On-Topic The NRA in Disarray

[Kulindahr]

[Text: Removed]

The NRA for years has been using Kuli's silly argument as cover for a lobbying scheme paid for by manufacturers of ammo and firearms. They've sold gun as recreation and Rambo fantasies to everyone, they paid for a bunch of the people who are currently trying to kill our democracy. Anti-gay, misogynist, racism, religious bigots, these are the people the NRA has gleefully paid for in order to make money for that whore LaPierre and the rest of them, and now it looks like they are all traitors as well.

There aren't enough safety courses in the world to make up for that.

You're talking about the media's portrayal of the NRA, not the real NRA. Go to a local NRA meeting and you'll see minorities including gays -- in fact, this Quora answer is spot-on:

Gun owners are a funny bunch.

If you support gun rights, they don’t tend to care, in the slightest, if you are a white male or a transgender black lesbian.

And this makes sense, really. Firearms ownership tends, by definition, to attract people who are libertarian in their thinking. “If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it is of no concern to me”. They may disagree with your life choices, but generally speaking there is only one question for admission into the club: “Do you support gun rights”.

Indeed, the last time that the NRA was involved in an individual case, IIRC, was a black woman with a CCW permit from Pennsylvania who ended up being arrested in New Jersey for illegally carrying, unaware her license was useless across state lines. ...

The most popular NRA commentator right now is Colion Noir, a black man.

Chris Cheng is a gay asian male who used to work for Google. Now he’s a professional shooter being sponsored by Bass Pro Shops after winning a season of the TV show “Top Shot”. How’s that for diversity? He’s also another popular NRA commentator.

I’ve watched groups of very traditional (read white anglo saxon protestants) gun owners freely accept trans people, gay people, lesbians, whatever.

-- Quora

That's the reality of the NRA on the ground -- very much in line with Barry Goldwater's statement that we shouldn't care if someone is straight, only if they can shoot straight.


As for guns as recreation, that's just maintaining a long-standing aspect of American life. High schools used to have shooting teams right along with football and other sports, and no one thought those needed promoting or defending because they were just a normal aspect of life. The NRA got into "promoting" guns for recreation only when a new element in society started attacking guns.

The corruption you refer to began with Ackermann-McQueen, who turned Wayne L Pierre into a money-seeking demagogue. Interestingly minority members were among the first to speak out against the La Pierre cabal.

 

[Kulindahr]

The terrible irony of all this is that the long-time fiction has been that Americans need to arm themselves to protect themselves from their government (the one that they elected).

And here we are in 2021, with 393,347,000 guns in circulation and significant portion of population who appear to be mentally ill.

It's not the government that we need to protection from.

Yes, it is the government we need to be protected from, because in truth we do not elect the government -- we only get to choose from among candidates already selected by the 0.2% super-wealthy people who provide the vast majority of campaign dollars. The super-rich aren't going to give up the position that Citizens United confirmed them in without a fight.

 

[KaraBulut]

...you will not find a black person* on American soil who believes that the NRA gives a fuck about our right to bear arms...

Perhaps but that would be a misinterpretation of what the purpose of the NRA has become. The NRA doesn't care about rights as much as it care about selling guns for the industry that underwrites their existence and their corruption.

Just like the adult beverage industry doesn't care about black or brown peoples' right to drink, they are happy to market certain products to particular ethnic markets. Anything to get sales.

However, on the other side of that, the NRA is more than happy to market guns to affluent (read: white) people because a "the only thing that will stop is 'bad guy' with a gun..".

This tactic of the NRA does fall in line with some of the controversial academic theories around the Second Amendment's connection to keeping white minorities in power during slavery.

 

[opinterph]

Facts cannot be irrational -- they just are facts.

I received an email from the NRA 2 days ago. It stated that [Congress is] “systematically harassing law-abiding gun owners and putting America squarely on the road to door-to-door GUN CONFISCATION.” Does the substance of that claim qualify as a fact?

Body of email:

Remember, we’re seeing more and more bills being introduced in Congress that would GRIND YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS INTO DUST – and we need you in our ranks more than ever.


We’re looking at gun bans… online ammo bans… punitive taxes on gun and ammo purchases… gun rationing… even nationwide gun confiscations.


There are bills in Congress that would:


• BAN hundreds of commonly-owned firearms…

• BAN private gun sales, even to trusted members of your family…

• MANDATE how you store your guns in your own home…

• FORCE you to pay an $800 insurance fee every year to own a gun…

• ENFORCE arbitrary delays when you purchase a firearm, allowing the FBI to sit on your gun purchase application for weeks or even indefinitely…

• CREATE a federal gun registry – where your personal information will be available to the public – INCLUDING every criminal AND gun-hating nut in the country.


