Jump to content

Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Gun homicide para edited for question of racism

"The number of gun homicides in the United States is over 11,000 per year (about 3.8 per 100,000 population). The UK (which has 1/5th the population of the USA) averages only about 100 gun homicides per year (about 0.16 per 100,000), and most of the other industrialized countries have a similiar low rate of gun homicides compared to the USA. This has led many people to criticize the NRA for its pro-gun lobbying (including filmmaker and NRA member Michael Moore in his film Bowling for Columbine). Others have countered by stating the fact that the vast majority of gun homicides in America are commited by Blacks and Hispanics (white Americans have a gun-homicide rate only slightly higher than Western European countries, and actually lower than Eastern European countries). Also stating that if America is looking to drastically cut down its number of gun homicides, they should work to improve the lot of Black and Hispanic Americans, and not ban or severely limit access to guns"

I find this paragraph somewhat racist. I think it should worded more carefully--User: palexisls

I'll take a shot at it today. Please give me some feedback.--Pmeisel 14:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Britain had 100 gun homicides means nothing when you consider the US is is about 30 times larger than that country. This is an example of skewing the facts and presenting fallcy in logic. Professor London 19:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence in question explicitly normalizes the murder rates relative to population. Anyway, that passage was long ago removed from the NRA article; it may be in Gun politics in the US. —Tamfang 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moore

While it is apparently true that Michael Moore is an NRA member, it's slightly misleading in this context. He joined the NRA as part of his campaign against them. The way this article mentioned the fact, it suggested that Moore might be a supporter of the general goals of the organization, while critical in some aspects. That's not right. --User:Jimbo Wales

  • Well, according to Michael Moore, he joined the NRA as a teenage junior member and won the NRA Marksman Award back then. Are you implying that he is a mole infiltrating the NRA since then?--User:Kchishol1970

Michael Moore could hold a present-day NRA membership as a mole without implying that a Junior membership was as a mole. It is common (and often wise) to re-consider youthful ideas. Michael Moore as a present-day NRA supporter, while possible, is a very difficult thought!Artmario2001 13:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


I changed two words in this passage:

The NRA were also criticised by Michael Moore in his documentary Bowling for Columbine, in which he cited→alleged links between the NRA and the Ku Klux Klan, in that the NRA promoted responsible gun ownership and the Ku Klux Klan used NRA→(removed) guns to kill black people.

First, one cannot "cite" what does not exist; this is a "link" like the link between Martin Luther and Al Goldstein as users of printing presses. Second, there's no such thing as "NRA guns" in the sense implied – or does Bowling (I haven't seen it) show evidence that the KKK don't murder with everyday weapons but insist on ones with special NRA-commemorative engravings? —Tamfang 04:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Heston question

Does Charlton Heston really run the NRA, or is he more of a PR spokesman serving at the whim of the elected board and/or the executive vice president Wayne LaPierre? (some organizations have a figurehead as the titular leader, ya know)

--Ed Poor

A president is a president. Minor edit. --User:LenBudney
Well, is it really up to the Wiki to make that distinction? --Dante Alighieri
Good searching, Ed! Now I know. --Dante Alighieri

NRA "victories"?????

Other than the flood of states going to "shall-issue CCW licences" and some progress towards stopping the predatory lawsuits from gun-haters against the lawful firearms industry, what other "victories" has the NRA had? As far as I can tell, the most the NRA has managed to do is to somewhat slow-down the assaults from the gun-haters lobby. I can't think of a single positive law protecting individual firearms rights the NRA has managed to get enacted which actually stayed in-place and functioning to benefit lawful gun-owners. Playing a dragging boat-anchor against the juggernaught of gun-haters is better than nothing, but it's certainly not a "victory". Can anyone give me some examples of real NRA "victories"???

I didn't feel it was accurate to simply state that the "NRA is the oldest civil rights organization"; the only people I've ever heard use the phrase are NRA leaders, writings, etc. Since most people think of minority rights when they hear "civil rights", calling the NRA a civil rights group without qualification might be a little misleading. One compromise might be to call them a "civil liberties group"? Or something. Needs more thought. Suggestions, anyone? Meelar 20:20, Dec 8, 2003

I think it's accurate: besides, aren't gun owners a minority as well?

On that regard, people who joined KKK are "technically" minority as well, won't you agree?

I guess I should have been more clear. When people hear civil rights, they think "ethnic minority", i.e. blacks, Hispanics, etc. In addition, I've seen that phrase, verbatim, in their publications. I've never heard anyone else use it to describe them. It seems pretty clearly biased. It'd be great if you'd register, so I could put an anonymous name to a post--we'd love to have your contributions. Thanks, Meelar 00:38, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The phrase "Civil Rights" includes many rights that have nothing to do with race or ethnicity. For example, the right to assocation, the right to speech, the right to practice one's religion. The right to own a firearm can be seen as a "civil right" in this sense, if such right is granted by the US Constitution.

My understanding is that the constitution and bill of rights don't "grant" rights to citizens, but rather they describe rights they already have. I suppose this difference in philosophy leads to much debate.

The content about how many of the NRA's founders fought on the side of the union was basically irrelevant--it sounded as if the author had something to prove, more than anything. I took it out. Meelar 07:41, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Political Cartoon in The Palm Beach Newspaper

Please bear with me as I am new to this forum. The providence Journal ran a political cartoon in it's tuesday morning paper which infuriated me. I couldn't read the name of the cartoonist but what he wrote was apalling. The headline was "Wake UP AMERICA" there was a drawing of a man called Eugene Dillpond, he was purported to be the originator of the NRA and that it was a subversive socialist organization. Supposedly supported by Nikita Kruschov (sic). the jist of the text was that that it was started to get the names of all the gun owners in the US and track them by their dues which would be mailed in. It went on to say that the CIA has said that the NRA plans to turn over the names of those same gun owners to any invading forces. How's that for a bunch of bull. I'd like to know if anyone has seen this and can comment on it. I can find no published account of anyone going by the name Eugene Dillpond. Is this an effort to reduce our ranks by scare tactics? If it is, I hope everyone is aware of this and will respond to it accordingly. At the time of this writing, I was not looking at the cartoon and was working from memory, since then, I have rediscovered it and will now post it verbatim:

WAKE UP AMERICA! BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! The National Rifle Association was actually founded in 1871 by radical leftist Eugene Dillpond. Dillpond was part of a carefully concocted scheme to get US gun owners to reveal their whereabouts by mailing in dues. Through the generations, the NRA has served as a front for socialist misfits ( Nikita Khrushchev was a collaborator). To this day, the CIA says, the group plans to turn over it's list of gun owners to invading forces. The original cartoon was drawn by WRIGHT and printed in the Palm Beach Post. I assume that this is the Palm Beach Florida paper.

The drawing of this character appears to be legitmate at first glance. Wearing period correct clothing with a derby atop his head, upright collar and tie. As I mentioned, I can find no mention of this individual anywhere.

Eugene Debs? Although he was a socialist, and had a controversial career, he would have been 16 in 1871 and to the best of my knowledge had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA. A Google search on Eugene Dillpond yields only this discussion. Don Wright seems to be the name of the political cartoonist for the Palm Beach Post, and you can search through his archives to see if he's the artist you are referring to... http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/search/search/UnifiedSearch?query=%22Don+Wright%22+NRA&daterange=all If Nikita Khruschev had any connection with the NRA as described by what you're saying, that would be very interesting and obviously subject to much debate. But what I'd like to know is, if that kind of "enemy-breach" system existed, why previous "foregin invaders" (such as the Japanese at Pearl Harbor) did not take advantage of such an offer? Sounds like a very obscure conspiracy theory to me. 64.90.198.6 00:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Oldest Civil Rights group 2.0

I didn't feel it was accurate to simply state that the "NRA is the oldest civil rights organization"; the only people I've ever heard use the phrase are NRA leaders, writings, etc. Since most people think of minority rights when they hear "civil rights", calling the NRA a civil rights group without qualification might be a little misleading. One compromise might be to call them a "civil liberties group"? Or something. Needs more thought. Suggestions, anyone? Meelar 20:41, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if they're the oldest group, but certainly those who believe in the personal right to own a gun base it on the 2nd ammendment from the Bill of Rights, so it's certainly accurately called a civil right. Civil rights go much further than simply talking about prejudice, they cover things like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, all of which are accurately called civil rights. One way to handle this in the article is to say something like "They refer to themselves a civil rights organization based on their belief that gun ownership is a civil right" or something similar that hopefully doesn't have prejudicial overtones. Arthurrh 21:56, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, right now we've got "They refer to themselves as the oldest civil rights group in the U.S." I agree, your suggestion is more clear. I'll put it in. Nice work, and welcome to Wikipedia. Best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:39, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There were other civil rights groups in the united states before the NRA was founded, such as the various anti-slavery societies, but those groups don't exist today. It is accurate to describe the NRA as the oldest civil-rights organization, and the "refer to themselves" phrasing implies that the claim is suspect.

Rights and Responsibilities

The ownership of guns in isolation cannot be shown to increase the incidences of violence. Amongst other countries, Switzerland is often used as an example where guns are ubiquitous but violent crime is not. It must be therefore a combination of gun ownership with various cultural or socio-economic factors that are to blame for the level of gun crime in the US. IMO The National Rifle association would find it in their favour in the long run to focus on what needs to be done in respect to the latter to ensure wider gun ownership can continue without what is causing the problems rather than ranting on about constitutional rights without addressing the repsonsibilities that such rights carry Dainamo 17:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UT

It seems a very basic issue here can be explained in the reasoning behind the Fourth Ammendment. If you look closely, you might see that there is in fact a direct relationship between the homicide rates in minority communities and the ability of the individuals in such communities to secure themselves and their personal effects.

It seems to me that the Second Ammendment provides individuals the ability to enforce the Fourth Ammendment. And since the Fourteenth Ammendment reafirms the Fourth so as to exclude the sophistic perversions inacted and supported by proponents of slavery, it, the Fourth Ammendment, can be recognized as the original civil rights ammendment. In this sense the NRA's claim has definite credance as a "Civil Rights Organization."

Unfortunately the organization is not independent of the gun industry which supports and promotes it. It has little credibility beyond a very small minority because of the less than altruistic motives of gun peddlers. Yet the issues the true believers raise are valid and their fears seem more and more realistic.

The actual answer to your concerns about the homocide rates in minority communities might be counter intuitive. The actual end of this trend might come when we begin honoring, giving special recognition, to those individuals who take it upon themselves to take up arms against those who violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Ammendments.

Why would anyone want to ensure wide gun ownership can continue? There is just no way it is inherently good thing. In the UK we have some of the tightest gun laws in the world and one of the longest histories of human rights and democracy. In Somalia every man owns a gun who can afford one and its a failed state. 82.18.125.110 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the tight gun control laws have turned out just great. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Britain had (if I understand right) no gun control before about 1870 when a permit to carry a concealed weapon was instituted as a pure revenue measure. The serious restrictions began about 1920 in fear of a socialist revolution. In the last decade or two, the ratchet of ever-tighter gun restrictions has gone hand in hand with a steady chipping away at the rights of the accused. —Tamfang 05:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Opinion Polls

Is it really proper to make mention to opinion polls in this listing without providing some kind of evidence that the numbers mentioned are accurate or that there aren't contradictory polls? --Pghtechguy

The Big Disparity

I find this paragraph somewhat out of place - it belongs in a general article about gun ownership, rather than a specific article about an organization. Does anyone agre, and know of a suitable place to move it?--Pmeisel 18:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

History second?

It seems to me that it would make much more sense for the history of the NRA to come after its description as a political lobby. I'm going to go ahead and make the change, but I am more than willing to revert my change back if a couple of good reasons can be given.

I suggest even a little more reorganization -- there are 3 political lobby sections that go together logically (the political lobby, and the two "current" sections -- most of the rest except for "criticisms" logically group together under NRA's general historical promotion of gun ownership, marksmanship proficiency, and the shooting sports. I will try this today if I can. Let me know what you think.--Pmeisel 14:17, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest putting history first. The history section is brief and can be used as an introduction into both the safety and political missions of the NRA's activities.

My removal

I removed the "Criticisms" section; it was heavily biased towards the NRA, and didn't actually discuss the organization, but was rather a ramble about crime statistics. Meelar (talk) 03:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I readded the "Criticisms" section; they are gun statistics in an article about a gun organization. --Nyr14 04:05, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

But those statistics don't belong for two reasons:
  1. They aren't about the NRA, but instead about gun control in general.
  2. They aren't very neutral.

I'd recommend you read Wikipedia:NPOV, explaining the neutral point of view policy. Hope this helps. Best, Meelar (talk) 04:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Statistics themselves are naturally unbiased and neutral. They are about gun control because the NRA is an anti-gun control lobby group. --Nyr14 04:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Simply being about gun control does not make them relevant to this particular article. I'd also note that facts are not naturally unbiased; quoting from Wikipedia:NPOV, "while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem." The way your facts are presented, especially, seems to reflect the anti-gun-control point of view (e.g. the use of "However, Switzerland..." or the bringing up of the specific example of Washington, DC). These aren't really relevant to the NRA as such, and so should stay out of the article. Might I suggest Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial? Best, Meelar (talk) 04:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to add you own statistics about why gun control is great if you think that would make it neutral. --Nyr14 04:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

From your wikipedia NPOV: 2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. [...] It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

So I have my statistics, you have yours. It is impossible for us to come to a consensus of whether or not gun control is bad. I presented arguments advocating that gun control is bad, and you should present arguments that gun control is good. --Nyr14 04:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Your presentation is in a biased manner. Wikipedia is not a pluralist system where everyone only presents their own POV; instead, everyone is supposed to present all material neutrally. In addition, this is not the proper article to discuss gun control; that would be gun control. This article is about the NRA specifically. Yours, Meelar (talk) 04:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The NRA is an anti-gun control organization, the statistics belong. As I have stated before, statistics are neutral. I think it speaks volumes that you come to a certain conclusion regarding the statistics. --Nyr14 10:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

"while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem." Which means you should add facts of your own if you believe that it is not neutral. As the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Examples points out: "facts are items that are not known to be disputed at all by otherwise reasonable people." There is some opinions in the article that shouldn't be there, and feel free to remove them. However, you should not delete the entire thing simply because you disagree with it. Sincerely, --Nyr14 17:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The facts in "The Big Disparity" are not relevant to this article. Perhaps they would be relevant to an article about gun control. Even there, they would have to be presented in a neutral manner (e.g. no more "Therefore, it is absurd to think that a murderer would obey gun control laws"). Please--I'm sure you're a good enough writer to know bias when you see it, even if it's bias you agree with. It has no place here. Meelar (talk) 17:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

As I have said earlier facts about gun control do belong in an article about an anti-gun control organization. Some of the sentences are biased and need to be cleaned up; the whole thing, however, does not need to be deleted. --Nyr14 17:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding this article: please specify what is wrong. I have already changed the wording on the "absurd to think..." part. 

--Nyr14 18:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Again, the facts that you insert are simply not relevant to the article. What do gun deaths in Switzerland have to do with the NRA? Certainly, everything in "The Big Disparity" should be removed as irrelevant to the article. As for the "Criticisms" section, there are several problems. First of all, your new additions still use POV language; for example, "which is not actually a "loophole" in any meaningful sense of the word: the law is enforced exactly the same at gun shows in all respects as it is everywhere else". The new section also sets up straw men (e.g., "many in the news media"--do you mean pundits? journalists?). "Criticism" needs to describe the viewpoints of legitimate critics, and the NRA's perspective on these criticisms; it does not need unsubstantiated phrases. Meelar (talk) 18:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't write some of those things but was reposting what had been posted when I first saw it. The disparity is about gun control and, seeing how the NRA is an anti-gun control organization, are extremely relevant. Some things still need to be cleaned up; however, the vast majority of the section is good. The section does not deserved to be outright deleted. --Nyr14 18:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. If you want the section in there, you must justify how that material relates to the NRA. The NRA article is not the place to include statistics about general gun control. Also, could you please not use bullet points? It's not Wikipedia style, and makes the article look inconsistent. Just paragraphs are fine. Meelar (talk) 18:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The NRA's legal wing has opposed various forms of gun control all over the United States. The discussion is about gun control.

The bullet points were how I saw it before you deleted it.

--Nyr14 18:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And no, I don't see that they're related. This is an article about the NRA as an organization, not about whether or not gun control is useful. Meelar (talk) 18:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't meant ad hominem but as a figure of speech. The NRA is an organization whose main purpose is preventing/repealing gun control legislation through lobbying and legal means. As such, the gun control section is relevant. --Nyr14 18:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

No, it doesn't relate to the organization itself. Look, it's obvious that this isn't helping. Why don't we propose some compromise wording we can both agree on? For example, the second bullet point in "Criticisms" would be pretty much acceptable; the third one, however, is essentially a less-neutral duplication of material from point 1. Point 4 is also a duplication. Can we agree on at least removing point 4, since it doesn't say anything not said in point 1? Meelar (talk) 18:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing point 4. --Nyr14 18:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that now. Now what about point 3? It seems to me that the material about the DC Sniper and the gunshow loophole (or "loophole") duplicates material found in point 1 about critics blaming the NRA's opposition to gun control for causing violent incidents. I think we should remove that one as well. Meelar (talk) 18:54, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The largest difference between the two is that point 3 offers an argument, in a biased way, against gun control. This revision seems neutral to me:

  • The NRA has also been criticized by gun control advocates for opposing strict gun control. Critics claimed that the DC Sniper purchased his Bushmaster Rifle through the same "gunshow-purchase-loophole" that the NRA fought so hard to keep alive when in actuality the rifle had been shoplifted. In September 2004, many in the news media were also upset with the NRA for opposing the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban.

