on, even if the proposed remedy (dissolution) is unwarranted. And as a gun owner, I've been dismayed to see the NRA lean into guns as a partisan issue. I wish they'd stay out of politics if it was unrelated to guns. In what world should they be honoring FCC Chairman Ajit Pai? From my read of the situation, this is exactly right. It sounds like the NRA leadership is corrupt and should be removed, but the attempt to dissolve the organization really seems like abusing the legal system to achieve a partisan aim. If anyone has been harmed by the NRA leadership, it's its members and donors, and I don't see how dissolution helps them. Also, partisanship just seems totally damaging and unstrategic to any single-issue group: once the party you tied your fortune to goes out of power, there goes all your clout. It sounds like the unions made the same mistake: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-repu.... Full disclosure: I'm not a gun owner, but am thinking of getting in to shooting after binging on Forgotten Weapons (https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons).
throw0101a 6y ago
> The NRA is […] Which NRA are you referring to? The "NRA", or the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, or the NRA Foundation, or the NRA Special Contribution Fund, or the NRA Freedom Action Foundation, or the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, or the NRA Political Victory Fund? Which one(s) is for education and which one(s) is for giving donations to politicians to make sure gun sales keep flowing? See also: > From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[228] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation stated that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.[230] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012 Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Fin... Nothing wrong with manufacturers (firearm or otherwise) lobbying in their own interest, but the "NRA" seems to be mixing and matching things at various levels.

by wl 6y ago

ardy42 6y ago

> That isn't to say no criticism of the NRA is warranted. The accusations from the NYS AG that the organization has unfairly enriched its executives and their families seem spot on, even if the proposed remedy (dissolution) is unwarranted. And as a gun owner, I've been dismayed to see the NRA lean into guns as a partisan issue. I wish they'd stay out of politics if it was unrelated to guns. In what world should they be honoring FCC Chairman Ajit Pai? From my read of the situation, this is exactly right. It sounds like the NRA leadership is corrupt and should be removed, but the attempt to dissolve the organization really seems like abusing the legal system to achieve a partisan aim. If anyone has been harmed by the NRA leadership, it's its members and donors, and I don't see how dissolution helps them. Also, partisanship just seems totally damaging and unstrategic to any single-issue group: once the party you tied your fortune to goes out of power, there goes all your clout. It sounds like the unions made the same mistake: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-republicans.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/06/opinion/labor-unions-repu.... Full disclosure: I'm not a gun owner, but am thinking of getting in to shooting after binging on Forgotten Weapons (https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons https://www.youtube.com/c/ForgottenWeapons).

throw0101a 6y ago

> The NRA is […] Which NRA are you referring to? The "NRA", or the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, or the NRA Foundation, or the NRA Special Contribution Fund, or the NRA Freedom Action Foundation, or the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, or the NRA Political Victory Fund? Which one(s) is for education and which one(s) is for giving donations to politicians to make sure gun sales keep flowing? See also: > From 2005 through 2011, the NRA received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related firms.[228] An April 2011 Violence Policy Center presentation stated that the NRA had received between $14.7 million and $38.9 million from the firearms industry since 2005.[230] In 2008, Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations to the NRA, and in 2012 Smith & Wesson gave more than $1 million. Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA-ILA for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Fin... Nothing wrong with manufacturers (firearm or otherwise) lobbying in their own interest, but the "NRA" seems to be mixing and matching things at various levels.