[Nakura]

My mistake, they didn't successfully lobby for the change they wanted.

In fact, when LaPierre and other NRA leaders have had to choose between the interests of their corporate sponsors and the safety of its gun-owning members, they've revealed where their loyalties really lie. In 2005, the NRA and the firearms manufacturers successfully lobbied for a law that provided gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from lawsuits from victims of gun violence -- legislation sponsored by GOP Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, an NRA board member, and signed by President George W. Bush in October of that year. Little remembered, however, is that the NRA also lobbied for an amendment to that bill to limit the liability of firearm manufacturers for injuries to consumers caused by defective guns, a provision (which ultimately didn't pass) that would make it impossible for gun owners to sue the manufacturers.

Do you have the original source, because that "article" doesn't seem to cite it's sources?

Unfortunately not. I can't remember where  I originally read the story but that was the first link that showed up in a Google search. I did read about it in several places though.

As for the rest of your comments, you seem to have a problem with the tone they are using, but is anything factually incorrect?

For the sake of debate, I'll assume that what you're saying is accurate. In which case what better way to reform an organization than from the inside? Also, just because you saw something reported on several websites, even supposed "news' websites (as if there is such a thing anymore), that doesn't automatically mean it's true. Both liberals and conservatives live in their own echo chambers, where their talking heads, media outlets, forum posters, bloggers and social media pages share all kinds of disinformation and half-truths (at best), which are then repeated by others in their hive mind.

There are a few provably wrong statements in the article, however, such as the comment that 90% of Americans and 74% of NRA members supported the Manchin-Toomey bill. This has been disproved due to the wording of the question, regarding "improved background checks." If polled on the individual provisions in the 49 page bill, the actual percentage of support drops markedly. This is also taking into account old data, as these polls were conducted immediately after the Sandy Hook school shooting two years ago, when emotions and media bias were running high. This isn't much different from the Obamacare polling debate, in which the law itself is widely unpopular, but the individual provisions fare better in polls. Polls of the general public are rather useless when it comes to discussing complex issues, especially given how ignorant and apathetic the average person is, and even more so since you can get anyone to agree to anything, depending on how you word something.

The 90% claim is a follow up to the debunked 40% claim that Obama and anti-gun politicians keep using, even though fact checkers have disproved the claim. Polls also show that only 4% of the public think that controlling gun ownership in any way is an important topic. The National Rifle Association actually supports improving the background check system, and even proposed a law that would do just that, but wouldn't strip law abiding citizens of their rights in the process. Then of course there is the big flip-flop by the authors of the 49 page Manchin-Toomey bill, in which they first said they wouldn't add gun registration requirements to the bill, but then tried sneaking them in.

[karajorma]

I'm going to ignore most of the rest cause quite frankly I've been in enough gun control arguments where someone has quoted facts which I've later proved are nonsense and it doesn't do much to change people's points of view.

For the sake of debate, I'll assume that what you're saying is accurate. In which case what better way to reform an organization than from the inside?

I completely agree with this. There are some deeply nasty aspects to the NRA. Depending on what you do in that organisation you may or may not rub up against them. I just wanted you to make sure you knew what you were getting yourself into.

[Grizzly]

In addition, I hope to bring a new mission to the National Rifle Association, and indeed to the United States, and that is to promote the right to bear arms around the world.

Dear god no. Trying to tell other countries what to do (or even trying to force it upon them) is the major reason why many people are disillusioned by the US at the moment. Don't be too ambitious, and remember the national thing.

That being said, I don't really see how you are going to get a lot of advice here (except writing people in power in an NRA branch near you). There aren't all that many people from the US on this board, and I am quite certain that you are the only NRA member here. If anyone should know, it would be you . Follow your gut, i'd say.

I'd even go so far as to reach out to groups that have traditionally voted for Democrats (such as the LGBT community and blacks)

I don't think you should do that either. Those groups have their own goals which are completely unrelated to gun rights. Let individual members which share your views approach you instead, otherwise you seem a bit... overbearing.