--Nyr14 18:58, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I still don't think that seems neutral. Why point to that specific instance? It's several years old, and gun control groups were incorrect about it, so pointing to it specifically seems biased. I think it's fairer to use the general example that gun control groups tend to blame violent incidents in general on the NRA.
As for the sentence about the news media, I'm not sure exactly who you mean. In this case, more specificity might be called for. Meelar (talk) 19:04, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Its a recitation of well documented facts; it's neutral. If you can point to a specific example of the NRA of playing politics which has harmed people, I would have no objection to putting that in. It feels as if the DC Sniper had just happened the other day.

With regards to the Assault Weapons Ban, that should be a seperate item and say: "In September 2004, the NRA opposed the renewal of the Assault Weapons ban; a decision criticized by gun control groups and by the majority of the media. However, no one has died yet due to the expiration of the ban."

--Nyr14 19:14, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

They may be well-documented facts, but they're also non-neutral. If we only point out one case, and that case is one in which gun control groups were mistaken (and a case from almost 3 years ago, no less), than the article gives the impression of bias. I feel that it's more neutral to have the general case. I'm also still not sure what you mean by "the news media"--could you give names, and/or examples? Meelar (talk) 19:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just because the gun control lobby can't point out an example of when the NRA has been wrong doesn't mean we should exclude a fact about the gun control lobby being wrong. Just because you don't agree with the facts and can't find a counter-argument doesn't mean we should get rid of it.

In an article in the New York Times on July 24, 2004, on page A 9, titled "Clock Ticks on Extension of Gun Ban":

"Republican and Democratic gun-control advocates have been left badly frustrated. They maintain that Mr. Bush, Republican Congressional leaders and some Democrats have calculated that although the ban has broad popular appeal, it is safer to allow it to expire than to risk alienating conservative-minded gun owners and the National Rifle Association during an election year.

The critics say Mr. Bush is dancing a fine political line, voicing continued support for the ban to appease moderate and swing voters while pleasing his conservative constituency by declining to expend political capital to ensure that the law is extended."

In an editorial in the New York Times on September 11, 2004, on page A 14, titled "On Guard, America": "Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford pleaded with President Bush to do more than give passive lip support to the ban, just as most major law enforcement agencies told him the law was a vital check on gun mayhem across the nation. But rather than protecting the law, the administration invested its single-party control of government on behalf of the National Rifle Association, not the public. Instead of trying to control assault weapons, Republican Congressional leaders tried to outlaw legitimate damage suits by gun victims against irresponsible manufacturers and dealers."

This is by no means a complete list.

Sincerely, --Nyr14 19:35, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The point is not for each side to attempt to prove its case. Rather, the criticism section is supposed to neutrally present the outlines of each side's argument. With regards to your citations, only the editorial is relevant; to me, at least, the news article seems fairly unbiased. As for the editorial, the NY Times is not synonymous with "the news media"; for example, the Wall Street Journal almost certainly opposed the ban. This section is not a proxy battle over who's right or wrong; it's a neutral attempt to portray both sides of the issue. However, I'm not sure we'll make much progress on this issue. Could you submit a compromise version, preferably without the specific example of criticism in the Sniper case? Meelar (talk) 19:43, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The New York Times is commonly referred to as the "newspaper of record". The New York Times is often considered the best newspaper in the country. The first article was unbiased and the editorial was an editorial. There were many other articles criticizing the NRA on the Assault Weapons Ban. The Washington Post on September 14, 2004 on page A27 in an editorial called "Staring Down the Barrel of The NRA" wrote:

"Honest debate on gun policy is impossible because of the cynical absolutism of the current leadership of the National Rifle Association, the Republican Party's dependence on this interest group's muscle and the fear that the NRA inspires among some Democrats.

At a time when preventing terrorism is supposed to be a national priority, why can't our politicians agree to sustain a ban on a very narrow class of firearms? Does President Bush want to make it easier for Americans to use their tax cuts to buy Uzis and AK-47s? Is our national policy to do all we can to defeat the terrorists -- except for those measures that the NRA vetoes?"

In an article, called "Enthusiasts Eye Assault Rifles as Ban Nears End", on page A3 on September 8, the Washington Post writes:

"The National Rifle Association has responded by urging members to lobby against the extension of what the group refers to as 'the Clinton gun ban.' The measure was championed and signed into law by President Bill Clinton."

Similarly, the Los Angeles Times ran editorials titled "Blood on the NRA's Hands" and "Gun Profits for Votes: It's Enough to Make You Sick". The majority of media coverage that I heard, saw, and read was for the gun ban and against the Republicans and the NRA.

Can you specifically cite a Wall Street Journal editorial against the gun ban? (I searched past articles and found nothing).

I debate with facts while you debate under the pretense that I'm not being neutral.

--Nyr14 20:51, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Wall St. Journal, but here are some relevant articles from the Washington Times and NY Post:
  • "Kerry's Nuanced View on Gun Rights", Wash. Times, September 16, 2004
  • "Cheap Shots on Gun Ban", NY Post, September 18, 2004
At the moment, I'd like to set aside the media issue. Instead, can we focus on the first part of point 3, regarding the Beltway Sniper? I continue to maintain that it's not neutral to only include this example; by going back almost three years to a mistake by gun control groups, it gives the impression that we're cherry-picking arguments to make them look weak. Do you agree or disagree? Can we remove this specific example? Can you suggest alternate wording? Meelar (talk) 21:00, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

You accused me (or us) of "cherry-picking". Wikipedia defines that as, "Cherry picking, literally meaning harvesting cherries, is used metaphorically to accuse someone of pointing at individual cases which seem to confirm his or her position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict it." The problem I have is that there aren't related cases; I invite you to find an example of when the NRA has deceived the public. If you can find examples that contradict it, I would welcome them and agree to add them. This is an encyclopedia, we shouldn't with hold facts because we don't have other facts.

--Nyr14 21:45, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

What I meant by "cherry picking" was that you picked the one example in which gun control groups specifically got the facts wrong--ignoring, say, other instances when they attacked the NRA for causing gun violence but did not get the facts wrong (Columbine is the example that springs to mind). Meelar (talk) 22:02, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The Columbine Massacure was facilitated by the lack of gun rights. Schools are no-gun zones. Would you feel safe with a no-gun zone sign on your front lawn?

No one at Columbine was armed; except of course the two boys. Since they had a monopoly of firepower they could walk around killing whomever they wanted. Now, if the teachers and/or security guards had been allowed to be armed that probably would have been enough of a detterence to the two boys. Even if they still had tried it, it is doubtful as many people would have been killed and wounded.

This alternative is not completely hypothetical either. A few years ago at the Appalachian School of Law, a student came to school with a gun. He shot the dean, a professor, and another student. He was then subdued by three classmates that had run to their cars to get their own guns. A Columbine-like tragedy had been avoided.

Compare Columbine to the shooting at the Appalacian School of Law and the answer is obvious: we need more guns, not less.

--Nyr14 22:26, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

If you can find an article that shows the NRA supports the gun rights of criminals, I think we should add it in order not be biased.

--Nyr14 22:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The point of this talk page is not to debate the effectiveness of gun control; indeed, I believe that many gun laws today are unconstitutional! The point is to come up with a neutral article, which is why point 3 needs to be rephrased or removed. Please reply with a compromise proposal. Meelar (talk) 22:30, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can you suggest a neutral way to rephrase point 3. As I have said before, we can remove the drivel about loopholes as it is extraneous.

--Nyr14 22:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

OK. Sentence one in point 3 says the same thing as sentence one, point one; it should probably just be removed. Sentence two, point three is a specific example (one that I contend is cherry-picked); compare to sentence two of point one, which is a general statement of the substance of attacks on the NRA. Thus, I feel it should be removed. Sentence three, however, could be incorporated into point one; say that, for example, A variety of newspaper editorial boards, including the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times frequently disagree with the NRA's policies, such as in September of 2004, when they called for the extension of the assault weapons ban. Meelar (talk) 22:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

That makes sense to make sure the article is neutral. However, it was not only the editorial boards but rather attacks in the newspaper itself. And we should say that no one has been killed as a result of the expiration of the ban.

--Nyr14 22:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you that "the newspaper itself" attacked the NRA; in the articles you cited, the criticisms were always sourced, even if in general terms. As for the nobody being killed, I'd like to see a source and get more context before putting that in. I'll make the other changes now. Meelar (talk) 22:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to find an exact source for what I am claiming but if someone had died as a result of the expiration, it would have been all over the media.

--Nyr14 22:48, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

We should also add USA Today to the list of editorial boards and say among others. [1]

Sorry for all the different posts

--Nyr14 22:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you about somebody dying, but I'll add in USA Today. Best, Meelar (talk) 22:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can we add that the only government study done on the Assault Weapons Ban concluded that the ban’s "impact on gun violence has been uncertain." [2]

--Nyr14 23:06, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

There's probably a place for that, but not in this article; I'd recommend Federal assault weapons ban. Yours, Meelar (talk) 23:20, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Can we include a link to the Federal assault weapons ban?

--Nyr14 23:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

There's now a link in "Current Campaigns". Meelar (talk) 23:35, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Is the current content of "criticisms" acceptable to you? Best, Meelar (talk) 23:37, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

In the last part, could we say, "Gun rights advocates point out that if we were to follow that line of reasoning, freedom of the speech would not apply to the radio, television, or the internet; all things probably never envisioned by the writers of the First Amendment." ?

--Nyr14 23:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

No; note the use of "point out", which implies that they're correct. Also, we're supposed to describe the argument, not make it. Meelar (talk) 23:53, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Just change the "point out" part. The section talks about gun control groups and what they want and to be neutral should have a contrasting opinion from an anti-gun control group.

--Nyr14 00:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a version of this. Meelar (talk) 00:12, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The NRA has never actually said that they believe in expanding gun rights to cover automatic weapons. I think we should remove what you changed and I guess just consider the section done. I think we should add the part that no one has died as a result of the ban ending though.

--Nyr14 00:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it so as to (hopefully) make it acceptable to you. I agree, if you accept these changes, we should consider this section closed. I have concerns with "The Big Disparity", but I believe we should deal with those at a later date. Meelar (talk) 00:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it will get much more neutral than that.

Sure, send me a personal message or leave a comment here when you want to start working on it.

--Nyr14 00:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the last part actually; it makes the NRA seem like loose constructionalists when they are strict constructionalists.

--Nyr14 00:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you'll suggest a better wording for the last sentence of the section, then, because I'm not sure I'm able to. What would be a good one-sentence summary of the NRA's claims in this matter? Meelar (talk) 01:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Latest changes

I agree with your edits. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 23:16, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Which controversies belong here

Hi. As a resident of Washington, DC I am interested enough in that article to keep it on my watch list. I'm not gonna do that with this article; although I've made some NPOVing edits I don't think I'll be permanently involved here. Before I go, though, I just want to weigh in on the question of what belongs here.

Yes, the NRA is opposed to gun control, so the basic pro-and-con should be given. But lengthly debates on gun control itself belong more properly in the gun control article and don't need to be duplicated here. Rather, the 'controversy' section should focus on controversial aspects of the NRA itself — its public persona as protector of hunting and self-defense contrasted with its opposition to the ban on offensive assault weapons; its role in campaign finance; and so forth. These will tend, of course, to be "anti-NRA" controversies; although the article will of course contain the NRA's response to them, some might suggest that the controvery section overall has an anti-NRA POV. But that's just what naturally happens with any organization, right or left, new or old, mean or friendly — its article naturally attracts dissenting views. It's not personal; and it's not a good reason for bringing the gun-control-in-general debate over to this page. Doops 01:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Doops here--the article is about the NRA, not gun control in general. As such, I've removed the statistics section, which wasn't really about the NRA as such. Meelar (talk) 04:54, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)


Removed the link for "stop the NRA.com" The site is misleading and innacurate (in some cases relaying information that, simply, is facutally untrue).

I would recommend removing the link at the bottom of the page to the NRA of Great Britain. The UK counterpart to the US NRA is much less high-profile, has no connections with the US counterpart (as far as I can see from being a member of it), and does not operate as a political organisation or a champion of constitutional rights like the US NRA does. As a member of the UK NRA I feel no affiliation or connection to its US counterpart. If it is to stay, the caption should at least read 'NRA of Great Britain' instead of 'Official website (UK)' as the current version suggests they are part of the same organisation, but they are not and there is no mention of the UK NRA anywhere else in the article.

Any objections? Rmbyoung 14:27, May 26, 2005

NRA in the South

"The NRA actively opposed attempts by the Ku Klux Klan to disarm southern blacks. Many southern NRA chapters consisted entirely of freedmen."

I could not verify this piece of information in any way. There is nothing about it in the Brief History found on the official website:

"After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

"An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.

"Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA's matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey."

This seems to indicate that the NRA was mainly a New York thing for at least two decades. I found some info about black NRA chapters in the 1950s, but none during Reconstruction.

Maybe whoever originally wrote this sentence can shed some light on this.

Quabarl 01:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

other gun-rights activists

In the section about politics, there is a claim made that other groups have been more successful in recent years. It cited a Smith & Wesson boycott, and a Rose O'Donnell boycott even going so far as to claim the Rosie boycott ruined her.

Furthermore, upon researching it this boycott appeared to start in 1999 following an interview with Tom Selleck. While she did leave the show in 2002 and her magazine ran into problems in 2003 leading into a court battle... I can find no substance behind any claims that a supposed boycott was responsible. The statement is patently biased and I removed it. The S&W boycott on the other hand did occur, and was a bit more widespread. Although I still question if it had any real impact and as such justifies an implication that the NRA is not as powerful as it once was. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 209.180.28.6 (talk • contribs) 19:44, December 11, 2005

Current campaigns

The first long paragraph of "Current campaigns" was muddled; I've divided it in two and attempted to clean it up. I may of course have got something wrong in the process. —Tamfang 21:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Wackjobs

Is the term wackjobs POV? Rubedeau 07:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Eddie Eagle

I wish someone would say more explicitly what's so evil about Eddie Eagle. It's a mystery to me how "keep away from guns" is an induction into gun culture, unless gun culture consists of everyone who doesn't react to guns with blind panic. —Tamfang 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it. Reacting normally to something makes that thing appear normal. The Eddie Eagle program fails to tell children that guns themselves are bad things; or that only the government should have guns. Moreover, it lets the NRA take credit for saving the lives of children.
I'll see if I can google up something specific, written from the pro-gun control point of view. --Wing Nut 17:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That wasn't so hard. Eddie Eagle had a link to this:
  • The primary goal of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth. [3]

It's a pice of fluff from the Violence Policy Center, an avowed gun-banning organization. Not the most even handed organization when it comes to this subject. --User:davidw 14:21, 20 September 2006(EST)

Possible copyvio

Although I doubt the NRA would object to exposure on wikipedia, the history section is a copy of http://nra.org/aboutus.aspx. --Nnp 16:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I deleted a ton of text, after comparing it paragraph by paragraph to the NRA web site. --Wing Nut 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Good job, sad for the article though. Maybe we should email the NRA and ask for the text under the GFDL? :) (it's certainly in their interest to have it here) --Nnp 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Definite Plagiarism

This article should be written using material from a variety of sources. Wholesale paragraphs should not be taken word for word and without attribution and quotation marks. Even paraphrasing can be a form of plagiarism if credit for ideas is not given to their original authors.

What is more, the source of NRA history is very important since bias plays a big role. Even so biased sources can be important. For instance, The Cincinatti Revolt is a critical event in making the NRA into a powerful political lobbying force and yet the NRA is publically silent on the matter. But simply incorporating Sugerman's text on the matter would not only be plagiarism and thus unfair to him but terribly biased against the NRA since Sugerman is negative in his portrayal of the organization and important figures such as Harlon B. Carter.

You use both sides to construct a NPOV article but you should write your own article or contribution to an article and not simply parrot your sources who have very different agendas than truly informing your readers In using sources you try to correct for bias and give the reader accurate information. Sometimes NPOV has to take a back seat to accuracy in the sense that you don't give both sides equal time you don't give the arguments of David Irving and other Holocaust denialists equal weight to those of reputable historians in discussions of World War II.

But telling the truth while being NPOV is different since while I believe in the existence of absolute truth I must acknowledge that the truth each of us actually transmits to others is highly subjective no matter how hard we try to avoid it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carambola (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 July 2006

International Small Arms Treaty

There hasn't been much mention of it on the mainstream media (at least in the U.S.) but relatively recently there have been talks about a possible international small arms treaty to limit sales from the gun industry in developed countries to militias in underdeveloped countries. Amnesty International has sinced launched a international campaign in favor of the treaty. From my understanding the NRA has objected to the treaty under the basis that it would "violate the right to arms". Perhaps there should be some mention of this in the article. [4]--Jersey Devil 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Might be too much of a current event. If you want to write something up, feel free. But it shouldn't surprise that you haven't heard from the supposed MSM. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 02:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

NRA Museum/Headquarters

I went to the National Firearm Museum at the NRA headquarters in Farifax, and I think I'm going to add a bit about the museum. Nuclearmound 20:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Nuclearmound

OK. It's a cool place. They do have rotating displays - when I was there they had famous Hollywood Tommy Guns. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib Reverts 03:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Cites needed in the Criticisms section

The material is likely accurate but needs cites. Thanks.--Scribner 08:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael Moore

What about Michael Moore's criticism? Is someone able to add some sentences (as I am a native German). He did some statements in his movie Bowling for Columbine. It would be possible to transcribe the original cites from this movie. --D135-1r43 16:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The League Of Women Voters?

