Pro-Gun, Anti-NRA

[Curmudgeon]

That's the name of this article - http://alibi.com/food/43794/Pro-Gun-Anti-NRA.html

 

After being called an anti in another thread because I have trouble with the NRA (anti hunting or guns I am not sure), I went looking for information on how many hunters are NRA members. It turns out no more than 20%. Interesting. 

 

Here are some other views on the NRA from hunters - not surprisingly from sources that are not right leaning:

 

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/18/hunters-gun-rightshavenothingtodowithhunting.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/opinion/i-hunt-but-i-oppose-the-nra.html?_r=0

 

Is there a litmus test for being on this forum? Do you have to support the NRA to belong? I thought is was a hunting forum.

[wildcat junkie]

[Mr VJP]

You are not a member of the NRA, you're Anti-NRA, besides being anti-lead ammo, anti-hunting contest, anti-black rifle and large magazine capacity (if you agree with the links you supplied), apparently anti-freedom of choice and anti-2nd Amendment as well if you agree with the links you posted.  There seems to be a huge pro-control motive in your being though.

 

There is no litmus test to be on here at all.  It is a hunting forum open to all, even trolls who just stir the pot with their posts.  You don't have to support the NRA.  But there is a big difference between non-support and being a propagandist trying to turn hunters against the NRA and undermine the organization.

 

After careful inspection of your past posts, and viewing the links you supplied above, I think it's quite clear you are an elitist in every area of hunting and gun ownership.  You have strong opinions on who is a "respectable" hunter and now challenge "respectability" of certain firearms enthusiasts.

 

I can only assume you are also self loathing, as you also confessed to being anti-zealot.

 

I can tolerate non-NRA members, but an anti-NRA bias is just contemptible. 

 

To quote Vinny Gambini:  "I'm done with this guy!"

Edited December 15, 2014 by Mr VJP

[Doc]

No, there is no litmus test for this forum that involves anything to do with the NRA. However, I do have a problem with not supporting the largest and most effective pro-gun/pro-hunting national organization in the U.S.  I understand that not everyone agrees with every one of the principles and goals of the NRA. But, I also understand that it is not necessary to support 100% of any organization to recognize that the over-all results of what they do are in keeping with my ideals and goals. That is the one thing that keeps us from being a viable political force as gun owners is that we find any excuse, to the point of nit-picking, just to keep from joining. It becomes a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

 

If you are waiting to find a gun/hunting organization that you have absolutely no issues with, then I guess you have resigned yourself to never becoming a part of the pro-gun lobby. As for myself, I know the required power of being organized to safeguard shooter's rights, because those who would remove those rights are highly organized and highly financed and have become highly effective at whittling away at our rights. You cannot take on a well organized opponent without being well organized yourself. Those who refuse to be organized are simply tag-a-longs who are willing to let others carry the load so they can free-load off their backs.

 

As to the 20% figure that you quoted, while not taking that number as gospel, I will simply say that if that number is anywhere near correct, you have just highlighted the amazing level of apathy among gun owners. As for me I choose not to be part of the apathetic. Your choice is your own.

[sits in trees]

Just seems to me that the NRA does things to turn off many gun owners with the people they support politically or have at their rallies, I mean Ted Nugent, really?? and they support politicians who other people, many gun owners could never get behind, politicians who's right wing agenda includes stomping on women's rights or trying to crush unions etc, sorry for getting too political but that's what this is about, I think the NRA would have a lot more power and clout if they dumped the all or nothing stance and distanced themselves from some of the far right wing politicians they have become saddled with.

[wildcat junkie]

Just seems to me that the NRA does things to turn off many gun owners with the people they support politically or have at their rallies, I mean Ted Nugent, really?? and they support politicians who other people, many gun owners could never get behind, politicians who's right wing agenda includes stomping on women's rights or trying to crush unions etc, sorry for getting too political but that's what this is about, I think the NRA would have a lot more power and clout if they dumped the all or nothing stance and distanced themselves from some of the far right wing politicians they have become saddled with.

These are the exact reasons I ended my membership. I got tired of the endless e-mails urging me to vote for politicians that were against my best interests. 1st of all "anti-NRA" is a bit extreme. The NRA did some good work at one time & they are still needed. They in dire need of some reform.

Their all or nothing stance on background checks really put several nails in their coffin. For years their stance was to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, then they come out against something that would not hinder law abiding citizens & help prevent felons, drug adicts & mentally incompetant people from walking into gun shows & purchasing firearms.

