
Secrecy, Self-Dealing, and Greed at the NRA - smacktoward
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/secrecy-self-dealing-and-greed-at-the-nra
======
mindcrime
As a long-time member of the NRA (as well as almost every other #2A advocacy
group there is) I have always had certain issues with the NRA. I appreciate
their gun safety training, support for high-school rifle teams and so forth,
and their defense of the 2A. But too many times (and more so lately) they act
like shills for any tripe the GOP is putting out.. and I, for one, am _not_ a
Republican despite being an NRA member.

I've considered dropping support for them because they get involved in issues
like abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc., where I am diametrically
opposed to the stock GOP position, so of course I don't want to spend money on
an organization that supports that stuff.

All this recent stuff about internal disputes, executive pay, lawsuits, money
being spent on clothing, blah, blah, blah, just tarnishes their image that
much more to me.

But... one has to wonder if that isn't _exactly_ the point. Is somebody
intentionally spreading this stuff and trying to fuel this fire exactly
because they want to sow discord among the NRA faithful? I'm not usually one
for conspiracy theories, but sometimes it makes you stop and go "Hmmm...."

~~~
chillwaves
> Is somebody intentionally spreading this stuff

Yes. Those people are called "journalists" following a scoop of major
corruption and scandal. What other motive is necessary?

~~~
mindcrime
_Yes. Those people are called "journalists" following a scoop of major
corruption and scandal._

I think it's clear from context that I meant something more than simply
journalists reporting on something in proportion to how relevant/topical the
story would be on its own merits. Note that I'm just thinking about loud on
this though... I'm not positing any specific conspiracy theory or anything.
But it is rather coincidental that this comes out during a time when anti-gun
rhetoric seems to be flowing at a fever pitch.

 _What other motive is necessary?_

A desire to weaken an organization that has been one of the, if not _the_ ,
most effective pro-gun lobbying organizations in America for decades? I mean,
it's not like there aren't very rich and very powerful people who have
declared their intent to foster the anti-gun agenda. Is it really such a reach
to think that they're providing a little extra funding / mojo to "encourage"
reporting on this?

------
fhjeond
> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

I just ask that if you oppose the right to bear militia-quality weapons, then
you explain why the founders were wrong and prove how you know that such
weapons are in fact not necessary to the security of a free state.

I mean, they’re the folks that founded the freest state that’s ever survived.
Seeing as it’s the only part of the constitution-including later amendments-
which includes such a section explaining their reasoning... I tend to believe
them when they say such weapons are needed.

~~~
jbob2000
In a future where victory isn’t decided with small arms, it’s really just a
part of the constitution for history and symbolism’s sake.

Do you see China invading us with an army? No, they’re flooding our markets
with cheap goods and putting us out of business. Do you see the American
government taking away your rights by force? No, they’re just slowly chipping
away at them generation by generation, where each generation is none the wiser
to the rights that were taken from the previous one.

What future do you imagine where small arms will actually protect you from
it’s threats?