How is the LWV a "gun interest group?"
I'm not implying that its membership isn't in favor in gun control-they probably are-but are they actually defined by that particular political stance?

Ruthfulbarbarity 21:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a question of dialect

How is forestall a "weasel word"?? —Tamfang 02:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I read it as forestalling the inevitable. That's prolly not what you meant, it's no big deal. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Early presidents

Someone has been misled. New International Encyclopedia states that William Conant Church was the first president of the group, and that Gen. George Wood Wingate was its first secretary and later president for 25 years. I am leery of the claims that Generals Burnside and Grant were presidents of the NRA. Those claims stand in direct apposition to the statements in the New International Encyclopedia. Velocicaptor 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

NRA's website says they founded it together, with the first president being Ambrose Burnside. I don't know why they would lie about it - neither Church nor Wingate seem to be embarrassing or something...? Could New International Encyclopedia simply be wrong? — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, this article was in their magazine a while back. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 19:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Apposition? Right beside them? —Tamfang 05:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
What does the Encyclopedia Brittanica say? It is often cited as the holy grail of sources in Wikipedia. Please check the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. I doubt that former President Grant would trifle with the NRA. Caveat emptor. GhostofSuperslum 06:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I misspelled the word "soldiers" in the next paragraph.GhostofSuperslum 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The solders may have been associated with a unit within the Army. The War Department had within it a unit called "The National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice"; but that was not the National Rifle Association, which was a civilian organization. The Army published Small Arms Firing Manual United States Army (Washington, 1913) and Field Firing and the Proficiency Test, United States Army (Washington, 1911).[5] GhostofSuperslum 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(Seek General Grant's biography, please, written by an NRA founder). New International Encyclopedia says: There is a short and excellent biography by Col. W. C. Church (New York, 1897).[6] GhostofSuperslum 13:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

General Burnside (briefly)

On April 15, 1865, Burnside resigned from the service and subsequently was prominent as a projector and manager of railroads. He was Governor of Rhode Island from 1866 to 1869, and from 1875 until his death was a member of the United States Senate. In 1870 he visited Europe, and during the siege of Paris acted as a medium of communication between the French and the Germans. As a soldier he rendered valuable services in the capacity of corps commander, but proved unable to cope with the problems and difficulties which fall to the lot of a commanding general.[7]

General Burnside had manufactured firearms in the 1850s. He invented the Burnside breech-loading rifle in 1856. Since he was in Europe communicating with the French and the Germans when the NRA was in its infancy, I am skeptical of the statement that calls him the first president of the NRA. "Don't start me to lying." GhostofSuperslum 14:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the NRA website's history, Burnside was the first president of the NRA. "Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president." see http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp While it might be logistically challenging, I don't see that his travels in Europe would preclude him from being NRA president. Some sources suggest he was in Europe for parts of 1870 and 1871 without specific months attached - http://www.nndb.com/people/587/000028503/. Absent any actual contrary evidence, it may be best to take the NRA's history as canonical for this statement. Arthurrh 19:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My contrary evidence is the words in the New International Encyclopedia. All together, the books weigh about 20 pounds, so there is information on many subjects. Perhaps the NRA website is mistaken. Where did they obtain their information?GhostofSuperslum 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your evidence doesn't in fact contradict the NRA claim. I'm not sure where the NRA got their history, but since it's their organization we need to give them some kind of presumption of accuracy on their own history. The fact that Burnside was in Europe for part of that time in no way precludes him from being NRA president. Every source I could find that discussed timing on his trip indicated he returned to the US in 1871. The NRA was formally chartered in Nov 1871 and that is when they claim that he became their president, so I see no reason to question their assertion. Arthurrh 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) m

Dodd, Mead and Company was located in New York City. The NRA was founded at New York City. I trust the publishers of the encyclopedia. I don't believe that they printed an error. The two founders of the NRA were residents of the State. New International Encyclopedia never suggests that General Burnside had a connection to the beginning of the NRA. Here is a quotation: "Largely through the efforts of this association New York State, New York City, and Brooklyn gave $25,000 in 1872 for the establishment of the famous rifle range at Creedmore, Long Island, which was used for military matches continuously thereafter until 1909. Here was held in 1874 the first international rifle match in the United States, the contestants being a team of five men from the Amateur Rifle Club, representing the National Rifle Association, and a team of the same number of Irish rifle experts, representing the British National Rifle Association. This remarkable contest was won by the American team by a score of 934 to 931."
The publishers made definite statements. They knew of the founders. They were very aware of the occurrences on Long Island. Perhaps General Burnside was associated with the Amateur Rifle Club or a similar group. Purely military rifle matches were held at Creedmore. The NRA was a civilian group. General Burnside and President Grant were military men. GhostofSuperslum 00:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
BIG FAT LIE. Wikipedia is supposed to be intolerant of lies. One rotten apple will spoil the whole barrel of apples. Wikipedia contains thousands of misstatements which are claimed to be true. Those lies cast doubts on everything in Wikipedia, because people cannot rely on the veracity of Wikipedia. If the NRA website contains a BIG FAT LIE, that is okay by me. (There are plenty of liars on the Internet). I do not want to see a BIG FAT LIE which has been removed from a website and then set into Wikipedia. My motto is "Don't start me to lying, too." GhostofSuperslum 08:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You are clearly upset about the BIG FAT LIE. Here are some citations,

The initial movement for the organization of a National Rifle Association dates from November 24th, 1871, when a Board of Directors were elected with the following officers: President, A. E. Burnside; Vice-President, Col. Wm. C. Church; Secretary, F.M. Peck; Treasurer, J.B. Woodward. This same organization held office until July 22d, 1872, when General Burnside having resigned, Colonel Church was elected presient, with General Alex Shaler as vice-president.

— Creedmoor Prize Contest. Forest and Stream; A Journal of Outdoor Life, Travel, Nature Study, Shooting,...Oct 16, 1873; Volume I,, Number 10.; pg. 145

The first President of the "National Rifle Association," as it was called, was General Amborse E. Burnside, who made a very good figure-head, but under whose leadership nothing was accomplished.

— The Story of Creedmor. Frederick Whittaker. The Galaxy. A Magazine of Entertaining Reading (1866-1878); Aug 1876; VOL. XXII., No. 2.; pg. 258

GENERAL BURNSIDE - The death of General Ambrose E. Burnside on Tuesday morning last at his residence in Bristol, R.I., recalls the fact that he was the first President of the National Rifle Association. He held the post but a short time, other duties so engrossing his attention that he could not devote the care to the subject of rifle shooting which he considered should be paid to it.

— Article 2 — Forest and Stream; A Journal of Outdoor Life, Travel, Nature Study, Shooting,...Sep 15, 1881; Vol. 17, No. 7.; pg. 123

The National Rifle Association has nearly completed its organization. The papers for the incorporation of the society have been completed and sent to Albany. The following is a list of the Directors of the Association as incorporated: Ambrose E. Burnside, George W. Wingate, William C. Church, Alexander Shaler, John B. Woodward, Joshua M. Varian, Frederick A. Mason, George Moore Smith, Henry G. Shaw, Augustus Funk, Alfred W. Craven, A.W. Dimock, Frederick M. Peck, William J. Harding, and John Powell, Jr.

— Local News in Brief. New York Times; Nov 17, 1871; The New York Times; pg. 8
Does that settle the BIG FAT LIE and end your reliance on 20 pound books? Rkevins82 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well... um... err... ah.... (as "Ron" Reagan might have said), ...uh... I ...um...hah...now have another entry for an article that I started just today ... Wikipedia:Errors in the New International Encyclopedia that have been corrected in Wikipedia will save me. I now feel that New International Encyclopedia pulled the wool over my eyes. Now I can sleep at night. GhostofSuperslum 17:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You see, the thing I don't get is that what you put from your encyclopedia still doesn't seem to contradict the NRA claim in the first place. An absence of mentioning Burnside as president doesn't stand as proof that he wasn't. I'm not sure why you were so insistent that the NRA was lying about their own history. Oh well, at least it's been straightened out.

Arthurrh 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The word FIRST was applied to each man

New International Encyclopedia passages

  • This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Win'gate, George Wood (1840- ). An American lawyer and organizer of rifle practice. He was born in New York City. During the Civil War he served in a New York regiment, and subsequently he supervised the construction of elevated railways in Brooklyn. In 1867 Wingate drew up rules for systematic rifle practice by Company A, 22d regiment, New York National Guard, of which he was then captain. The publication of these rules (the first of the kind to be formulated in the United States) led to the organization (in 1871) of the National Rifle Association of America, of which he was first secretary and later president for 25 years. Besides special articles on military subjects he published: Manual for Rifle Practice (1872; 7th ed. 1880); The Great Cholera Riots (1880); Through the Yellowstone Park on Horseback (1886); History of the 22d Regiment, N.G.N.Y. (1896). See Target and Target Practice, Civilian Rifle Practice. GhostofSuperslum 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Gilman, D. C.; Peck, H. T.; Colby, F. M., eds. (1905). New International Encyclopedia (1st ed.). New York: Dodd, Mead. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  • Church, William Conant (1836-1917). An American editor, born at Rochester, N. Y. He was educated in the Boston Latin School. While still a youth he engaged with his father in editing and publishing the New York Chronicle. In 1860 he became publisher of the New York Sun and in 1861-62 was Washington correspondent of the New York Times. He resigned this position on his appointment as captain in the United States Volunteers in 1862. He served for one year, receiving brevets of major and lieutenant colonel. In 1863, with his brother, he established the Army and Navy Journal and in 1866 founded the Galaxy Magazine. He was government commissioner to inspect the Northern Pacific Railroad in 1882. With George W. Wingate he established the National Rifle Association and was its first president; he was one of the founders of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, an original member of the Military Order of the Loyal Legion, and became a life member and director of the New York Zoölogical Society. GhostofSuperslum 12:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Changed title in criticisms section

I changed the title of the first group in the criticisms section from:

From the Gun-prohibition Camp

to

From those opposed to the NRA

Most of the groups listed do not want to 'prohibit' guns. Title was inaccurate, misleading, and POV. NBGPWS 03:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

But some in the pro-gun camp are also opposed to the NRA. You could have changed prohibition to restriction. —Tamfang 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Board of directors

I noticed Larry Craig claimed he was a Director of the NRA and wanted to find a source for that and whether he aws active or not : I discover here there are apparently 75 directors? I searched their website for a list but got nothing: should we have a list and can we source one? Morwen - Talk 21:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

terrorists

why is the NRA not listed as a terrorist organization? I know its bias, but not nearly as bias as the pro-gun, pro-killing, pro-culture of death bs in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.136.197 (talk • contribs)

Because they don't terrorize anyone, they allow citizens to fight against it. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 21:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
What terrorism have NRA members fought? No doubt quite a few of them have murdered kids, but I guess that's not what you mean. 82.18.125.110 03:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
What are some examples of passages in the article that advocate killing or a "culture of death" whatever that is? —Tamfang 10:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removal

I removed the following:

even though statistics have proven otherwise. When the UK established gun control in 1997, homicides went up 60%[8], and the UK now has more crime per capita than the US. Many other countries who established gun control followed in the UK's footsteps[9]. The states with the most gun control are notorious for crime[10], and wherever a shall-issue concealed carry bill gets passed, crime drops[11]. Switzerland has very little crime, yet every adult male is required to own a gun, and assault weapons are readily available.[citation needed]

It's fairly well cited but needs to be moved. It was in the criticism section under From gun control advocates. The section is a rebuttal, which should be placed elsewhere. The section needs to be about what gun control advocates say/do, not what gun rights people respond with. It would be even better under criticism in a gun-control page. Dark jedi requiem 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Being Swiss I can assure you that the above is true. There are many guns here in Switzerland and much less crime then in all those places that ban them. Gun Control is a failure... the more you control it, the more the mob does the business and the wrong people get the guns. MESWISS
I'm pro-gun but I reckon such material belongs elsewhere, such as in gun control. —Tamfang 18:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Board of Directors

OK, this was archived, but wanted to reply anyway. Regarding the Board of Directors, my ballot came in yesterday. Feel free to work this into the article any way you want. It is the Feb 2007 issue of America's 1st Freedom. "The Board consists of 76 Directors. The Bylaws require that one-third of the terms of office of 75 expire at each Annual Meeting of Members. One Director will be elected for a one-year term at each Annual Meeting of Members." This 2007 election fills 25 3-year terms (expire 2010) and the 1 1-year.

If you want more specifics on any of these 36 people (30 by the Nominating Committee, 7 by write in but one dupe), lemme know I will try to help. I wikilinked any name I thought would link. Alphabetically listed (randomized on the ballot by Bylaws). Even tho normal wiki-etiquette forbids it, anybody can feel free to edit this post if they know it is the right person. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The Hon. Joe M. Allbaugh, Oak Hill, TX
  • Frank E. Bachhuber Jr, J.D. Wausau, WI
  • Mrs. M. Carol Bambery, Rockville, MD
  • The Hon. Bob Barr, Smyrna, GA
  • State Rep Clel Baudler, Greenfield, IA
  • The Hon. Bill K. Brewster, Marietta, OK
  • Mr. David Butz, Belleville, IL
  • Mr. Alberto (Al) R. Cardenas, Miami, FL
  • The Hon. Larry E. Craig, Payette, ID
  • Capt. James W. Dark, Arlington, TX
  • Mr. Fred Edgecomb, Clinton, NC
  • Mr. Ken Elliott, Northridge, CA
  • Mr. Charles E. Fox, Troy, PA
  • Ms. Sandra S. Froman, Tucson, AZ
  • Mrs. Marion P. Hammer, Tallahassee, FL
  • Ms. Susan Howard, Borne, TX
  • Sgt. H. Joaquin Jackson, Texas Ranger (Ret.), Alpine, TX
  • The Hon. Curtis S. Jenkin, Forsyth, GA
  • Special Agent David C. Jones (Ret.), Ellisville, MI
  • Mrs. Sue King, Houston, TX
  • Mr. Tom King, East Greenbrush, NY
  • Mr. Karl A. Malone, Farmerville, LA
  • Cleta Mitchell, Esq., Washington, DC
  • Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, USMC (Ret.), Bluemont, VA
  • Sen. Johnny Nugent, Lawrenceberg, IN
  • Mr. Ted Nugent, Waco, TX
  • Det. Lance Olson, Marengo, IA
  • Timothy W. Pawol, Esq., Pittsburgh, PA
  • James W. Porter II, J.D. Birmingham, AL
  • Mr. Steven C. Schreiner, Englewood, CO
  • Mr. Jim Supica, Lenexa, KS
  • Deputy Dwight Van Horn (Ret.), Hayden, ID
  • Mr. Rober L. Viden, JR., Glassboro, NJ
  • The Hon. Harold L. Volkmer, Hannibal, MI
  • Mr. Rober K. Wos, North Royalton, OH
  • The Hon. Donald E. Young, Ft. Yukon, AK


Heston caption

I changed the caption to what he actually said. 75.13.228.81 20:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The NRA and the KKK

What does the NRA have to do with the KKK. Get your facts straight before posting such nonscence!!! AR-15(6.8 SPC) Proud supporter of the NRA! (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ku Klux Klan were criminalised and deemed a terrorist organisation by the Civil Rights Act of 1871. Coincidentally, the National Rifle Association was founded in the same year. I think this should be mentioned - 82.16.7.63 22:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is based on a ridiculous claim that Michael Moore makes in Bowling for Colombine where he implies that the NRA was founded by the KKK members. Mind you he doesn't come out and say it, because of course there is no evidence. Simply listing things that happened in 1871 isn't appropriate for this page, it belongs on the 1871 artible. A simple history of both organizations shows the lack of connection between the groups. Arthurrh 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
He is correct, the NRA was created in the aftermath of the Judicial ruling that the KKK was an illegal domestic terrorist organization. The NRA was formed out of the same men who were KKK members, the same Christianic churches, the same businesses and assets. It was amusingly not a secret at the time however of course the NRA today deny their own origins. It's one of the reasons I suspect why NRA leaders laugh every time a brown man sends in money and becomes a member.
Also the NRA/KKK made sure that black people did not have the right to possess firearms -- which is not surprising since blacks didn't have the vote and were not allowed to own Real Estate among other things. There were a handful of exceptions nationally however civil rights only actually were instated in the mid 1960s, prior to then the NRA/KKK were largely successful at suppressing firearm ownership among Negroes.
It's not a conspiracy, it's not a personal attack against anyone, it's merely the facts. The NRA is the KKK under a new name. Denial is rather silly, on the order of Creationism or Hollocaust denial. In this respects it would be good if the Wikipedia entry covered the cult-like hallmarks of the NRA. Despite being "non traditional," the NRA is arguably a cult. Damotclese (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • You have no actual evidence of this claim, only coincidence of dates and a lot of supposition. The relationship mentioned below about baseball is about as logical. MLB was founded " in the aftermath" and it excluded black players for decades. I have no doubt that there were MLB players that had been Klan members. So it must be related to the Klan too. Your chat about the NRA being a cult or that denying your conspiracy theory is on the scale of holocaust denial is pure hyperbole.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
  • There is more evidence for the reverse of that argument. Gun control, itself, was started to diarm minorities and racist backward-looking libtards still cling to it. You cannot reason with a troll, if you ignore them they usually go away.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Why, exactly? It's pretty well known that the KKK was interested in disarming blacks, and supported gun control laws which would have a disparate impact on blacks, but I don't know that the NRA was lobbying against gun control back in 1870 - it started as a shooting club kind of operation. User:Argyriou (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Read the histories. First off, as you've pointed out why would a group supporting gun control form a group interested in training people to use guns. Secondly, the individuals who created the KKK were veterans from the Confederate Army. The individuals who founded the NRA were veterans from the Union Army.

