Both these came from recent comments sections. But they’ve just got to have more visibility.
From Larken Rose via MamaLiberty:
From the NRA via Pre-Press Veteran (great, great spot; too bad the NRA doesn’t actually mean it):
Both these came from recent comments sections. But they’ve just got to have more visibility.
From Larken Rose via MamaLiberty:
From the NRA via Pre-Press Veteran (great, great spot; too bad the NRA doesn’t actually mean it):
Hmph. Dominated by tiny dots.
Sweet dreams to you too.
Good videos – I’ve seen both of them before.
Re The Tiny Dot: It’s not enough to individually refuse to pay taxes, it would help if businesses, for example, recognized the relative “size” of the Dot and thugs, too, refusing to take out taxes from paychecks. But pork is stronger than ethics, it seems, so the strength of the thugs is increased many-fold by the compliance of corporations, local and State “authorities”, and other whores who lie in bed with fedgov.
Re the NRA: Interesting that it only came on board _after_ others spoke up, _after_ it realized it wouldn’t have to stand alone when others (corporations/organizations/individuals) put their reputation on the line first. The NRA always struck me as a cowardly, mealy-mouthed group, not worthy of what they supposedly represent.
Pat said: “NRA: Interesting that it only came on board _after_ others spoke up, _after_ it realized it wouldn’t have to stand alone when others (corporations/organizations/individuals) put their reputation on the line first. The NRA always struck me as a cowardly, mealy-mouthed group, not worthy of what they supposedly represent.”
The NRA always climbs on the bandwagon after someone else had gotten the horses moving, then grabs the reins and cries, “Look at us! We’re great!”. Think Katrina gun confiscations.
The NRA is first and foremost a profit-making organization that markets anti-“gun control”, not pro-RKBA. A lot of people think that’s just two ways of saying the same thing. They’re wrong. The NRA needs “gun control” to be against so they have something to raise money to… be against. It’s all money. If “gun control” (victim disarmament) becomes a solved problem, the money dries up and LaPierre won’t get that new limousine.
That’s why the NRA often opposes pro-RKBA (helped write a gun ban for Columbus, sabotaged a 1st/2nd Amendment case in NH, tried to derail what became Heller, killed NH constitutional carry, et cetera). But when something is succeeding, to maintain its credibilty with those who won’t think, the NRA is occasionally forced to jump on the fore-mentioned equine-drawn conveyance. So… they finally supported Heller. They took credit for the order to return Katrina victims’ firearms. They’re — at long last — supporting boycotts of gov by gun businesses.
This also accounts for the bizarre positive ratings of anti-RKBA politicians (think pro-background checks Coburn and Manchin, IL’s Kirk, and many others). They look like they’re rewarding pro-RKBA types when in fact they’re ensuring plenty of anti-RKBA legislation to be — profitably! — against.
Profitably? Damned right. Last I heard, the NRA is claiming some 4.3 million members. If all of those were annual memberships, they’d be looking at more $150,000,000 per year in revenue. From memberships alone. Then there’s ad revenue, product endorsements, NRA store junk, gun owners’ insurance…
Then there are the constant solicitations for their ILA branch. If only 5% (a common figure for any group for support above and beyond dues) kick $25 a year: another $5,375,000 per year. I’d bet that’s a damned low-ball estimate.
Don’t forget special bequests and foundations kicking in.
Big money. So long as they be sure of a constant supply of “gun control” to b/e/ a/g/a/i/ pretend to oppose.
I don’t begrudge anyone making a buck pushing freedom. I do begrudge b@st@rds making a buck by screwing me.
Bear, I am only a novice shooter. Not been around the “gun issues” until recently – instead guns were just always around for self-defense and hunting – like cast iron frying pans. Didn’t everyone have at least one gun in the house? Politics and guns were mutually exclusive and rarely intersected, in my experience.
You make some very good points about the NRA (I’m starting to feel this way about most “issue-based” organizations…). But the message in the video and the production quality IS valuable. I’m hoping I see it broadcast soon… but they may not waste the $$$ on my area and instead try to sway the fence-sitters in the purple states. There are people who are uneasy – but don’t know why; who feel “less free” – but don’t know why. And at the risk of appearing to be a “call to arms”… the NRA ads, if they stay in this vein may connect with those people, through the noise, BS, and confusion.
The Bloomberg crowd has been running cirlces inside the NRA’s OODA Loop from day one. The NRA can’t even Orient-Decide-Act, and flails about in the Observe phase.
While the NRA was flailing about, trying to figure out how to respond to this latest assault on our rights, they were handed a gift: David Gregory of NBC, who violated Washington DC’s gun control laws on national television for all to see. The Washington DC Attorney General went on the record that prosecuting Gregory for his gun crime “would not promote public safety…nor serve the best interests of the people”.
Gun control does not promote public safety nor serve the public interest. What better message could we have asked for?!
If the NRA was smart, they would have made David Gregory their poster child months ago, with non-stop TV and radio ads. However, since both Wayne La Pierre and David Gregory are Washington insiders, the NRA has extended professional courtesy to NBC.
