Posted on 06/22/2019 2:21:22 PM PDT by OKSooner
U.S.A. -(Ammoland.com)- Large, powerful, political organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) are seldom transparent or without internal struggles.
The internal struggles at the NRA have been enlarged to engulf Christopher W. Cox, head of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). Christopher Cox has been suspended from his position at the head of the NRAILA.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Is there an obvious “good guy” in the top tier of NRA leadership. Rather than trying to figure out who is causing the problem, is there someone who is unambiguously on our side, on the side of the Second Amendment, and on the side of the rule of law?
I have no answer to either of your two questions other than “one would hope so”.
Maybe someone who is familiar with that top tier you mention could contribute here...
Ted Nugent has the celebrity factor going but I don’t think he’s the guy for the job, although I do like him personally.
Something needs to change though... Time to change the guard and IMO Ollie and Boren have no one to blame but themselves that this blew up in their faces the way that it did.
Both of them should have known better.
Whoa! ATF had long time private security guard, -(Fox guarding the hen house). Where is Inspector Clouseau.?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/atf-agents-looking-for-guns-and-glock-parts-stolen-and-sold-by-guard/ar-AACPeCd#page=2
The NRA lost me when they decided “We the People” didn’t count. That would be back in 1977. In reality it was probably more like 1877, but who’s counting.
Neal Knox should have been President instead of a certain movie star, and the by laws changes that gave more power to the board than “We the People”, should have been a clue.
The NRA has never been about the Second Amendment, and I’ll stand by that Statement. We did not end up with 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun law without the NRA being in on it.
We did not end up with 1934, 1968, and 1986 gun law without the NRA being in on it.They have always maintained, and made a pretty good case, that we would have got a much worse law if they had not done a fighting retreat instead of a stand your ground at all costs action.
Without the NRA on the 1934 law, it would have included all pistols in the same category as machineguns.
They have always maintained, and made a pretty good case, that we would have got a much worse law if they had not done a fighting retreat instead of a stand your ground at all costs action.
Neal takes that on in “The Gun Rights War” and makes the claim it was nothing more than BS to placate the membership, and used over and over for various bills, claiming that the board was too scared of Congress and even when the NRA had the advantage, they just could not be the uncompromising protector of the second amendment.
Well it is all ancient history, but the question remains, when if ever are they going to pick a hill and sound the charge? They have already given away the store, when are they going to fight?
I recognize they are not the only game in town but for sure are the largest, most recognized and politically pretty savvy. They need to expend some capital after they solve the present issues, beginning with the endoresment of Democrats. There is NO Democrat in today’s world that deserves an NRA endorsement. It is a trust issue, and over the years on many important votes that trust has been pooped on by Democrats.
They did so with Obama, universal background checks and banning "assault weapons", in 2013.
If you recall, the Second Amendment Foundation was calling for a "compromise".
The NRA would not compromise.
We won.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.