Over the last 10 years I have bought & sold numerous guns over the internet. All were shipped & transfered through FFL holders. there is no reason that gun shows couldn't set up instant background checks on the premises.

They are getting into the same class as PETA. A bunch of fat cats drawing big salaries by playing on people's emotions.

Edited December 16, 2014 by wildcat junkie

[Mr VJP]

Want to know why the SAFE Act was passed and Cuomo got re-elected in NY?  Because many NY gun owners hate the NRA more than Cuomo.  They don't own any black rifles, don't think anyone should have one and do not care about those that do.

 

Worse than that, the have no idea how that law is going to affect them in the future.  These same people have no idea what the NRA does and get all of their info about it from left wing propagandists that attack it.

 

If you do not think the push for universal background checks isn't a trojan horse designed to create a registration data base of all gun owners, and a way to also prevent many more legal gun owners from having guns, without doing anything to stop criminals from getting guns, you obviously never paid any attention to the warnings and proof presented to you by the NRA when you were a member, which was probably decades ago by now.

 

I have no use for gun owners who sit back and attack those who try to protect gun rights because they so sanctimoniously think they know what's best for all other gun owners.   They are helping the gun grabbers by agreeing with any part of their agenda without even doing any research to determine if they are being conned.

 

The colonists had Tories, we have these guys.  It just sickens me.

 

[genesee_mohican]

Want to know why the SAFE Act was passed and Cuomo got re-elected in NY?  Because many NY gun owners hate the NRA more than Cuomo.  They don't own any black rifles, don't think anyone should have one and do not care about those that do.

 

Worse than that, the have no idea how that law is going to affect them in the future.  These same people have no idea what the NRA does and get all of their info about it from left wing propagandists that attack it.

 

If you do not think the push for universal background checks isn't a trojan horse designed to create a registration data base of all gun owners, and a way to also prevent many more legal gun owners from having guns, without doing anything to stop criminals from getting guns, you obviously never paid any attention to the warnings and proof presented to you by the NRA when you were a member, which was probably decades ago by now.

 

I have no use for gun owners who sit back and attack those who try to protect gun rights because they so sanctimoniously think they know what's best for all other gun owners.   They are helping the gun grabbers by agreeing with any part of their agenda without even doing any research to determine if they are being conned.

 

The colonists had Tories, we have these guys.  It just sickens me.

 

Well said Mr VJP. 

Together we stand, divided we fall. It's as simple as that.  It's really sad to see a post like this.

 

[Curmudgeon]

No, there is no litmus test for this forum.....

 

Doc - I have found that you and I agree on most things. Sometimes we differ to degrees, but there is a large overlap in our views. We could probably be good friends. In this case you are entirely wrong. There is a litmus test. It isn't official, but if you dissent, if you question the NRA, you will be bullied and forced into the crowd of skulkers. You will be followed from thread to thread and harassed. The moderators on this forum will scold someone for using a word like "****" but they will let someone let VJP state a bunch of imaginings about someone he knows very little about without a comment. Bullying keeps everyone in line. I assume the same result would happen if someone questioned far right politics. Should I do another test on the "I'm so right, the middle of the road looks like left to me" people?

 

It may be hard for some of you to imagine but I have tried to keep my personal feelings out of the provocative discussions I started. The thoughts, the questions, were offered as opportunities for others to engage. Opportunities to bring ideas out for discussion. They were also intended to test the wind. I slipped when I responded to VJP's claim that some environmental groups were guilty of "outright lies" by pointing out that the NRA provides "outright lies" on lead-free ammo. That was my mistake. I suggested the NRA might not be perfect. It went downhill quickly.

 

I have started a few thought provoking threads. These have gotten people talking about ethics, image, recruiting new hunters, visceral emotional reactions. Yes,, I have poked 4 seasons with a stick a few times but only to serve a larger interest. He is so transparent, he provides regular opportunities to discuss coyote science. Otherwise, I try not to get personal. I apologize for those few times I have failed.

 

My motivations have been questioned several times. I am not a "zealot" as VJP imagines. I am an educator who uses the tools at his disposal. I do have one motivation that is not stated in my posts, I had hoped to offer myself as a lighting rod so as to make these discussions safe for those with different points of view. Do you recall me suggesting that to recruit the new breed of "foodie" hunters, that political and gun rights discussions should be kept out of hunting discussions? The bullying is why. This post shows that my hope of making these people feel safe has failed miserably. The moderators have also failed in this regard.

 

Everything is not always what it seems. I have been called "an enigma wrapped in a burrito inside a peirogi". It isn't obvious but this thread was never intended to be about the NRA, or what anyone thinks about it. It is about huntingny.com.

