# When did the NRA become a hyper-partisan anathema to rational thought? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 11, 2011, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568 "2011-11-11T04:04:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/1 "2011-11-11T04:04:34Z")
Is it just Wayne LaPierre’s fanaticism or does it go back earlier? Under Clinton? Carter? Earlier? I haven’t had much interaction with guns/NRA, but growing up (70s/80s) I thought of the organization as an advocacy/lobbying group second, but primarily a gun ownership, safety, and information resource. Now, it’s completely batshit. If you need examples of what I’m talking about, the easiest cites I can find are [Obama Let Guns Walk To Mexico To Crackdown On Gun Rights](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328300/paranoid-nra-chief-obama-leaving-gun-owners-alone-is-conspiracy-to-take-away-guns/) and Obama’s laying off gun legislation and expanding gun rights [is part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country](http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-ban-). If painting the NRA as wacko extremists is just a left-wing plot to undermine the organization, have at it. But there have been a host of WTF moments with the NRA, not just as out there as this, but in attacking Democrats in the same vein as Rush—attacking them because they’re democrats, not because of **reasoned** policy. This isn’t a post about gun control, there are plenty of threads about that. Clearly there is some overlap, but my primary focus is on \*when \*the NRA became so hyper partisan. If I’m wrong—if they’re non-partisan—fight the ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/2 "2011-11-11T04:18:17Z")
Don’t know if this adds much to the debate . . . Whatever else may be the history of the NRA, there’s no doubt in my mind about LaPierre’s fanaticism, as you put it. About two years ago or so, there were two unrelated shootings of law enforcement officers in some eastern state (was it South Carolina?) that brought the gun debate to the national news for a while. Somebody (a news radio station?) set up a brief 20-minute-or-so debate between the governor and LaPierre. I heard it on KCBS radio (San Francisco) samwiched in between traffic reports. Thus I can say, having heard LaPierre talk – **fer sure the guy is a stubborn-ass fanatic lunatic!** The guy was like a broken record, with two basic points that he could only repeat over and over no matter what the governor or the moderator said. The standard NRA talking points: (1) Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. (2) When asked if the law should treat hand-guns and such differently from assault rifles, he **simply would not acknowledge** that there was any difference. He just would not admit that “ordinary people” had any less business running around town with assault rifles than with hand-guns (which he didn’t see any problem with either). And of course there was the usual talk about an armed society being a polite and civil society. The guy simply would not move off of those moronic and threadbare NRA memes. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/3 "2011-11-11T04:45:03Z")
Rabid gun control advocate I can understand. I may disagree with some sentiments, but I would expect (in some ways) the NRA to protect the Second Amendment as much as the ACLU protects the First (among others; forgive the generalization). It’s the _partisan_ nature of their attacks that seem so wacky. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/4 "2011-11-11T04:46:29Z")
Has the NRA ever been relatively inactive in politics? For as long as I’ve been aware of their existence, the NRA has been a political lobbying group. As for the question on whether they’re crazy, all I can say is that their opinion about gun control isn’t too far right of mainstream. The only really crazy part is the single minded, blinders on, bullheadedness of their effort, but that’s true of any single-issue politically active group. The NRA is crazy about guns in the way environmentalists are crazy about the environment, PETA is crazy about animals, union workers are crazy about unions, anti-abortionists are crazy about abortion, etc. But yeah, LaPierre is a dope. I’d hate for him to be my representative. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/5 "2011-11-11T04:52:54Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > He just would not admit that “ordinary people” had any less business running around town with assault rifles than with hand-guns (which he didn’t see any problem with either). And of course there was the usual talk about an armed society being a polite and civil society. Sure, but that’s because most rational people don’t see the point in taking irrational lines of thought to their logical conclusions. If there’s no difference between running around with assault rifles, there’s no problem with everybody having the ability to buy TOW missiles, nerve gas, or nuclear weapons on the street (should they have the money, of course). But somehow, few people have issues with restrictions on owning weapons of mass destruction. In a “polite and civil society”, people with or without the right to carry arms don’t often see the need to carry them. For the record, I am a gun owner and licensed to carry concealed in the state of Texas (and by reciprocity laws, in several other states), and I understand that some type of limit on the ability of ordinary citizens to carry certain types of arms (perhaps up to and including the small arms I personally own and use) is entirely reasonable and not part of a slippery slope. I also understand this may make me an unusual (though not all that rare) exception among Texans. ---