[Phantom Hoover]

the thing about blacks and the lgbt community is that they're actually fighting systemic oppression, rather than tilting at the windmills of ~tyranny~

[Nakura]

the thing about blacks and the lgbt community is that they're actually fighting systemic oppression, rather than tilting at the windmills of ~tyranny~

I'd argue that blacks aren't fighting any sort of real systematic oppression at all. Their so-called "civil rights leaders" are just money grubbers who are actually hurting the ability of blacks to be successful. How many times do you hear people like Al Sharpton telling blacks that they can't become successful in society and that the white man is keeping them down? This is an entirely self-defeating philosophy and I'd argue that it does far more harm than good.

The LGBT community is under some oppression, I'll give you that, but that's why they need guns the most. Look at how often gays and transgendered people are beaten up and murdered by whack-job religious fundamentalists. They are a perfect group we could reach out to. But anyway, I think this is getting a bit off-topic, I have received some legitimate advice in this thread, thanks everyone.

[The E]

Oh sure, all the religiously motivated idiots who hate LGBTQ people will just stop hating them, or stop denigrating them, or stop harassing them because they can get guns.

Sure.

Because they couldn't get guns before.

Look, Nakura, Guns are not a solution to the problem of integrating LGBTQ or coloured people into a society. Guns do not stop hate. Guns do not engender tolerance. Guns do not change religious views. Guns only kill, or injure. They're not the right tools for this job.

[Luis Dias]

Guns don't kill people

Uh, uh.

I Kill people.

(tchk tchk)

With guns.

[Lorric]

I'm going to ignore most of the rest cause quite frankly I've been in enough gun control arguments where someone has quoted facts which I've later proved are nonsense and it doesn't do much to change people's points of view.

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but if you were just going to ignore what he sent you, why did you ask him for it in the first place?

[Nakura]

Oh sure, all the religiously motivated idiots who hate LGBTQ people will just stop hating them, or stop denigrating them, or stop harassing them because they can get guns.

Sure.

Because they couldn't get guns before.

Look, Nakura, Guns are not a solution to the problem of integrating LGBTQ or coloured people into a society. Guns do not stop hate. Guns do not engender tolerance. Guns do not change religious views. Guns only kill, or injure. They're not the right tools for this job.

I never said it would stop hate or suddenly make Christian fundamentalists accept homosexuals. They do, however, allow homosexuals to defend themselves. Though I agree with you that self-defense is just a tiny part of the overall civil rights movement, and that there are far more important hurdles that need to be breached.

[AdmiralRalwood]

I'd argue that blacks aren't fighting any sort of real systematic oppression at all. Their so-called "civil rights leaders" are just money grubbers who are actually hurting the ability of blacks to be successful. How many times do you hear people like Al Sharpton telling blacks that they can't become successful in society and that the white man is keeping them down? This is an entirely self-defeating philosophy and I'd argue that it does far more harm than good.

Still unsure if trolling...

[General Battuta]

the thing about blacks and the lgbt community is that they're actually fighting systemic oppression, rather than tilting at the windmills of ~tyranny~

I'd argue that blacks aren't fighting any sort of real systematic oppression at all. Their so-called "civil rights leaders" are just money grubbers who are actually hurting the ability of blacks to be successful. How many times do you hear people like Al Sharpton telling blacks that they can't become successful in society and that the white man is keeping them down? This is an entirely self-defeating philosophy and I'd argue that it does far more harm than good.

The LGBT community is under some oppression, I'll give you that, but that's why they need guns the most. Look at how often gays and transgendered people are beaten up and murdered by whack-job religious fundamentalists. They are a perfect group we could reach out to. But anyway, I think this is getting a bit off-topic, I have received some legitimate advice in this thread, thanks everyone.

Maybe there's a way to reply to this that won't set the thread on its inevitable trajectory. Maybe this is even it:

Black people face real systemic oppression. It's rooted in the simple fact that institutional resources - heritable money and land, available parental investment, accrued education available for childrearing - accumulate over time and snowball. Because black people were denied access to these resources for a long time, and because policies enacted since nominal emancipation have continued to disrupt access to those resources (most notably Jim Crow and the War on Drugs), black people face an environment of resource denial and family disruption that makes it harder for them to reach the (dubiously effective, mind) 'keys to the kingdom'.

Compounding this problem, human cognitive biases and the cultural residue of institutionalized racism create pervasive low-level implicit associations between black people and crime, violence, or threat. These biases affect everyone in American society, subtly skewing systemic outcomes against black people.

