Talk:National Rifle Association

Endorsements

Hi Folks, the Endorsements subsection includes the following...

"In 2011, the organization declined an offer to discuss gun control with U.S. President Barack Obama. However, at the same time, LaPierre said that "the NRA has supported proposals to prevent gun sales to the mentally ill, strengthen a national system of background checks and spur states to provide needed data.""

I removed it once after trying to find a better place for it, but it seems like a POV "I told you so" kind of comment to me. Someone has returned it. What relevance does this have in this section?

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2016

Update Annual Revenue, it rose by 30% (!!): 2013: $347,968,789 http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/530/530116130/530116130_201312_990O.pdf Gentle (talk) 08:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Done EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Against gun violence

Do we have any sources which say the NRA is against gun violence? Felsic2 (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends. "against gun violence" is often a euphamism for gun control. However, taken at face value, they have notable support for gun handling safety and training, safe storage, children's safety, and support for increased integration of mental health records in background checks. All of that would be covered under "gun violence". Gaijin42 (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Could be. But do any sources directly say that the NRA is against gun violence? In re: the issues listed above, they seem to only support voluntary measures. Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

(This isn't a forum discussion - it relates to how we describe various groups and their missions.) Felsic2 (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

If you think that the answer to this question would require adding or removing some particular bit of text/category/etc it might be helpful to lay out the hypothetical change, to help better understand the kind of source/statement you are looking for. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The NRA would probably refuse to use the term "gun violence". Faceless Enemy (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

MIssion statement

Is the mission statement here allowed per WP:MISSION? Felsic2 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Since sourced mission statements are deleted from comparable articles I deleted it from here too. Felsic2 (talk) 18:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Felsic2, I've opened a discussion about the issue here. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Non-partisan

What's the standard for labelling or categorizing a group as "non-partisan"? See Talk:American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association#Non-partisan. Whatever it is, le'ts be consistent. (And no, I'm not trying to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point.)Felsic2 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The 501(c)(3) part of the NRA is nonpartisan; the 501(c)(4) part of the NRA is allowed to be partisan, though I believe they have endorsed candidates from both parties (notably I think they endorsed Harry Reid). Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So it's OK to label or categorize a group as non-partisan if their tax status justifies it? Is there any objection to adding the same category to American_Hunters_and_Shooters_Association as we apply to the National Rifle Association? Felsic2 (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe my objection was that AHSA is/was a 501c4, not a 501c3. I still have that objection, though I'm not sure I like "nonpartisan" anywhere; it has a positive connotation of reasonableness, obectivity, non-bias, and neutrality, which we shouldn't be making in the encyclopaedia's voice. Of course, if we add/remove it from the NRA page, we should be consistent about it for all similar organizations, which could be a mammoth undertaking that would ruffle some feathers. This probably isn't the place to hammer out the entire "nonpartisan" question, though unfortunately it looks like both the "nonpartisanism" and "nonpartisanism in the United States" pages are relatively inactive. Any ideas on where to raise the discussion? Faceless Enemy (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Most of the NRA is 501c4. Only the NRA Foundation is 501c3. See National_Rifle_Association#Organizational_structure_and_finances. As I wrote a year ago, be consistent. If you want to delete the designation from some groups and keep it for others then there needs to be a reason. Felsic2 (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Friends of NRA

Friends of NRA is an article about a group which raises money for the NRA Foundation. The NRA Foundation does not have an article. If the Foundation and its friends are notable then we oughta have a separate article about them. If the Foundation isn't notable them I don't know why the Friends are notable. The article is very lacking in secondary sources. I see three option: create an article about the Foundation and merge the content there; merge the content here; or delete it. Does anyone here have a preference? Felsic2 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If sourcing is truly not available, I would think a foundation article, and then merge to the foundation article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Are there sources for the foundation? Felsic2 (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, there are no secondary sources for the Friends article. The fourth option is just to make it a redirect to this page and not merge any of the promotional material. Felsic2 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Certainly enough to pass GNG, but it might start out fairly stubby. A few I found offhand

• https://books.google.com/books?id=KRmDBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA567&dq=%22nra+foundation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj795nCoMPLAhUDk4MKHT2pC1o4ChDoAQgvMAI#v=onepage&q=%22nra%20foundation%22&f=false* https://books.google.com/books?

id=zyNWBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA218&dq=nra+foundation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXupOkkcPLAhULx4MKHaIRA-cQ6AEISTAH#v=onepage&q=nra%20foundation&f=false

