One of their black members commented unofficially.
The NRA made the most tepid of all possible pro-forma statements two days after the shooting and only under immense media pressure and they have remained silent about the decision which is what we’re talking about now. I think it’s pretty transparently obvious that they want as little to do with this case as possible and aren’t excited to engage in a full throated fight for the rights of black men to carry guns.
Why do you think the NRA hasn’t officially commented since the verdict?
From the linked article:
Now that the facts are known, has the NRA said more? Anything? Bueller? Bueller?
Also, the guy who responded, much to Shodan’s relief, was a member of the organization. Not a leader. One – one! – out of five million members has loudly and publicly criticized the organization.
Where is the leadership The Nation’s Oldest and Largest Civil Rights Organization[sup]TM[/sup] in all this? They’re fucking silent. Congratulations, NRA members, your organization is run by a bunch of racist fucks.
But you already knew that.
Somewhat more on point 2016 old Guardian article: NRA comments on Philando Castile shooting without using his name | NRA | The Guardian
[INDENT]Without mentioning Castile’s name, the gun rights organization called the reports of the 32-year-old’s death “troubling” and said they “must be thoroughly investigated”.
…
In its Friday statement, the NRA avoided commenting on any of the details of Castile’s case, or drawing any early conclusions, saying only that “it is important for the NRA not to comment while the investigation is ongoing”.
But answering the widespread criticism that second amendment rights seemed only to apply to white Americans, the NRA called itself a “civil rights organization” and said “the NRA proudly supports the right of law-abiding Americans to carry firearms for defense of themselves and others regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation”.
“Rest assured, the NRA will have more to say once all the facts are known,” the statement read. [/INDENT]
And to be fair, they pretty much made their general views known in today’s vid, thought they haven’t commented upon the jury decision. I guess they were lying last year. Or maybe it was a mistake. It happens. ‘Most Sinister’ Propaganda: Examining The NRA’s Ominous New Ad - TPM – Talking Points Memo
This chilling NRA ad calls on its members to save America by fighting liberals - Vox
Minnesota State Director of National African American Gun Association on the NRA:
The NRA hardly cares about black gun owners like me. Philando Castile proves that. - Vox [INDENT]Castile was a registered gun owner, killed despite following the procedure that gun owners do as a courtesy — in Minnesota, you’re not required to disclose that you have a firearm with you when pulled over. After his death, some looked to the National Rifle Association to advocate on Castile’s behalf. Surely they would step in to defend Castile’s Second Amendment rights instead of making a statement that vaguely addresses his death without even mentioning his name.
But their deafening silence was no more than the status quo. As I told others in the aftermath of the shooting, if you are waiting for the NRA to say something, don’t hold your breath. It’s a big part of why the organization I work for, the NAAGA, exists. [/INDENT]
It’s discussed in the article-
Regards,
Shodan
…You don’t see any problem with that, Shodan?
I mean, let’s be honest, the correct answer for any organization, especially one with such a deep, abiding stiffy for gun rights, would almost certainly be construed as “anti-cop” (by the same brand of nutbag who thinks any critique of law enforcement, no matter how justified, is “anti-cop”). Something along the lines of, “This death and this verdict are both shocking and shameful displays of disregard for the second amendment. Simply owning and carrying a legal, registered firearm cannot be seen as justification for a police officer to fear for their life.” And maybe if they really want to lean out the window, they could throw in something like, “It is becoming increasingly clear that the second amendment right to bear arms is increasingly interpreted as having an extra, unwritten clause: ‘if you’re white’. We’ve seen numerous occasions where African-American citizens have been harassed, arrested, or killed for possessing or seeming to possess a legal firearm. There is a clear racial disparity here that needs to be addressed.”
You know, something like that. A statement which is unambiguous, clearly accurate, in line with the principles of the NRA, and which I have little doubt the NRA’s core demographic would fucking go ballistic over. These are people who think “blue lives matter” makes sense, but “black lives matter” is a terrorist organization. Of course this would be painted as “anti-cop”; anything short of “Thank you sir, this boot on my face tastes delicious sir, thank you for not murdering me in cold blood sir” is “anti-cop” to those folks. It’s just that they’re the NRA’s core demographic.
Do you believe them? I don’t. They’ve never been shy about such issues before.
Compare and contrast the NRA’s inability to come up with something to say about the shooting of black CCW holder who didn’t seem to do anything wrong but got shot to death anyway, in front of his 4 year old [?] daughter versus their ability to be outraged at the death of Bundy protester LaVoy Finicum breaking the fucking law and actually threatening the lives of law enforcement officers when he got shot in front of his adult daughter:
So the death of a white dude who was actually reaching for a gun is “murder” and the death of a black CCW is “troubling”.
I say this as a lifetime member of the NRA but it seems like the NRA is being run by folks who are either alt-right racists or are pandering to alt right racists.
