Other serious contenders for NRA President

[Michael Bane]

Let me propose a rebranding of this thread before we degenerate into open warfare...I think it's not so much a question of "who" as "what."

What do we want our leaders to do; what do we need to do ourselves.

I will unequivocally say that running a warroom in a hot RKBA battle is not a pleasant place to be. You worry constantly, obsessively; your stomach churns with acid and you spend hours on the phone with a cadre of media experts and lobbyists, trying to figure out the moves on the gameboard as far out as you can. You don't sleep; your spousal unit lectures you on the health dangers of stress; politicians on your side constantly second guess every single decision you make. The phone rings and rings and rings and rings. You are personally vilified, again and again, and you get to read your name in the papers, and not in a good way. You lose friends — people you thought were good friends...eventually, you start believing that everyone in the world and several other nearby planets is angry with you.

If you step up, you can't have any illusions...there's a warroom is in your future.

But here is the fight:

• All guns are the same...no babies get thrown off the lifeboat. That means no compromise on an AWB, no comprimise on .50 BMGs; no compromise on "exotic" calibers like 5.7 X 28. Period. Exclamation point. We are not friggin' joking here.

• No compromise on serialization/registration of ammo. No "backdoor" attacks on ammo and components through OSHA, etc.

• No compromise on closures of public land to recreational shooting; range closures; etc.

• Strike down the remaining city/regional gun bans under the Heller precedent.

• Support for national CCW reciprocity (a long shot)

There are other long shots that should have been done by the damn Republicans during their tenure, things like striking down the most onerous provisions of the 1968 and 1986 gun laws, a reevaluation of the 1934 Firearms Act, etc. I figure there's no way to even launch those initiatives now, maybe ever.

Here's the weird thing...I actually believe in compromise. I live with a contract attorney, and I thrilled when John Houseman intoned that "contracts are the basis of all civilization" in the opening of The Paper Chase. Contracts are built on compromise...each side gives something until there is a meeting of the minds; then a contract ratifies that meeting of the minds.

That's not what has been happening to us for the last 30 years. "Compromise" means we give up a portion of our rights and the other side gives up exactly nothing. We occasionally enter into agreements — contracts — that the other side has no intention of honoring, but to use as a platform for additional attacks.

We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.

Thoughts?

Michael B

[ericire12]

Let me propose a rebranding of this thread before we degenerate into open warfare...I think it's not so much a question of "who" as "what."


Michael B

Yeah, gotten way out of control

That's not what has been happening to us for the last 30 years. "Compromise" means we give up a portion of our rights and the other side gives up exactly nothing. We occasionally enter into agreements — contracts — that the other side has no intention of honoring, but to use as a platform for additional attacks.

We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.

Bullseye!

[twyacht]

I could think of a Bruce Willis, perhaps even DDMack (member here at DRTV) . How about  Sarah Palin? If she isn't running for office in the future, possible? Too bad Oliver North probably won't take the position.

I could see a Mike Huckabee, or a Glenn Beck.  

I think the point is IMHO, a moderate speaker who is a "really nice guy" and plays defense, while the anti's have the next 4 to 8+ years to keep slammin anti gun bills through Congress until one or more go through is not what we need right now.

Pelosi, Reid, Feinstien, Schumer, Boxer, etc,... are in power. They WILL NOT STOP. A Pres. of the NRA better not try to have tea and crumpets with these people and "compromise". Especially with the new AG, c'mon.
 
Its time for someone to be reckoned with that lets the anti's know, we are PI**ED and were not gonna go quietly into the night.

Too bad Anthony Hopkins is a British subject, Hannibel Lector spoke very eloquently.

I hope everyone realizes we(law abiding firearm owners), need to work our inner differences out to fight a greater threat.  What this generation does now can make sure the guns I hand down to my son, his son, (or daughter), won't be seized or outlawed after I'm gone.  The BIG picture is more important.

[1776 Rebel]

If we take your Martin Luther Theses being nailed to the door of the NRA then we will need to really have a new Cincinnati revolt. The current incarnation of management ain't going for this. No way no how. You are going to have to wrest control of the NRA from them. I am not bashing them. They do what they do well. Better than anyone else in my opinion. It's that they are not open for suggestions. They are running the show and it's their way or the highway.

This is the classic Hobsons choice. Do you take a stand so firm that you potentially fracture the only real organization you have? Do you alienate large numbers of those who might stand with you otherwise? Or do you compromise and give up something? If so what do you give up?

The analogy I like is to compare our situation to is that movie with Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier. Handcuffed together and hating each other. Trying to acheive a common goal. For good or worse we have to live with a sizable portion of the country againist us. Yet we can't get much of anything done without them.

[m25operator]

I admit to being ignorant of who the possible choices are. Does anyone have a list? Must it be boardmember?, or can it be anyone who is an NRA member?

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

My understanding is that the President must come from the standing board.  I was looking for the link on line for board members, but I could not find it.  I used to know where it was, but a while back the NRA changed its web site and I consider it less than user friendly.

