Who needs the NRA?

I’m an on and off member of the NRA. While I’m 100% behind our 2nd amendment rights, I go back and forth on how the NRA forwards this agenda. I find many of the organization’s tactics distasteful and believe some are plain demagoguery that perpetuates lies.

NRA - good for hunting?
NRA - good for hunting?

That being said, I wonder where I would be without the NRA. Every cause has its zealots, and I know plenty of anti-gun people who are 100% irrational about firearms. They would love to “control” guns to the point where guys like me could never have them. I see the NRA as a buffer against this and believe that one extreme balances out the other.

Of course, not all hunters agree with me. Lily Raff McCaulou is a hunter/fisherwoman who lives in Oregon. The New York Times published her piece “I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me” in yesterday’s OP/Ed section. I suggest reading it.

“EARLIER this month, Mitt Romney delivered a speech at the annual National Rifle Association convention, calling for a president “who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those seeking to protect their homes and their families,” presumably with guns. I’d like to remind Mr. Romney that those are distinct groups. Too often — especially during an election year — hunters and N.R.A. members are lumped together as one and the same…”

You can read the rest here.

BTW: Here’s interesting piece about the NRA from The Economist magazine: The NRA’s star may be on the wane

Recent Posts

4 thoughts on “Who needs the NRA?

  1. The NRA has in a single generation changed the discussion on gun control from “how much gun control (the Bush assault weapon ban)” to “how much gun freedom (practiced open carry, vermont carry and concealed permits)”. To some extent it’s reach has exceeded its grasp with Tea Paty members exercising open carry at nationaly televised events and the b.s. of the Travon Martin case (defending your self when your head is being pounded into the pavement has nothing to do with “stand your ground laws” and that appears to be crux of the case thus far). On the whole they are an effective lobbying organization.

  2. I was a pat member of the NRA. I dropped out of the NRA several years ago because of an insurance claim that they didn’t pay. I do think we need so sort of an organization to protect our gun rights. So far the NRA gets the most press, unfortinately a lot of it is negative. I also think that the NRA has received enough funds over the years to not have any new firearms laws on the book any where in this country.

  3. Joe-

    Thanks for the comment. I appreciate the need to protect our rights to own guns, and I know that there are plenty of people who would like to eliminate our access to them.

    But there are few things that worry me more:
    1. The loss of huntable land.
    2. Lousy conservation practices across our country.
    3. Militarizing of shooting sports.


  4. Amen, but i would add: 1) loss of huntible land, eventho taxes and fees pay for c.r.p. w.r.p. and w.m.a. s which have NO food plots,2) INTENTIONALLY lousy conservation practices on public AND private lands, and, 3) militarizing of our game and fish departments. We, as freightpayers, need to encourage a new look be taken at pittman robertson funds, and ON WHAT money from the tax is actually spent.

Comments are closed.