|
Post by freedomhunter on Aug 20, 2019 18:29:59 GMT -5
These problems aren't anything new. Change for the sake of change. Loud mouths like Dana checking out. Childress has his own reasons. Bunch of bs in my opinion. The man has been in it for us and our rights, let's railroad him. Good stuff!
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Aug 20, 2019 19:11:14 GMT -5
Just before reading this post I watched the video embedded in my NRA Member email showing Wayne LaPierre reaching out for support. Decent video with the heart cry for supporters of the Second amendment to “stand together!” Not sure what I think. I’m still a member, but some days I wonder about the future of the NRA. I just wonder how many NRA members will listen to that message from LaPierre and his cries for supporters to "stand together" and see it as nothing more than an attempt to hold onto his power and lavish lifestyle the NRA affords him.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Aug 20, 2019 20:54:12 GMT -5
LaPierre let the power go to his head, got greedy, and turned from a champion of gun rights to a champion of Wayne LaPierre. The lavish spending is beyond inexcusable. This scandal is going to really hurt the defense of gun rights.
You send me mail asking for money, so you can live like a king?
He needs to go
|
|
|
Post by duff on Aug 21, 2019 2:51:27 GMT -5
LaPierre let the power go to his head, got greedy, and turned from a champion of gun rights to a champion of Wayne LaPierre. The lavish spending is beyond inexcusable. This scandal is going to really hurt the defense of gun rights. You send me mail asking for money, so you can live like a king? He needs to go NRA needs a powerful advocate like they had in Heston to step in and calm the masses down if they want to remain a powerful organization. Not sure who that is. North wanted the power and LaPier has never been an everyday guy. He is hard sell to most of us. It is big $$ and big power. Draws folks who want both despite the cause. Best way to hurt the organization is from inside. Not looking good for the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by jjas on Aug 21, 2019 6:54:35 GMT -5
Here's another column from the OutdoorWire's Jim Shepherd on the latest news concerning the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by Sasquatch on Aug 21, 2019 19:23:02 GMT -5
We had better hope they get things settled. A fractured or greatly weakened NRA would be a disaster. There are other groups, but none have the reach and influence of the NRA.
This is also bad because, much like tightwads use charity scandals or televangelists as an excuse to never donate to anyone or anything, this will become a reason not to contribute to the fight.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Aug 22, 2019 0:06:15 GMT -5
What other groups? Besides GOA?
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Aug 22, 2019 7:43:17 GMT -5
With name recognition on the Hill; none.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Aug 22, 2019 11:04:33 GMT -5
I've been a life member since 1975, and am still as strongly as ever a very firm believer in the Second Amendment.
I have been disappointed in several decisions made by the NRA in the past, and would probably have joined them on an annual basis instead if I'd been able to foretell the future back then. Yes, they are still the most powerful voice of the gun owner, but that position has weakened somewhat i recent years and is currently being diminished even more by this disruption from within.
That might turn out to be a good thing in the end. The "name recognition" and "power of the handshake" status is already becoming a less important asset as fewer elected officials want to be seen shaking hands with the leaders of the organization. I suspect that position of insider influence and political power would transfer pretty quickly to the next organization stepping up to take the NRA's place. The several million gun owners and voters and believers in the constitution are too big a political plum to hang very long on a limb without being picked.
If the power does become somewhat more distributed among other organizations such as the GOA, our net political influence could actually increase instead of decrease in the long term.
When some corporations become bloated at the top and eventually topple from their position as King of the Hill, their position doesn't remain empty, but is filled by the next up-and-coming business with a more efficient operation and an appreciation for the opportunity. The customer is often better served by the change. That's a good bit of the beauty of a free market, whether the business is producing a tangible product or providing a service like representing us to the government and the public, when the customer base has a choice of providers they will usually pick the best one for their bucks after a while, and likewise, if that choice fails them, they will switch to another who gets the job done better.
|
|
|
Post by parson on Aug 22, 2019 11:19:12 GMT -5
I've been a life member since 1975, and am still as strongly as ever a very firm believer in the Second Amendment. I have been disappointed in several decisions made by the NRA in the past, and would probably have joined them on an annual basis instead if I'd been able to foretell the future back then. Yes, they are still the most powerful voice of the gun owner, but that position has weakened somewhat i recent years and is currently being diminished even more by this disruption from within. That might turn out to be a good thing in the end. The "name recognition" and "power of the handshake" status is already becoming a less important asset as fewer elected officials want to be seen shaking hands with the leaders of the organization. I suspect that position of insider influence and political power would transfer pretty quickly to the next organization stepping up to take the NRA's place. The several million gun owners and voters and believers in the constitution are too big a political plum to hang very long on a limb without being picked. If the power does become somewhat more distributed among other organizations such as the GOA, our net political influence could actually increase instead of decrease in the long term. When some corporations become bloated at the top and eventually topple from their position as King of the Hill, their position doesn't remain empty, but is filled by the next up-and-coming business with a more efficient operation and an appreciation for the opportunity. The customer is often better served by the change. That's a good bit of the beauty of a free market, whether the business is producing a tangible product or providing a service like representing us to the government and the public, when the customer base has a choice of providers they will usually pick the best one for their bucks after a while, and likewise, if that choice fails them, they will switch to another who gets the job done better. Well said.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Aug 22, 2019 14:21:33 GMT -5
Well said. So what viable alternative is there?
|
|