#BoycottNRA

[JohnO]

Amazon, Google and Apple under pressure to remove NRA streaming channel



ETA: MetLife and Symantec (Norton anti-virus software, SimpliSafe) also cut ties with the NRA.

"Death by 1,000 cuts" appears to be the objective.

Substitute what you like into the following. You could limit it to firearms or you could expand it to all your rights and freedoms.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

[Glenn E. Meyer]

My take is (think I've said this before) is that:

1. The NRA is not capable of putting together a coherent defense of the EBRs. Wayne LaP. seems to rant cliches that are aimed at the choir and fund raising. Some don't make sense.

2. There folks in the gun world who legitimately don't think the EBR risk of massacres is compensated for their utility. Prattling about hunting and sports is pure stupidity and useless. I've had conversations with good gun folk who have doubts.

3. The attack on the social acceptability of the EBRs will follow the acceptability decline of smoking, IMHO - without a coherent countervailing benefits discussion. Won't get that from Wayne and crew.

Yeah, I'm so smart - make the supreme leader.

The benefits aren't so hot - I get the same from about three nongun organizations I belong to.

[blues]

What Glenn is arguing for can be summed up in just one word: Honesty.

Honesty regarding the data.
Honesty regarding the antecedents.
Honesty regarding the results.

If only folks on whatever side of a debate could stick to the facts rather than what they wished the facts disclosed, we might be able to achieve meaningful discourse. But the truth is the victim when the Lemon's, the Hannity's, the LaPierre's, BLM, the Trump's, the Clinton's all try to push their agenda and are willing to sacrifice truth and integrity to appeal to the unwitting masses and win.

[Mjolnir]

How many lawsuits have they won... or even filed?

Also...
"They do NOT compromise unless you're a permanent resident alien, in which case you're SOL!"

Loving your compromise much?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[critter]

My take is (think I've said this before) is that:

1. The NRA is not capable of putting together a coherent defense of the EBRs. Wayne LaP. seems to rant cliches that are aimed at the choir and fund raising. Some don't make sense.

2. There folks in the gun world who legitimately don't think the EBR risk of massacres is compensated for their utility. Prattling about hunting and sports is pure stupidity and useless. I've had conversations with good gun folk who have doubts.

3. The attack on the social acceptability of the EBRs will follow the acceptability decline of smoking, IMHO - without a coherent countervailing benefits discussion. Won't get that from Wayne and crew.

Yeah, I'm so smart - make the supreme leader.

The benefits aren't so hot - I get the same from about three nongun organizations I belong to.

You're hereby and officially taking the place of Tazmanian Devil as my write-in on the next ballot.

[GardoneVT]

My dispassionate view of the NRA is this ; like many organizations today,it was founded on different principles then what guides it today. The NRAs main objective today is to further its own power base. As such they advance gun rights....when doing so is coincident to gaining influence and power. If gaining organizational influence for the NRA means breaking bread with Schumer & Friends,that is what they will do.

All of us must decide independently if that’s a directive worth supporting.

[joshs]

My dispassionate view of the NRA is this ; like many organizations today,it was founded on different principles then what guides it today. The NRAs main objective today is to further its own power base. As such they advance gun rights....when doing so is coincident to gaining influence and power. If gaining organizational influence for the NRA means breaking bread with Schumer & Friends,that is what they will do.

All of us must decide independently if that’s a directive worth supporting.

This is nonsense. I and everyone I work with aren't there for "influence and power," we do what we do because we care about about the Second Amendment, think that good people having firearms is a societal benefit, and just plain enjoy shooting and hunting.

Full disclosure: I'm the Director of Research and Information for NRA-ILA.

[joshs]

My take is (think I've said this before) is that:

1. The NRA is not capable of putting together a coherent defense of the EBRs. Wayne LaP. seems to rant cliches that are aimed at the choir and fund raising. Some don't make sense.

2. There folks in the gun world who legitimately don't think the EBR risk of massacres is compensated for their utility. Prattling about hunting and sports is pure stupidity and useless. I've had conversations with good gun folk who have doubts.

3. The attack on the social acceptability of the EBRs will follow the acceptability decline of smoking, IMHO - without a coherent countervailing benefits discussion. Won't get that from Wayne and crew.

Yeah, I'm so smart - make the supreme leader.

The benefits aren't so hot - I get the same from about three nongun organizations I belong to.

We make lots of rational arguments, but most people are emotional thinkers. Here are a few: https://www.nraila.org/get-the-facts...rge-magazines/

However, something that we (the NRA, other gun rights groups, and gun owners generally) is working. When the AWB passed, there was 90%+ support for banning AWs, now that number is between 50-60%. That's certainly not where we want it to be, but something that we on the pro-gun side are doing is working.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

IMHO, what worked in the past was that people in certain demographics felt that guns were needed to respond to a threatening societal breakdown. I think that is pretty clear from the research out there. That fear doesn't work in some areas like the major cities and parts of the coastal states (West and NE). It wasn't Wayne but more a general feel. However, in this case - there is the risk of a moral panic and virtue signaling wave. While an NRA member - and you folks actually helped me with some research years ago, I don't think you have good messaging now. The general societal mood for self-defensive use of guns is probably still strong. However, I think there is a specific risk to the EBRs - that is the biggest threat.

State bans have been successful and I think that the NRA needed to push Congress (with real threats of reducing financial support) to pass legislation to negate them. Congress got all excited about Obamacare and taxes - guns were nowhere on the priority scene. The NRA should have quietly and if need be overtly say - if you don't move on the various bills, then kiss the money good bye - we will take our chances fighting the next Hillary type.

Given the lower courts and SCOTUS are just fine with AWBs - expect more of them. Wayne saying that it is a right from GOD! and editorials that the Democrats want to bring on socialism either look stupid or irrelevant outside the choir. Do you think the younger kids will buy into that? I don't.

To summarize, if the bad guns aren't banned - it is not because of the current PR strategy. It might be a money threat to existing legislators and candidates but I don't think you are winning the PR war at the moment. Looking at it long term, locking yourself in social conservatism such that you exclude others is stupid.

You might win the guns in school one as that fits into the general mood that self-defense is necessary. The mantra of a weapon of war given to you by God to prevent socialism isn't going to counter a kid saying God give me the right not to be slaughtered in my school.

Maybe this will fade in time - but the threat is there now.

PS - why does Wayne rant about socialism and why we need guns to fight threats to democracy when that's a choir argument. I've said that there is much better defense against tyranny case to be made in the use of firearms by the Civil Rights movement (with strong scholarly books) and how these folks fought back against night riders and state (Southern states during Jim Crow and Civil Rights fights) tyranny. Does that (the strongest defense against tyranny story) not fit a marketing demographic? Better reason to have an EBR right than God gave it to me or Bernie will take over my health care, IMHO.

[idahojess]

This is nonsense. I and everyone I work with aren't there for "influence and power," we do what we do because we care about about the Second Amendment, think that good people having firearms is a societal benefit, and just plain enjoy shooting and hunting.

Full disclosure: I'm the Director of Research and Information for NRA-ILA.

I thought the point of this thread was to discuss that anti-gunners are boycotting the NRA by pressuring met-life, enterprise and others to end discounts. I'm surprised that some appear to be taking this idea and going the other way, i.e. pro-gun folks should boycott the NRA. Free country of course.

I don't agree with every single thing the NRA says or every single position they take, but when is that the standard for supporting someone or something?

I personally appreciate the NRA's hard work.