No, that’s not right. A LOT of NRA members of all races are outraged.
What would make you quit the NRA, if not this (or that video they just put out), or their batshit attacks on Obama and other Democrats? Aren’t there plenty of gun-rights organizations that don’t pander to racists and wingnuts?
Core. Demographic.
The NRA has become so hard-coded as “right wing”, as part of the “red tribe”, that the only people who support it are firmly within the red tribe. Another two things that are coded “red tribe”? Support for the police and opposition to Black Lives Matter. Seeing as this has become a BLM rallying point, is “against” the police (in the same way that charging Michael Slager with murder is “against” the police, or saying, “please remove the boot from my head I didn’t do anything” is “against” the police), and we’re talking about a fundamentally right-wing organization… What the fuck would you expect?
Does Noir speak for the NRA? What is his role within the organization?
Unfortunately, that’s behind a paywall for me. Are those members criticizing the NRA publicly? Are they voting with their feet and leaving the organization?
You and I went around last year over the NRA membership reelecting Ted Nugent to the board. I pointed to this as evidence of the fundamentally racist nature of the NRA. You disagreed with my view. I think you argued that, while Nugent is an idiot, his reelection didn’t reflect a significant strain of racism in the organization.
Are you now considering that perhaps the NRA’s leadership and a significant percentage of its members really are motivated by racism? Are you reassessing your continued association with this racist organization?
Clear your browser data, turn off your add blocker(s), and Bob’s your uncle.
Yeah, that was my question.
I’ve said on this message board a few times, including just a few days ago in Bone’s gun cases thread, that gun ownership is one area of politics where my opinion shifted somewhat in the years after i moved to the US. I arrived from Australia as something of a gun abolitionist, believing that very few people should have guns, and then only under strict and limited circumstances.
After talking with some American gun owners online (including here at the SDMB) and in person—my next-door neighbor in Baltimore owned about 14 guns, from handguns to hunting rifles—i moderated my position somewhat, and i do have some sympathy for responsible gun owners who feel unfairly lumped in with criminals. I believe that there are plenty of gun owners in the country who really do promote responsible use, and who don’t constitute a threat to my safety just because they choose to own firearms. I also think that it would be possible, with the right will, to create a legal and policy framework that recognized this, while also taking concrete steps to reduce the number of guns in the country, and reduce gun violence.
But as long as the gun-rights agenda in the United States is so firmly in the hands of the National Rifle Association—the sort of people who produce videos like this—i will continue to cheer every setback for gun owners. Until the responsible gun owners much more openly and loudly disavow the lunatics, maybe with a new organization of their own, and with greater efforts to advocate some reasonable policies in Washington and in the states, i’m not very interested in lending my support to them.
I believe he runs a cable TV show called NRA News.
Do I believe that anything they say will be twisted and/or used to accuse the NRA of racism, or of being anti-law enforcement? Hell yes. I would have thought that was obvious.
Regards,
Shodan
He has a YouTube channel that is also carried on the NRA News website.
Noir (a pseudonym, BTW) is a random, if vocal, member of the NRA. AFAICT, he holds no position with the organization and does not speak for leadership.
So, again: the NRA as an organization is fine with a CCW holder being shot to death for no discernible reason, as long as the CCW holder is black. That’s pretty much the crux of it, isn’t it? When the NRA said they’d have more to say when all the facts were known, and then they didn’t say anything, even when a number of members urged them to do so, their silence implies consent.
That wasn’t my question. If you don’t want to answer, just say so.
FTR, the NRA is a top-heavy organization with ~76 members on the Board of Directors. There’s plenty of scope for taking a low key stance, or even framing this as a debate within the membership (though frankly I was surprised that they weren’t on top of this issue given their love for the Bundy clan). They haven’t even done that.
I thought they were a guns-right organization that happened to have racist Ted Nugent as a board member. I didn’t know that in practice they still perceived gun rights as applying in a separate fashion to blacks and whites.
I think it’s unfair to say that the NRA is tied too closely with law enforcement. Here’s what their Executive Vice President and familiar spokesman Wayne LaPierre has said about the FBI: [INDENT][INDENT]The semiauto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us.” [/INDENT][/INDENT] Note he said “More power”, as opposed to just “Power”. That was following the Branch Davidian incident in Waco, Texas. The NRA has gone up against cops plenty of times, especially those who wish to have better firepower than criminals. LaPierre: [INDENT] “[T]here is no such thing as a free nation where police and military are allowed the force of arms but individual citizens are not,” [/INDENT] So again, to say that the NRA is too pro-cop is unfair.
Full disclosure: I have some bias. I support the goals of law enforcement in free and democratic societies (which is why it’s important to give police officers solid training, hold them to high standards (including at times criminal sanction as appropriate) and pay them a professional salary).
When the NRA talks about “jack-booted government thugs” they mean the ATF.