Compulsory NRA Membership

[dbroncos78087]

Alright so I want to start out by stating that I don't have all the facts on this one and if it turns out there is something else to this I will reconsider my thoughts.

There have been reports and it appears some legitimacy that in order to join certain gun clubs they require you to join the NRA. Now this wouldn't seem like such a big deal BUT there is so much outrage from people in the GOP about compulsory membership of a union and I wonder if there is similar outrage to other compulsory memberships like the ones to the NRA.

This requires people who are liberal in nature but favor gun ownership rights to join a group that is an affront to almost all of their other political sensibilities. This sounds like a classic case of what the GOP has campaigned against with regards to union membership. Now there is an argument to be made that "the NRA fights for their rights" but then one would also have to accept that the unions do the same thing.

So I want to know, specifically from our conservative members, how they can reconcile this hypocrisy that appears to exist. Also if I have something wrong on the facts, please let me know.

[corralski]

I see the parallel you are trying to get, but I don't see a good comparison to a group that one must join to participate in the work place over one that is joined for recreation.

I would also add that members of the gun club would likely be in line with the political philosophies of the NRA.

Isn't the whole gripe of conservative union members that their politics differs with that of the union?

Sorry Dbroncs, can't quite get to the level of hypocrisy on this one, but what would the other political causes supported by the NRA be? Fiscal conservatism? Social conservatism? Gun owner rights I believe fall short of this on all accounts.....

[dbroncos78087]

I see the parallel you are trying to get, but I don't see a good comparison to a group that one must join to participate in the work place over one that is joined for recreation.

I would also add that members of the gun club would likely be in line with the political philosophies of the NRA.

Isn't the whole gripe of conservative union members that their politics differs with that of the union?

Sorry Dbroncs, can't quite get to the level of hypocrisy on this one, but what would the other political causes supported by the NRA be? Fiscal conservatism? Social conservatism? Gun owner rights I believe fall short of this on all accounts.....

Should the reason for joining the group be relevant to compulsory membership? Because it seems like it shouldn't to me.

But whether 99% of the political philosophies line up I don't think that matters. The political philosophies of must union members line up with their union but it doesn't seem to matter there.

The gripe does appear to be conservative union members but wouldn't that gripe also apply to liberal gun owners?

The NRA has all sorts of groups that it joins and supports that go well beyond gun rights. They have become a machine that operates in Washington for so many causes.

I just can't get how people who campaign so vigorously against compulsory membership of unions can support that same type of compulsory membership to the NRA.

[corralski]

Should the reason for joining the group be relevant to compulsory membership? Because it seems like it shouldn't to me.

But whether 99% of the political philosophies line up I don't think that matters. The political philosophies of must union members line up with their union but it doesn't seem to matter there.

The gripe does appear to be conservative union members but wouldn't that gripe also apply to liberal gun owners?

The NRA has all sorts of groups that it joins and supports that go well beyond gun rights. They have become a machine that operates in Washington for so many causes.

I just can't get how people who campaign so vigorously against compulsory membership of unions can support that same type of compulsory membership to the NRA.

So your argument is that the NRA uses membership dues to pursue other conservative interests?

You're going to have to make a trip to Missouri and show me.....

[dbroncos78087]

So your argument is that the NRA uses membership dues to pursue other conservative interests?

You're going to have to make a trip to Missouri and show me.....

Well my argument would be that the NRA uses that money for political interests of the leadership, but yes I would argue that the bulk goes to conservative interests:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-in-congress/

But the argument used against union dues is not that they go to liberal candidates but that members of the union are being forced to pay dues that contribute to political campaigns that they may or may not agree with and that the unions should have to compete for those dues. The obvious undertone of the GOP passing laws that do not make compulsory dues is a political one but they use the guise of freedom of choice to make those dues no longer compulsory. It seems to make sense (to me) that they would also want to prevent a group like the NRA from collecting compulsory dues from people who just want to use a gun range.

[flips333]

So your argument is that the NRA uses membership dues to pursue other conservative interests?

