Poll: NRA is largely a

[PleaseBlitz]

Alexy, that seems shrewd, potentially useful (given the sadness such even needs to be considered), generous indeed, and even "feels" sincere. I think I'm impressed.

Eh, he needed a game changer considering the Will of the American People just turned dramatically against his organization. This was not that. The speech was a lot of hide the ball. I honestly don't even know why his speech was national news. His organization is about 1% of the US population, he shouldn't have a seat at the table.

[skinsmarydu]

And the entertainment was provided by CodePink.

[Burgold]

Alexy, that seems shrewd, potentially useful (given the sadness such even needs to be considered), generous indeed, and even "feels" sincere. I think I'm impressed.

Having listened to that speech in its entirety three times to pull clips and work pieces yesterday, I grew more cynical each time.

Basically, the NRA is doubling down and profiteering. Think how much money they will make via these training courses! Train enough people to staff a volunteer militia for every school and campus in the country? That's billions of dollars in their coffers!

[Jumbo]

I thought what I read in that post sounded more potentially useful (parts more than the whole) than anything I can remember coming from them on a social matter in along time, other than teaching gun safety in general. I haven't listened to the speech, but then I haven't seen any need and certainly have little desire. I've seen a lot of the coverage (though not from Fox, MSBNC, or CNN), scanned some transcript, and it seemed pathetic from all of that, which is hardy a surprise to me.

My general view on the NRA after knowing of it and many members for decades is very negative. I've often though a list of organization officials and members would make an excellent cull list (of course, there would be collateral damage of some decent folks, but then that's an American tradition, too) for social improvement, but that's just me being me.

But Burg, didn't it say they would pay for all costs of implementing the plan? That's why I used the word generous. I may need to go re-read.

[Redskins Diehard]

I thought what I read in that post sounded more potentially useful (parts more than the whole) than anything I can remember coming from them on a social matter in along time, other than teaching gun safety in general. I haven't listened to the speech, but then I haven't seen any need and certainly have little desire. I've seen a lot of the coverage (though not from Fox, MSBNC, or CNN), scanned some transcript, and it seemed pathetic from all of that, which is hardy a surprise to me.

My general view on the NRA after knowing of it and many members for decades is very negative. I've often though a list of organization officials and members would make an excellent cull list (of course, there would be collateral damage of some decent folks, but then that's an American tradition, too) for social improvement, but that's just me being me.

But Burg, didn't it say they would pay for all costs of implementing the plan? That's why I used the word generous. I may need to go re-read.

I was talking to a friend yesterday that is decidedly "anti-gun". And she told me how she remembered from 7th or 8th grade that our "hunter safety" course was brought to us by the NRA(funny how things can stick with you). I was thinking that the NRA would benefit from increased training/certification requirements. Not only would they offer the courses but probably increase their membership. They stand to benefit from responsible gun ownership as a requirement...at least it seems that way to me.

[Jumbo]

I bust on the NRA, sometime harshly, and have for a long time, but I'm not that stupid where I really think everyone in it is a dysfunctional, or dumb-maybe-dangerous "gun nut." A lot of "regular folk" belong to it for a variety of reasons. Growing up in Alaska, I remember NRA working with kids all the time to teach and promote gun safety and responsible ownership.

I think, just like some other big institutions/organisations of the day with very stereotyped characterizations (usually well-earned) they could indeed benefit from a bit of a make over with moderation a guiding concept.

[Destino]

Eh, he needed a game changer considering the Will of the American People just turned dramatically against his organization. This was not that. The speech was a lot of hide the ball. I honestly don't even know why his speech was national news. His organization is about 1% of the US population, he shouldn't have a seat at the table.

Are there many associations with a larger membership count than that? AARP certainly but I wonder how many others can claim so many members.

[scruffylookin]

I vote C

An organization made up of men with very small packages that sadly need to compensate.

Oh and they are enablers to terrorists and murders.

