doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com " United We Stand"

Jack, its a great thing to have "a church basement full of kids," it's our future - but it's right now - and right now their moms are watching Rosie and The View.
Right now, is the problem Jack!

Larry - as an IWLA member you should know that the Ikes don't field a paid battery of lawyers and professional lobbyists from an elaborate DC headquarters. And the IWLA has a lot more issues on their plate than the NRA. Demanding a list of their lobbying efforts specific to RKBA is like asking the NRA what they're doing on behalf of hunting and habitat. The answer for both is, "a lot more than you think."

Most of the IWLA grunt work is done by members in local and state chapters, and each chapter has its own priorities depending on local needs. If your chapter is not working to protect the RKBA against local and state anti-gun initiatives, Larry, it's up to you as a member to get them involved.

But the Izaak Walton League does have staff in DC, too, and they make sure the congressmen they regularly visit are aware of all of the official national policies of one of America's oldest and most respected outdoor organizations - including the RKBA. The federal "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act," shielding gun and ammunition manufacturers from anti-gun lawsuits, was passed with IWLA support.

For a thread headed "United We Stand," the attacks in this thread against other active national pro-gun organizations are ironic, divisive and counterproductive. "Inane," "head in the sand," "wannabes," "do-nothing freeloaders" who "cash in" on gun issues - that isn't the language or attitude to win the allies you need, or to keep them. Some NRA members here keep insisting that they stand alone - I hope they won't eventually be right.

Jack, I would think PF--of which I am a member--is a great organization, if all they did was on the local level. Habitat, chapter by chapter. However, it makes me feel a lot better about them as a habitat organization to see them take the lead, in testimony before Congress, on important habitat issues such as the Farm Bill.

As an Ike, I know about the good work the organization does. You don't need to sell me. But in Iowa, we have very few "local and state anti-gun initiatives". PF doesn't have a huge lobbying staff in DC either, yet they manage to get actively involved in habitat issues. And while they're obviously pro-gun, I don't see them involved in gun rights issues either. If the IWLA was REALLY involved in gun rights issues--other than simply saying "this is our position"--then that would be reflected in "Outdoor America", which in fact has an almost total emphasis on environmental issues. That's fine. That's one reason a lot of people join the Ikes--environmentalism, with a strong angler/hunter emphasis. But you're simply dodging the gun rights issue, Jack, if you're putting all your money on the Ikes to carry the ball for you. Nothing wrong with not being an NRA member, but don't come out with the weak excuse of "Well, I'm an Ike." When it comes to gun rights, they are not in the same league with the NRA, Gun Owners of America, etc. Probably not even in the same league with the various target shooting groups.

Larry - I don't need to make excuses to you, or anyone else here, for acting on my convictions. For those of us who disagree with NRA policies and/or practices, there are other legitimate, active national pro-gun organizations. The IWLA is one of them.

Are the Ikes the same as the NRA? No. Nor would I want them to be. Their agenda is broader, their concerns more closely match my own, I like the way they operate - and they support the RKBA. That's free choice in a pluralistic society. Why does that bother you?

I don't just pay to have someone else "carry the ball" for me. I'm proud to have given not just money, but personal time and effort over many years to promoting gun ownership and preserving Second Amendment rights. So when someone blusters that a few bucks gives him membership in "the only game in town" and denigrates other pro-gun groups, or claims anyone who makes a different choice is "dodging the gun rights issue," I wonder why? What's to be gained by knocking your allies? As Red Green says, we're all in this together.

Insisting on lockstep orthodoxy - and attacking anyone who dares to differ - is apparently okay in the world of ayatollahs and the Taliban. I expect better of Americans.

Jack, if what the IWLA did bothers me, would I be a member? Silly question. However, I understand that the Ikes, while pro-gun, are far from front and center on the gun rights debate. If you think that YOU, Jack Maloney, are PERSONALLY front and center--which is what you seem to be saying, since you can't produce any evidence of the Ikes actually WORKING for RKBA (as opposed to just having a policy that supports RKBA)--that's a different story, and has nothing to do with the fact you belong to the Ikes. Only what you, Jack Maloney, do as an individual. And if that's what you're now hanging your hat on, rather than membership in an organization that is not actively involved in gun rights issues, that too is fine.