Things founded in 1871 (perhaps they're all associated with the KKK) ;-)

  • Rossville, KS
  • Fargo, ND

Perhaps KKK members were fleeing to less settled areas.

  • Union Bank & Trust
  • United States Mortgage & Trust

Maybe the KKK guys all went and started banks!

Several colleges were founded that year as well, how nefarious! This was just a few minutes work. Let's not bother with it anymore. Arthurrh

  • Hey! Don't forget Baseball! The first Major League Baseball game was played exactly 2 weeks after the Ku Klux Klan Act was passed. Those rascally KKK-ers took time out from their busy schedule of racism, founding towns, banks, and sportsmans groups to give us America's pastime! Those guys sure were busy. Surely the KKK-NRA-MLB connection needs to be mentioned?--SpudHawg948 (talk) 12:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's debunk the OP's ridiculous assertion completely. The KKK was founded in 1866, not 1871. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Niteshift I think you have that back to front, it was the NRA that was founded in 1871, the same year the KKK was criminalised. I think this was OP#'s point. By the way it's not a ridiculous assertion nor was it started by Michael Moore, the coincidence has long been commented on, in fact almost certainly since 1871.--81.151.61.49 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Make all the of the wall comparisons you like to try to obscure the issue, but you cannot hide from the facts. The NRA was formed and headed by several card carrying members of the kkk, and lobbied successfully for congress to pass the law forbidding African Americans to own a firearm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.103.214 (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If this was part of the article, I would certainly request a reference citation. Is this an urban myth, or can someone name these card-carrying KKK members who formed and headed the NRA? Thewellman (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The NRA has a rebuttal. Snopes doesn't cover it. About all you can say about it is that Bowling for Columbine tried to make a link between the year the KKK was outlawed and the year the NRA was formed. Jclemens (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The posting by IP 68.163.103.214 above is the only posting credited to IP 68.163.103.214; NRA was founded in New York by Union veterans and there was no federal law forbidding freedmen from owning guns. The facts are the movie makes a link between KKK and NRA, people (IP 68.163.103.214 for one) believe that link, and it is a bogus link. Those facts should not be in the entry on the movie? Naaman Brown (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the movie literally says there is not a link. It does use a sarcastic tone of voice, but the literal words spoken are that there is not a link. That said, there were a large number of rifle clubs during the Reconstruction, and some were Ku Klux. It is far fetched to say that the NRA, a Union rifle club, might have had any affinity with the Ku Klux rifle clubs. It is much more likely that the Union NRA rifle club felt animosity towards the Confederate rifle clubs. This article could probably benefit from some discussion of the origin of the Nineteenth Century NRA rifle club in context of the rifle, saber and parade club tradition at that time if for no other reason than to make clear that the NRA did not have association with the Ku Klux rifle clubs. SaltyBoatr get wet 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

NRA Rating

I've seen this when dealing with a politician's opinion about gun control. What is it? Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of lobbying groups have ratings for elected officials. For instance, the NRA ranks people based upon their voting records (in congress for example), and how it corresponds to what the NRA believes. The NRA uses an A-F rating "A" being most compatible to what the NRA believes.Dahar81 (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Criticism in the wake of Columbine

Someone who knows more about it should write about the criticism they received when a few weeks after Columbine, they insisted on having their annual meeting near Littleton. From what I remember it was quite controversial--I believe Moore addressed it in Bowling for Columbine--and I know it shaped a certain amount of public opinion about the organization both in 1999 and when the movie came out. However I've also recently read that actually the group *did* cancel or postpone many meetings in response to the outcry; however, I can't find anything about it on either this page or the Heston page. In light of Heston's recent death (and his "appearance" as the front man for the NRA in the documentary), perhaps it should be detailed exactly what happened. 68.161.99.78 (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Within the Criticism section, such as it is, should we include the fact that the NRA steadfastly opposed the SCOTUS case DC v. Heller until rather late in the game? It's not that I am anti-gun rights, quite the contrary, but as a demonstrable fact I think it's important that people know that the NRA is not necessarily the best friend that a gun owner could have, an image that they have cultivated for the last 20 years or so. 68.44.168.52 (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It bears repeating: the NRA scheduled its annual meeting in Colorado long before the Columbine shooting. Law required that the NRA hold its business meeting at the advertised time and place. The NRA canceled a number of non-business events that were planned, but cancelling the business meeting was not a possibility. The impression created by Moore that the NRA went to Colorado because of Columbine is as false as the attempt to connect the year of the founding of the NRA to the year the KKK was declared illegal. Naaman Brown (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of / from the American Hunters and Shooters Association

The AHSA has a section dedicated to criticism from the NRA, but this page has no mention of criticism from the AHSA. In order to be fair, there should be some mention of the AHSA's critiquing of NRA policy / agenda.--E8 (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

      • Well the AHSA is obviously an anti-gun front group. It's main funders are from anti-gun organizations like the VPC and HCI. Everyone in their upper echelon of management has ties to anti-gun groups and they consistently endorse politicians that have a track record of voting anti-gun.

        I personally see the AHSA as another attempt by the liberal media to equate the 2nd amendment with hunting. Although there is no mention or reference to hunting in the 2nd amendment, hunting is used as a scapegoat to attempt to ban certain types of weapons based on their "sporting purpose" rather than the self-defense potential that the 2nd amendment was drafted to support.

  • I don't see it as an issue of fairness. Just because the editors in that article felt it was relevent and encyclopedic for that article doesn't mean there needs to be mention of it here for this article to be fair. Each article should have inclusions based on it's own discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • "Each article should have inclusions based on it's own discussion." This is why I broached the subject. Some inclusion is necessary as the AHSA perspective is very different, but no less valid.--E8 (talk) 16:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Let me ask this: Why is the AHSA criticism important? Considering the laundry list of groups that criticize the NRA and aren't included, what makes AHSA stand out as more relevent than others? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, good point. Listing out all objections would be difficult. I'm under the impression the NRA is a right-centrist group, so I expect to see a roughly equal (if not, more) number of objections from liberals (there are many from more conservative voices/groups in the criticism section). Though the AHSA appears to be more liberal and provides some criticisms not listed here, they seem inappropriate unless the group becomes more relevant.--E8 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Warning: This is my personal opinion. The AHSA is really a front group. Their title suggests they support gun ownership but many of their leadership are formerly (and not so formerly) leaders in big gun control groups. Founder Ray Schoenke contributes heavily to Handgun Control Inc. Founding member Jon Rosenthal also founded Stop Handgun Violence. Board member Joseph J. Vince, Jr is a frequent contractor for Handgun Control, Inc. So, where does that leave us? You have people tied to the bigger gun control groups, running this outfit. So if we are listing criticism from HCI/Brady Campaign, we essentially are listing the criticism from AHSA because of the co-mingling of the groups and it would be somewhat redundant. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Given that the AHSA didn't even have a transparent membership application a month ago, I'm not inclined to disagree with your opinion. The one criticism they make, which I consider valid, is the NRA's support of politicians with poor environmental / wilderness preservation voting records; it would be good to see the NRA factor this concern into their endorsements (better to see politicians that support both).--E8 (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That is a valid point, but I see the NRA becoming more focused on the actual legal issues and I approve of it. There are plenty of organizations that make wilderness preservation their focus, while the NRA is one of, if not the, pre-eminent force for the preservation of the Second Amendment. I'd prefer they stay focused on that instead of trying to be all things to all people. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I suggest NPOV requires keeping this article focused on what NRA has been and is, rather than what it should or might be. It is challenging to find neutral references for many of NRA's actions. NRA's political endorsements have deviated from a pure firearms ownership and use basis. For example, where both major party candidates have anti-gun positions, NRA has declined to endorse third party candidates (including Libertarians) with pro-gun ownership positions. This suggests NRA reluctance to fragment one or both of the major parties. It is easy to conclude which one of the parties is favored by this practice, but it might be difficult to find a NPOV reference. Thewellman (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, the NRA doesn't have a history of endorsing 3rd party candidates, but it doesn't go against them either. If there are say, 14 candidates for President, they can really endorse only one, right? The NRA is a strong organization, but they can't lift a party up by themselves. In my state, Libertarians got 3/10ths of a percent of the vote this week. That's just not a good investment for them to make. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I've added the NPOV tag because, as discussed above, the Criticism section merely states that pro-gun control groups "criticize" the NRA without any mention of what this criticism consists of. The absurd shortness of this section is evidenced by the fact that the section detailing criticism from other gun rights groups is FOUR TIMES AS LONG as criticism from gun control groups (gun control groups criticize the NRA far more than other gun rights groups). Idag (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course anti-gun groups are going to criticize a pro-gun organization. Having a "criticism from anti-gun groups" section on this page is like having a "criticism from vegetarian groups" on a wikipedia article from the american cattleman's association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Just because there will "of course" be criticism of a pro-gun organization does not mean that this criticism should not be included. See WP:NPOV. Idag (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The neutrality of this article isn't compromised just because a totally different article has more criticism. This article has a reasonable sampling of criticism. There is no brightline rule about how much criticism an article must have. And I don't find the reasoning that some other article has more to be a compelling reason to question the neutrality of this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What other article are you talking about? My comment was on the fact that the criticism sectin in THIS ARTICLE is unbalanced per WP:Undue Weight because there is a detailed summary of criticism from other gun rights groups while the gun control criticism section merely states that "The NRA is criticized by gun control groups." There is absolutely no elaboration on this point and a generic uninformative statement like that certainly does not qualify as a "reasonable sampling of criticism." Idag (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    • There was another article that another editor was comparing this one with. I confused you and him. WP:Undue doesn't apply here. There is no undue weight being given to anything. There may not be more of one type than another, but that isn't what wp:undue is talking about. Personally, I thing, as the other editor stated, it's a given that gun control groups will be critical of the NRA. They want the opposite thing. It's pretty obvious. What seems much more educational, informative and encylopedic is including the criticism by groups on the same side of the issue, rather than stating the obvious. BTW, I looked at the articles for the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. None of them include any criticism by the NRA, one includes no criticism and 2 are simply 1 paragraph, generic criticisms. It looks to me like this article contains more criticism than similar ones and presents the less obvious. With that said, I feel your NPOV tag should be removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:Undue Weight (emphasis added)
"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
Its fairly safe to say that criticism of the NRA by gun control groups is far more numerous than criticism by other gun rights groups. Yet the passage summarizing the criticism by gun rights groups is four times as long as the passage summarizing the criticism by gun control groups, even though the latter criticism is far more prevalent and more prominent. In fact the gun control groups passage merely states that these groups "criticize" the NRA with no elaboration on what this criticism consists of. The criticism by the gun control groups may be "obvious", but it is still far more prevalent than other types of criticism, and WP:Undue requires that we give it the requisite elaboration. Other articles may skimp on criticism by the NRA, and they may need to be fixed if the NRA criticism is prevalent enough, but that is irrelevant for purposes of this article, which clearly violates WP:Undue Weight. For that reason, I oppose removing the tag until the criticism section is fixed. Idag (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I've read wp:undue before, thanks. I don't think stating the obvious is required. Maybe I give readers more credit than I should, but I think that most people, without being told, could figure out that groups who want to ban firearms are critical of the NRA. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
That's the entire point, ALL this article says is that these groups are critical of the NRA. It says NOTHING about what the criticism actually consists of. That's like saying "Bill Clinton was criticized for the Lewinsky scandal." Sure, anyone who knows about these events will know what the criticism consists of, but the article wouldn't be very informative if that's all it said about that criticism. The reason most folks come to this article is to learn more about this topic, and pertinent information should not be withheld because it is "obvious" to you. You also haven't addressed my point about the need, under WP:Undue, to expand the criticism subsection to reflect its prevalence. Your argument that its "obvious" does not make that criticism any less prevalent and does not alter the requirements of WP:Undue. Idag (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Since the amount of criticism by anti-gun groups wasn't complete enough to satisfy you, I removed it for you. Now we don't need to worry about how incomplete the section is. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As pointed out in my edit, removing insufficient prevalent criticism is not the way to address the POV problem, it only exacerbates it. The POV issue can only be resolved by developing the criticism to reflect its prevalence. Idag (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Then what the world do you want? If you want to drum up some quotes from anti-gun organizations that state the obvious, then DO IT and quit just complaining about it. Sheesh. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not, I put up a POV tag until I (or someone else) have time to fix this article, which is the purpose of the POV tag (some of us do have lives outside Wikipedia). I would also remind you about WP:Civil. Idag (talk) 05:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Putting the tag and all this writing you've done explaining why you think it isn't neutral IS complaining. All you've done is offer the complaint and no solution. What is your solution? Since I have a life outside of Wikipedia too, I'm not going to take my time to satisfy your complaint. And there was nothing uncivil in my response, so move along there. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have stated repeatedly that the actual criticism of the gun control groups needs to be added in. So instead of saying "NRA is criticized by the following groups", the article should say "Group X said Y about the NRA". Idag (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And I will repeat.... don't just complain about it. Fix it if it troubles you. If this is such an issue to you, correct it instead of sitting back and expecting others to do something about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Next time, check the main article before you say something stupid on the talk page. Re your previous post: "All you've done is offer the complaint and no solution. What is your solution?" I have offered the solution. As I stated earlier, I don't have all day to work on this, so I will add content as I get free time. The tag and corresponding explanation are for other editors who may wish to improve this aticle in their spare time. Any other painfully obvious points of business you'd like me to point out? Idag (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I did check it and your solution isn't much different than what was originally there. And if you think it takes "all day" to find documented criticism from anti-gun groups, feel free to email me and I'll give you some pointers on how to conduct your research better because it's not exactly hidden stuff. For someone who was just whining about wp:civil, I find it odd that you'd choose to call my response "something stupid". That's not too civil, now is it? And it's interesting that you complain about the "painfully obvious", when that is the source of your gripe....... you are complaining that there isn't enough painfully obvious criticism from anti-gun group. I would like to know, however, how you find including quotes from POV sources, like those groups, to be NPOV? They aren't neutral and including their press releases from thier own websites isn't neutral. Can't you find criticism from neutral sources, like newspapers and magazines? Because these websites will be disputed as sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
First, sorry about the "stupid" comment, I got frustrated and that was uncalled for. My solution is very different from what was there, as the relevant section now actually contains criticism instead of a vague assertion that criticism exists. It doesn't take all day to find criticism, but it does take some time to find decent non-random-liberal-rant criticism. Per your above comment the criticism that I've selected, apart from the token Brady campaign rant that I felt was representative of the group, is non-obvious and was made by well-regarded scholars.
With regard to neutral sources, the section is titled "Criticism from Gun Control Advocates". Obviously those advocates' websites are going to contain summaries of their criticisms. The section does not portray these sources as neutral in any way and repeatedly points out that they are in favor of gun control. Idag (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I would also point out, since your edits indicate that you are concerned about non-neutral "propaganda", that a number of footnotes that are currently in this article point to the NRA's website without any mention in the main text that the information these footnotes support comes directly from the NRA. Idag (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Found the relevant policy:
"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [the policy goes on to prohibit synthesis and interpretation of the primary source without secondary sources]" WP:OR
In the instant case, the Brady Campaign website is a reliable source regarding what the Brady Campaign says. Since the main text does not interpret the message, but merely summarizes and quotes from it, there is no violation. Idag (talk) 03:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia wants neutrality. The Third Way, which is a partisan organization, is not neutral. Coverage of their opinions by a NPOV source, such as a magazine of newspaper, is not wp:or, but it IS neutral. 03:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not what the policy says:
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly...As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". WP:NPOV
The policy requires the inclusion of ALL points of view, not simply the inclusion of non-partisan grey area points of view. Idag (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You aren't listening to anything I'm saying. I didn't say partisan POV's aren't allowed. I've been sayng the source of them should be neutral. Continuing this discussion with you is apparently pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Point out where the policy insists on that. I have repeatedly quoted policy passages that contradict your view, yet you keep arguing the same thing. Fine, show me where exactly the policy says that the sources I listed are improper. Idag (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Third Opinion

  1. Looking at the difference in gun control vs. pro-gun organizations who criticize the NRA, I don't see a big deal about a disparity. Both cover diverse groups criticizing the NRA. It actually seems pretty natural to me that the pro-gun criticism would be more detailed and nuanced, because the pro-gun orgs will have substantial agreement with the NRA, hence the disagreements will be more nuanced. I would expect the same in any political organization--the environmentalist criticisms of Greenpeace will be more nuanced than those from the mainstream media, and internal dissent within a particular religion will be more pointed and specific than that from outsiders.
  2. Per WP:TC#Cleanup, {{cleanup}} "... applies to general problems not addressed by other tags." I recommend it be removed in favor of a tag from WP:TC which more closely approximates the issue in question.
  3. Also, if the NPOV tag applies to the criticism section, then use {{pov-section}} instead.