 

Edited December 16, 2014 by WNYBuckHunter
edited for language

[Curmudgeon]

VJP is coming from the position that things have reached such a point of critical mass,in terms of where the nation s headed,  that arguing over the minutiae is counter productive and that seeing the bigger picture is more important. That, at least, is my interpretation of his views and I would tend to agree.

 

Thanks Papist. That is helpful.

 

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Doc - I have found that you and I agree on most things. Sometimes we differ to degrees, but there is a large overlap in our views. We could probably be good friends. In this case you are entirely wrong. There is a litmus test. It isn't official, but if you dissent, if you question the NRA, you will be bullied and forced into the crowd of skulkers. You will be followed from thread to thread and harassed. The moderators on this forum will scold someone for using a word like "shit" but they will let someone let VJP state a bunch of imaginings about someone he knows very little about without a comment. Bullying keeps everyone in line. I assume the same result would happen if someone questioned far right politics. Should I do another test on the "I'm so right, the middle of the road looks like left to me" people?

 

It may be hard for some of you to imagine but I have tried to keep my personal feelings out of the provocative discussions I started. The thoughts, the questions, were offered as opportunities for others to engage. Opportunities to bring ideas out for discussion. They were also intended to test the wind. I slipped when I responded to VJP's claim that some environmental groups were guilty of "outright lies" by pointing out that the NRA provides "outright lies" on lead-free ammo. That was my mistake. I suggested the NRA might not be perfect. It went downhill quickly.

 

I have started a few thought provoking threads. These have gotten people talking about ethics, image, recruiting new hunters, visceral emotional reactions. Yes,, I have poked 4 seasons with a stick a few times but only to serve a larger interest. He is so transparent, he provides regular opportunities to discuss coyote science. Otherwise, I try not to get personal. I apologize for those few times I have failed.

 

My motivations have been questioned several times. I am not a "zealot" as VJP imagines. I am an educator who uses the tools at his disposal. I do have one motivation that is not stated in my posts, I had hoped to offer myself as a lighting rod so as to make these discussions safe for those with different points of view. Do you recall me suggesting that to recruit the new breed of "foodie" hunters, that political and gun rights discussions should be kept out of hunting discussions? The bullying is why. This post shows that my hope of making these people feel safe has failed miserably. The moderators have also failed in this regard.

 

Everything is not always what it seems. I have been called "an enigma wrapped in a burrito inside a peirogi". It isn't obvious but this thread was never intended to be about the NRA, or what anyone thinks about it. It is about huntingny.com.

 

I don't mean this in a harsh or argumentative way, but if you think you have an approach or product that is better and will be more widely received than huntingNY, I suggest you start up your own website.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't mean this in a harsh or argumentative way, but if you think you have an approach or product that is better and will be more widely received than huntingNY, I suggest you start up your own website.

 

Culver -

 

It is not the site. It is a good site. I don't mind arguing as you might have noticed. However, the problem here is issues are getting conflated. Then, aggressive, bullying people cause others to back down or hide. A new site isn't needed. I really like this one.

 

I've been a moderator for several discussion groups. When someone is out of line, the moderator can put them on "moderated" status. When they are in this mode, their posts don't go up until a moderator has read and approved each one. Usually just the threat of being moderated is enough to keep people civil and on-topic.

 

Keeping things civil is the job of the moderators.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[mmkay]

Curmudgeon -

Lots of folks on this site disagree with others. Most of us are civil. MR MVP usually presents his opinion and facts. I guess he points out that he believes those that disagree with him are lacking in intellect.

But your suggestion of moderate read / approve some ones post before they are posted is a classic example of what is wrong in our society. I’d rather hear all sides.

I see no need for censorship

[blackradio]

Don't give a crap about NRA, but I am pro gun.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Don't give a crap about NRA, but I am pro gun.

Then what actions do you take to support that belief?

[Five Seasons]

Not a big NRA fan. I think when an organization has been around for so long and gets as big as they are they can become corrupted and lost. Same thing happens to large corporations. You get so big and so layered the red tape makes it impossible to do anything right. However, I pay my dues every year because I believe they're the best chance we have.

 

I swear if I get one more call during dinner asking for more money I'm canceling.

[Curmudgeon]

Curmudgeon -

Lots of folks on this site disagree with others. Most of us are civil. MR MVP usually presents his opinion and facts. I guess he points out that he believes those that disagree with him are lacking in intellect.