And there’s even a bill that would FORCE YOU, your spouse, and at least two other members of your family to undergo psychological examinations before you can purchase a firearm.


[opinterph], this is not about old-fashioned gun control policies.


This is about systematically harassing law-abiding gun owners and putting America squarely on the road to door-to-door GUN CONFISCATION.


Make no mistake. Your Second Amendment rights have NEVER been under greater threat than right now.


Only NRA is standing between your freedoms and those who would take them away. But our strength to FIGHT and WIN comes from YOU.


We can defeat these dangerous threats to our freedom. We can save our guns.


But we need to fight together and with one voice under the NRA banner.

 

[KaraBulut]

I received an email from the NRA 2 days ago. It stated that [Congress is] “systematically harassing law-abiding gun owners and putting America squarely on the road to door-to-door GUN CONFISCATION.” Does the substance of that claim qualify as a fact?

Body of email:

Out of curiosity, did you remove the link where they were wanting you to donate money?

 

[opinterph]

Out of curiosity, did you remove the link where they were wanting you to donate money?

Yes. The email contains 4 identical and brightly colored button-icons to click for a NRA membership.

 

[Kulindahr]

I received an email from the NRA 2 days ago. It stated that [Congress is] “systematically harassing law-abiding gun owners and putting America squarely on the road to door-to-door GUN CONFISCATION.” Does the substance of that claim qualify as a fact?

Body of email:

So? Where in my post did I mention this?

But the items listed as from bills introduced into Congress are all correct. Given that not a one of those would have any effect on how criminals behave, what can be concluded except that the point is "systematically harassing law-abiding gun owners"?

 

[Kulindahr]

Perhaps but that would be a misinterpretation of what the purpose of the NRA has become. The NRA doesn't care about rights as much as it care about selling guns for the industry that underwrites their existence and their corruption.

Nothing that the NRA does matches this -- it's a caricature by media people who only care about their own preferred rights.

 

[KaraBulut]

Yes. The email contains 4 identical and brightly colored button-icons to click for a NRA membership.

"Big bad government is going to take your guns. So, send us money."

(and never mind those stories about our big legal bills because of the corruption)

Nothing that the NRA does matches this -- it's a caricature by media people who only care about their own preferred rights.

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA [Business Insider (2013)]

In its early days, the National Rifle Association was a grassroots social club that prided itself on independence from corporate influence.

While that is still part of the organization's core function, today less than half of the NRA's revenues come from program fees and membership dues.

The bulk of the group's money now comes in the form of contributions, grants, royalty income, and advertising, much of it originating from gun industry sources.

How's that Southern saying go... "You got to dance with them what brung you."?

 

[opinterph]

So? Where in my post did I mention this?

You asserted, “Facts cannot be irrational.” My question attempts to determine whether the NRA claim that Congress is “systematically harassing law-abiding gun owners and putting America squarely on the road to door-to-door GUN CONFISCATION” is factual or something else, such as irrational. I note your affirmation that the list of grievances from the email is true and correct, but that you did not fully endorse the NRA conclusion. Specifically, you endorsed the part about harassment of law-abiding gun owners, but stopped short of agreeing that America is “squarely on the road to door-to-door gun confiscation.”

But the items listed as from bills introduced into Congress are all correct.

The email states “There are bills in Congress.” That suggests to me that there are bills pending passage in the current (117th) Congress – because all bills introduced, but not passed during prior sessions die and are no longer “in Congress.” Bills introduced in a prior Congress cannot become law. To become enacted as law, the bills would need to be presented in the current (117th) Congress, considered, and passed, rejected, or amended before the end of the session on January 3, 2023.

In accordance with their bold assertions, I anticipate that the NRA website would provide a listing of all the egregious bills introduced in the current (117th) Congress to validate the various claims and demonstrate that those claims are founded in facts. I am disappointed, as that does not seem to be the case.

Oh well. I suppose that means each recipient of that email is left to either research the facts themselves or just take the NRA’s word for it. I guess I need to hide my guns first – just in case it’s true that the federal government might soon be knocking on my door demanding their surrender.

A quick search of the word “firearm” provides a list of about 20 bills that have been introduced in the 117th Congress. I may have missed a few and maybe some do not contain the searched word. But there are at least 20 introduced in the House.