What else do you need a third opinion help with? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The only real issue left over is can we cite to the gun control groups' websites as sources for these groups' opinions in the main article? Idag (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say so, per WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS the Brady Campaign is a primary source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA. The NRA, on the other hand, is NOT a good source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA, because it is then a third party claim. Compare it once again to citing a religious group: If they come out and give their position on a topic, citing that is just fine. Reliable secondary sources are preferred, but there's plenty of room within those WP:V for self-published sources by the groups being discussed. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course the website can be used for info about themselves. He wants to use the partisan groups own website to give an opinion about the NRA. In other words, use the Brady site to comment about the NRA. I think that violates wp:sps. I contend it is much more preferred to find third party NPOV sources (like newspapers or magazines) to source any comments from these groups. It's not like they are difficult to find. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not using the website to give info about the NRA, I'm using the website to give info about the Brady Campaign's opinion about the NRA. The Brady Campaign website is being used to give info about Brady Campaign's views. Idag (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider their view to information about the NRA. They say things about "The NRA wants this or that" or uses their site to characterize their interpretation of the NRA's view. Unlike a newspaper though, they won't present the NRA's POV as balance. According to wp:sps: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: 3) it does not involve claims about third parties ". Claiming "the NRA wants this or that", is making claims about a third party. Again I ask, why not use neutral third party coverage of the groups claims? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You're conflating two different things. A claim about myself is me saying "I like this." A claim about a third party is me saying "You don't like this." However, it is still a claim about my views if I say "I don't like you because you like this." Now you can point out that my reasoning for not liking you is incorrect, but that does not change the fact that it is my view, and when I say "I don't like you because you like this" I am expressing my view, which may or may not be based on correct reasoning. Same thing here, we are summarizing the gun control view. You may find sources that dispute their reasoning, and if you do, feel free to include them. But that does not change what their view is and what their proffered reasons for that view are. As I've stated earlier, I've gone through the newspaper sources (and have beefed up the relevant section a little bit with some of those sources), but they present views that are very narrow. I.e. the gun control view of specific bills and specific actions. I feel that the article is better served by using a broad summary of their views, and the best summaries were on their websites. Idag (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Those site summarize the NRA's views. Newspaper sources about specific bills and actions are better. Why not hear where they differ on specific points, from a third party, than to hear the general impressions of a partisan organization on their own website, presented without balance? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Because the purpose of this article is to educate a reader who isn't an expert on this subject, and the best way to do that is to begin the section by providing a general view. I'm not averse to putting in additional specific content from newspapers, but I think we should open the section with a general view and then provide specific examples. The two are not mutually exclusive. Idag (talk) 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Look, you and I are going to disagree about this. However, the third party opinion stated that my view is perfectly valid. Since we have third party opinions to resolve impasses such as this one, I would ask you to respect it. Idag (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • HE did? Really? He said: "the Brady Campaign is a primary source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA. The NRA, on the other hand, is NOT a good source for what the Brady Campaign says about the NRA, because it is then a third party claim." I say it violates wp:sps because when they summarize the NRA's position, they are offering info about them. Example: if you said "The Brady Campaign opposes the NRA" that would be valid. If you said "The NRA believes the right to own firearms is an individual right and we oppose that notion", that would not be valid because they are summarizing the NRA's position. And again, I contend there is plenty available in neutral sources. Are you refusing to use them simply because you want to prove a point, rather than strive for more neutrality? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Refusing to use what? You haven't provided any alternatives to the websites. Show me a neutral newspaper article that accurately details the groups' criticisms in a way that would be accessible to a layperson browsing this article and we'll talk. Until then, this debate is pointless. Idag (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Now you want me to do your research for you? Wow, that's starting to look lazy. Ok, how about this article that details the Brady Campaign's opposition to the NRA's actions regarding DC's gun law change. [12]. Even though the piece is opinionated, it carries debates from both sides and is documented by a third party news source (Reuters). THAT would be a neutral source and it didn't take me more than a couple of minutes to find it. This is not difficult stuff. Or maybe this article from CNN that talks about the Brady Campaign reaction to allegations that the NRA placed a paid mole in one of their groups. [13]. Again, contains criticism by Brady, documented by a third party and not hard to find. Or how about allegations made by Brady that the former NRA director who allegedly hired the mole assisted in McCain's campaign. [14] Again, contains opposition from Brady, documented by ABC News and easy to find. So there are 3 examples of 3rd party documentation of BRady criticism of the NRA. Total time expended for me to find those 3? About 10 minutes. FAR less time than I have wasted asking why you can't find these sources yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
And as I've stated earlier, if you want to add them to what we already have I have no problem with that. However, you won't find newspaper sources about why the Brady Campaign is GENERALLY opposed to the NRA. If we just list a bunch of specific events that the Brady Campaign disliked, that would be a bit misleading because it wouldn't convey the general sense of animosity that exists between the groups. (Btw, I'm not opposed to quoting NRA sources for how the NRA feels about the gun control groups.) Idag (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, I think Idag understands and represents my reasoning correctly. Niteshift36, if you'd like to invite further comment on this, feel free to post soliciting comments at WP:RS/N. However, I think there's a marked difference between "The Brady Campaign critiizes the NRA for XYZ" and "The Brady Campaign issued a press release stating, 'We oppose the NRA for taking position QRS on issue XYZ.'" In the first case, a reasonable person not paying attention might confuse the Brady campaign's retelling for the NRA's own statements. The second formulation makes that substantially less likely. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

  • No thanks, it's a waste of time. Only Idag has expressed a need to state the obvious (that anti-gun groups criticize the NRA). Only myself and one other editor bothered to disagree. Nobody else cared enough to rush in to opine. Only I have disputed his sources, which only he defended without seeking other assistance. Again, nobody else rushed in to opine. I continue to believe that using a neutral source is always preferable, whether or not you can find some way to read the rules to allow partisan sites as sources. However, nobody obviously nobody else cares and this is apparently far more important to him than to I. So I cease giving a damn. Use all the partisan stuff you want. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You might also want to review WP:YESPOV. (Jclemens, not signed in) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.178.134 (talk)

Citations

Added the citations tag because giant chunks of this article lack source cites. Idag (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bowling for Columbine anyone...?

I can't believe this article is so biased, and pro-republican gun nut....The most important paragraph is buried at the end of the article. Why isn't it in the intro, as it's the nail in the "coffin" (pardon the pun) of the gun lobby argument ?

The NRA is criticized by gun control groups such as the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Brady Campaign, Million Mom March, and Americans for Gun Safety. The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has criticized the NRA for its "warped conception of popular sovereignty...that citizens need to arm themselves to safeguard political liberties against threats by the government."
It went on to add that "[if the NRA members] believe in the right to take up arms to resist government policies they consider oppressive, even when these policies have been adopted by elected officials and subjected to review by an independent judiciary, then they are opposed to constitutional democracy."

Yet the paradox is when gun control issues are discussed the same gun lobby protests decrying the ideas, with lines like "its my constitutional right", that "I'm protecting my constitutional rights", that "I'm exercising my constitutional rights". I guess then, the only real test is the "cold dead hands" theory.

Why is there no mention of the fact that by country, the US has highest firearm death rate in the WORLD?! And the NRA apparently wants to keep it that way!!

Thought experiment....

Take traffic safety. If the US had the highest death rates in urban areas caused by auto-accidents because there were no maximum speed limits? The AAA would be like the NRA if it campaigned to stop the introduction of lower limits!!

Hmm, drivers racing passed schools, hold people homes, shopping malls...apparently the same analogy does not apply when lobbying to keep hold of an abundant supply of deadly firearms and personal home arsenals?

Some of the critical tests that should be applied to this article should include:

1) Is the NRA applying an 18th view on contemporary society or a 21st Century view on contemporary society?

2) Is an organisation that supports the ownership of weaponry a positive or negative in a modern democratic state?

3) What does the NRA believe that gun ownership does for a person?

4) How does the NRA equate firearm ownership to the high number of shootings and firearm deaths in the US?

5) Why does the organisation promote responsible firearm ownership yet sets no limits on the number of firearms a person can possess? How many canons, automatics, rifles, breechloaders, pistols, revolvers, zip guns is enough??

These are all well reasoned arguments, but I fear that the NRA is not reasonable organisation. An American friend (a college liberal, by the standards of Republican supporters) told me that he was once passing an anti-gun lobby demo near his campus and there was some heckling by gun owners. A protester and one of the NRA-types then got into a heated face-off. After much shouting, the apoplectic gun owner finally said something like, "Buddy if you don't get your face outta mine right now, I'm gonna get my gun and make it happen."

Oh the irony....but as Charlie Sheen in Platoon noted: "Somebody once wrote: 'Hell is the impossibility of reason.' "

So that is why this article absolutely scores badly on accuracy, fairness and objectiveness. It reads like a fan/hero site, it does not seriously question the morality/sanity/motivations of an organisation that promotes, in the 21st century, the acquisition of killing weapons, it respectfully adheres to the history of the organisation in uncritical tones, there is no attempt to show that the NRA has strong political ideologies (despite its claim to be non partisan), or that the NRA bases it's entire reason to exist on anachronistic 18th century values (the frontier closed in 1890 - get over it).

In conclusion, this article is as illogical as is religion. It's suspending critical thinking, logic and rational argument, and instead is basing its assumptions on applied belief (psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true). If WP is trying to be a serious encyclopedia then this article should be one of the first to be rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.136.100 (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is well written and thought-provoking. It would do fine as an op-ed piece in a newspaper (although I disagree with all of it), but there is nothing encyclopaedic about it.—ExtremeSquared (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's an unoriginal rehash of all the same tired and mostly illogical and unsupportable anti-gun myths and agendas still floating around. It WOULD make a good op-ed, as yet another example of the utter disconect from reality demanded in order to be a hoplophobe FMChimera 12.166.31.51 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC).

No assumption of authority in the above, is there? Start with an extreme anti-gun position, present it as the only baseline of reason and then insist everything else is wrong. No, nobody has ever tried that before. How original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

liberal praise of NRA

A topic that wasn't mentioned here was the admiration many liberals have for the NRA. Not its operations, but its methods. Barney Frank was quoted on the blog LGBTPOV, praising the way the NRA lobbies by writing letters to congresspeople, as opposed to the traditional liberal methods of holding rallies, marches, and petitions. Link: Rep. Barney Frank on ENDA, DADT, and how LGBTs should lobby like the NRA

Mark356 (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The lack of a history section is a major flaw.

The early years of the NRA are barely even mentioned in this article, and the organization's purpose and activities were quite different back then. There really ought to be section covering the history of the NRA and how it changed over time, rather than focusing 100% on its activities in the late 20th/early 21st century. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this too. The current NRA is a lot different from the NRA of the 1800s. Why is this article focused solely on current NRA? Athene cunicularia (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
As one might expect of a recent technology with input weighted toward younger generations, focus on recent events is a widespread feature of electronically-available information. Authors have difficulty finding and interpreting reference documents for many events preceding their period of recollection and recorded in non-electronic formats. The problem has been recognized and addressed as Articles slanted towards recent events, and Wikipedia offers more and better historical information than many other sources; but I agree there is certainly room for improvement in this article. Can you provide appropriate reference citations for your historical perspectives?Thewellman (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly for an organization this size a brief history is in order and able to be cited. I mean, we have the start of it in the lede already. It is jarring to start off with "programs offered" kind of deal.Jbower47 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I moved the limited information found in the lede to a new section called "History." I think that would be a good place to start. Perhaps more information can even be found in the links cited (maybe not). Useful additions might be 1) why it was started (it is my understanding that the NRA's goals have shifted from being a hunting organization to a gun rights organization) 2) what was the initial membership... I'm happy to help with this, but I can't attack it right now, so if anyone else has interest, please feel free to get the ball rolling. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I found a reference indicating the organization was founded by Civil War veterans to improve military marksmanship. I have summarized that information in an expanded history section.Thewellman (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Finances

The finances information is way too old. This should be updated yearly. Manncer (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Find a source and update the information. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

NRA and its Civil Rights Actions

No mention has been made of the NRA arming Black home owners to help protect themselves from KKK attacks upon thier homes. Perhaps someone can add more information on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.110.1 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Can you provide a reliable reference for this, that could be used in a footnote? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I doubt any such reference will be forthcoming. Stephen Halbrook, an NRA member and ardent Second Amendment supporter, has done an authoritative 230-page study of the black freedmen's struggle to retain their right to bear arms, titled Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms, 1866-1876. Nowhere in it does he mention the NRA helping to arm the freedmen. I fear the NRA helping the freedmen is just as much a myth as the slander that the NRA supported the KKK. Pirate Dan (talk) 02:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several articles devoted to the subject of the NRA's Klan support but that seems to have been already ignored. This articles neutrality is in severe question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.210.77.182 (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I just did a long search for evidence of the NRA supporting the Ku Klux Klan. Result: tons of articles claiming (apparently without foundation) that Elena Kagan equated the KKK to the NRA. Articles showing a link between the Klan and the NRA: zero. Where are these alleged articles showing the NRA's Klan support? Put up or shut up. Pirate Dan (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And months later the crickets chirp in anticipation of these KKK linking articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.189.245 (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose two minor changes

1. I suggest changing the heading "Political lobbying" to "Political activity." "Lobbying" suggests efforts to influence legislation, but much of the NRA activity described in that section is in the courts, or in presidential elections, not just influencing legislation.

2. The lede says that the NRA "claims to be" the oldest civil rights organization in America. Is this a controversial statement requiring the "claims to be" language? Is there another civil rights organization that disputes this and/or maintains that it is older than the NRA? If not, why not just remove the "claims to be" language? (Note: the ACLU was founded in 1917). Pirate Dan (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No answer, so I'll go ahead and pull the trigger (forgive the pun). Pirate Dan (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Pirate Dan, I don't know if you're still watching this...as a neutral outsider ("no dog in this fight" as we say in Texas)I just read this article for the first time, and a couple things jumped out to me. This claim was one of them. I think if this is in the article/lede, it should have a source. Not having a competing source doesn't remove the necessity of it being sourced itself. Not a huge issue, of course, but it should be corrected, since it is a factual claim that is not common knowledge. Cheers!Jbower47 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed this. I did a little searching for cites, and there may be a legitimate controversy. Answers.com has a plausible, but unsourced, argument that the NRA did not get involved in Second Amendment defense work until the 1930s, being purely a sporting/shooting association from 1871 until that time, which would make the ACLU's and the NAACP's civil rights work older. I'm not prepared to change the article back based on an unsourced answer in answers.com, but I think it does warrant further investigation.
Whichever way the article ends up reading, the citation should normally be put in the main body of the article, not the lede. Pirate Dan (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Article is very misleading

The NRA IS a partsian organization and this article is overly favorable and extremely biased in favor of the NRA.

It needs to be updated or removed as it is not factually correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamweasel43 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples on how you would fix the problems you see. With generic comments it is hard to address your concerns. The article will not be removed, I do not believe anyone will argue that the NRA is not a notable organization and a biased article is not an argument that will go very far in a deletion discussion. ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Although some argument could be made that the NRA is a partisan organization, because it does tend to support Republicans more than Democrats, this appears simply to be because there are more pro-2nd Amendment Republicans than Democrats. The NRA has endorsed several Democrats, especially incumbents, whom it considers to be strong 2nd Amendment and shooting sports supporters, often to the frustration of Republican challengers who consider themselves to be strong gun rights supporters also. See this apparently neutral news article. Thus, I think we need more evidence before labeling the NRA a partisan organization. Pirate Dan (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I question if the issue is encyclopedic, but the significance of NRA endorsement practices might consider NRA's reluctance to endorse 3rd party candidates (like Libertarians) when neither major party candidate is considered worthy of endorsement.Thewellman (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Last line of intro

Hi,

I don't think the last line of the intro is relevant to the NRA or to Wikipedia. It States: "We also like to shoot dem damn democrats" I don't know who added this, but it needs to be removed.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.5.235 (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

Why did I add the POV tag? The NRA is subject to a lot of criticism, yet that section is puny. There are only three lines describing the criticism from those in favor of gun control. The section mainly states who critizies the NRA, with the actual criticisms being omitted. The "From gun control advocates" should be as detailed, given an overview of the actual criticism, as the "From other gun rights organizations" sub-section. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for criticisms that should be listed? 98.197.101.8 12:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if he does, but I have a serious probably with the image of Charlton Heston placed on here. The caption reads, 'Charlton Heston accepting a presentation rifle at 2000 NRA convention with the now well-known exclamation "From my cold, dead hands!"'
This image does not at all contribute to the article. Taking a screenshot from a Michael Moore documentary (I am of course, referring to Bowling for Columbine) and plastering it up on the NRA page with the quote "From my cold, dead hands!" makes the NRA seem like an armed institution of mental patients. While I personally agree with this portrayal, it is completely unencyclopedic and degrading to the article. After all, the first thing most people look at is the photo captions in an article.
Charlton Heston is not even the president of the NRA anymore, and hasn't been for 5 years. I don't even see why an image of him is necessary at the beginning of the article. Kayne Robinson (http://www.nraleaders.com/kayne-robinson.html) is the president right now, so why don't we put a picture of him up there? And finally, if you decide for some reason that a picture of Charlton Heston is absolutely necessary at the beginning of the article, why not put the image that's on his bio page up? --Chopin-Ate-Liszt! 05:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
The image is iconic of the NRA - used by both the NRA and it's detractors. A better choice would be from NRA merchandise with the same picture and similar caption. I will search for this or scan mine. Jimgettman 10:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


The picture was probably posted out of pure nostalgia. After all, Charleton Heston was an icon in his own time and one of the NRA's most popular presidents. However, I do agree that the picture may be a little too dated to be placed in the first section of the article. I think the picture would be perfect if placed on Charelton Heston's personal Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.229.213 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, however the NRA is not a USA founded organisation as implied; The National Rifle Association (now the governing body of fullbore rifle and centre-fire pistol shooting in Great Britain) was founded in 1859, originally to provide a focus for marksmanship for the newly formed corps of volunteers which had been raised to meet the perceived threat of invasion by the French. The NRA was granted Royal Charter in 1894. This Royal Charter continues to this day for the "promotion of marksmanship in the interests of the Defence of Realm and permanence of the Volunteer Forces, Navy military and Air".