[Burgold]

I thought what I read in that post sounded more potentially useful (parts more than the whole) than anything I can remember coming from them on a social matter in along time, other than teaching gun safety in general. I haven't listened to the speech, but then I haven't seen any need and certainly have little desire. I've seen a lot of the coverage (though not from Fox, MSBNC, or CNN), scanned some transcript, and it seemed pathetic from all of that, which is hardy a surprise to me.

My general view on the NRA after knowing of it and many members for decades is very negative. I've often though a list of organization officials and members would make an excellent cull list (of course, there would be collateral damage of some decent folks, but then that's an American tradition, too) for social improvement, but that's just me being me.

But Burg, didn't it say they would pay for all costs of implementing the plan? That's why I used the word generous. I may need to go re-read.

I don't think so. I think they said they would be a good provider of the services. Now, how those services are funded was not defined. They did claim that arming and manning a force to guard every school in the nation could be done with very little cost, but that I take with a grain of salt. Sort of like when Obama said that his health reform wouldn't cost taxpayers a dime.

[Busch1724]

They are basically their own SuperPAC now

[Burgold]

They are basically their own SuperPAC now

Yup. Their purpose is power not protecting rights

[Koolblue13]

I bust on the NRA, sometime harshly, and have for a long time, but I'm not that stupid where I really think everyone in it is a dysfunctional, or dumb-maybe-dangerous "gun nut." A lot of "regular folk" belong to it for a variety of reasons. Growing up in Alaska, I remember NRA working with kids all the time to teach and promote gun safety and responsible ownership.

I think, just like some other big institutions/organisations of the day with very stereotyped characterizations (usually well-earned) they could indeed benefit from a bit of a make over with moderation a guiding concept.

There are a lot of members of the Humane Society and PETA who eat meat.

[JMS]

Very generous and uniquely qualified organization? This is from the press conference today

Look, NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre is a tool box.. He is a socially awkward guy who unfortunately doesn't know how to represent without sounding condescending, dismissive, and needlessly insulting. I think the NRA does themselves a disservice with putting him out front. I think they have a pretty good position, and they do themselves no favors by dismissing their critics rather than participating in a real discussion.

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 10:42 PM ----------

. I honestly don't even know why his speech was national news. His organization is about 1% of the US population, he shouldn't have a seat at the table.

Because the last time the Democrats tried to tackle gun control under Clinton they lost both houses ( 9 senate seates and nearly 50 house seats ). And since that time no serious national leader of the democratic party has dared to touch gun control... Even now Obama is approaching this issue with extreme caution... He's willing to let it sweep into effect, but he ain't throwing any weight behind it.

The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 10:48 PM ----------

Having listened to that speech in its entirety three times to pull clips and work pieces yesterday, I grew more cynical each time.

Basically, the NRA is doubling down and profiteering. Think how much money they will make via these training courses! !

The NRA is a 501c non profit. They run first rate gun training all over the country today as a public service and don't make much money off those classes.. It's a public service... They certainly aren't running a non profit in order to maximize their profits. As a gun advocacy organization they have a vested interest in promoting gun safety and responsible gun behavior.

[Jumbo]

Plugged toilet?

[Burgold]

The NRA is a 501c non profit. They run first rate gun training all over the country today as a public service and don't make much money off those classes.. It's a public service... They certainly aren't running a non profit in order to maximize their profits. As a gun advocacy organization they have a vested interest in promoting gun safety and responsible gun behavior.

Do they pay the instructors? Do they pay for the land? Do they pay for the fascilities, electricity, water? Do they pay for the targets? Do they pay for the ammo?

Besides, there are many very profitable non profits in this country. That's why the NRA CEO pulls in about a million a year. He isn't living a life of destitution for the cause or being president on the side while earning his bread elsewhere for his family. Don't be naive, JMS.

[Thiebear]

Why do we always have a post like this?

because its true, they are a lobbyist organization... You disagree with what they lobby as does ASF as do I.

they make buckets of money peddling their product.

And then they say they provide training and safety classes to protect you against others that have the same product and took the same classes.

[JMS]

Do they pay the instructors? Do they pay for the land? Do they pay for the facilities, electricity, water? Do they pay for the targets? Do they pay for the ammo?