HR 8 – Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021
HR 30 – Gun Trafficking Prohibition Act
HR 38 – Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
HR 95 – Hearing Protection Act
HR 121 – Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2021
HR 125 – Gun Safety: Not Sorry Act of 2021
HR 127 – Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act
HR 130 – Kimberly Vaughan Firearm Safe Storage Act
HR 135 – Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act of 2021
HR 167 – (Limits transfer of firearms at gun show to licensed firearms dealers)
HR 194 – (Requires firearms transaction details and investigations be reported to Congress)
HR 225 – (Addresses interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition)
HR 355 – Illegal Alien NICS Alert Act
HR 545 – No Congressional Gun Loophole Act
HR 1006 – (Requires criminal background check on firearms sold at gun shows)
HR 1446 – Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2021
HR 1769 – (Requires reporting to provide states ability to prosecute prohibited persons who have attempted to acquire a firearm)
HR 1782 – (Amends National Firearms Act to allow local chief law enforcement officer a 90-day period to deny firearm transfers)
HR 1787 – (Prevents unnecessary delay in firearms transfer from licensed dealers to unlicensed persons)
HR 2282 – (Repeals impediments to the administration of firearms laws)


Reading all those bills would take a long time. Rather, I determined which of the things asserted on the NRA list (that would result from bills “in Congress”) seemed the most ridiculous sounding and unreasonable to me. I concluded that the line about forcing citizens to pay an annual fee of $800 for each gun they own is least likely to constitute a fact.

My search for evidence led me to H.R. 127 – AKA: The ‘‘Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act’’.

As it turns out, HR 127 checks off several of the NRA claims, including banning commonly owned firearms and requiring psychological examinations. It also requires a license to possess a firearm.

The $800 fee purportedly “insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins with the date the policy is issued.” By some estimates US citizens possess 434 million firearms.

434,000,000 * $800 = $347,200,000,000​

Yeah, I consider that to be ridiculous and unreasonable and anticipate that HR 127 is a bill that will die on January 3, 2023. It is unfortunate that lawmakers sometimes feed the narrative that results in nourishing the very thing they supposedly oppose. After reading HR 127, a reasonable person would probably be more likely to consider the notion that the federal government will attempt to confiscate their firearms as rational.

There are more registered firearms in Texas than any other state and Texas is the home of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, sole sponsor of HR 127.

 

[KaraBulut]

Sabika Sheikh was a Pakistani exchange student who attended Sante Fe High School. Sante Fe was the site of another mass shooting. A 17 year old high school student brought his father's Remington 870 shotgun to school to kill a girl who had rejected his romantic advances. In total, he killed 8 students and 2 teachers. The 870 is a pump-action shotgun used for recreational shooting.

The shooter was sentenced to a long-term mental health facility.

Unfortunately, like so many of these bills, the Sabika Sheikh Act would do little to prevent the incident that inspired the name.

Tragedy at Santa Fe High: Remember Sabika Sheikh [Texas Monthly]

 

[frankfrank]

at large public NRA events, it's that older contingent who tend to show up (can't find it at the moment but I saw an estimate that the average age for convention [and other large event] attendance was around 55).

This seems to be almost a UNIVERSAL thing for major national-or-regional "ANYTHING" gatherings...I belong to three national Clubs relating to broadcasting media. Until around 2008, all three of these clubs had their own national gatherings. These are NOT large events; only a handful of them have had attendance above 60 people.

Nowadays they (ALONG WITH a fourth club I don't belong to) have usually rolled all the events into only one national fathering.

Go back to the early 1970s, and the MEDIAN age of those attending was probably no older than 23. (The average age would be considerably higher, because there was also a smaller contingent of people in their 50s to 70s who would show up.) Often at least two or three of those attending would still be in high school. I'm thinking specifically of 1973 and the massive one in Hammond, Indiana which I think was about 65 people.

The last one I went to, in 2018, the median age of people attending was at least 60. In 45 years, the median age crept up probably more than 37 years. That's almost an exact correlation. At the one in 2018, in fact, I think there was only one guy younger than 50! There were maybe 18 or 20 people in all, which is substantially far down from what was customary and expected in the Seventies and Eighties.

A friend who goes to the national Toothpick Holders convention has told me the same thing, that the crowd has become quite elderly compared even to the middle Nineties when he started going.

Go to a stamp collecting club show, and those who come are EXTREMELY elderly. Nowadays, the median age at stamp shows might even be close to 80.

Those people setting at (vinyl) record fairs are aging as well. The Chicago one has about fifty vendors, and I don't think anymore than six or seven are younger than 60, and the customers who come in to buy have a similar age-profile. Forty-five years ago in Detroit the most common age for people there (either selling, or coming to buy), was probably the 20s decade, or maybe people in their 30s, but certainly not older for the most-prevalent age decade. Nowadays people in their 70s are the most numerous of any decade.