**Author:** ![joebuck20](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/74df32/32.png) [@joebuck20](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joebuck20)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/6 "2011-11-11T04:58:10Z")
Here’s a pretty interesting story from the Atlantic Monthly about the history of the NRA. Back in the day, it seems, they were more focused on safety and sportsmanship (though still a lobbying organization), and actually backed a number of gun control measures. But that began changing in the mid-70s with the spike in crime. The article offers some details: > [@](#): > > In 1976, Maxwell Rich, the executive vice president, announced that the NRA would sell its building in Washington, D.C., and relocate the headquarters to Colorado Springs, retreating from political lobbying and expanding its outdoor and environmental activities. > > Rich’s plan sparked outrage among the new breed of staunch, hard-line gun-rights advocates. The dissidents were led by a bald, blue-eyed bulldog of a man named Harlon Carter, who ran the NRA’s recently formed lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. In May 1977, Carter and his allies staged a coup at the annual membership meeting. Elected the new executive vice president, Carter would transform the NRA into a lobbying powerhouse committed to a more aggressive view of what the Second Amendment promises to citizens. > > The new NRA was not only responding to the wave of gun-control laws enacted to disarm black radicals; it also shared some of the Panthers’ views about firearms. Both groups valued guns primarily as a means of self-defense. Both thought people had a right to carry guns in public places, where a person was easily victimized, and not just in the privacy of the home. They also shared a profound mistrust of law enforcement. Most of the OP’s questions are answered on the second page of the story, though the first page offers some fascinating insights into the Black Panthers’ early role in the gun rights debate and how conservatives at one time were staunch gun control advocates. > **[The Secret History of Guns](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/)** > > The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/7 "2011-11-11T05:21:46Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > The guy was like a broken record…When asked if the law should treat hand-guns and such differently from assault rifles, he **simply would not acknowledge** that there was any difference. He just would not admit that “ordinary people” had any less business running around town with assault rifles than with hand-guns (which he didn’t see any problem with either). If whoever was talking to LaPierre brought up the issue of “assault rifles,” then he/she was an idiot, as there is nobody “running around town” with “assault rifles.” And what do you mean, “running around town”? That’s such a loaded thing to say, when you use a phrase like that, you poison the discussion _immediately._ It evokes images of people literally running around, brandishing weapons recklessly, and creating chaos. You don’t use the phrase “running around town with assault rifles” in a civilized, objective discussion about the second amendment. In any case - assault rifle, rifle, pistol, handgun, whatever you want to call it, the basic facts are always going to remain the same: they are tools, with the potential to be very dangerous, which is why the NRA sponsors a _lot_ of firearms safety programs, so that goes some ways towards making sure people use them responsibly. And the legal, law-abiding gun owners aren’t the ones committing the majority of the crime, and we’re goddamn sick of being treated like we did something wrong. LaPierre is, indeed, a broken record; he’s a knee-jerk, single-issue partisan; he has a one-track mind; and I’m glad he exists, and I’m glad the NRA exists. The NRA does see all kinds of anti gun conspiracies where they don’t exist, but I don’t really care - they’re the one organization fighting in a dedicated way to preserve the second amendment. We really need them. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/8 "2011-11-11T06:30:21Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Has the NRA ever been relatively inactive in politics? For as long as I’ve been aware of their existence, the NRA has been a political lobbying group. Then you haven’t done your homework, have you? The NRA was, for almost a century, not a “political lobbying group”. But for most of this countrys’ existence the individual right to bear arms wasn’t under attack either. It wasn’t until the late 1960’s that politically motivated groups wanted to blame inanimate objects for the actions of individuals that the NRA had to take a side. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/9 "2011-11-11T06:33:59Z")
