NRA Disinvites US Concealed Carry Association

[steveincowtown]

The importance of social media interaction these days is paramount to the success of any company, the NRA included. If they aren't having a two way conversation with people on Facebook, Twitter, etc....they should be.

I fear, and have feared for a long time that the NRA will lose the power they once had if the fail to interact with a millennials in a meaningful way. I would venture to guess the average age of NRA members is going up each year as the old supporters die off and they fail to lock in today's youth.

If you want to see some expert level social media interaction, follows "Wendy's" on twitter. Their social media game is strong.

[flechero]

So NRA could short circuit the misinfo by stating what the problem is.

.....We don't have time to play social media games. Plus, we don't respond to every false statement made about the NRA on the Internet, whether it comes from the Bloomberg crowd, or allegedly pro-gun persons/groups each with their own agenda.

Chas.

Respectfully, Charles, in the time it took you to post that, you could have given us some snippet of legit info. I see not playing into gamesmanship or publicly addressing ALL claims, but you specifically have a group of dedicated followers here that have some legitimate questions... From the outside looking in, it appears that the gamesmanship is being played by the NRA. We hear so much about everyone else's agendas that once in a while we just want to hear our own agenda.

I hope that's recieved in the spirit it was written in.

[SewTexas]

The importance of social media interaction these days is paramount to the success of any company, the NRA included. If they aren't having a two way conversation with people on Facebook, Twitter, etc....they should be.

I fear, and have feared for a long time that the NRA will lose the power they once had if the fail to interact with a millennials in a meaningful way. I would venture to guess the average age of NRA members is going up each year as the old supporters die off and they fail to lock in today's youth.

If you want to see some expert level social media interaction, follows "Wendy's" on twitter. They social media game is strong.

people seem to constantly make the same mistake about FB. it's not just millennials on FB. there are 60 - 80 year olds there. And they are active and strong. I call them "keyboard warriors". They may not get out much, but they can wield their keyboard. Don't underestimate the power of a grandma with a little bit of tech know-how.

[ScottDLS]

I wondered what happened to the AOL chat rooms and the usenet newsgroups....must be this Facegram thing.

[mrvmax]

The issue is irrelevant to me, I don't care for USCCA anyway. I don't think it's as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be and USCCA is getting plenty of attention out of the situation and they seem to be taking advantage of all the publicity. In the end I think this gained them more publicity than attending the show would have. Would anybody not attending the convention care if the USCCA was there if this didn't happen? I doubt it.

[Jusme]

The importance of social media interaction these days is paramount to the success of any company, the NRA included. If they aren't having a two way conversation with people on Facebook, Twitter, etc....they should be.

I fear, and have feared for a long time that the NRA will lose the power they once had if the fail to interact with a millennials in a meaningful way. I would venture to guess the average age of NRA members is going up each year as the old supporters die off and they fail to lock in today's youth.

If you want to see some expert level social media interaction, follows "Wendy's" on twitter. Their social media game is strong.

Well, I kind of take the opposing view, in that trying to put out fires from false information on social media, especially for an organization like the NRA. would more than likely be counterproductive. Opposition to the NRA, is very vocal, very misinformed, and not afraid to make up any story to try and turn others in their echo chambers towards grabbing torches and pitchforks. The majority of lies, at least those propagated, by anyone in the MSM or in political circles, are addressed on the NRA web site. To try to answer everyone with a blog, or who posts comments on a particular web site, would be a full time job for thousands of people, and would not do much more than give these basement dwellers credence. Not to mentin the fact, that anything can be misconstrued, or taken completely out of context. I also disagree that NRA members are only getting older, and no "fresh blood" is being infused. More and more firearms safety programs are being started every year, more and more youth groups are being introduced to shooting sports, and many of the folks on NRA TV, are of the younger age groups, maybe not all millennials, but, young enough to be trusted by them. Those who believe everything MSM says, are probably not going to change their stance, just because The NRA President, starts answering tweets. JMHO

[RossA]

I know that NRA folks are very busy this week. But they obviously have dedicated social media employees to handle things like this. Letting stuff like this go, and letting dissatisfaction grow, simply makes it more difficult to answer later.

[rtschl]

The issue is irrelevant to me, I don't care for USCCA anyway. I don't think it's as big of a deal as everyone is making it out to be and USCCA is getting plenty of attention out of the situation and they seem to be taking advantage of all the publicity. In the end I think this gained them more publicity than attending the show would have. Would anybody not attending the convention care if the USCCA was there if this didn't happen? I doubt it.

And as I said earlier, since this is an NRA event if someone is selling something in direct competition rather than a vendor in the industry, which this appears to be the case, then they don't have any right or reason to be there competing with NRA. They should pay for and hold their own convention.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Two competitors to their new program have been dropped from the event. That's not false. "Optics" (and I hate that word in this use) are what they are, the airline industry has learned that hard the last month. The NRA should face it and answer to them, or deal with the fact that they look like they don't want competition at their event.

It most certainly is false that "two competitors" have been dropped. SCD was not "dropped."

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So NRA could short circuit the misinfo by stating what the problem is.