I've been told that the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas is similar, though maybe not as blatantly-so. Perhaps 50s is the median age, but still...

MEDIAN = whatever number is in the middle. If 51 people go somewhere, and you rank every one in accordance to age (or wealth, or anything else), the MEDIAN represents whoever (or whatever thing or item or quantity) is ranked 26th among the 51.

So looks like the NRA shows are just mirroring what seems to be happening almost everywhere else.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

[Text: Removed] -- the facts I've already posted show your claims are false. But here's some more:

Recognize this guy?

His nickname is "the Mailman", and he's an NRA board member -- that means a majority of the most active NRA members voted for him; in fact he was among the top five in vote totals.

As for NRA membership, in 2016 that reached a milestone: 40% of members were racial/ethnic minorities, a number that has continued to grow. Sadly that varies widely by state; in some southern states the number skews heavily white. Those numbers surprised me; I would have guessed 15% minority, 20% women, and in fact if you take just the members over 50 my guess is a little high. And that last is why the media view of the NRA is skewed: at large public NRA events, it's that older contingent who tend to show up (can't find it at the moment but I saw an estimate that the average age for convention [and other large event] attendance was around 55).

Your claim about filing for bankruptcy also fails: the effort to reach out to minorities started not long after I got my university degree, in the late 1990s. It stumbled along for years because the NRA couldn't find a high-profile minority figure to champion the cause (Malone wasn't interested in a task that would inevitably embroil such a position), but in 2013 this guy stepped up: Colion Noir. (Also worth noting as a minority person in the NRA is Chris Cheng, an Asian shooting champion who is also outspokenly gay; he's a popular NRA commentator.)

Another reason the public view of the NRA is skewed is that the organization spends over two-fifths of its dues income on fundraising, and the big donors tend to be "OFWG" -- old fat white guys -- so the advertising is slanted to reach them (another thing due to Ackermann-McQueen, since the more money spent on fundraising the more money they earned). That figure for fundraising spending is sufficiently ridiculous it has been brought up in court as evidence of corruption.

I fail to understand how pointing out one black member in an overwhelmingly and notoriously white organization means black people are on board.

 

[Kulindahr]

This seems to be almost a UNIVERSAL thing for major national-or-regional "ANYTHING" gatherings...I belong to three national Clubs relating to broadcasting media. Until around 2008, all three of these clubs had their own national gatherings. These are NOT large events; only a handful of them have had attendance above 60 people.

Yep, if you take just the people who show up at national gatherings, it's easy to make just about any organization look white-dominated and racist. It's necessary to look at the actual membership, and on that level the NRA looks pretty good since it has had all-black local chapters since the 1950s.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sabika Sheikh was a Pakistani exchange student who attended Sante Fe High School. Sante Fe was the site of another mass shooting. A 17 year old high school student brought his father's Remington 870 shotgun to school to kill a girl who had rejected his romantic advances. In total, he killed 8 students and 2 teachers. The 870 is a pump-action shotgun used for recreational shooting.

The shooter was sentenced to a long-term mental health facility.

Unfortunately, like so many of these bills, the Sabika Sheikh Act would do little to prevent the incident that inspired the name.

Tragedy at Santa Fe High: Remember Sabika Sheikh [Texas Monthly]

IIRC the shooter there was yet another one the FBI knew about and didn't bother to tell local law enforcement of the known danger. A law that would help has been introduced as a bill more than once by Republicans in Congress; it would require federal agencies to report known dangerous individuals to local law enforcement -- something obviously needed since several recent killers should have been on the no-buy list but one federal agency or another didn't supply the information they had to the NICS.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Yep, if you take just the people who show up at national gatherings, it's easy to make just about any organization look white-dominated and racist. It's necessary to look at the actual membership, and on that level the NRA looks pretty good since it has had all-black local chapters since the 1950s.

It's not even easy to make the KKK look racist, it's virtually impossible to make a non-racist organization look racist. The white color palette is not a figment of our imaginations, it's real. Find any upper echelon of any industry or system from Hollywood to academia to the white house and it's mostly white. The only areas where black skin dominates is in prison and I hope we aren't going to pretend that none of this is by design.