No they don't. The NRA has offices in northern Virginia, but if you are going to take a gun safety class you wouldn't go to the NRA's central offices. Most likely you would go to your local gun range, pay your local gun range for the class and in turn your local gun range would pay the instructor, the lights, the ammo if their is shooting involved... The NRA licenses the instructor, sets the curriculum, and lends its name to the class..

Besides, there are many very profitable non profits in this country. That's why the NRA CEO pulls in about a million a year. He isn't living a life of destitution for the cause or being president on the side while earning his bread elsewhere for his family. Don't be naive, JMS.

Excuse me were you saying the NRA puts on gun safety classes for profits or did you say Wayne LaPeiere has the NRA put on gun safety classes for his own personal profit, because that wasn't what you were saying at first.. In truth,both are ridiculous assertions. The non profit NRA collects most of it's money from membership dues, private donations, and subscriptions and advertizing to their fine magazines. They don't lobby congress for profit and they are very very successful at that. They don't train police officers for profit even though they are very very successful at that too. Nor do they sponsor thousands of gun safety classes in this country for profit.. They don't even host the classes, they just train and certify the instructors as well as set the curriculum.. For instance the last NRA safety class I took was a five day class in a classroom which sat 30 people... but they taught the class with only two pupils.. me and one other. Gun ranges have a vested interest in folks who shoot there knowing how to handle a gun safely. The NRA as a gun advocacy organization has a vested interest in the same, as well as expanding the number of gun literate and gun owners; both purposes I'm guessing are served by organizing, certifying, and sponsoring gun safety classes.

Look man, I think Wayne LaPierre is a very socially awkward guy who comes across poorly as a spokesman for the NRA. Bottom line though the NRA provides many important services for responsible gun ownership in this country. They are not one of the most popular and successful special interest group in this country because they advocate irresponsible ideals... It's rather the opposite, even though that's not how they always represent themselves, and rarely how they are portrayed in the press. I would say you shouldn't be so naive and might want to actually sit though one of their classes some time to get a first hand impression on how thorough and responsible they actually are.

[alexey]

...

of it's money from membership dues, private donations, and subscriptions and advertizing to their fine magazines. They don't lobby congress for profit and they are very very successful at that.

...

NRA is a financially successful organization that derives its financial success from being a key player in the economic ecosystem that is based on people owning and shooting guns. NRA promotes and encourages gun ownership, and it derives its livelihood from gun ownership. It is silly to say the that they are not promoting their financial interests when they promote gun ownership by lobbying, classes, events, etc.

If the NRA does something, and that something promotes gun ownership, then the NRA is also promoting its financial interests. It may also be promoting its beliefs, and so on, but it is also promoting itself and its financial interests in the process.

[Zguy28]

I think the rank and file members believe they're supporting an organization with the interest of freedom/constitution/patriotism but that higher ups are more closely tied with gun manufacturers than the average members knows or wants to believe.

Sounds almost like a labor union.

[Bang]

Sounds almost like a labor union.

Except union members pay dues to a union to get safe jobs and decent pay and benefits, while NRA members pay to have a club to promote something that is already constitutionally guaranteed.

~Bang

[Destino]

I've spent some time working with and consulting for not-for-profits specifically in membership development, benefits, and management. What is the argument for the NRA bowing to the gun manufacturers? I don't have access to the NRA's financials or membership database but it appears from the outside that they have revenue generating programs (like training) that are successful to go along with a absolutely enormous membership base. The key would be seeing exactly how much of their annual budget is covered by donations made by gun manufacturers versus the revenue their membership and other programs bring in. Typically associations that are little more than corporate slaves have a small individual membership base or the cost of membership benefits is so high that they get little from the membership dues they charge.

If they get a large enough amount of their money from their own programs they have enough power to say no to any of the major gun manufacturers. They may have enough power to be leading, without seeking too much approval, on some issues within the US.

[alexey]

I've spent some time working with and consulting for not-for-profits specifically in membership development, benefits, and management. What is the argument for the NRA bowing to the gun manufacturers?

....

If they get a large enough amount of their money from their own programs they have enough power to say no to any of the major gun manufacturers. They may have enough power to be leading, without seeking too much approval, on some issues within the US.