The NRA makes no attempts to hide its ‘parenting’ organization. From what I’ve read in one of their own publications the NRA is saddened to see the Anti-Gun measures taken in the UK and the rise in violent crime involving handguns as a result. They mention it as a ‘Beware’ type message. Joliver375 (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the NRA was founded in 1871 in the United States, the "parent" organization was a useful fake front to hide the KKK organization under. The "parent" organization probably looked at the Americans hijacking their name and screamed bloody murder. :) Damotclese (talk) 02:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's get this straight... The NRA, founded IN THE NORTH by UNION veterans of the Civil War, was a "KKK front organization." Which elected UNION generals Burnside, Grant and Sheridan to its Presidency. A "KKK front"...
The stupid is strong in this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.221.121 (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


I would add that it's not just individuals who are in favor of firearm control that are critical of the NRA. A great many firearm owners who oppose what "gun grabbers" do are also critical of the NRA for a wide variety of issues, not the least of which is the NRA's deadly ideologies against trigger locks and other laws which mandate that owners be responsible firearm owners. Endless NRA members fled the cult when the NRA magazine labeled domestic terrorism law enforcement agents "Jackbooted thugs," seeing finally that the NRA no longer represented firearm owners and instead represented Christofascist Republican domestic terrorists -- among other faults.

There are a great many legitimate criticisms of the NRA cult which should be included in the Wiki article but will never be included because people will demand that telling the truth about the NRA is not a neutral point of view. But that's okay, the history of the NRA/KKK is widely available outside of Wikipedia and there is a general consensus that Wikipedia's NPOV rule makes for incomplete articles. Damotclese (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Nonprofit status

If they're so non-profit; Why are they bothering people all over America with telemarketing calls asking for donations? 173.81.64.199 (talk) 07:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonprofits of all kinds solicit donations. Universities, charities, and lobbying groups like the NRA are all nonprofits well known for cold-calling people. Note, though, that the NRA endorses political candidates, and thus is not eligible for tax-exempt donations, unlike many other nonprofits.Pirate Dan (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Note also that non-profit organizations still have expenses. In the NRA's case, they publish various magazines, have lawyers on retainer, maintain offices, and have a regular staff. "Non-profit" means that they're not doing what they do to raise money, like Boeing or IBM does. This link [15] helps explain non-profit organizations better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHenry1969 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

not the oldest continual civil rights organization

militia's in the US are civil rights organizations in place to defend the rights of a state or the country ancient and honorable artillery of Massachusetts is considerably older — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.138.102 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a source for militias being civil rights organizations. Especially given that most of the actual militias are now subsumed in the National Guard, which would be hard to describe as a civil rights organization. Pirate Dan (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.ng.mil/About/default.aspx

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 370th birthday on December 13, 2006. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrat46 (talk • contribs) 01:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC) — Patrat46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

http://www.enotes.com/militia-movement-article

Militia ARE civil rights organizations they are a militarized civil rights organization— Patrat46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.— Patrat46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. (on Wikipedia the into to Civil Rights) AS such an orgainization that has that as its purpose is a civil rights organization this is common sense NOT research NOT an opinion SOLID FACT the definition of civil rights organization is an accurate discription to many militia's tho not all militia's but as i stated there are old militia's such as Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts who fought to MAKE THE USA FIGHTING FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE TODAY! they are still around and still believe in the things they fought for

As the claim that they are the oldest continual Civil Rights Organization originates from the NRA themselves and thir primary purpose is not defending civil rights but defending civil liberties i believe that using them as a source is bias Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

they did aid in the civil rights movement but their primary contribution was aimed at defending the civil liberties of the moment and it was only after the fact that they made a shift to aid as a civil rights organization... while they are old and they have not broken up at any given time they have not been a continual civil rights organization as they have not been a civil rights organization from the start but later came into it they might be the oldest organization that now fights for civil rights so i can make the claim that the US Federal government is the oldest civil rights organization in the us. why? they made you civil rights... they are an organization... they debate what is a civil right.... so they are a civil rights organization with the same claim as the NRA whos purpose is to defend CIVIL LIBERTIES not CIVIL RIGHTSPatrat46 (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OLd kid, here, obviously failed Civics. Rights do not come from the government. The NRA bills itself as the oldest civil rights group in the US. You will not find a single source listing the government as a civil rights group as government is the one encroaching on your rights. Instead of trying to occupy wall street, some of you ham-and-eggers need to occupy a classroom or at least a library.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


Altho the government at times has infinged apon a persons civil rights they at many times protect a persons civil rights bill of rights us constitution An organization does not have to state that it is a civil rights organization to be one.

"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."-Bill of rights

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" - U.S. Constitution

Of those 2 statements alone the government defines itself as a civil rights organization Patrat46 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Which, again, has no bearing on this article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It does to if an older civil rights organization exists then the claim that the NRA is the oldest would there for be false as

""FINALY!!!!"" You all wanted me to find a reputable doctument that defines a militia that is older then the NRA as a Civil rights Organization

here is a link to a history of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts where many cases of the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts standing up for civil rights are described making it the older of the 2 organizations altho i would not dare claim that it was the oldest because there is a chance of finding an even older one as im not a historian i would not venture a guess at the oldest but i here i have proven that an older continual civil rights organization exists making the statement that the NRA is the oldest in accurate

http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofmilitar02robe/historyofmilitar02robe_djvu.txt

Patrat46 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't quite work that way. The NRA claims it is the oldest civil rights organization. There are reliable published sources backing up what the NRA claims. Now an argument could be made that even though the NRA was founded in 1871, that is didn't take up the cause of gun rights until about 1934 (after the founding of the NAACP) and probably didn't refer to firearm ownership self-defense as a civil right until almost 40 or 50 years later; however, that is outside the scope of this article. As for a militia being a civil rights organization, you might want to start a blog or write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper or try your editing skills on a militia article; introduction of what you are stating above is original research.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename article?

Shouldn't the article read 'NRA Of The United States of America? I don't see why the UK NRA which is the oldest not have equal heading in Wikipedia...The way it's laid out ATM suggests that the US NRA is THE NRA, I call pov82.31.236.245 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

  • No, it shouldn't. The article is titled fine. Which one was first isn't really important. This NRA had the first article on Wikipedia. And the org is the National Rifle Association, NOT the US National Rifle Association. However, the other org is called the National Rifle Association of the United Kingdom, hence the title of that article is just that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that this article should not be renamed, but for slightly different reasons. Which article was here first is not really important. What is important is that the U.S. National Rifle Association is the primary topic, because "it is highly likely — much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined — to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." And it's also the common name. "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." — Mudwater (Talk) 00:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

History of NRA

I propose to restore information removed because it was allegedly not directly relevant to the NRA; but explained the low effectiveness of United States military rifles prior to the founding of NRA. I invite attention to pre-history documentation in Wikipedia articles about organizations similarly formed to address needs perceived prior to existence of that organization:

ACLU
American Legion
Greenpeace
March of Dimes
NAACP
Thewellman (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that there should be some introductory material. Still, I've removed part of the second paragraph, specifically:
United States infantry armed with potentially accurate rifles often fought using volley tactics, devised for earlier inaccurate smoothbore muskets, because the United States Army had failed to keep pace with European military training for tactical advantage from rifle technology.
I've removed this because it deals with what Army training, and the NRA was not created to lobby for changes in Army training.
I do note that the current first paragraph, while apparently relevant to the creation of the NRA, lacks any citation. As such, it is subject to criticism that it violates WP:NOR - that is, that it is simply someone's personal theory of why the NRA was created. In other words, a citation (from a reliable source) really is needed here, relating the NRA to the issue of poor marksmanship during the Civil War, if in fact there is a relationship. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I hope this will not degenerate into an edit war; but I don't understand your confusion. If the "first paragraph" you refer to is the first paragraph of the history section, the citation is: Craige, John Houston The Practical Book of American Guns (1950) Bramhall House pp.84-93. That citation was appended to the paragraph in my original edit, and has remained unless accidentally removed in subsequent editing. Craige's repetition of Burnside's quote makes it quite clear, contrary to the opinion you express, the NRA was established precisely because, in the days before our nation maintained a large standing army, military training had been perceived as ineffective mobilizing citizen soldiers for the American civil war. NRA's first half century focused on encouraging draft-eligible civilians to maintain proficiency with infantry rifles, and there are numerous testimonials available concerning the value of that proficiency during the Spanish-American War and two world wars.Thewellman (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have access to the Craige source, so I can't check that it specifically mentions the NRA, but it's clear that the first paragraph of the History section does not. What the article needs is a source (other than the NRA website, please) that supports your statement (which I'm not doubting) that "NRA's first half century focused on encouraging draft-eligible civilians to maintain proficiency with infantry rifles", presumably for national defense/readiness.
So, no edit war, but please see if you can strengthen the article by finding a source that specifically mentions how the NRA was focused on civilian proficiency that could be used in wartime, as opposed (say) to being founded with the goal of showing Europeans that the United States could compete equally in rifle competitions. If the Craige source does in fact make the connection, then a bit more information from that source would suffice. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
It is unfortunate you have not been able to locate Craige's book; for he summarizes on page 85: "During our War Between the States, thousands of young Americans (and some not so young) who served as officers and private soldiers in the Union forces got a vivid inside picture of the shortcomings of our country's military marksmanship. Many of them left the army at the end of the war convinced that something ought to be done about it. New York was a center of agitation of this kind. Eventually a group of individuals worked out the details of a new kind of organization and a remarkable plan. The plan had a double barreled objective. Its first aim was to conduct an educational campaign to arouse America's military authorities to the backwardness of our army in rifle marksmanship, and persuade them to get into the race for up-to-date methods, modern arms, and advanced systems training. The other barrel of the plan aimed at popularizing rifle target shooting for sport throughout our civilian population so that in future wars and emergencies America might find a great mass of expert rifle shots among the volunteers who thronged to its colors. The name selected by this little band of rifle enthusiasts for their new organization was the National Rifle Association of America."
Craige (1886-1954) reflects an era when big government and America's gun culture were mutually supportive entities and writes in the language of second world war propaganda; so I attempted rephrasing for encyclopedic tone. Neutral sources have become more difficult to identify since Congress privatized the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (PL 104-106:1996) in response to NRA's polarizing tactics; but a few military sites preserve evidence of NRA's original mission. You might take a look at section 2.5 of http://www.marines.mil/news/publications/Documents/MCO%20P3590.13B.pdf and section 335.11.1 at http://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/335.html#335.11.1
Thewellman (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I randomly selected those Wikipedia articles as examples illustrating the importance of including supporting information relating to conditions prior to existence of an organization.Thewellman (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Internal organization?

The article could use a section on the internal structures of the NRA. Like who elects whom to which post, who sets policies, who decides what to do with donation money, etc. -- 78.50.191.25 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Today I came to the article looking for that information and am diappointed to find nothing. 67.220.15.118 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Ambrose Burnside

Describing Ambrose Burnside as a "gunsmith" is probably not accurate. The term "gunsmith" is generally used to denote a skilled craftsman who builds or repairs guns on a small scale, often with hand tools or small scale machine tools. Burnside did invent the breechloading carbine that bears his name, and was certainly involved in its manufacture, but there is no evidence that Burnside ever personally engaged in gunsmithing as a vocation. The Wikipedia article devoted to Burnside describes him as an "industrialist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The cited reference described Burnside as a gunmaker. I used the link to gunsmith to assist readers unfamiliar with the trade, since Wikipedia doesn't currently have an article about gunmakers other than the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers. Most firearms inventors have been capable gunsmiths, and the history of his Bristol Rifle Works indicates Burnside was a more successful inventor than industrialist. If you prefer, the term might be replaced by the piped gunmaker.Thewellman (talk) 00:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Camp Perry

The article correctly notes that Conventional or "Bullseye" pistol competition is held at Camp Perry, but leaves out any mention of the various forms of rifle competition held there, leaving the reader with the impression that Camp Perry is only a pistol match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.80.149 (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Truth-in-sentencing and two and three strikes laws

I don't see any mention of NRA's "CrimeStrike", and the NRA's major state-by-state campaigns for "truth-in-sentencing" and two and three strikes laws. For referenced info see:

Neutrality disputed

The neutrality of this article needs to be checked. This article is largely based on claims made by the National Rifle Association. This article may express the point of view of the NRA or may contain an unbalanced critical assessment. It may require editing to put it in compliance with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

The introductory content, in particular, reflects the viewpoint of the NRA.

For example, the statement that the NRA "advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment" is not a neutral statement. The Second Amendment is not under attack and in need of protection(the US Supreme Court ruling in 2008 establishes the individual right to gun ownership). However this "statement of fact" is what the NRA uses to gain most of its political influence. It mobilizes its members by persuading them that their rights are going to be taken away. A more neutral statement would say "the NRA advocates for the expansion of private access to guns, under the Second Amendment".

In addition, the sentence that describes the NRA as the "oldest continuously operating civil rights organization" is an NRA talking point and should be deleted or rewritten to say "the NRA claims to be..., while this claim is disputed." See this link for discussion and justification for why the NRA is not the oldest: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_oldest_civil_rights_organization_in_the_US — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karstenbarde (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Pol430 talk to me 00:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As you said, the Second Amendment outlines the "right to keep and bear arms" so it is not non-neutral for the article to say that the NRA "advocates protection of the Second Amendment." That statement is neutral and correct. As for the statement about the NRA being the oldest civil rights organization, the article actually didn't read that way until very recently (someone changed the wording). It previously said that the NRA refers to itself as the oldest civil rights organization. I agree that the old wording was more neutral, so I just changed it back to that. ROG5728 (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • One thing here doesn't sit well with me. The statement "The Second Amendment is not under attack and in need of protection(the US Supreme Court ruling in 2008 establishes the individual right to gun ownership)." This almost takes the view that a Supreme Court decision is absolute and irrevocable. Roe v Wade was decided and has been almost under constant attack since then, hasn't it? With the events of the past 2 weeks, we're going to see Second Amendment rights under a major assault in the next 12 months.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, "advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment" is not a neutral statement. More particularly, it violates WP:MISSION. The NRA may say it does something, but that's not enough to include its self-description in Wikipedia.
The criteria for inclusion in WP, under WP:RS and WP:NPOV, are multiple references by WP:RSs. The WP:RSs must be reliable secondary sources subject to fact-checking. If you can find such sources that say the NRA "advocates for the protection of the Second Amendment", it might go in, but otherwise it must go out.
I agree that "the NRA advocates for the expansion of private access to guns, under the Second Amendment" is a neutral statement.
Specifically, that's what needs to be changed. --Nbauman (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Concealed Carry

The article stares "One example of the NRA's legislative effectiveness is that..." and proceeds to list the various states that have liberal concealed carry laws. I don't know about all these states, but I'm pretty sure Vermont (where I live) has never restricted concealed carry, so this is not evidence of the NRA's effectiveness per se. Can we change the wording or strike this paragraph? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

New subsection: Responses to mass shootings

I've added a new subsection under Political activity titled Responses to mass shootings, using a New York Times article as source. NRA's political response (public and legislative) to such a high-profile and highly-charged phenomenon is about as notable as can be, and an NYT article (note, this is not an editorial) is an ideal RS for Wikipedia. Certainly more can be added along these lines, but it's a start. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it. It violates WP:NPOV and is based on the opinion of one person. Ryan Vesey 05:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The reasoning for deletion is faulty or absent. You say it violates NPOV, but offer no explanation. You say it's based on the opinion of one person, but that's obviously false: the NYT source is by three writers, and their reporting is subject to extensive editorial oversight. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact -- per WP:NEWSORG, a section of WP:RS.
So, I'm restoring, and adding more sources from mainstream news reports. It is well-documented that the NRA tends toward public silence after mass shootings, and it is equally well-documented that they persistently lobby against firearm restrictions, including those proposed after mass shootings. And multiple mainstream, independent news media have concluded that these two actions -- public silence, followed by intensive lobbying to thwart popularly-supported reforms -- are part of a single strategy.
By the way, I'm also adding the N.R.A.'s responses after the Sandy Hook shootings, so it's not as if there's some sort of NPOV issue stemming from short shrift given to the NRA's views: indeed, this whole section is about what they say and do, even if they don't always publically acknowledge exactly what they are saying and doing. And yes, Wikipedia gives more weight to independent sources' reporting on the N.R.A. than to the N.R.A.'s own statements: that is neutrality. That's how NPOV works in conjunction with WP's policy on sources. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan Vesey, the article is a description of the organization and not a posting board for current events or soapboxing of any kind.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