Its a historical fact that the NRA was racist and pursued racist agendas such as disarming black American militants. That's not up for debate. What it seems you're attempting to prove is that the organization made amends with people of color and built a bridge. Gonna be honest without even doing the research I will wager a bet that just like nighr clubs and schools integration was forced, reluctant and probably resisted. If I'm wrong and the NRA rolled out the welcoming mat preemptively before failing to do so was less fashionable I would welcome supporting evidence. Maybe a photo from an NRA meeting in 1978 with a sign reading to the effect of "safe space for brown people."

*tangible proof, a memo, photo of the NRA in a black neighborhood explaining gun safety, or something beyond "Its true cuz I said so and this one black guy says we're cool."

 

[Kulindahr]

How The Gun Industry Funnels Tens Of Millions Of Dollars To The NRA [Business Insider (2013)]

That's because the NRA showed just how badly they can ruin a company that doesn't play ball the way they want. Ever since the NRA helped shove Remington (IIRC) into bankruptcy, the gun companies have worked to show their loyalty -- they know they don't dare get the NRA mad at them. Those dollars don't show that the gun companies run the NRA they show exactly the opposite. It's effectively legal extortion.

Though a huge portion of those dollars are via advertising, which only makes sense: pay for an ad in an NRA magazine and you reach four or five million customers.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's not even easy to make the KKK look racist, it's virtually impossible to make a non-racist organization look racist. The white color palette is not a figment of our imaginations, it's real. Find any upper echelon of any industry or system from Hollywood to academia to the white house and it's mostly white. The only areas where black skin dominates is in prison and I hope we aren't going to pretend that none of this is by design.

Its a historical fact that the NRA was racist and pursued racist agendas such as disarming black American militants. That's not up for debate. What it seems you're attempting to prove is that the organization made amends with people of color and built a bridge. Gonna be honest without even doing the research I will wager a bet that just like nighr clubs and schools integration was forced, reluctant and probably resisted. If I'm wrong and the NRA rolled out the welcoming mat preemptively before failing to do so was less fashionable I would welcome supporting evidence. Maybe a photo from an NRA meeting in 1978 with a sign reading to the effect of "safe space for brown people."

*tangible proof, a memo, photo of the NRA in a black neighborhood explaining gun safety, or something beyond "Its true cuz I said so and this one black guy says we're cool."

You contradict yourself: you admit that any organization can be made to look racist by taking the right slice of its membership. The figures show that the NRA is getting close to having as large a portion of blacks as the general population, but you insist on focusing on the leadership and the most active members -- which is exactly what I said was being done.

The NRA did not pursue "disarming black American militants", they pursued disarming American militants. As for the rest, I've already given you the facts: the NRA has had black chapters since the 1950s when they supported the civil rights movement by helping the Deacons for Defense (i.e. arming black militants), and a huge majority of NRA members voted to elect black members to the Board. You've been given the evidence, you're just ignoring it.

 

[rareboy]

I have no idea why you continue to make the case for a corrupt organization like the NRA that could be replaced in a heartbeat with a new organization.

 

[KaraBulut]

...The NRA did not pursue "disarming black American militants", they pursued disarming American militants. As for the rest, I've already given you the facts: the NRA has had black chapters since the 1950s when they supported the civil rights movement by helping the Deacons for Defense (i.e. arming black militants), and a huge majority of NRA members voted to elect black members to the Board. You've been given the evidence, you're just ignoring it.

Ah, the good old days...

The NRA Supported Gun Control When the Black Panthers Had the Weapons [History Channel]

Throughout the late 1960s, the militant black nationalist group used their understanding of the finer details of California’s gun laws to underscore their political statements about the subjugation of African-Americans. In 1967, 30 members of the Black Panthers protested on the steps of the California statehouse armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns and .45-caliber pistols and announced, “The time has come for black people to arm themselves.”

The display so frightened politicians—including California governor Ronald Reagan—that it helped to pass the Mulford Act, a state bill prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms, along with an addendum prohibiting loaded firearms in the state Capitol. The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions.

“The law was part of a wave of laws that were passed in the late 1960s regulating guns, especially to target African-Americans,” says Adam Winkler, author of Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms. “Including the Gun Control Act of 1968, which adopted new laws prohibiting certain people from owning guns, providing for beefed up licensing and inspections of gun dealers and restricting the importation of cheap Saturday night specials [pocket pistols] that were popular in some urban communities.”

In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based....

The group of activists occupying the Capitol with fully loaded weapons on full display was an unforgettable sight. However, their demonstration backfired and the bill passed both the state Assembly and Senate, with the full support of the NRA. In addition to repealing open carry gun laws in California, Mulford made it illegal to take firearms into the Capitol. On July 28 it was signed into law by Governor Reagan, who later commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”