Friday, December 30, 2016

Are money-grabbers trying to siphon cash away from gun rights groups?


Fellow blogger The Silicon Graybeard thinks that might be the case.

I've mentioned before that I've been a member of NAGR before and became displeased with them for a couple of reasons.  The biggest is the never ending stream of emails like the previously mentioned "stop what you're doing!", urgent response required type.  The legend of the "boy who cried wolf" that we learn while we're growing up is a good one to keep in mind.  Perhaps a better idea to keep in mind is that when someone is urgently demanding your money now, now, now, experience says the chances are good you're being hustled.  They want you to donate the money now and not think about it.

. . .

Look, it's your money; give it to whom you want.  I think it's a waste to give to these Rothfeld organizations like NAGR because I see the parallels to the destruction of the Tea Party movement.  If Rothfeld's groups suck up all the funding and spends it all on themselves, like all those groups that killed off the Tea Party, could they kill off the Pro-2A side? 

There's more at the link.

I urge all my Second Amendment-supporting readers to click over to the article and read it in full.  I've had my doubts about a number of pro-gun organizations in the past (not least the NRA, who seem to send out far more requests for money than they do other materials).  Given the number of charity scams and boondoggles out there, it's entirely appropriate for us to approach new gun rights organizations with at least a healthy skepticism, if not outright suspicion.  Only when they've proven themselves to be both legitimate and effective should we support them financially.

Peter

4 comments:

Old NFO said...

Agreed! I dropped them for the same reason.

Quartermaster said...

There's already a "no compromise" gun rights org. It's called Gun Owners of America. NRA's version of compromise has been a bad thing on many occasions. Any compromise that takes you backwards, or places you at further risk, is not good.

selkiemaine said...

Here's my take on NAGR:

I'm in Maine. Recently we were able to get "constitutional carry" through our (democrat leaning) legislature with a moderate amount of democrat support to go along with essentially universal republican support.

This was not a case of the right rising up, but a traditional, negotiated, bi-partisan process.

As you might imagine, the NRA and GOA were involved, lobbying and doing behind the scenes legwork.

NAGR, on the other hand, was an absolute hindrance to this process. They were, frankly, abusive of our democratic party legislators, calling them names, badgering them, and generally getting in the way. It is the belief of those of us active in the Maine gun rights community that the NAGR probably cost us a couple of votes.

~~~~~

And, as you may know, this fall, we beat back Bloomberg's inane universal background check bill by 52% to 48% despite being outspent somewhere between 6 to 1 and 10 to 1 (I've forgotten the actual numbers and don't have the time to be precise - sorry about that).

The NRA was late to the game, but they were invaluable. They purchased TV time, which our local gun rights organization (Gunowners of Maine) could not afford, and they purchased several thousand road signs in different sizes, which were duly distributed. It is my belief that we could not have won without the TV ads.

GOA, again, contributed in a minor capacity (though they took considerable credit in a recent article on their website).

The NAGR? Zip. Nada. Nothing.

So, to paraphrase Edwin Starr: What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

And, I think that by keeping the word out there, we can help prevent the siphoning off of our limited budget and time to this execrable organization.

DaddyBear said...

I looked into them a few years ago. They seem to be nothing more than a money-making and headline-grabbing organization. I have yet to find any situation where they contributed to the solution.