I think the partisanship hurts the political conversation, though. Blasting all Democrats as “gun grabbers” just isn’t remotely true. When I was a “conservative,” I was for gun control. Now I am a “progressive,” I recognize that the Black Panthers had a point. And some major Democrat politicians like Howard Dean actually have better gun-rights records than some Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 6:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/10 "2011-11-11T06:38:18Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > It wasn’t until the late 1960’s that politically motivated groups wanted to blame inanimate objects for the actions of individuals that the NRA had to take a side. Since mustard gas is inanimate, I suppose they should sell it at the Piggly Wiggly? The fact that guns are inanimate has nothing to do with the gun control debate. Nukes are inanimate. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/11 "2011-11-11T06:53:08Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Since mustard gas is inanimate, I suppose they should sell it at the Piggly Wiggly? The fact that guns are inanimate has nothing to do with the gun control debate. Nukes are inanimate. Can you provide a cite where the NRA defends the individual carry of nukes? Can you provide a cite that shows the NRA was responding to an assault on the right to carry mustard gas and nukes? Can you do this without deviating from my previous post? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/12 "2011-11-11T07:03:26Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > Can you provide a cite where the NRA defends the individual carry of nukes? > > Can you provide a cite that shows the NRA was responding to an assault on the right to carry mustard gas and nukes? > > Can you do this without deviating from my previous post? You said that _politically motivated groups were blaming inanimate objects for the actions of individuals_. That’s not a reasonable way to describe the situation. No one is blaming the inanimate objects. They are attempting to restrict the use of a tool that enables an individual to perform certain actions. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/13 "2011-11-11T07:12:23Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > I think the partisanship hurts the political conversation, though. Blasting all Democrats as “gun grabbers” just isn’t remotely true. I agree - my own longtime representative, [Baron Hill,](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Hill) was one of the only Indiana politicians, Democrat or Republican, to consistently get an A+ from the NRA. And I know many other Democrats who are very pro-gun. However, it _must_ be said that it was the anti-gun side who started the whole thing, coming to a head with the Brady bullshit and other Clinton era concessions to radical anti-gun groups about whom “gun grabber” would be absolutely the _kindest_ thing to say. Before the anti-gun movement, the NRA never displayed any kind of political partisanship. It was basically a fraternal order for people involved in shooting sports and hunting. John F. Kennedy was a lifetime member. ---
**Author:** ![pkbites](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pkbites/32/204_2.png) [@pkbites](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pkbites)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/14 "2011-11-11T07:25:44Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s not a reasonable way to describe the situation. No one is blaming the inanimate objects. They are attempting to restrict the use of a tool that enables an individual to perform certain actions. And **THAT** is unreasonable. By that fucked up reasoning cars, penises, and baseball bats would be illegal. But you are still digressing from my original post. Which was an answer to the OP. The NRA was not a politically motivated group for most of it’s existence. ---
**Author:** ![Xenocrates](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/f14d63/32.png) [@Xenocrates](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xenocrates)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/15 "2011-11-11T07:45:24Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > And **THAT** is unreasonable. By that fucked up reasoning cars, penises, and baseball bats would be illegal. > But you are still digressing from my original post. Which was an answer to the OP. The NRA was not a politically motivated group for most of it’s existence. By what fucked up reasoning? Lobohan did not make an argument about what should be illegal. He characterized the goal of a group. Furthermore, Lobohan did not even say that the goal of the group was to restrict the use of all tools that enable an individual to perform certain actions. I imagine nobody would be stupid enough to make that argument. _Furthermore_ restrict =/= make illegal. Strawman. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/16 "2011-11-11T07:46:51Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > And **THAT** is unreasonable. By that fucked up reasoning cars, penises, and baseball bats would be illegal. Um, we do restrict what people can do with cars, penises, and baseball bats. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/17 "2011-11-11T07:50:04Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Is it just Wayne LaPierre’s fanaticism or does it go back earlier? Under Clinton? Carter? Earlier? I haven’t had much interaction with guns/NRA, but growing up (70s/80s) I thought of the organization as an advocacy/lobbying group second, but primarily a gun ownership, safety, and information resource. Now, it’s completely batshit. It’s certainly more extreme than it was a long time ago, and I certainly don’t agree with the way they go about their business, but in the long term they have been good for gun owners. As for their tactics, it’s not really any different than any other single-issue interest group. Wayne LaPierre is far too extreme for my tastes, but he gets the job done, and in the end that’s why the NRA exists. > [@](#): > > If you need examples of what I’m talking about, the easiest cites I can find are [Obama Let Guns Walk To Mexico To Crackdown On Gun Rights](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/09/26/328300/paranoid-nra-chief-obama-leaving-gun-owners-alone-is-conspiracy-to-take-away-guns/) and Obama’s laying off gun legislation and expanding gun rights [is part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country](http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-ban-). If painting the NRA as wacko extremists is just a left-wing plot to undermine the organization, have at it. But there have been a host of WTF moments with the NRA, not just as out there as this, but in attacking Democrats in the same vein as Rush—attacking them because they’re democrats, not because of **reasoned** policy. The whole “Fast and Furious” thing was not “reasoned policy”, and if the end result of it is more gun laws that heretofore have not been necessary to solve a problem of their own making, of course the NRA is going to have a problem with that. It occurs to me that politics is not unlike selling a product in that the best way to get customers is to create a market and sell into it. It happens all the time, some politician thinks of an imaginary problem and proceeds to fix it through legislation. Also, the NRA has no interest in it, they are a single-issue watchdog group, not a negotiating organization. They fight restrictions because that’s what they do. > [@](#): > > This isn’t a post about gun control, there are plenty of threads about that. Clearly there is some overlap, but my primary focus is on \*when \*the NRA became so hyper partisan. If I’m wrong—if they’re non-partisan—fight the ignorance. They are partisan only inasmuch as they support people who rate well in their rankings. That so few of them are Democrats tells you only one thing: the Democrats favor gun control far more than the Republicans. The NRA backs several Democrats every election cycle. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/18 "2011-11-11T07:54:55Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > Has the NRA ever been relatively inactive in politics? For as long as I’ve been aware of their existence, the NRA has been a political lobbying group. It really kicked off in 1977 after their convention in Cincinnati, and became much more vocal in the build-up to the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban in 1992-3. Since then they have been very active and very vocal. The organization learned that the way to get things done is the way they’re doing things now. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/19 "2011-11-11T08:18:40Z")
> [@pkbites](#): > > And **THAT** is unreasonable. By that fucked up reasoning cars, penises, and baseball bats would be illegal. Don’t forget mustard gas, death stars, and doomsday devices. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2011, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568/20 "2011-11-11T12:35:13Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > (2) When asked if the law should treat hand-guns and such differently from assault rifles, he **simply would not acknowledge** that there was any difference. He just would not admit that “ordinary people” had any less business running around town with assault rifles than with hand-guns (which he didn’t see any problem with either). What’s ironic is you seem to think private ownership of assault rifles is more dangerous than private ownership of handguns. “A well regulated militia” needs military grade firearms, even if they are incapable of automatic fire - the US military has in fact been transitioning from the M-16 to the M-4 carbine which isn’t even capable of full automatic fire, only 3 round bursts or single shots. Very, very, very few crimes are committed with assault rifles as compared to handguns for the same reason few are committed with hunting rifles; you can’t conceal an assault rifle in your pocket or down your pants. When was the last time you heard of someone being mugged by someone with an AR-15? Handguns are what should be outlawed if one desires less firearms related crimes to be committed. Unfortunately, that is likely never going to happen. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-did-the-nra-become-a-hyper-partisan-anathema-to-rational-thought/602568.md?page=2)