Dear NRA
Your letter requesting that I renew my membership has been duly noted. I have also noted your recent activities in the political sphere, namely carving out a special exemption to the DISCLOSE Act that would require smaller politically active groups to name donors and disclose other financial information.
You claim that you did so to preserve your ability to promote and defend the Second Amendment and that this is and should be your only focus. A truly cynical person would note that this special exemption preserves your lobbying power but inconveniences other, smaller gun-rights groups such as Gun Owners of America . A person familiar with the Constitution might be moved to point out that it is not a Chinese menu, and the First Amendment supports and protects the Second just as the Second supports and protects the First.
Furthermore, I have noticed your “singular focus” is somewhat blurred when it comes to the missives I receive from you. In the month of June alone, I have gotten NRA “special offers” for the following non-gun-related items:
My advice to you would be fewer wine clubs and more support for the Constitution as a whole. I know this modern technological world can be very confusing, and judging from the advertisements you garner for your magazine you must be pitching your readership as rich in years and not precisely comfortable with computers and the Internet. Neither, apparently, are you. Information travels very quickly now, and interested participants can find out which gun rights cases you supported, which ones you didn’t, and start asking awkward questions. You should have been at the forefront of Heller, and you weren’t. I’ve heard your arguments defending your decision; they are unpersuasive. For such a powerful organization you are surprisingly risk-averse and prone to confining your strategic vision to battles rather than wars. Senator Reid may have found his way to earmarking a cool $61 million for a gun range but he is not your friend, and it would be a better use of your efforts to replace him with, at the very least, someone who reads the bills he promotes and who supports the entire Constitution. You need to be supporting the rights of ALL gun owners, not just the ones in states where you are sure you can win court cases. Yes, you may lose some battles. Think about winning the war instead -- and winning back the disillusioned supporters who no longer wish to be a part of your organization.
Like me.
You claim that you did so to preserve your ability to promote and defend the Second Amendment and that this is and should be your only focus. A truly cynical person would note that this special exemption preserves your lobbying power but inconveniences other, smaller gun-rights groups such as Gun Owners of America . A person familiar with the Constitution might be moved to point out that it is not a Chinese menu, and the First Amendment supports and protects the Second just as the Second supports and protects the First.
Furthermore, I have noticed your “singular focus” is somewhat blurred when it comes to the missives I receive from you. In the month of June alone, I have gotten NRA “special offers” for the following non-gun-related items:
- Cell phone services
- Automobile discounts
- Life insurance
- Identity theft protection
- Father’s day items from the NRA store
- Wine club memberships
My advice to you would be fewer wine clubs and more support for the Constitution as a whole. I know this modern technological world can be very confusing, and judging from the advertisements you garner for your magazine you must be pitching your readership as rich in years and not precisely comfortable with computers and the Internet. Neither, apparently, are you. Information travels very quickly now, and interested participants can find out which gun rights cases you supported, which ones you didn’t, and start asking awkward questions. You should have been at the forefront of Heller, and you weren’t. I’ve heard your arguments defending your decision; they are unpersuasive. For such a powerful organization you are surprisingly risk-averse and prone to confining your strategic vision to battles rather than wars. Senator Reid may have found his way to earmarking a cool $61 million for a gun range but he is not your friend, and it would be a better use of your efforts to replace him with, at the very least, someone who reads the bills he promotes and who supports the entire Constitution. You need to be supporting the rights of ALL gun owners, not just the ones in states where you are sure you can win court cases. Yes, you may lose some battles. Think about winning the war instead -- and winning back the disillusioned supporters who no longer wish to be a part of your organization.
Like me.
posted by Snarkatron at 11:32 AM
3 Comments:
I know of many 'softies who also recently shredded their NRA cards, with the earmarks promised from Reid being the last straw. The Hubster cancelled his membership some years ago, and I never joined. They have forgotten their mission purpose, and don't deserve our support.
Oh God I miss Neil Knox. Hey, at least his kids are keeping up the good fight.
It's your old friend Rednex again. My faith in the NRA faltered with their support of Reid, but was completely lost with the support of Kagen. By the time they recanted, it was too late. Gun Owners of America to the rescue! Now THATS the definition of a free market system. If you don't support, or provide, for your customers the services that they expect, they will find someone who will. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home