[Pathfinder]

But here is the fight:

• All guns are the same...no babies get thrown off the lifeboat. That means no compromise on an AWB, no comprimise on .50 BMGs; no compromise on "exotic" calibers like 5.7 X 28. Period. Exclamation point. We are not friggin' joking here.
• No compromise on serialization/registration of ammo. No "backdoor" attacks on ammo and components through OSHA, etc.
• No compromise on closures of public land to recreational shooting; range closures; etc.
• Strike down the remaining city/regional gun bans under the Heller precedent.
• Support for national CCW reciprocity (a long shot)
.
.
.
That's not what has been happening to us for the last 30 years. "Compromise" means we give up a portion of our rights and the other side gives up exactly nothing. We occasionally enter into agreements — contracts — that the other side has no intention of honoring, but to use as a platform for additional attacks.

We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.

Thoughts?

Michael B

I think the definition of the fight principles is right on the money - no one gets thrown under the bus. The NRA We are the NRA, the NRA leadership in the past has had a habit of doing that. The NRA leadership has also forgotten the last part you stated, Michael, right on the money. These people cannot be trusted - ever, in any way. The must be cowed and marginalized, and then demonized as the anti-American scum-sucking pond dwellers they are.

Magpul: The enemy is anyone who can get you killed, regardless of whose side they are on.

Remember that lesson - if it is our "friends" or people "on our side" who are getting us killed (even if just philosophically or conceptually), what does that make them? Not our friends. As was posted previously, this is no time for compromise, there is too much at stake in this.

And for those here who fancy themselves Christians, this is a holy war against the godless, and it is past time to be Christian warriors and stand up to the evil that threatens us. It is demanded of us by His example and His teachings.

[1776 Rebel]

My understanding is that the President must come from the standing board.  I was looking for the link on line for board members, but I could not find it.  I used to know where it was, but a while back the NRA changed its web site and I consider it less than user friendly.

Eligibility is set out in the bylaws of the corportation. But that is not on the web. 

My understanding is that there is a nominating committe for directors etc and a petitioning process.

[tombogan03884]

NO MORE COMPROMISE. Now is the time to start taking baking our rights and if the sheep don't like it, tough.
Here are the concessions I am willing to swallow with out suggesting we hang the person who made them.
 Let them keep licensing dealers If you buy from a dealer, you have to show picture ID and they make a call to get a NICS number, no paper form, The dealer records the serial number and NICS number, FBI records that the number was issued . They can continue to regulate full auto, and any MODERN arms with a bore diameter over 1.25 inches No restrictions on CCW and the feds cram it down the states throats whether they like it or not. These conditions aren't actually legal based on the constitution which states so even TAB can't argue with it "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" but it's a good start.

[fullautovalmet76]

Let me propose a rebranding of this thread before we degenerate into open warfare...I think it's not so much a question of "who" as "what."

If you step up, you can't have any illusions...there's a warroom is in your future.

But here is the fight:

• All guns are the same...no babies get thrown off the lifeboat. That means no compromise on an AWB, no comprimise on .50 BMGs; no compromise on "exotic" calibers like 5.7 X 28. Period. Exclamation point. We are not friggin' joking here.

• No compromise on serialization/registration of ammo. No "backdoor" attacks on ammo and components through OSHA, etc.

• No compromise on closures of public land to recreational shooting; range closures; etc.

• Strike down the remaining city/regional gun bans under the Heller precedent.

• Support for national CCW reciprocity (a long shot)

There are other long shots that should have been done by the damn Republicans during their tenure, things like striking down the most onerous provisions of the 1968 and 1986 gun laws, a reevaluation of the 1934 Firearms Act, etc. I figure there's no way to even launch those initiatives now, maybe ever.

We are dealing with people without any concept of honor. Their word, their handshakes, their promises are lies, and we are fools if we pretend otherwise. We will lose if we pretend otherwise.

Michael B

Michael makes some of the same points I made in a post on another thread, but he put it much more succinctly than I did. 

As you all know I advocate the full right to purchase and possess select-fire weapons. I realize that this is considered way out on the political margin, even within our own community, and I accept that.  I also realize that I will probably spend the rest of my life fighting to REGAIN that right. Some may think that is a quixotic task, but it will have some benefits for the rest of you.

In terms of what we want and what we do, we need to turn this compromise game around into it's not what we give up but what we take back. We push the other side back with what we are going to take back instead of WAITING for them to tell us what they want us to give up. The only way this happens is we go on the offensive. And this requires a complete change in the way we look at this issue.

In terms of who we want to lead the NRA, we do not need any milk toast weenies! When I saw TAB's post about what type of person we need at the helm, and I started to mockingly affirm his recommendation with a one of my own - the former Prime Minister of England, Neville Chamberlain. The next president of the NRA has to be someone like Churchill, someone who is committed to principle and will actively pursue regaining our rights.