.....We don't have time to play social media games. Plus, we don't respond to every false statement made about the NRA on the Internet, whether it comes from the Bloomberg crowd, or allegedly pro-gun persons/groups each with their own agenda.

Chas.

Respectfully, Charles, in the time it took you to post that, you could have given us some snippet of legit info. I see not playing into gamesmanship or publicly addressing ALL claims, but you specifically have a group of dedicated followers here that have some legitimate questions... From the outside looking in, it appears that the gamesmanship is being played by the NRA. We hear so much about everyone else's agendas that once in a while we just want to hear our own agenda.

I hope that's recieved in the spirit it was written in.

First, as I've already stated, I don't know the details about USCCA, so I cannot respond. More importantly, as a Director, I don't have the authority to speak for the NRA; only the officers can do so. This is a matter of law. The Board can only act as a body, not individually.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm going to make this general statement, then I'm not going to try to respond further. As I noted in my last post, Directors cannot make statements on behalf of the NRA. That must be done by officers. That's true of every corporation.

The role of Directors is to serve in an oversight capacity and we have no responsibility or authority over day-to-day operations. I cannot go to any department head or the EVP and tell them to "do this," or "don't do that." Therefore, we are not informed of the type of actions some of you would have me discuss. If and when I/we are authorized by Board action, I will be free to talk about this issue in greater detail, if there's anything to disclose.

At this point, this is all I know. USCCA was apparently removed as a vendor, but SCD was not. Why the former was removed and the later chose not to attend is unknown to me at this time. The NRA has responded to Members who want better self-defense coverage than has been offered by anyone to date, including the NRA. We went to the insurers and got better policies made available. Our Members have also requested that we offer more self-defense related courses, in addition to the current Basic Personal Protection Inside the Home and Basic Personal Protection Outside the Home, and we are doing so. The better insurance coverage and expanded self-defense training are offered as part of the NRA's new Carry Guard program.

Now for my pure speculation: It is my belief that the NRA Carry Guard program will be the gold standard for people wanting this type of coverage as well as those wanting much more extensive training than is currently available at a cost affordable to most people. (Carry Guard IS NOT A PRE-PAID LEGAL PROGRAM.) It is my understand that our first Carry Guard class will be a 3-day course requiring 1,500 rds of ammo. It is also my belief that people who currently offer some type of pre-paid legal plans, self-defense insurance, or a combination of both, fear that they may see their customers move to Carry Guard because of what the NRA can bring to the table. Could this play a role in what is being said about the NRA Convention? I don't know.

As some Forum Members have noted, this is not some smoldering front-page news story. Some folks apparently feel otherwise, some want it to be otherwise, but that doesn't change the facts.

Out.
Chas.

[mojo84]

NRA just retweeted this to dispel another inaccuracy that has been promoted by the anti-gun crowd. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/44 ... 74165910=1

[bblhd672]

I'm going to make this general statement, then I'm not going to try to respond further. As I noted in my last post, Directors cannot make statements on behalf of the NRA. That must be done by officers. That's true of every corporation.

The role of Directors is to serve in an oversight capacity and we have no responsibility or authority over day-to-day operations. I cannot go to any department head or the EVP and tell them to "do this," or "don't do that." Therefore, we are not informed of the type of actions some of you would have me discuss. If and when I/we are authorized by Board action, I will be free to talk about this issue in greater detail, if there's anything to disclose.

At this point, this is all I know. USCCA was apparently removed as a vendor, but SCD was not. Why the former was removed and the later chose not to attend is unknown to me at this time. The NRA has responded to Members who want better self-defense coverage than has been offered by anyone to date, including the NRA. We went to the insurers and got better policies made available. Our Members have also requested that we offer more self-defense related courses, in addition to the current Basic Personal Protection Inside the Home and Basic Personal Protection Outside the Home, and we are doing so. The better insurance coverage and expanded self-defense training are offered as part of the NRA's new Carry Guard program.

Now for my pure speculation: It is my belief that the NRA Carry Guard program will be the gold standard for people wanting this type of coverage as well as those wanting much more extensive training than is currently available at a cost affordable to most people. (Carry Guard IS NOT A PRE-PAID LEGAL PROGRAM.) It is my understand that our first Carry Guard class will be a 3-day course requiring 1,500 rds of ammo. It is also my belief that people who currently offer some type of pre-paid legal plans, self-defense insurance, or a combination of both, fear that they may see their customers move to Carry Guard because of what the NRA can bring to the table. Could this play a role in what is being said about the NRA Convention? I don't know.

As some Forum Members have noted, this is not some smoldering front-page news story. Some folks apparently feel otherwise, some want it to be otherwise, but that doesn't change the facts.

Out.
Chas.

Thank you for your response. I have received the latest magazine with the Carry Guard info and look forward to learning more about what it is.

[flechero]

Thank you Charles, for taking the time to respond. Even though you have not spoken 'for' the NRA, you have cleared up some of the misinformation in this thread, and that was exactly what I had hoped for. There was enough clarity in your statement to satisfy me and I'm sure others. Again thank you for the information and my apologies if i put you on the spot.

Regards,
Keith