But your suggestion of moderate read / approve some ones post before they are posted is a classic example of what is wrong in our society. I’d rather hear all sides.

I see no need for censorship

 

First, what anyone thinks of me is insignificant. The concern is that there are people who are afraid to speak - I have heard from them - because of reactions like VJP's. There is a whole new class of hunters coming - the "foodies". If we want them to feel welcome, we must be able to keep them from being abused. 

 

How do you suggest this be done? Do we expect VJP to think about others before he posts? Do we as hunters want him driving away the young "idiots" and the "brainwashed"?

 

Edited December 16, 2014 by Curmudgeon

[Doc]

Doc - I have found that you and I agree on most things. Sometimes we differ to degrees, but there is a large overlap in our views. We could probably be good friends. In this case you are entirely wrong. There is a litmus test. It isn't official, but if you dissent, if you question the NRA, you will be bullied and forced into the crowd of skulkers. You will be followed from thread to thread and harassed. The moderators on this forum will scold someone for using a word like "shit" but they will let someone let VJP state a bunch of imaginings about someone he knows very little about without a comment. Bullying keeps everyone in line. I assume the same result would happen if someone questioned far right politics. Should I do another test on the "I'm so right, the middle of the road looks like left to me" people?

 

 

What you are calling a litmus test is simply opposing views to some of the more controversial topics that are raised. That is all a logical part of a public internet forum. People have some deep seated opinions that they feel quite passionate about. Not everyone responds in a civil fashion, and that is unfortunate, but when you get into sensitive areas, you never know what tone the opposition replies will take. Frankly, when you start a topic that bashes the only effective pro-gun organization that gunners have, you should not be surprised in a forum consisting of a huge percent of gun owners that some in that forum are going to have some pretty strong opinions that do not agree with yours. That is not a litmus test, that is just common sense.

 

I will agree that no one is going to agree with every position that the NRA (or any organization) takes. It is silly to think that you should or even could. But like I said before. If you are withholding support from every organization that you have some differences with then the result is that you simply are out of the system when it comes to protection of gun owner's rights. And if that is your position, then you are leaving your gun rights hanging out there waiting for the anti-gun machine to inevitably lop them off. I for one understand the impatience for people who simply ride the coat-tails of the NRA members and let them do the work while the nit-pickers reap the benefits. And I can also understand how that impatience might boil over into hostility. That's not bullying, and that's not a litmus test. That's simple human nature.

 

Try for a moment to imagine if a member of PETA joined this forum and started bad-mouthing hunting. What do you suppose the reaction would be. If you can understand that, you should be able to understand how those that are invested in organized gun advocacy and pro-gun lobbying feel about someone slamming the one organization that unquestionably has been the solitary force beating back annual draconian gun legislation that is piled into the agenda of every session of government. What exactly have all these unaffiliated gun owners done to stop gun legislation besides whine about the NRA? Only one word comes to mind and that is "nothing". So those that do nothing are bashing those that do something. You can't complain about a reaction when you pick a fight.

[DirtTime]

Culver -

 

It is not the site. It is a good site. I don't mind arguing as you might have noticed. However, the problem here is issues are getting conflated. Then, aggressive, bullying people cause others to back down or hide. A new site isn't needed. I really like this one.

 

I've been a moderator for several discussion groups. When someone is out of line, the moderator can put them on "moderated" status. When they are in this mode, their posts don't go up until a moderator has read and approved each one. Usually just the threat of being moderated is enough to keep people civil and on-topic.

 

Keeping things civil is the job of the moderators.

 

I agree with the portion I made red here. It is what it is though, we just have to get over it.

 

The orange? I have owned, been an Admin/Global Mod/Mod on many sites and forums. Being staff and being an OWNER are two very different issues. I have owned a few sites, still own a current site, with about 4 sub forums/sites.. We do not put anyone on the "Mod" list. I warn, if the warning doesn't decrease we delete the members account, but allow them to return if they keep within the rules. If they come back, and still act like an idiot, we ban their ISP, IP, and email ( if you don't own a website or understand what it really takes to own and run a site, not just drop on the web and go, you might not understand that ). But, we would never stop a member post from going out. I agree the Mods here should get more involved, but a site with this much activity, approving the posts from all the people with different "opinions" would take all day for 5 people.

 

Curmudgeon -

Lots of folks on this site disagree with others. Most of us are civil. MR MVP usually presents his opinion and facts. I guess he points out that he believes those that disagree with him are lacking in intellect.

But your suggestion of moderate read / approve some ones post before they are posted is a classic example of what is wrong in our society. I’d rather hear all sides.

