Page 3 of 3

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:28 am
by FrogFan
As an NRA member, I continue to be hopeful that the full story can be told quickly.

The Wall Street Journal published a story, updated 11/4/19, that suggests problems with "governance" at the NRA, including "lax controls on outside vendors". It seemed like balanced reporting to me, and the picture wasn't pretty, at least to me. I'd post a link but I'm sure the article sits behind a pay wall. Has anyone else read that article? Is it credible?

I appreciate Mr. Cotton's updates and understand the need to be careful about releasing information due to the legal issues involved. As others have noted, we need a strong and effective NRA vigorously protecting our 2A rights.

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:56 am
by rtschl
Nagorg wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:29 am
So most of this is about NRATV?

I think I'd like to know more about whats happening to keep the NRA from slipping back to its pre-1968 era ways. I mean, the members are the most likely the answer here. But most of the ant-NRA comments I see are coming from fear that the NRA (or some key members) is okay with some "sensible gun control" at times. Support for Bump Stock bans is an example. I've been referred to video of other NRA leaders making comments about how magazines should be restricted to ~5 rounds because that's all you need for hunting. Yes, the video I'm referring to is old but it does highlight the potential for things like this and doesnt do anything to help win back support from these folks.

I dont personally live in the past and think everyone, even organizations, make mistakes and should be given the benefit of the doubt... To a point at least.

It would be great to have a way of showing what the NRA is doing to help prevent this type of gun control acceptance from slipping into the ranks.

That's the lie right there - the 2nd Amendment is not, nor ever has been, about hunting. Post WWII through the 1950's there wasn't the assault on our Constitutional rights like there was with the 1934 National Firearms Act. Then with the 1968 Gun Control Act, Americans needed an organization that would lead the fight politically and in the courts to keep the government from destroying the 2nd Amendment. The NRA was the most logical organization to do that and it is what the vast majority of the membership have wanted since then.

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:10 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Nagorg wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:29 am
So most of this is about NRATV?
I can't go into detail. We have strong evidence that significant over-billing occurred and that we were given bogus metrics about NRA-TV.
Nagorg wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:29 am
I think I'd like to know more about whats happening to keep the NRA from slipping back to its pre-1968 era ways. I mean, the members are the most likely the answer here. But most of the ant-NRA comments I see are coming from fear that the NRA (or some key members) is okay with some "sensible gun control" at times. Support for Bump Stock bans is an example. I've been referred to video of other NRA leaders making comments about how magazines should be restricted to ~5 rounds because that's all you need for hunting. Yes, the video I'm referring to is old but it does highlight the potential for things like this and doesnt do anything to help win back support from these folks.
The NRA is not going back to "pre-1968 era ways" and there's no credible evidence that it is. I've heard the same lies about NRA leaders supporting "sensible gun control," but I know of only one former Board member that made a claim that would fall into that category.

Neither Wayne, the Officers, nor any Board member I know support s 5-round limit on magazines. Please link to the video you reference. I'd like to see who and when this statement was made.

I've explained the "bump-stock" issue several times and I'm not going to type it again. The short version is we would either lose bump-stocks or all semi-auto, mag.-fed rifles.

Chas.

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:11 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
FrogFan wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 9:28 am
As an NRA member, I continue to be hopeful that the full story can be told quickly.

The Wall Street Journal published a story, updated 11/4/19, that suggests problems with "governance" at the NRA, including "lax controls on outside vendors". It seemed like balanced reporting to me, and the picture wasn't pretty, at least to me. I'd post a link but I'm sure the article sits behind a pay wall. Has anyone else read that article? Is it credible?

I appreciate Mr. Cotton's updates and understand the need to be careful about releasing information due to the legal issues involved. As others have noted, we need a strong and effective NRA vigorously protecting our 2A rights.
To my knowledge, all WSJ articles about the NRA and/or LaPierre are written by Mark Maremont. That speaks volumes. His articles are based on lies fed him by Ackerman McQueen, as noted in the pleading I attached to my prior posts.

Chas.

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:17 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
rtschl wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 10:56 am
Nagorg wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:29 am
So most of this is about NRATV?