You're going to have to make a trip to Missouri and show me.....

Could one be a gun owner and support gun control?

Come on... give me a break. It doesn't matter if they just spend it all on gun control... it's still compulsatory payments to a political organization that doesn't represent your beliefs.

[corralski]

Could one be a gun owner and support gun control?

Come on... give me a break. It doesn't matter if they just spend it all on gun control... it's still compulsatory payments to a political organization that doesn't represent your beliefs.

Wait? What? If I join a gun club that requires my membership in the NRA, that the NRA works to further the rights of gun owners runs counter to my views as a gun enthusiast?

You seem to be tying the collective work of PAC fund recipients to the idea that causes other than, in this case, gun rights, are being supported by the money given?

You are pushing this idea in theory only. I can find conservative people paying union dues that are used to further political ideas that they, the conservatives don't agree with. You are going to have to go a little further with some proof that people that pay membership dues to the NRA don't support the cause that the NRA stands for, namely gun ownership rights.

I'm gong to take you to task on this one.....

[corralski]

Well my argument would be that the NRA uses that money for political interests of the leadership, but yes I would argue that the bulk goes to conservative interests:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...y-in-congress/

But the argument used against union dues is not that they go to liberal candidates but that members of the union are being forced to pay dues that contribute to political campaigns that they may or may not agree with and that the unions should have to compete for those dues. The obvious undertone of the GOP passing laws that do not make compulsory dues is a political one but they use the guise of freedom of choice to make those dues no longer compulsory. It seems to make sense (to me) that they would also want to prevent a group like the NRA from collecting compulsory dues from people who just want to use a gun range.

Your source shows that money went both conservative and liberal, with a strong lean towards conservative. The source does nothing to show that money distributed through the PAC does anything but further the cause for gun ownership rights.

That's a weak argument at best and if I hold you to the standards of proof established by some well educated and well spoken members of this forum, you have nothing, nada, zilch.

You are going to have to go further to show some proof that people that gave money to the NRA don't believe in the agenda of gun ownership rights that the NRA supports with those PAC funds.

The fact that the PAC gave money to both sides nullifies that notion for me.

You want freedom of choice, join a gun club that doesn't require NRA membership, I can help you find one if you like.....

[flips333]

Wait? What? If I join a gun club that requires my membership in the NRA, that the NRA works to further the rights of gun owners runs counter to my views as a gun enthusiast?

You seem to be tying the collective work of PAC fund recipients to the idea that causes other than, in this case, gun rights, are being supported by the money given?

You are pushing this idea in theory only. I can find conservative people paying union dues that are used to further political ideas that they, the conservatives don't agree with. You are going to have to go a little further with some proof that people that pay membership dues to the NRA don't support the cause that the NRA stands for, namely gun ownership rights.

I'm gong to take you to task on this one.....

One can own a gun and not be a gun enthusiast... as a matter of fact I know people like that. They have a rifle for hunting but support outlawing handguns. Really not that rare.

[corralski]

One can own a gun and not be a gun enthusiast... as a matter of fact I know people like that. They have a rifle for hunting but support outlawing handguns. Really not that rare.

Fair enough, but I also think it would be a stretch, not impossible but a stretch for that individual to be passionate enough about gun ownership rights to the extent of wanting a membership with the NRA.

For the record, I thought that the idea of armed personnel at schools was not such a foolish idea, but that it was not proper for the second in command of the NRA to propose it. I think it will just be viewed as a diversionary tactic by the NRA and maybe not given serious consideration that it deserves.

As to your earlier question, could one be a gun enthusiast and support gun control, I do. Mainstream supporters of gun ownership also place high importance on registration, and education as to the safe use of fire arms. It's not at all like the wild west show that some like to make it out as.

If the proponents of gun control, as well as those in favor of gun owner rights, would drop all of the rehetoric and BS and have a reasonable adult conversation on the matter, we all might get something that we all could better live with.....

