Non-sarcastic question: Is there anything good that the NRA does? (What is “good” is, of course, wildly subjective, but in general anything said about the NRA is usually negative.) Supports of the 2nd Amendment would see it as a defender of Constitutional rights but is there anything that both the pro-gun and anti-gun sides can agree on is a good thing that the NRA does or contributes?
I think they still do gun safety courses for gun owners.
As you note, ‘good’ is subjective. Is offering gun training and safety courses ‘good’? Depend I guess. Is running gun museums in various states ‘good’? Again, depends. How about sponsoring ranges? Is that ‘good’? Sponsoring and supporting various target shooting matches and events? ‘Good’? I’ve never been a member, but all you really need to do is a quick Google search to find stuff they do. Whether that stuff is ‘good’ or I guess ‘bad’ is going to be subjective and based on whether you think guns and shooting are inherently good or bad and that anything related to them is good or bad.
Some might quibble with the effectiveness, but I think the purpose is unquestionably good:
Yes. It’s important to note that there are really two NRAs. Prior to the 1970s, the NRA was largely dominated by hunters and sportsmen. It was largely rural in membership and politically neutral - it actually favored gun control prior to 1977 since hunters never felt the need for what we might call today assault weapons or the like and the NRA supported the Gun Control Act of 1968 because it protected hunting and target weapons. The NRA at this time was about promoting safety and marksmanship and functioned almost like a social club. Things from this era still exist. They do gun safety seminars, teach kids to handle weapons properly and be wary of them, they have a museum about the history of firearms, they sponsor shooting competitions for kids, encouraged protection of land and things of that nature. In the 1970s, gun owners began to urbanize and suburbanize (and I don’t think we need to argue why that was happening, though 1964 probably had something to do with it, regardless, it’s enough to know that it happened.) The NRA was essentially taken over by this group of people in 1977 in an event called the ‘Cincinnati Revolt’ where they rallied votes to expel the moderate pro-hunter leadership and replace it with pro-gun political activists. These activists were a mix of rabid anti-government types combined with what I think can be called ‘scared white suburbanites’ who felt that the primary goal of the NRA should be to protect an absolute right to own guns with no restrictions. They aggressively marketed to the urban and suburban types to maintain their stranglehold on power and become the lobbying powerhouse that they are today. They still do have some vestiges of that earlier era embedded in their DNA though that one could call ‘good.’
On the way to the Philmont Scout camp, we passed by the NRA Museum of the Southwest in Raton New Mexico. A number of our scouts thought it would be cool to see (we didn’t have the time), but it looks interesting if you’re into that kind of thing.
a.k.a. “Fudds”. As in “you can ban everything else and place every restriction on firearms ownership and carry, as long as we can still have bolt-action deer rifles and single-shot shotguns”. Pretty much what gun control advocates wish gun ownership could be reduced to in America.
By 1977 it was becoming evident that the end game of gun control was the abolishment of any right to possess firearms for self-defense, either personal or collective (beyond government-controlled police and troops). IOW, the frog finally started to notice how hot the water was getting. None of the provisions of the Bill of Rights confer an absolute libertarian immunity from government interference; but gun control advocates inflated this into “anything whatsoever can be de facto banned by regulation”. Cecil himself pointed out how worrying the precedent was of an article of the Bill of Rights being (his words): ‘interpreted out of existence’. That latter incidentally was mirrored by the majority decision in Heller which concluded " but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct".
Far from a fringe coalition of survivalists and ‘scared white suburbanites’ (code word: racists), the movement to not change but restore the interpretation of the Second Amendment that was held for the first century after its passing had the support of both gun owners and a wide segment of different groups who for one reason or another felt owning firearms was an important freedom to be championed.
As far as the NRA goes: it serves a purpose as the most prominent, visible gun rights organization on the national scale. If anything, gun owners consider the NRA too timid in fighting for Second Amendment rights. It’s particularly resented that the NRA attempted to hijack the Heller case and seek a “play it safe”, watered-down decision.
The NRA used to have really good materials for marksmanship and safety courses for youth and adults, as well as an excellent course on firearm safety for children which reinforced the message to stop, leave the area, and find an adult. I was once certified as a pistol instructor and used their basic course with some minor modifications. I quit years ago a few years after they decided to elevate lobbyist Wayne LaPierre as executive vice president so I have no idea how good their educational resources are now.
As senoy notes, what we now think of as the NRA is actually the Institute for Legislative Action, which is their lobbying and propaganda organization. NRA-ILA was established as a reaction to the Gun Control Act of 1968, which the existing leadership had supported, and unlike the the tradiational member-supported educational safety and sportsman advocacy wing, the ILA was primarily supported by firearm manufacturers and importers seeking less restrictive regulations on the growing market of military-tpe firearms (civilian versions of assault and battle rifles, submachine guns, and high capacity semi-automatic pistols). That they have essentially become an extension of the firearms industry marketing and lobbying effort is unsurprising, as is their alliances with alt-right conspiranoiast and hostile foreign interests as long as it achieves their goals of maintaining an ideological opposition to any extension of fireams oversight or regulation.
Stranger
My very, very, very left-wing, gun-owning father likes the magazine. At least the technical articles - he used to load his own ammo and indulge in similar hobbyist exercises.
I’m going to have to ask for cites on that.
Yes, if you are a Russian, then the NRA (Russian-funded) is doing a good job of de-stabilizing the USA.
Not really, as the purpose is to allow them cover when they fight actual gun safety measures, such as trigger locks. They get to say “Locks aren’t the answer, education is!”.
Are you arguing that education is bad?
It can be good or it can be bad.
And I will ask for a cite on this. Thanks in advance…
"…last year that the FBI was looking into allegations that Torshin and other Russians may have improperly funneled Russian funds into NRA coffers as part of its record setting $30m in pro-Trump spending.
The NRA has stated it did not spend any foreign funds in the elections, which would be illegal, and said it only received about $2,500 from Russian sources for non-electoral purposes in the 2016 cycle.
Still, Russia intelligence veterans say Torshin’s work with Butina bears hallmarks of a Kremlin operation that targeted the NRA – and had some success."
Admittedly, they’ve only owned-up to a little bit of Russian funding. But I think there was more.
Why do you think that (“there was more”)?
Well, $2,500 doesn’t buy a lot of anything. Big players shooting for lofty goals find ways to make payments invisible. Maybe I’m just naturally suspicious.
Most of your whole point is covered in this WSJ post. When the FBI finds something, let’s talk.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/russia-the-nra-and-fake-news-1521761296
Paywall… Sorry
N /m