Home » Blogs » Rustmeister's blog

Good Points

It's funny how the reaction to Joaquin Jackson's comments (which I talk about here) has moved more to the function and purpose of the NRA than to Mr. Jackson's statements.

That's a good thing.

I let my membership lapse after the 1994 AWB went into effect, figuring the NRA had let me down. Hindsight being what it is, maybe the NRA didn't let me down as much as I thought it had.

Yes, it was a federal ban on guns that looked cool, and it was totally unconstitutional. However, the political climate at the time was very anti-gun, and without the sunset provision, we'd be listing the AWB along with all those other things in the right sidebar we feel need changing. The NRA got that provision in the bill, and in a "big picture" sense, it was the right thing to do.

When Jackson story first broke, Sebastian warned everybody: let’s not get unhinged over this. Good advice. Truthfully, I haven't read anything I'd call "unhinged" outside of JG's silly trolling comments (no link there, no way), but there's a good discussion on the NRA's roles/responsibilities/shortcomings.

A few things that got me thinking:

In comments to this post KdT makes a good point:

...and without the “absolutist” GOA and JPFO, the NRA would be like the NRA of Great Britain—yelping about “hunting” issues because that’s all there’d be left to yelp about.

That's true. While we can call them "extremists" or "absolutists", they have a genuine focus on the issues and can lend valuable insight. Also, if the British NRA has been reduced to hunting issues, they're losing ground (Fox hunt? Not anymore, old chap).

This brings me to a comment in a post by Sebastian by David Codrea (emphasis mine):

I agree that the ‘extremists’ need to join NRA, not leave it, and also think that much of the complaining comes from people who, by not doing this, have sidelined themselves from being able to effect change.

Face it–if we can’t even generate the clout to affect an NRA election, how can we expect to be effective on a larger political scale?

That last comment was, for me, a reality check. I mean, I can sit here and blog to my heart's content, but other than that, I'm powerless. I always tell people to gripe about politicians "If you didn't vote, don't gripe.", and now I find myself in the same boat.

Does that mean I'm joining the NRA? No, not at this time.

It does mean I'm considering it.

Your vote

A wise man I listen to often mentions that you should keep in mind that voting by ballot is often the weakest way to make your voice heard. Dollars speak loudly. If you choose to join a group such as the NRA, your dollars support each and every part of it. If you endorse a group such as the NRA, your endorsement extends to each and every part of it.

I suggest that you support (with your money) and your endorsement (your words) groups you support wholeheartedly (which doesn't seem to currently include the NRA).

I stick to donating and supporting those groups I whose actions I support 100%.

As for the logic used by David Codrea above, you could use the same argument to suggest that we (self-defence advocates) donate money to the Democratic Party as the Party won't listen to gun owners if we don't.

Support groups you agree with, don't support groups you don't agree with.

Thane Eichenauer
Tempe, Arizona

  • By Thane Eichenauer at 2007-09-11 05:06
  • Login or register to post comments

Thanks

That's why I said I'm considering it. I want to read more viewpoints before taking any action.

  • By Rustmeister at 2007-09-11 09:45
  • Login or register to post comments

Wouldn't be without a membership

It's the same for me as in other areas of interest: when there's a "big cheese" organization, you just gotta belong to it. When there's an 800 pound gorilla in the field, they have too much influence to ignore, and I need to either support them or work to change them from within. Otherwise it's just cursing the tide.