History section is weak

The section on the history of this organization is vague and weak. WHEN in 1871 did the NRA form? Where is it incorporated? Who were its original officers? The paragraph is also poorly written and not concise. NaySay (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Police officers or guards

Can I suggest not including the New York Times article at all? The source is not neutral at all. The NRA did in fact say they wanted police officers in every school, and you can see this by checking this google search. The New York Times article is a deliberate attempt on the part of those writers to repaint the NRA's statement into something that the public would be less agreeable to. Ryan Vesey 20:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It isn't neutral, but then again, I'm not convinced that the proposal needs to go into the article at all. In the bigger picture, is this one proposal, which is simply in a very, very preliminary stage and not even on a legislative calendar, important enough to include? I'd think no at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
A deliberate attempt to repaint by the New York Times, huh? Where's the evidence for that? If there's a conflict among two equally reliable sources then both sources should be cited. You're going to be hard-pressed arguing that the New York Times isn't as reliable as the the L.A. Times. It might just be the most-cited newspaper on Wikipedia. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • First, I don't see where he said they weren't reliable. I see where he said they weren't neutral. there is a difference. Second, the simple fact that somethign is being reported doesn't mean it belongs in the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense. Sources don't have to be perfectly neutral to be reliable; neutrality is merely one factor in a source's reliability. But the question of whether the NYT article should be included or not hinges solely on its reliability. If it's no less reliable than the LAT article then both should be cited. As for one "belonging" in the article and one not "belonging," both belong in the article because to include one but not the other would be to exclude contradictory, reliably-sourced information. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It makes perfect sense. He said they weren't neutral. Nobody said not reliable. Where is the conflict in that? As for inclusion, the reliability is not the only determining factor for inclusion. We have to look at weight and recentism. For example, if someone snapped a pic of Justin Bieber picking his nose, 10,000 media outlets would carry it. Many would be impeccably reliable. that doesn't mean we need to include it in his bio. In the big picture of his life, career and accomplishments, the fact that he was caught digging in his nose simply isn't important. I've yet to hear a reason from you as to why this is important, aside from 'cause someone printed it'. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I assume when you talk about weight and recentism you're referring to WP:UNDUE. If WP:UNDUE were the issue then (i) Ryan Vesey would have said so and (ii) we should then be talking about removing the entire sentence and not just the NYT source. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Try to keep up here, there is more than one issue being disucssed. Ryan hasn't responded again to clarify, so don't speculate. Second, stop acting like I wasn't clear. I said weight and recentism. Of course weight is referring to undue. Did you think I meant it's fat? Come on. And yes, I've been clear, since my first post, that we should be discussing removing the whole thing, not just the NYT source. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you. It was totally unintentional on my part. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This is silly. Lots and lots of reliable sources use the "police officers" wording, as has already been pointed out. The "armed guards" wording seems to be nothing more than an attempt to make the NRA proposal sound stupid. Coming from the NYT, that's not surprising. ROG5728 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I sense a little personal bias here. Let's keep that out and stick to policy.--Nstrauss (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal bias on your part, perhaps. If we "stick to policy" there is zero reason to use "armed guards" over "armed officers" or "armed police officers." ROG5728 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you gotta back that up with policy. There is no "ROG5728's opinion is the word of God" policy. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Guards - Debating about the neutrality of the NYT article is silly. Most news articles I've read uses the term "guards". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

You must not have read any of these news articles, then. ROG5728 (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
And you must not have read any of these. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just watch the video of the NRA speech, then. It's at 18:40 to 18:50 in this link. LaPierre calls for "armed police officers" to be used to protect schools. With that in mind, there is no reason to use any other wording in the article; we can just directly quote LaPierre. Like I said, to have a dispute over this is absurd. Let's save our time for more productive uses, please. ROG5728 (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Common sense or not? If we have the video, showing clearly what the man said, why are we choosing the words of someone using a different term? This would be like printing that Dewey was president because we had a reliable source print it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No original research. But I agree, it begs the question, why did the NYT (and others) use the term "guards"? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • There is no OR. Reliable sources reported it correctly. Others screwed it up. Looking at the original source and seeing that one quoted accurately and another paraphrased isn't OR, it's using the more accurate source. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That is the gist of everything. The NRA VP called for armed police officers in schools. Sources seeking neutrality reported that, no matter how they felt about the NRA or the statement. Sources attempting to be biased reported the issue as if the NRA did not call for armed police officers, but instead called for armed guards. It is 100% certain that the NRA called for police officers in schools. To say anything else would be complete and utter crap. On the topic of weight, I've argued above that the entire section shouldn't be there, but if it is going to be included, the information from this event should be included. Ryan Vesey 23:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, is it possible that it should read police officers and armed guards rather than or? The shield program makes references to training armed guards other than police officers, but it is certain that the NRA wasn't saying armed guards should be a replacement to police. Ryan Vesey 00:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry guys, all I know is that a variety of very reliable sources are saying "guards" and a variety of very reliable sources are saying "police." that's all we really need to know. You can slam one side or the other but all it does is reflect your personal bias. I understand that some sources departed from the precise wording of the speech. We must presume they had a legitimate reason for doing so, unless we find evidence to the contrary. --Nstrauss (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Now that we know the exact wording that was used in the NRA speech (thanks to the video), the article should be changed to reflect it. ROG5728 (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
No offense, but did you even read the comment you were purportedly responding to? --Nstrauss (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
What about it? Now that we actually know, word for word, what was said in the NRA speech, it doesn't matter what the NYT said. They can't change reality, sorry. ROG5728 (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Saying 'a reliable source said it' doesn't mean it is accurate or should be used. In 1948, the Chicago Tribune headline read "Dewey Wins". He didn't. Based on your reasoning, we should alter the article on the election results and my looking at the archive footage of Truman being sworn in as evidence of his victory and linking to it for all to plainly see is OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
WP should use secondary sources, not primary ones. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
The policy allows it but discourages it. (See WP:PRIMARY.) What's the rationale for citing the primary source here? We have perfectly adequate secondary sources, and no one has contended that we exclude them. The only reason I see in this thread for excluding secondary sources is that some editors think some (not all) of them are trying to "stick it" to the NRA or somesuch. Unless evidence is provided in support there's no reason to exclude these secondary sources, let alone to rely on primary sources. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • First off, telling me to see the policy I just referred to makes no sense. Of course I saw it. How else would I know it permits the use? Second, the primary source in this case is accurate and, arguably, the most accurate source. Primaries are only restricted from use if they are interpreting facts. That's not the case here. In this case, it is the secondary sources that are doing the interpreting. Bottom line: Primary sources are not prohibited and the use of one in this case is not improper. The post I responded to implied otherwise. Further, you claim we're excluding secondary sources. No, we're not just excluding sources. There are plenty that accurately represent what was said. What I'd like to hear you explain is why we should use sources we can prove aren't completely accurate? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Because they're reliable. We aren't the truth squad. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • That is absurd to say, not to mention flippant. Again, "reliable" sources are sometimes wrong, see the example of Dewey winning. The NYT has published stories that proved to be fabricated, same with the WaPo, National Review etc. Just because a reliable source said it doesn't make it accurate, correct or true. When we have the primary source and can see, without interpretation, the actual quote, we are remiss in using a source we know to be incorrect. That's not "truth", it's ACCURACY. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Just ignore him. The actual quote is used in the article and that's not going to change. ROG5728 (talk) 22:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Way to elevate the discussion. I see you're a member of the "my way or the highway" club. Have you ever considered contributing to Conservapedia?

--Nstrauss (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from the personal attacks. Arzel (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a very strange argument. We have the actual quotes from the NRA regarding the position of the NRA and that quote should be used per WP:MOSQUOTE. That the NYT and others have rephrased the quote is meaningless. It is quite odd to argue in favor of the misquote simply because secondary sources have made it when it is known what was actually said. Orwell would be very pround. Arzel (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Two points here. First, with this edit by Scalhotrod this entire discussion is mooted, so unless someone cares to revert we can end the discussion here. Second, even if we revert there's no quotation so WP:MOSQUOTE is inapplicable. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

As a journalist who enjoys browsing talk pages, I can't believe there's even a debate about this. Use the most accurate and precise information available, which in this case is the primary source. The NYT and other articles get edited by at least three other people (editor, copy editor, and layout editor/designer) all of whom will change the copy to both sound better and to fit the space available on the page, and none of whom did the actual research. Its completely possible that either the original journalist didn't think the phrase mattered, or that one of the many other hands in the editing pie made the change without thinking. I can't imagine any scenario when it would be ethical to go with a knowingly use an inaccurate quote or summary when there's video of the quotation being spoken by the original speaker in the original event. 50.9.224.44 (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight. We should keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and must adhere to its own policies rather than to journalistic standards. Journalists have an ethical obligation to conduct due diligence (i.e. original research) and report what they believe is true. At Wikipedia it's the opposite: we're required to rely on reliable sources rather than our own beliefs and refrain from conducting original research. Also, bear in mind that the NY Times was one of many sources that used "guards" rather than "police officers." But again, this appears to be moot at this point since the whole subject was removed from the article. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

National Registry for Mentally Ill

This article mentions the position of the NRA to put armed guards in schools, but makes no mention of their interest in initiating a national registry for those deemed to be mentally ill. It seems hypocritical to mention one without the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.13.120 (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Cincinnati Revolt

Are you kidding me? This article does not even have the words "Cincinnati Revolt" or the year of the Cincinnati Revollt, 1977. The Cincinnati Revolt was the beginning of a radical transformation of the NRA into the NRA people know today, a propaganda and lobbying machine of a group of hard-core gun nuts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.106.16 (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any Wikipedia-grade reliable sources to cite? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I just added a section on 1977 and after -- fully sourced. Rjensen (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
A story by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post ran on 1/13 on the front page [16] with a great deal of material that could (carefully) be incorporated into the article. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good! It could probably use a few more inline cites, but that information is tough to come by. Check the Neal Knox article to see if there are any usable references.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Rjensen's latest edit

Rjensen, when I reverted your latest edit I accidentally left a malformed comment. You seem to have overridden several legitimate edits by other editors. At the same time you added major new material with the comment "added cites." That does not seem to be accurate at all. Please try to be more careful not to undo others' work, and leave a more informative comment. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I did not delete ANY edits by anyone. I restored a section that was mistakenly deleted-- the editor thought it was not sourced so I restored the text and made the sources clear. I also added a the citation to the LaPierre quotation about New Orleans. Rjensen (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Please double-check. At the very least you overrode this edit. There may be more. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I did in fact delete "ostensibly", which certainly does not belong. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Finances

This article should have a section on how NRA gets its income. Even if they are closed mouth about it (which I don't know to be true) the matter deserves a place in the entry.Conscientia (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Although I have no source to suggest at the moment, this NYT article (used in section mentioned just below) should be useful about how it spends its money on lobbying: Silent Since Shootings, N.R.A. Could Face Challenge to Political Power. Possible quote to include: "[The N.R.A.] wields one of the biggest sticks in politics: A $300 million budget, millions of members around the country and virtually unmatched ferocity in advancing its political and legislative interests." --Middle 8 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I came here looking for a breakdown of their funding according to the type of source, corporate or individual donations. I think it would be very helpful to readers in forming an idea of what interests the NRA really represents in US society to have this information revealed in the article, if there are any reliable sources that even make claims about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.157.5 (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I have a source for this, does anyone have a nice info box or similar construct to put it in?

Fiscal Year Starting: Jan 1, 2011

Fiscal Year Ending: Dec 31, 2011

Revenue

Contributions $59,382,983
Program Services $7,088,869
Membership Dues $102,640,219
Special Events $357,191
Other $49,514,268
Total Revenue $218,983,530

Expenses

Program Services $173,927,878
Administrative Costs $30,727,519
Fundraising Costs $26,416,192
Payments to Affiliates $0
Total Expenses $231,071,589

[1] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gun makers' lobby?

This is a somewhat controversial subject so I'll propose it here before implementing. There has been some recent criticism of the NRA as not representing the interests of gun owners but instead of gun makers. Example opinion pieces here, here. Here is what appears to be a reliable source. There may be more. I propose adding something short (either a sentence or a phrase) to the lead section and possibly adding a new section. Thoughts? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't even bother trying to implement that slanted nonsense. All three of your sources are opinion pieces with obvious neutrality issues, and they even go so far as to cite gun control groups like the VPC and Bloomberg for their "information." ROG5728 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I never claimed that the Nation and NYT sources were anything other than opinions. As for the Atlantic piece, I don't understand what you're talking about. It reads like a news article. It contains no reference to VPC and it only sources to Bloomberg for a little, factual tidbit. As the journalist notes at the bottom, "Yes, Bloomberg is owned by New York's famously pro-gun control mayor. I find it doubtful that he took time off from running the country's largest city to green-light this particular piece of journalism." Please respond.--Nstrauss (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The Atlantic piece doesn't just cite Bloomberg, it also cites the VPC (do a search for Violence Policy Center) and it cites polling by the gun control group "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." ROG5728 (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Good points, but I don't think they disqualify the piece as an RS. I'll give this a couple of days for others to weigh in before I take this to WP:RSN. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Here are my issues with the articles cited. First, the Nation and Atlantic articles start with questions (their headlines). After reading the articles I am still left with the belief that both pieces are not "reporting", but speculating on the hypothesis posed by the headline. Any factual statements supplied are done with the intention of pushing a POV. Next, New York Times piece is an Editorial so there is no question that it is an opinion piece pushing a POV. The fact that all three are opinion pieces should also call into question the usefulness of the factual statements until the original sources can be checked and verified for completeness and veracity.
As for their use or suitability as RS, I would say that they serve an evidence of the hypothesis that the NRA represents the gun makers. But any statements as to what extent they represent the manufacturers more or less than other gun related interests is pure speculation. Unless the NRA issues a specific statement saying otherwise, its a non-issue and should not be part of the article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Enumerates vs Protects

Let's talk about enumeration vs protection. I quote the nineth amendment to the United States Constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (emphasis mine)

The framers of the constitution did not see the bill of rights in the constitution of the united states as protecting anything - as the nineth clearly states. In fact, many anti-federalists did not want a bill of rights. They feared that the inclusion of the bill of rights could signal to the state that those were the only rights that the people retained. To solve this, Madison - a federalist, inserted the nineth, forever articulating that the rights in the bill of rights are merely an incomplete list of inalienable human rights. The Constitution protects nothing. It's a piece of paper. The rights are inalienable, we are born with them and they cannot be taken away through majorative legislation. They are inate. That is what the Supreme Court stands guard over. The constitution's bill of rights does nonot in and of itself protect, it enumerates - the government is tasked with safeguarding our inalienable rights - it's why we form government. the Constitution merely lists the most common of them out so we don't have to keep arguing over them. The correct term is that the constitution enumerates, and the government is tasked with protecting (and it sometimes sucks at that), enumerated is the word that the constitution uses and we should use that term here as well. We are the most radical of liberals over here. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope that's coming across. The constitution is a document, so it has no power to protect. It lists out (enumerates) the rights which have a more solid foundation in the inalienable foundation of liberty. Government is formed by the people to protect our liberties - it's spelled out in the declaration of independence. Does that make sense? It's very important that we articulate that correctly. The constitution cannot protect, it's a piece of paper and in any case, the constitution can be changed, but the inalienable rights remain. You could legislate away the freedom of speech and remove the first amendment but the supreme court would be required to discard the deletion as unconstitutional because the foundation for freedom of speech is grounded much deeper than in a piece of paper.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it enumerates rights. It protects those rights as well (by being explicitly listed in the supreme law of the land). this is fairly self evident by looking at the history of any law/government action which was overturned based on the bill of rights - that is the protection in action. What it does not do is GRANT those rights. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
As a sign of good faith, let me change the wording to protect on the article until we can figure out a final solution.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd be throwing coffee cups at the wall if someone had insinuated that the Constitution GRANTS rights ;-) -Justanonymous (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC) From the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," (emphasis mine)

That's why I say that the Constitution enumerates and the Government is tasked with securing (protecting) the rights. The distinction is important.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course the Bill of Rights enumerates rights, but any given amendment doesn't "enumerate" any right. That's because "enumerate" means "mention (a number of things) one by one" or "establish the number of." This implies that you're dealing with a list of things. The Second Amendment doesn't contain a list of rights, it contains one right. A better word might be "articulate." However I still see nothing wrong with the word "protect." It's clear and to the point and I don't see anyone misunderstanding it. Saying that the Constitution doesn't "protect" anyone is semantic absurdity. It's like saying that the Endangered Species Act doesn't "protect" spotted owls, or that homicide laws don't "protect" the populace. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
(Also, as a side note Justanonymous, you re-reverted and then started this discussion. That's not constructive; please stick with WP:BRD. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC))
We were editing the article and when I realized we had an issue we came here - we're talking....and you radacted your comments when you realized that you did a funny implying that homicide laws are there to protect the victim --- hehe you realized you did a funny.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You didn't say the populance and we are dealing with lists, we are dealing with a potentially very long list of rights, 10 of which are enumerated in the constitution in the bill of rights hence the Constitution uses the word enumerate which we should also use. Homicide laws don't protect murder victims (The murder victim is dead!), they merely delineate how the government should punish the criminal! The Endangered species act doesn't protect owls, it merely deliniates how government will punish those who kill the owl! I'm not trying to be a jerk here please understand. The distinction is hugely important. When President Obama swore the oath, it was to protect our liberties and we the people tasked and entrusted him with that yesterday. My rights are only as safe as the job that he and the rest of our elected officials across the land do their job....and it's a big job. We should keep enumerate. Otherwise we might grow to think that murder laws protect victims.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You're missing the point. "Enumerate" is grammatically incorrect because it requires multiple things to be enumerated. The lead as currently written says that the Second Amendment (not the Bill or Rights) enumerates the right (singular) to bear arms. Second, your argument at the ESA doesn't protect owls is really Clintonian. Just look at the lead section of the ESA article, it says the law was designed to "protect" endangered species. I could find hundreds more examples if necessary. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I could argue that you're missing the point. The constitution is specific, it uses the word enumerate, is it grammatically incorrect too? No. The piece of paper lists, the government is tasked with protecting....and in fact it mostly can at best punish. And I'm not being Clintonian, the Constitution uses that language and it's specific for a reason. It's a trap to think that the Constitution protects anything because that's one very short leap to GRANT as Giajin42 warns.-Justanonymous (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. The Constitution refers to the enumeration of "certain rights" (plural), whereas the Second Amendment refers to a single right.
  2. The Constitution isn't an authority on grammar. Case in point, the Second Amendment itself is grammatically malformed. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If we wrote Wikipedia articles like the Founders wrote the Constitution then people would be scratching their heads trying to figure out what we meant for hundreds of years. :) --Nstrauss (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Can we fix the grammar and say that that the

Its political activity is based on the position that firearm ownership is a civil liberty enumerated as the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and the NRA therefore refers to itself as the oldest "civil rights" organization in the United States.[2] Membership reached 4.3 million in 2010.[3]

That would largely fix the grammar. When it comes to the founding fathers, they wrote funny but boy the more I study them the more I understand how smart those old dead guys were and very well educated.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately that wouldn't fix the grammar problem because we'd just be switching from enumerating a right (singular) to enumerating a liberty (also singular). I still don't get your beef with "protect." In any case I've spilled enough ink over this tiny issue, so do what you will. --Nstrauss (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I take your point and concern very seriously. Let me sleep on this and bounce it off some people and I'll come back to you with a final proposal. I don't want to win the consensus by tiring you out. I don't wan to roll you. We'll figure it out. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Also, as a sign of good faith let me change the edit to protected from enumerated until we figure this out. That way if it takes a while to get to a good resolution, I'm not putting my thinking over yours -Justanonymous (talk) 00:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Finances Edits

Nstrauss, I noticed you started editing the NRA's Finance pages. I'm a bit confused by some of your edits, maybe you can help.

