No it was just an example - I was pretty surprised by this video - my point was mostly about the NRA getting involved in things that are just stupid and have nothing to do with guns.
I don't really buy the disclaimer. That's lawyerball bullshit. It says NRA News. They have an editorial process to review this. That means someone at the NRA said "yeah let's push this out with our name".
And it's par for the course. There have been all sorts of bigoted comments by board members in the past like Nugent (basically anything he says) and Cotton when he said something to the effect of too bad we lost the civil war. I don't recall seeing the NRA come out to denounce them. I do understand the difference between an official organisational announcement and the ones by its prominent members - but in the real world they will be seen as the same. If you're a public figure and a board member or representing them in media that's just how it works.
Except they weren't attacking their right to free speech - they were mocking people who said that praying would accomplish anything. I happen to think praying is pointless except making the person doing it feel better - but I also think the NY Daily News is trash - but ask yourself - does this response (rant) from Loesch advance gun rights? I don't think so. It just registers as another "looney gun nut" in the 20second sound bite media environment. And that's harmful.
I wouldn't go that far. It's not like I expect an organisation to be perfect and never do anything that will piss me off - I just am not a fan of how the NRA manages its media narrative and I believe it is overall counterproductive.
I mean Ted Nugent? Really?
I believe it's been in slow decline since the 80s when they became more aligned with conservative movement and moved away from a predominantly sporting organisation (not that I believe sporting is the only reason for firearms).
Thanks for the reply and your insights.
It's good to get details on what specifically turns someone off from joining the NRA .... as opposed to some who refuse to list a single specific reason.
I admit, when I was growing up, the NRA actually scared me. They were always sending out mailers for contributions and to join, but the eight page justifications on why I should join or the world as we know it would end didn't strike me as very genuine.
Ever since the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, and all the calls for crazy, ineffective clamp-downs on legal guns, while never addressing the illegal guns which are used in the commission of the most crimes, I have been grateful the NRA is out there fighting these "WE HAVE TO DO
SOMETHING" knee-jerk laws meant to restrict lawful gun ownership and use. It's obvious the gun banning side of the fight are way more illogical than those who support gun ownership.
Their continuous emotional appeals have nothing to do with "common sense" and everything to do with an irrational fear of guns. Since they would never, ever consider arming themselves to protect against a bad guy with a gun, they will fight to the death (proverbially) to ban guns so there is no NEED to arm themselves. The reality escapes them, however, in that a total ban would never eliminate all guns nor all violence by other means.
I too think the NRA could do a better job appealing to new and existing members. But that doesn't diminish the important job they do .... one which I don't think any other group is capable of doing as well as they have for as long as they have.