I think I'd like to know more about whats happening to keep the NRA from slipping back to its pre-1968 era ways. I mean, the members are the most likely the answer here. But most of the ant-NRA comments I see are coming from fear that the NRA (or some key members) is okay with some "sensible gun control" at times. Support for Bump Stock bans is an example. I've been referred to video of other NRA leaders making comments about how magazines should be restricted to ~5 rounds because that's all you need for hunting. Yes, the video I'm referring to is old but it does highlight the potential for things like this and doesnt do anything to help win back support from these folks.

I dont personally live in the past and think everyone, even organizations, make mistakes and should be given the benefit of the doubt... To a point at least.

It would be great to have a way of showing what the NRA is doing to help prevent this type of gun control acceptance from slipping into the ranks.

That's the lie right there - the 2nd Amendment is not, nor ever has been, about hunting. Post WWII through the 1950's there wasn't the assault on our Constitutional rights like there was with the 1934 National Firearms Act. Then with the 1968 Gun Control Act, Americans needed an organization that would lead the fight politically and in the courts to keep the government from destroying the 2nd Amendment. The NRA was the most logical organization to do that and it is what the vast majority of the membership have wanted since then.
This is exactly right. The 1968 Gun Control Act was the beginning of the NRA becoming the most powerful Second Amendment advocate. When the NRA leadership wanted to gut the NRA and make it solely a hunting organization, we had the Cincinnati Revolt in 1977. This resulted in major changes within the NRA and the NRA bylaws to prevent such a take-over. We faced a similar take-over attempt in the mid-1990's when a group led by a Board member sought to take over the NRA and raid it for money. The November issue of American Rifleman (Pg. 12) has an excellent article setting out just some of our accomplishments over the years.

Chas.

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 1:32 pm
by FrogFan
To my knowledge, all WSJ articles about the NRA and/or LaPierre are written by Mark Maremont. That speaks volumes. His articles are based on lies fed him by Ackerman McQueen, as noted in the pleading I attached to my prior posts.

Chas.
I went back and checked, and you're correct, Charles. The article was written by Maremont, and that makes it not credible. Over the years, I had come to attach more credibility to WSJ articles than most other papers. I won't do that anymore.

Thanks!

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:47 pm
by Nagorg
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:10 pm
Neither Wayne, the Officers, nor any Board member I know support s 5-round limit on magazines. Please link to the video you reference. I'd like to see who and when this statement was made.
Really glad to see this response Chas. I did say the video was old, its an interview with now deceased Joaquin Jackson from ~12 years ago. That doesnt mean his comments about his personal beliefs are shared by current members. But it is a little disturbing to hear things like this from someone that was, at one time, on the board. It certainly raises questions about what others might believe and be willing to accept.

Of course, Joaquin cant speak in defense of this now but since you asked, here is the video I referenced.


Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:23 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
Nagorg wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:47 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 12:10 pm
Neither Wayne, the Officers, nor any Board member I know support s 5-round limit on magazines. Please link to the video you reference. I'd like to see who and when this statement was made.
Really glad to see this response Chas. I did say the video was old, its an interview with now deceased Joaquin Jackson from ~12 years ago. That doesnt mean his comments about his personal beliefs are shared by current members. But it is a little disturbing to hear things like this from someone that was, at one time, on the board. It certainly raises questions about what others might believe and be willing to accept.

Of course, Joaquin cant speak in defense of this now but since you asked, here is the video I referenced.

Thanks. Joaquin was the former Board member that I referenced that made a pro-gun control statement. Jouquin was a great man and a great Texas Ranger. His position on this issue was not supported by the NRA or any other Board members to my knowledge. He and I had a long discussion about his position, but I won't post the substance of a private conversation, expecially with a man who is now deceased.

Jouquin was my friend, but he was wrong on this issue.

Chas.

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:50 pm
by bbhack
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Jouquin was my friend, but he was wrong on this issue.

Chas.
I read 1/2 his autobiography before I had to send it back to the library. Excellent read. Will finish it someday. People are complicated, and often just wrong.

Re: A little more of the NRA is being told

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:18 am
by Liberty
bbhack wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 11:50 pm
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 7:23 pm

Jouquin was my friend, but he was wrong on this issue.

Chas.
I read 1/2 his autobiography before I had to send it back to the library. Excellent read. Will finish it someday. People are complicated, and often just wrong.
Nobody is right about everything. 'cept maybe, myself.