[dbroncos78087]

But this same argument can be made from the other side on unions. The unions are strongly Democrat and represent the interests of the union members but they can't be MADE to pay dues or join the union. So I don't see how one can do the mental gymnastics to say that union membership can be compelled but that this is ok.

If you think that this is ok, do you also think that union membership can be compelled and dues collected from members who don't want to be members?

[corralski]

But this same argument can be made from the other side on unions. The unions are strongly Democrat and represent the interests of the union members but they can't be MADE to pay dues or join the union. So I don't see how one can do the mental gymnastics to say that union membership can be compelled but that this is ok.

If you think that this is ok, do you also think that union membership can be compelled and dues collected from members who don't want to be members?

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that these two situations are comparable.

The interests of gun owners are almost guaranteed 100% to be represented by the NRA.

The Teamsters probably do not have the same political interests as me.

There's the difference, even if I was forced to join the NRA, I share their political interests on gun ownership. If I am forced to join the Teamsters, I don't share their political views. I just don't see that individuals that don't believe in the gun ownership rights would be anywhere near an application form for membership in the NRA. On the other hand, I could be in possession of certain job skills, seek that employment and then be required as a condition of employment to give money to a politically active group that I don't share the same politics with.

One I join because it's how I choose to spend my recreational time.

The other I have to join to further my participation in the work place.

Sorry for the clumsy wording.....

[dbroncos78087]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that these two situations are comparable.

The interests of gun owners are almost guaranteed 100% to be represented by the NRA.

The Teamsters probably do not have the same political interests as me.

There's the difference, even if I was forced to join the NRA, I share their political interests on gun ownership. If I am forced to join the Teamsters, I don't share their political views. I just don't see that individuals that don't believe in the gun ownership rights would be anywhere near an application form for membership in the NRA. On the other hand, I could be in possession of certain job skills, seek that employment and then be required as a condition of employment to give money to a politically active group that I don't share the same politics with.

One I join because it's how I choose to spend my recreational time.

The other I have to join to further my participation in the work place.

Sorry for the clumsy wording.....

But even work is a voluntary act and the government steps on and says that you can't make that action compulsory. Because both are voluntary I think they are equatable.

As far as how aligned they have to be, I don't even think that matters. Even if the interests are 100% in alignment, I don't think they have the right to make it compulsory. The argument that always comes out is that if they share views then they will donate/contribute the money voluntarily when it comes to unions.

[flips333]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think that these two situations are comparable.

The interests of gun owners are almost guaranteed 100% to be represented by the NRA.

The Teamsters probably do not have the same political interests as me.

There's the difference, even if I was forced to join the NRA, I share their political interests on gun ownership. If I am forced to join the Teamsters, I don't share their political views. I just don't see that individuals that don't believe in the gun ownership rights would be anywhere near an application form for membership in the NRA. On the other hand, I could be in possession of certain job skills, seek that employment and then be required as a condition of employment to give money to a politically active group that I don't share the same politics with.

One I join because it's how I choose to spend my recreational time.

The other I have to join to further my participation in the work place.

Sorry for the clumsy wording.....

Do you really believe they are such a monolithic group? I think just with the sheer numbers they can not be. So for the record it's ok to force people to join a group because you think they are all the same.

And putting guns in schools is about as sensible as solving the childhood obesity epidemic by putting McDonald's in every grade school.

[corralski]

Do you really believe they are such a monolithic group? I think just with the sheer numbers they can not be. So for the record it's ok to force people to join a group because you think they are all the same.

And putting guns in schools is about as sensible as solving the childhood obesity epidemic by putting McDonald's in every grade school.

Nowhere did I ever say it was OK to force anyone to join a group. I thought I was stating that there wasn't a parallel between the two groups, sorry if that wasn't clear.

Monolithic as a group? Hell yes when it comes to the issue of gun ownership. Why in the world would anyone want to be in that organization but for that one interest?

So you don't agree that a fire arm in the hand of a trained law enforcement officer would provide protection to the children? The officer would have to bring his own egg mcmuffin of course......