• https://books.google.com/books?id=pjgVCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA163&dq=nra+foundation&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXupOkkcPLAhULx4MKHaIRA-cQ6AEIUDAI#v=onepage&q=nra%20foundation&f=false
• https://books.google.com/books?id=VvNb5s8Z3b0C&pg=PA157&dq=%22nra+foundation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjK2vu7oMPLAhXBlIMKHcIiDdEQ6AEIWzAK#v=onepage&q=%22nra%20foundation%22&f=false* https://books.google.com/books?id=QeGJH48PT0kC&pg=PT801&dq=%22nra+foundation%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj795nCoMPLAhUDk4MKHT2pC1o4ChDoAQgpMAE#v=onepage&q=%22nra%20foundation%22&f=false

Gaijin42 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Do your best. Next time I see the article I'll just mark it for deletion if it hasn't been improved. Felsic2 (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I looked at the listed books and they only seem to have passing references to the Foundation. Those would not be sufficient to establish notability. Felsic2 (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I filed a deletion request, or whatever you call it. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2016_March_22#Friends_of_NRA. Felsic2 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Civil_rights_organization category

Talk:National_Rifle_Association/Archive_2#Civil_rights_organization The consensus in that discussion, in February 2015, was to not include [[[Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States]. In December 2015 it was added without any discussion.[1] I'm going to delete it pending a new consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

A consensus produced where the two main participants in the discussion are both topic and site banned doesn't hold a lot of weight. The NRA is described in civil rights/liberties terms by reliable sources, even by their detractors. [2][3][4] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I was there too. I am not site-banned. Come up with a fresh consensus, taking the previous discussion into consideration. You talk about wasting time - relitigating this kinda stuff over and over is a real waste of time. Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

So now you're just edit warring for something without consensus? Felsic2 (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I have provided 3 left leaning reliable sources describing the NRA as a civil rights/liberties org. Yes you were there too. one person does not make a consensus. Rather than scattering this everywhere seriously, start an RFC. Put two questions in it. "In general, should gun control advocacy groups be categorized as CRO"s. "In general, should gun rights groups be cated as CROS". Lets settle it with an actual wide consensus. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Source #1: 0 Surprising Facts About the NRA That You Never Hear By Jack Lee January 23, 2013 Here are other articles by Jack Lee: [5]

• Do Gun Control Advocates Even Know What They Want to Ban?
• Background Checks Aren't the Best Answer in the Gun Control Debate
• 7 Gun Control Facts That Are Actually Myths
• 7 Reasons Why An Assault Weapons Ban Will Fail to Reduce Violent Crime
• How CNN's Piers Morgan and Others Are Brainwashing Us to Fear Guns

I see nothing liberal or even neutral about that source.

Source #2 NRA Wastes No Time Promoting Bogus Gun Claims Against SCOTUS Nominee Merrick Garland The only mention of cvili liberties is in the tags:

• Posted in: Guns, Justice & Civil Liberties, Nominations & Appointments, The Judiciary
• Stories/Interests: Guns, Judicial Crisis Network, Merrick Garland, National Rifle Association, Supreme Court Nominations

Source #3 Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties I don't see nothing about "civil liberties" in the NRA entry. The Klan has an entry too, but that doesn't make them a civil liberties group.

None of those sources are much good for a contentious category. Felsic2 (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a better source I'll delete it, because of the previous consensus. Felsic2 (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• [6] "As a result, the NRA is older than the NAACP but did not engage in civil rights activities until after the formation of the NAACP."
• By Gabriell Giffords!! [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• "Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties" [10]

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• The "Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties" looks reasonable. Is it a reliable source for gun politics issues? They say a lot about th NRA which isn't in the article currently,
• Quote the text from the Giffords book.
• "National Association of the Deaf"? Really? That's the best you can do?

In the future, please give us the quote instead of just a google link. Thes sources don't all say what you think they do.

Now, can you please address the other issues raised when the last consensus was formed? Felsic2 (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately google books doesn't allow copy/paste, or I would have. Could you be more specific as to which issue you think needs to be addressed? The discussion there seemed to focus on the "the NRA says it is" issue. But here we have 3rd parties saying so, which is an entirely different issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What does Giffords, who you're citing, say about the NRA and civil liberties? Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

the encyclopedias are not attributing it to the NRA. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

What does Giffords, who you're citing, say about the NRA and civil liberties? Or was that just a mistake to waste my time? Felsic2 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

• [11] Today, with 4 million members, the N.R.A. is one of the largest civic organizations in the U.S., and by far the largest civil liberties organization on the planet.
• [12] "The organization is, after all, the most effective civil rights group in the United States today."
• [13] The NRA is a civil liberties organization, like the ACLU.
• The Urban Institute [[IS[14] s. It is difficult to imagine a vibrant, inclusive civil society in America without civil liberties organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and National Rifle Association (NRA) or without organizations advocating on behalf of underrepresented minority interests.