I see no need for censorship

 

Not censorship, but a bit more moderation. 

 

 

Not a big NRA fan. I think when an organization has been around for so long and gets as big as they are they can become corrupted and lost. Same thing happens to large corporations. You get so big and so layered the red tape makes it impossible to do anything right. However, I pay my dues every year because I believe they're the best chance we have.

 

I swear if I get one more call during dinner asking for more money I'm canceling.

 

I have to agree here. the NRA is mainly a political force that's supposed to help gun owners rights. It doesn't always work out the way we want, but it's better to support them then do nothing.

[mmkay]

 

First, what anyone thinks of me is insignificant. The concern is that there are people who are afraid to speak - I have heard from them - because of reactions like VJP's. There is a whole new class of hunters coming - the "foodies". If we want them to feel welcome, we must be able to keep them from being abused. 

 

How do you suggest this be done? Do we expect VJP to think about others before he posts? Do we as hunters want him driving away the young "idiots" and the "brainwashed"?

 

Just a few quotes for you

If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

--George Washington

People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

--Soren Kierkegaard

Freedom of speech and thought matters, especially when it is speech and thought with which we disagree. The moment the majority decides to destroy people for engaging in thought it dislikes, thought crime becomes a reality.

--Ben Shapiro

Win your augments through the expression of your beliefs. Don’t silence the dissenter

--MMKAY

[phade]

I do not belong to the NRA.

 

I met a gentleman, about the same age as I am, who worked at the national headquarters (near DC). He did not know I was a hunter or gun owner and never asked, and he was pretty blatant about saying what he did for the NRA and that he was at their HQ. He was fairly materialistic and open about what kind of money he makes. All of this around a dinner table at a wedding in the Finger Lakes.

 

Then the guy proceeded to act like a fool. I won't get into details, but I wasn't the only one who had that impression as it was vocalized. It was foolish, ass-clown behavior that was borderline someone knocking his lights out and nobody would care if it happened. In fact, he deserved it. While I like to think of myself as a somewhat educated middle class person, I can be pretty backwoods at times. This behavior was a new low for me to see in such an environment.

 

I have zero problem with him acting a fool if one can deal with the consequences of your own reputational hit. But, I have a concrete problem with him doing that and being very blatant about representing the NRA (passing out business cards even). I sent the group a letter explaining such and the guy still works there 5 years later in a rather high position. I can't put money into a group that sees value in someone of that mentality.

Edited December 16, 2014 by phade

[jjb4900]

I had enough of their mindless phone calls and annoying taped messages from the President of the NRA and don't even get me started on those insultingly cheap crap "gifts" they send out to members.......find the politicians that have your best interest on their agenda and donate directly to them......I bet more individuals donated more money to Astorino's campaign then the NRA did.

[Curmudgeon]

It is not about freedom of speech. It is not about me "picking a fight". I already said it was a mistake for me to call out the NRA on its non-lead information. It caused a reaction, but that reaction happens often whether or not I am involved.

 

How do we make others, especially new hunters feel welcome? If every effort to be inclusive ends up ruined by strong views expressed in insulting ways, how can we expect new hunters - a new type of hunter - to feel welcome? Will they join with us? Will they choose to understand the political issues?

 

 

 

 

[phade]

It is not about freedom of speech. It is not about me "picking a fight". I already said it was a mistake for me to call out the NRA on its non-lead information. It caused a reaction, but that reaction happens often whether or not I am involved.

 

How do we make others, especially new hunters feel welcome? If every effort to be inclusive ends up ruined by strong views expressed in insulting ways, how can we expect new hunters - a new type of hunter - to feel welcome? Will they join with us? Will they choose to understand the political issues?

Not sure I follow. If they are a hunter, they are a hunter. Hunt for food, meat, antlers, etc. Not sure there's a new type of hunter.  People can like the by-products of hunting...the "getting out there" the "enjoying nature" and so on and so forth, but to hunt means you seek to kill. A foodie hunter kills deer. A rack chaser kills deer. Never knew there were types or buckets other than what people make up in their head to rationalize agreeance or disagreeance.

 

What are they going to do differently if they are not welcomed? Quit? Not so sure that would happen. What's that saying, the pussification of America?

Edited December 16, 2014 by phade

[mmkay]

Hopefully they will read the views of all and through their own careful review make up their own minds. some will agree with you other won't. But they all will gain knoweledge that they didn't have when they started.

Grasshoper, never assume that because a man has no eyes, he cannot see. -- Master Po