And for God’s sake, why Wayne La Pierre the NRA’s public spokesperson? (answer: $900,000 per year). Does anyone really believe his is the face we need to sway public opinion? Can’t the NRA afford to hire some pro-gun-rights celebrity like Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, or even Ice-T to star in commercials? Instead, we get ads that are (1) too little too late and (2) preaching to the choir.
The NRA isn’t a “deer-caught-in-the-headlights”; it’s a dinosaur wondering “what is that bright light in the sky hurtling toward Earth…”
Those (such and such people) are clinging bitterly to what they hold dear, while (some pompous ass) has this much better idea, its a great idea. We all love it. Except those bitter people, that don’t. Aren’t they bitter. We all love this new idea.
We all love this new idea.
We all love this new idea.
Don’t be a bitter clinger. Cleanse yourself of your past, of your opinions, your ideals, and your understanding of the world. Cleanse!
….
Tell me again, WHY is that phrase still around? Oh, right…. because there is nothing to see here. No problem at all. We’ll just quietly disagree, and continue this pleasant discussion on their so very legitimate terms. Achtung! Comply!
Really, let’s hate on the NRA?
[Profitably? Damned right. Last I heard, the NRA is claiming some 4.3 million members. If all of those were annual memberships, they’d be looking at more $150,000,000 per year in revenue. From memberships alone. Then there’s ad revenue, product endorsements, NRA store junk, gun owners’ insurance]
Again, there are two NRAs. Regardless of what you think of the NRA’s political stand, it comes from the NRA-ILA, and none of the revenue above can be used for political purposes.
OTOH what you do get for those non-legislative NRA dollars includes tens of thousands of basic firearm instructors holding hundreds of thousands of classes for millions of new shooters. You get grants to school, 4-H, and other youth groups to assist their firearms training for the next generation. You get programs like Eddie Eagle, Refuse to be a Victim, and Women on Target. You get competitions and other events to keep shooters interested. And that’s where all the pro-gun voters are coming from. who just might make all the difference in how this round of gun control plays out.
We can fight all the legislative and judicial battles we want, but it’s the ballot box where we can peacefully win the war. And that’s where the NRA is most effective.
[/rant]
Sorry, I’m working my buns off prepairing for a Friends of NRA banquet.
“We can fight all the legislative and judicial battles we want, but it’s the ballot box where we can peacefully win the war.”
Can you cite an example of where an oppressed people voted their way to freedom?
LarryA Says: “OTOH what you do get for those non-legislative NRA dollars includes tens of thousands of basic firearm instructors holding hundreds of thousands of classes for millions of new shooters.
And thousand of instructors dropping their NRA affiliation. The only “NRA” classes I’ve attended were held by instructors who held NRA certificates purely for the advertising value (I’ve addressed NRA marketing already).
You also get NRA instructors who write books and supplemental materials who get told they can’t mention the NRA in their “third party” material without permission, then ignore requests for permission. Note: I didn’t say they wanted to reprint NRA material- they wanted to mention and refer students to the NRA. This is not hypothetical; I did editing and cover art for one of those instructors only to see the book fail to go to print because the NRA wouldn’t allow it.
” You get grants to school, 4-H, and other youth groups to assist their firearms training for the next generation.
I don’t. In fact, I never even got the actual membership “bennies” (like my AR subscription) when I was a member. I spent two years fighting the NRA over that (I had paid for a five year membership at the time), only to be told “Tough sh!t; pay up again, sucker.”
“You get programs like Eddie Eagle, Refuse to be a Victim, and Women on Target…”
…unconstitutional Project Exodus, cops-not-guns-in-schools…
” You get competitions and other events to keep shooters interested.
And (as mentioned) the sabotage of of suits filed by those young shooters (parents, actually) who tried — lawfully — to spread that interest.
And — as mentioned — pro-gun legislation killed (NH: We had constitutional carry set. Until an NRA rep showed up, told the House that they would not support the bill because it didn’t duplicate existing federal law* , and offered their own version without constitutional carry. My own SKS got banned by legislation proudly written by the NRA “or someone might have offered something worse”. Not did, might have… so the NRA gave us a ban that even the state supreme court said was illegal. And then claimed credit for getting it struck down. There’s a money-making win-win scenario for them.
“And that’s where all the pro-gun voters are coming from.
Becuae — as you apparently failed to read above — the NRA has them conned. The NRA needs victim disarmament to keep scaring those gun owners into giving them limo money. You can disagree with that assessment, but pretend it ain’t so at your — long-standing and continuing — peril.
—
* The legislation did not contradict federal law. It did not even mention the point the NRA insisted on, that the law specifically state that “prohibited” persons can’t carry, because that’s already in federal and state law. That, and that the NRA didn’t think it was “time” for constitutional carry were the only “objections” to the constitutional carry legislation. Until it became obvious that the legislation was going to pass, the NRA didn’t even have a rep in NH. They sent him up here specifically to kill constitutional carry. And judging the by the email headers, he got his ass out of NH as soon as his sabotage was done and he saw how [expletive deleted expletive deleted expletive deleted expletive deleted] pissed NH gun owners were.