Great points. Sounds like it would be more accurate to frame the poll as a choice between economic interests and principles as top priorities of the organization. Narrowing down economic interests to a economic interests of gun manufacturers does not properly represent the role NRA plays in the whole economic ecosystem around gun ownership.

[Destino]

Great points. Sounds like it would be more accurate to frame the poll as a choice between economic interests and principles as top priorities of the organization. Narrowing down economic interests to a economic interests of gun manufacturers does not properly represent the role NRA plays in the whole economic ecosystem around gun ownership.

Truth is that without the data we don't know. If they are dependent on the gun manufacturers for their budget than they will almost certainly do a lot of order taking, so to speak, from those that fund them. I've seen organizations that are entirely upside down on their membership, where the cost per member is higher than what the member pays the organization. Those tend to rely very heavily on sponsors. Not being an member of the NRA personally I have very little knowledge as to what benefits they offer much less how much they spend.

The NRA takes a rather extreme stance on all things guns related, that being "More regulation, bad. Less regulation, good." I think gun manufacturers are generally happy with that so that wouldn't require much interaction between the NRA and sinister CEOs up in their glass towers. The biggest service the NRA offers the gun manufacturers is that they function as a wall between them and the angry world. They make the crazy statements instead of someone from Smith and Wesson and as such do a lot to deflect or block out bad press entirely. I wonder how much that kind of protection is worth? Probably a lot.

[JMS]

NRA ..... derives its livelihood from gun ownership. It is silly to say the that they are not promoting their financial interests when they promote gun ownership by lobbying, classes, events, etc.

It's silly to associate a profit motivation to people running a non profit by choice. Yes the NRA is a gun advocacy organization. No the NRA doesn't "derive it's livelihood from gun ownership" directly... You can buy a gun, own a gun, shoot regularly and never pay the NRA a dime... The NRA rather derives it's money by providing services to responsible gun owner. Services take the form of publications, safety classes, licensing classes, certification classes ( police officers, instructors) , hunting classes and various shooting events ( marksmanship etc).. So yes it's in their interest to promote responsible gun ownership.. And yes folks who are also interested in being responsible gun owners find invaluable assistance in being members of the NRA and give a lot of money to the organization.

If the NRA does something, and that something promotes gun ownership, then the NRA is also promoting its financial interests. It may also be promoting its beliefs, and so on, but it is also promoting itself and its financial interests in the process.

The NRA was founded and is run as a gun advocacy organization.. So it should not come as news to anybody that they advocate gun rights. No advocating gun rights does not directly add to their income, except of coarse the folks who join the NRA are also into guns rights and support the organization because of all the services they offer to gun owners including it's gun advocacy..

Bottom line in order for the NRA to get money, you have to decide to give them money. If you buy a gun or ammunition, or shoot regularly at your local range.. The NRA doesn't see any money from that. They get their money from people who appreciate what they do, and decide to support them because of those things they do. Then decide to join the organization, subscribing to their magazine, or give them donations, and attend their events, And yes that pool of supporters includes gun owners.

I think your revelation that these folks who support the NRA are also folks interested in guns, and thus the NRA's advocacy, their stated purpose is somehow clandestine or motivated by self interest, is silly.

---------- Post added December-27th-2012 at 10:12 AM ----------

Except union members pay dues to a union to get safe jobs and decent pay and benefits, while NRA members pay to have a club to promote something that is already constitutionally guaranteed.

~Bang

I think they are both advocacy organizations... I think one difference is in some states folks don't have an option of not being a union member if they want to work at a factory, or even a vocation. It's mandated... On the other hand being an NRA member, subscribing to their magazines, attending their events is always a choice.

[alexey]

...

No the NRA doesn't "derive it's livelihood from gun ownership" directly...

...

So yes it's in their interest to promote responsible gun ownership..

...

No advocating gun rights does not directly add to their income,

...They get their money from ... folks interested in guns..

In the context of this poll, deriving financial benefits indirectly and deriving financial benefits directly is equivalent.

The question is whether financial benefit is the primary interest of the organization.