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Do they say what you think this time? You complain about me wasitnig time then present numerous useless links. If you think these sources are adequate then add them to the article. You still haven't addressed the issues rqaised in the previous discussion. Please read it and reply. Then maybe we can come to a consensus over this contentious categorization. Felsic2 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I asked you to clarify which issue you were referring to, but you have not done so. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism - is that all there is?

This article text is around 6600 words. The criticism section is about 473 words. It tries to summarize criticism from many sources. By contrast, the Everytown for Gun Safety article is about 3600 words, and it has about 460 words of criticism that's all from the NRA. That ain't right. Look at Talk:Everytown_for_Gun_Safety#Opposition_from_NRA. If you guys think the Everytown article is A-OK, then this article oughta get few hundred more words of critical commentary unless you guys really believe that the NRA doesn't get much criticism. Anyone here think that? Felsic2 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

United States Shooting Team

Instigated on by the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, the NRA mandated the establishment of National Teams and National Development Teams, a national coaching staff, year-round training programs, and a main training site for Olympic shooting sports. In 1992, USA Shooting replaced the NRA as the National governing body for Olympic shooting.

Is that really the whole story? Citizendium has this text:

The NRA stepped down as the governing body for the Olympic sport of shooting in 1994 after a multi-year battle with representatives from the United States Shooting Team. A panel from the United States Olympic Committee recommended the NRA’s authority be revoked, citing federal law. Team representatives accused the NRA of using its affiliation with the Olympic team to further its own goals.

I gotta find the sources, but the entry here looks like a whitewash. Felsic2 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source.[15] Any good reason to sweep this under the rug? Felsic2 (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"In a list of 14 complaints filed with the U.S.O.C. last September, it was charged that the N.R.A. displayed an attitude of "contempt" toward the I.C.C.'s governing responsibilities, showed a lack of meaningful involvement in coaching and Junior Olympic programs, interfered with the I.C.C.'s ability to raise funds independently, held improper control over the I.C.C.'s staffing and budget matters, inappropriately used the Olympic symbols and even controlled the governing body's authority to call a meeting." Sounds like a pretty standard bureaucratic turf war. A few more sources [16] [17] I think we could expand this, but drop the WP:ABF on "whitewash" and "sweeping under the rug" please. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ha hah ha hha ahahhha. Sorry, I can't type - I'm laughing too hard. Felsic2 (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Unused sources

• Anderson, Jack (1996). Inside the NRA: Armed and Dangerous : An Exposé. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Dove. p. 180. ISBN 0-7871-0677-1. OCLC 34235436.
• Davidson, Osha Gray (1998). Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control. University of Iowa Press. p. 338. ISBN 0-87745-646-1.
• Feldman, Richard (2011-05-12). Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-13099-5.
• LaPierre, Wayne R. (1994). Guns, Crime, and Freedom. Regnery. ISBN 0-89526-477-3. OCLC 246629786.
• Melzer, Scott (2009). Gun Crusaders: The NRA's Culture War. New York University Press. p. 336. ISBN 9780814795972.
• Patrick, Brian Anse (2002). The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage. New York: Peter Lang. ISBN 978-0-8204-5122-0. OCLC 316870710.
• Raymond, Emilie (2006). From My Cold, Dead Hands: Charlton Heston and American Politics. ISBN 978-0-8131-2408-7. OCLC 77125677.
• Sugarmann, Josh (1992). National Rifle Association: Money, Firepower, and Fear. Washington, D.C.: Violence Policy Center. p. 258. ISBN 9781451500226. OCLC 773292764.
• Trefethen, James B.; Serven, James E. (1967). Americans and Their Guns: The National Rifle Association Story Through Nearly a Century of Service to the Nation. Harrisburg, Penn.: Stackpole Books. p. 320. OCLC 1361329.
• Winkler, Adam (2011). Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. W. W. Norton & Company. p. 361. ISBN 9780393082296.

All of these books are entirely or mostly about the NRA. Several are from reputable authors and/or university publishing houses. But, so far as I can tell, the article doesn't cite any of them. Instead it cites poor quality news sources like "World News Daily" and "The Daily Caller", and primary sources like Guidestar and foundationcenter.org. Until this article uses the best available sources it'll be a piece of crap. Felsic2 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)