Both of these conclusions are backed by mountains of empirical data and, in some cases, fairly chilling laboratory experiments.

As for LGBTQ people, remember that violence invites violence. In most situations a handgun will not save a queer person from those who'd target them; worse, it makes queer people objects of terror and discomfort. Handguns are mostly used for suicide and accidental killings, and LGBTQ people are already at elevated risk of suicide. Even performing optimally, a firearm cannot solve any of the real issues that create hatred and fear towards queer people.

[Lorric]

I think I may have noticed the "problem" here.

Phantom Hoover said "systemic", Nakura said "systematic". He misread the word, that's all.

[Phantom Hoover]

It makes very little semantic difference which of the two I meant and Nakura read.

[Lorric]

I'll leave it to Nakura to speak for himself now.

But to me, systemic would mean, well, what Battuta said.

Systematic would be conscious, organised effort by the white man to keep the black man down.

[karajorma]

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but if you were just going to ignore what he sent you, why did you ask him for it in the first place?

I asked him whether he believed the post factually incorrect or simply of a tone he didn't like. I got an answer. I could probably prove at least some of his claims wrong but what would be the point? It's not like he's ever going to change his view. And I don't particularly want to descend to the kind of tactics that both sides of the gun debate frequently engage in where they simply argue with each other over who is morally right while in the meanwhile people are continuing to get shot because neither side can come up with any common ground.

All I care about is that Nakura realises that the NRA isn't really about what most people think it's about. If he does and he wants to change it from the inside, great.

[Luis Dias]

That's another waste of time, IMHO.

[Lorric]

Wait a minute. Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong, but if you were just going to ignore what he sent you, why did you ask him for it in the first place?

I asked him whether he believed the post factually incorrect or simply of a tone he didn't like. I got an answer. I could probably prove at least some of his claims wrong but what would be the point? It's not like he's ever going to change his view. And I don't particularly want to descend to the kind of tactics that both sides of the gun debate frequently engage in where they simply argue with each other over who is morally right while in the meanwhile people are continuing to get shot because neither side can come up with any common ground.

All I care about is that Nakura realises that the NRA isn't really about what most people think it's about. If he does and he wants to change it from the inside, great.

Ah, I understand you now. Thanks.

[The E]

I never said it would stop hate or suddenly make Christian fundamentalists accept homosexuals. They do, however, allow homosexuals to defend themselves. Though I agree with you that self-defense is just a tiny part of the overall civil rights movement, and that there are far more important hurdles that need to be breached.

Well, the problem is this though. Presumably, LGBTQ people, people of color, all of them are aware that this silly second amendment gives them the right to bear arms. Telling them "Hey, you know all this harassment you're subjected to all the time? A Gun can help with that!" is not the right message. It's not addressing the problems the advocacy groups for these people are working on. So I can't quite see why they'd be intrested in joining up with you, or why the NRA (which has got to be one of the most white, most conservative groups out there) would be interested in taking up the LGBTQ/C equality banner.

You wanting to effect change from within is admirable. But, as has been pointed out, HLP is not the NRA. We're not the right people to ask, because at least a few of us (mostly those which will engage you on these topics) are actively opposed to the values and ideals the NRA represents.

[Wobble73]

In addition, I hope to bring a new mission to the National Rifle Association, and indeed to the United States, and that is to promote the right to bear arms around the world.

Dear god no. Trying to tell other countries what to do (or even trying to force it upon them) is the major reason why many people are disillusioned by the US at the moment. Don't be too ambitious, and remember the national thing.

That being said, I don't really see how you are going to get a lot of advice here (except writing people in power in an NRA branch near you). There aren't all that many people from the US on this board, and I am quite certain that you are the only NRA member here. If anyone should know, it would be you . Follow your gut, i'd say.

This^^^^

Please don't bring the right to bear arms (guns) to this country, we have enough problems with people carrying knives thanks!

[Lorric]

Yes Nakura, please don't bring guns to the UK, we do very well without them, thank you.

America has a gun culture, but we don't. Probably quite the opposite, an anti-gun culture.

I've never even seen a gun in the UK outside of all the guards at the airport I saw one time wandering around with machine guns...