Just took you a long time getting there, after beating around a whole bunch of bushes.

The NRA-ILA lists the IWLA as an "Active National Pro-Firearms Organization." It appears that the word hasn't trickled down to a few NRA members.

Having reading problems, Larry? What I'm "hanging my hat on" was clearly stated in my very first post in this thread:

(I've underlined key words above to help those with reading comprehension problems )

I have tried hard to stay out of this, and I probably should.
I just want to say that I have been a big gun nut my whole life (Well, lets say about 48 of my 55 years.). I especially adore shotguns. I have been the President for four years of one of the best and busiest gun clubs in the U.S. I have been or am a member in probably 20 different gun clubs. I have been on various boards and the like. But, I do have some problems with the NRA. They are a polorizing organization. I wish they were not.
Yes, I understand that they are at the forefront of the RKBA. But, they are a reactionary group. Ted Nugent does not speak for me.
I have spent too much time at gun clubs listening to idealogs expouse their dogmatic one sided views of all things, especially the complex subject of guns (including Saturday night specials and more modern small guns designed to kill people at close range).
Both liberal and conservative lovers of freedom need to understand and support the basic freedom of gun ownership.
I believe we need to educate the uninitiated in the importance of gun rights. The second amendment would be meaningless if guns were only allowed in a militia. If the government and military have complete control of guns, there is no ultimate recourse if those with the political power decide to control the minority with force.
It is certainly possible that politicians and power brokers who are perceived as politically "conservative" could restrict the freedoms and liberties of "la gente." Take away folks rights to trial, gather "evidence" of crimes against the State by unreasonable methods, use propaganda and the like. Imagine the danger if they could also legislate (or declare in the name of National protection)an end to private gun ownership. It happened in Germany and lots of other countries.
As has been suggested, I teach kids (and occasionally adults) to shoot. And, I take every opportunity to reasonably speak out, including in political and social forums, about the importance of gun ownership. But, I welcome all folks on my bandwagon. The NRA does not. I don't need to create enemies on the other side. And, some of their arguments have a point.
RCC

OK, so I'm a canadian so I don't know anything about the NRA specifically. However, based on what I see here and what I've heard in the past, it becomes easy to see why, before long, your rights to keep and bear arms will in fact be infringed upon. Assuming that the figures posted are somewhat accurate, 5% of gun owners are NRA members. The reason given by those that are NOT members is most often "I don't like some of the policies". Well, it seems to me that if only 6% of gun owners that are not NRA members for reasons of "policy" joined, they would have the clout to get some policies amended. Instead, people often turn their back on the organization that offended them (even tho that organization is fighting for their rights) and join a smaller organization to "Make a point". That's fine and everyone can feel proud of their courage in taking a stand as the govt slowly chips away at your rights wilh little REAL opposition. Joining multiple organizations is great. They all have their place and do good things. HOWEVER, regardless of whether or not you agree with every little thing the NRA does, it should be the first organization you join. It doesn';r have to be, and shouldn't be, the only one. Join and get involved and help make the changes necessary to bring more members from the "I don't like thier policies" crowd into the fold. It may not be "the only game in town" but I bet it's the only game in town positioned to make a real difference. SIZE MATTERS. Consider this, the US dropped thousands of good sized bombs on japan but one BIG one (Ok two big ones) ended the war. While all those bombs made a difference, the BIG ones won the war. And so it goes with lobby groups. There comes a time when we all have to put our childrens future ahead of our own pride. This is one of them.

You make a point until the analogy, Cody. The big bombs did not "win" the war. It was won by sacrifices of millions of lives through the collective will of many countries of many political systems and religions to defeat fascism.

Cody, I'm sure the NRA would welcome any money or help you care to contribute. This gun issue seems to be on both sides of the border in somewhat intertwined social threads. The NRA will provide you with all the information you desire about "the NRA specifically."
It is possible that the reason only 5-6% of gun owners are a part of the NRA is because the NRA is so devisive politically. Fringe organizations lose credibility. Jake