I’m an on and off member of the NRA. While I’m 100% behind our 2nd amendment rights, I go back and forth on how the NRA forwards this agenda. I find many of the organization’s tactics distasteful and believe some are plain demagoguery that perpetuates lies.
That being said, I wonder where I would be without the NRA. Every cause has its zealots, and I know plenty of anti-gun people who are 100% irrational about firearms. They would love to “control” guns to the point where guys like me could never have them. I see the NRA as a buffer against this and believe that one extreme balances out the other.
Of course, not all hunters agree with me. Lily Raff McCaulou is a hunter/fisherwoman who lives in Oregon. The New York Times published her piece “I Hunt, but the N.R.A. Isn’t for Me” in yesterday’s OP/Ed section. I suggest reading it.
“EARLIER this month, Mitt Romney delivered a speech at the annual National Rifle Association convention, calling for a president “who will stand up for the rights of hunters, sportsmen and those seeking to protect their homes and their families,” presumably with guns. I’d like to remind Mr. Romney that those are distinct groups. Too often — especially during an election year — hunters and N.R.A. members are lumped together as one and the same…”
You can read the rest here.
BTW: Here’s interesting piece about the NRA from The Economist magazine: The NRA’s star may be on the wane