"Gun manufacturers also donate to the NRA's lobbying branch, the Institute for Legistlative Action. Since 2005 the organization has received at least $14.8 million from more than 50 firearms-related companies - about 1% of the NRA's budget. JA-I changed this from saying that the gun manufacturers were major contributors, from your statements 14million over 7 years comes out to 1%, very minor, but I thought they got more from gun manufacturers, and it also goes to the ILA not to the NRA, it can't go to the NRA because it's lobbying money I think.[4] In 2008 Beretta exceeded $2 million in donations, and in 2012 Smith & Wesson exceeded $1 million.are these per year? total? what is this? It's confusing to the reader[5] According to an April 2012 NRA press release, Sturm, Ruger & Company raised $1.25 million through a program in which it donated $1 to the NRA's lobbying arm for each gun it sold from May 2011 to May 2012.Is this over the life of the program? How long has that been going on?[5]"

- help cleaning that up appreciated. As you know this is a very contentious article and we have to make sure everything is devoid of POV, I don't think you'll get away with saying that 14million over 7 years is "major" in a budget of 1.2 billion over that time - that's weasle wording so I removed that already. NOw it's a bit unclear from your edits - if they're getting 14million a year from gun manufacturers, that's still only about 4.6% and still doesn't merit the charged word "major funding". Thx for the help but let's be very careful in this article right now. It's easy pick an edit war right now with someone - and there are several editors out there that could wind up blocked if we keep picking fights here. It's a very fragile peace right now. Let's both do our part to keep this civil please, I know you and I disagree on a lot of this but let's not write stuff that is going to get other people mad enough to start an edit war.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

budgets also include where the money comes from. It's best to include that because of the misinfo about gun makers funding the NRA.Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, but now we're starting to cross over into a discussion of "cash flow" versus "how much is spent on what". Since we have an RS for how the money comes in, I think that level of detail should be relegated to the Finances section of the article versus the info box. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Language to describe NRA advertisement

The language used to describe NRA's mid January 2013 ad focusing on the President's children needs to be unemotional to avoid POV. The ad actually fits the definition provided here, but I choose to leave out that link to avoid emotional attachments. --Zeamays (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your language is less descriptive and less neutral. The more descriptive wording should be used. There's nothing "emotional" about the other wording. Saying that the NRA "complained" about the children of the US President receiving special protection by armed agents is patently false; what the NRA complained about is a perceived double standard. No one is complaining about the president's daughters being protected. That's terribly slanted wording. ROG5728 (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I saw the advertisement in question, and it the tone was harsh throughout, hateful in fact, so I guess you're right about that. --Zeamays (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and most definitely not a political agenda vehicle. One ad might not merit inclusion. Links need to be fixed or I will be removed for lack of RS. The views of pundits is hardly notable. To be fair the link to the ads should be in if his is going to stay. Justanonymous (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
this particular ad made news on all the networks and major newspapers--that certifies that it is notable. The point is that readers need to know about it to understand the political battle underway. Rjensen (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
then it needs to be WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT, doesn't belong under just criticism and we would link to the video.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Several comments here do not recognize the fact that the hateful NRA ad caused a major controversy in itself, getting Chris Christie, fact checkers and WaPo reporters involved, just to name a few, based on the citations that are now attached to the event. The reason for mentioning the ad at all, is to introduce why Christie and the others are upset at the NRA. One editor above is concerned about Wikipedia being a vehicle for propaganda, which is what the NRA ad is. That is why all significant sides of the debate need to be included. --Zeamays (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
hateful nra? This is not the mindset for editing Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. No room for activism. See WP:NPOV. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The mindset of Wikipedia is to include each side of a serious debate, even if an editor disagrees with the other side. --Zeamays (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, yes, ROG, include your poll if you can find a citation to a reliable source. --Zeamays (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the comment about the Washington Post fact checking. Its misleading and non-relevant.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not misleading to include findings of a factchecker, in fact that should be considered a notable matter. Keep in mind, we are describing a debate, not taking sides. --Zeamays (talk) 04:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If the "factchecker" is being misleading, then yes it is. ROG5728 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

per WP:BRD we should reach consensus here before adding contentious material. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read Mr. Kessler's article before you suggest deleting it. He presented a series of facts and interviews with the school and comparisons to other schools. So, its factual validity has not been challenged. If you have an example of Mr. Kessler's article being factually challenged, please cite it and place the citation in the article. Your personal opinion carries no weight here. --Zeamays (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC) Oh, yes, I initially entitled the subsection, From prominent Republicans because the criticism by Republicans is notable (and unexpected) and because the subsection features only Republicans. It is misleading to retitle it to make it more generic, so I have reverted to the original title. --Zeamays (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
We will NOT have edit warring, and we all will adhere to WP:BRD. Otherwise, heavier hands will come down and block all our accounts for a protracted period of time. I suggest respectfully that we all debate changes here before we edit this very contentious article. Zeamays, I ask that you assume good faith on the part of editors in making their changes and everyone should also assume good faith in your edits. However by your own admission you say you are a partisan, which is fine. Let us all reach consensus on the material changes needed here and then let's edit the article. Please do not make incendiary or POV laden edits to the article. If you do and your edits are reverted you are bound by WP:BRD to come here and discuss. Let's follow the policy please. There are plenty of great administrators out there who are frankly tired of bickering on these pages and the law will come down fast and furious if we devolve to edit warring. Now let's sensibly debate the edits needed here and let's go make this article better!-Justanonymous (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Justanonymous, I suggest you look elsewhere about the POV. My edits have been factual; have a look. You need to distinguish between the talk page and the article. Your comment is not moderate in tone, it also appears to assume that my edits have merely been edit warring. Have a look; I've consistently added new facts. It only becomes edit warring when editors just delete factual, documented material, instead of providing the alternative view, which is what responsible Wikipedia editors do. I have provided a reasoned discussion on this page of the major edits. In my last edit, I added considerable material which had been lacking, particularly that the fact-checking was the signed work of Mr. Kessler, rather than just citing WaPo, as had been in someones earlier edit (I was not the originator of the fact-checker reference). --Zeamays (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
let's stick to the edit in question, why do you think it merits addition, several appear to disagree, convince us, or the forces that be. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad to discuss it. I provided information that the fact-checker was Mr. Kessler, not the WaPo, and that information was backed with a citation showing his authorship. What are you questioning about that? I think getting the facts correct is very desirable in Wikipedia. I suggest you give equal weight to questioning the merits of deleting my edit. --Zeamays (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Others removed it, lets see what they think. Emotional statements or personal attacks not needed. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete fact checking reference - The fact checking statement is not relevant, if anything its inclusion is misleading and spurious. The ad says "armed guards", it does not specify if the guards work for the school or are Secret Service. WP is not a newspaper or a tabloid.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Delete fact checking reference - agree, it's not fact checking really, it's semantics and incendiary. At most we can alter the wording slightly on the asentence to make it clear that the armed security is provided by secret service but the way the additions are worded its spurious and frankly sounds angry.....Which by theway when i saw the ad, i understood that security was being provided by ss not the school.Frankly this one ad does not merit inclusion I wikipedia and the likes of coulter are not really citadel in this context, these people say a lot of things and we're not pay to document their every word. If it stays we need a link to the advertisement in question. So people can see it.Justanonymous (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep fact check from reliable third party source - The NRA doesn't need people to rescue it from the fact checkers. A reputable, mainstream news outlet, The Washington Post, criticized the ad. Not only that, but they criticized it in a fact check. People who have regular exposure to NRA materials may have read into it "Secret Service protection," but the ad itself only makes mention of armed guards. It is not a clear implication. Moreover, removing a fact check seems particularly antithetical to Wikipedia's philosophy. A reliable third party proved that X is true. Isn't that exactly what constitutes a valid source? Also, this is a criticism section, so what exactly disqualifies this criticism from inclusion? Personally, based on the widespread coverage and criticism, I think this video warrants its own paragraph in the criticism section. Describe the ad, the overall reaction, and include the criticism. Christie's remarks can be kept where they are with the conservatives who have criticized the NRA. Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Athene, please demonstrate that "X" is relevant to the article. So far no one has disputed the fact that the guards at the school are not armed or that Kessler has verified this. But how this piece of information relates to the NRA ad as anything other than POV has yet to be demonstrated.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a newspaper and it's not a chrono journal of every action the organization takes nor every critique. This is an ecyclopedic article is about the NRA. Most of this minutiae is not relevant. It's POV pushing.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
the battle between the NRA and the Obama administration has already gained worldwide attention in the major newspapers and media; political observers deem it to be of great importance, and must be covered here. Rjensen (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're talking about American gun politics in the United States during the early 2000s then it can be covered there, not in a general criticism of the nra, it needs balanced coverage. This is immaterial minutiae in the wrong place. -Justanonymous (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
NOTHING must be covered here. Making a claim like this is tantamount to an admission of having a POV and pushing it into the article. Justanonymous is correct, any assertions of this type if neutral, non-contentious, and supportable with reliable sources belong in the Gun politics or similar article.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete fact checking for reasons outlined above. Also, if we are going to include criticism of the NRA in this article at all, we should also include praise so as to be neutral. According to Gallup polling, most Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA, and the NRA has a higher approval rating than President Obama. Furthermore, most Americans agree with the NRA's proposal for armed guards in schools. Reading this Wikipedia article, though, you would think the opposite is true (on all of those points). That means the article currently violates WP:NPOV and it needs to be balanced. ROG5728 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Excellent point ROG5728. Do you know of any references that aren't as recent? The points should be made with regard to historical perspective, not just for current events.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The paragraph isn't about the NRA's proposal, it's about their ad. I agree that the polling is noteworthy but it doesn't belong here. Perhaps it belongs in Gun politics in the United States. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep fact checking Like Athene cunicularia, I'm mystified under what policy the Kessler article should be excluded. This is about as reliable a source as can be and is highly notable. Relevance? Of course it's relevant, it's responding to the ad that's the subject of the paragraph. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete Reference - I'm clarifying my position. Glenn Kessler is just another writer and NOT a fact checker, the WP article says as much. The article that is being cited as a RS and touted as fact checking is anything but. The article verifies the NRA claim that there are armed guards at the school. In the last section, Kessler clearly indicates that he is challenging what he feels is an "impression" given by the ad. His use of facts is for the purpose of pushing his POV, thus is not appropriate for the NRA article. WP is not a newspaper.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I might have a response but I'm not going to make it until you remove the revisions you made to others' comments (including my own). You're free to point out that this was not fact checking but per WP:TPO you're not free to edit others' comments just to make a point. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I trust Scalhotrod was working in good faith, agree this is not a fact checking edit. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry in advance for this rant. I have been watching this page for a long time. And while I do agree that this article has gotten progressively (no pun intended) worse in recent weeks, ROG5728's assertion that the entire thing is now slanted toward Barack Obama's policy goals doesn't pass the laugh test. Paragraph after paragraph intricately details all the good things that the NRA does to endear itself to Americans. Also, how polling is relevant to this particular discussion (whether to include a link to a fact check) is beyond me. Does the public's perception of the NRA inform the decision about whether to include this link in the article? Does their interest in putting armed guards in school? No, not at all. If you want to include the polling data it in the article, put it in. Create a section called "Public perception of the NRA." At any rate, I don't care about the fact check. Anyone can watch that ad or read its transcript and know that it's disingenuous. But while you guys were squabbling about this minor issue, people (like whoever edited the lede as it is right now) are making this page look like crap. You guys need to get a grip. The NRA doesn't need enemies or defenders. Quit edit warring to either smear or protect the organization, and make this article better. Athene cunicularia (talk) 03:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Athene, I agree with you, it has degraded. Differences in style aside, it could be a lot better. The squabbling just creates a war of attrition. The article should be maintained by those that have a personal interest in the subject, yet can maintain a neutral viewpoint. The Sandy Hook shooting has made this article and many other firearm or gun politics related articles (no pun intended here either) the target of so many POV pushers and soapboxers recently that its tough to keep up with good faith edits let alone the outright vandalism. I'm all for stating both sides of a debate or subject or controversy, but editors should have the integrity to come out and state that upfront. Trying to sneak in POV via "facts" or RS that turn out to be garbage reduces the credibility of WP and in the end accomplishes nothing.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Quite frankly, the fact that the gun debate has flared up recently is no reason for partisans to erode the quality of the article, as Scalhotrod, has stated. This is an encyclopedic article and needs to broadly document the NRA. It is not a soapbox to write down every minutiae that happens occurs in the life of the NRA. Ask yourselves, will anybody care one iota about this advertisement in 10 years? The answer is an unequivocal NO. Historians might be interested in the gun politics of the 2000s, which should be documented in more detail at gun control. This is an article about the NRA, it's not a place for a little edit war over junk that frankly doesn't matter. Let's write a good article that describes the NRA. If you're an activist on either side of this debate, go picket somewhere. This is not the place to conduct your little activism (pro or anti gun). Here we document by writing encyclopedic articles. I agree that the article sucks, that it is slanted, and that petty partisan edits are eroding the quality of the article severely as Scalhotrod has said.-Justanonymous (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Some want to delete reference to the NRA's ad in question. They consider it ephemera. However, the fact is it has stirred up a mighty big debate and caused loyal Republicans to criticize the NRA, which is notable. It is the notability evidenced by this debate that cause the requirement for inclusion. --Zeamays (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Zeamays I sympathize but quite frankly the NRA's activities are seen as incendiary by those on the opposite side of the debate. The distance between the two camps creates significant polarization. It's immaterial. We haven't documented the actions of the NRA to this level of detail during the gun ban of 1994 nor the expiry in 2004. We are not a newspaper. Time will tell WP:NORUSH - we're in norush to just hack away at the article. I would say that in all of this a modest entry in gun control in the right section indicating very notably that President Obama didn't run on Gun Control but that he has been faced with circumstance, as so often happens with Presidents, to tackle the topic during his second term. That's noteworthy, the fact that a bunch of lobbying groups are running ads, a moreso the particular ads is quite frankly and very clearly POV pushing and irrelevant to the history of an organization whose history dates back to the 1800s. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Further, this entry plays a particular anti-gun narrative by suggesting that the NRA is out of touch with moderate Republicans and with moderate Americans. This is very clearly POV pushing by a liberal side and it frankly has zero place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be a party to anti-gun or pro-gun politics. -Justanonymous (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep the mention. Articles that deal with old organizations are no different than those that deal with new ones. An article may need to be broken up into specialized new articles when it becomes too lengthy. However, one measures notability by the degree of public comment and debate, not by its mathematical length in relationship to old history. In this case, the outrage expressed by the Republican New Jersey Governor is a key fact in establishing notability. The news is, after all, the first draft of history. Wikipedia does not shrink from including developing events in other cases, and it should not here. It just makes things more difficult for Wikipedia editors to keep up with and find balance.--Zeamays (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. This is not an example of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER because it has been written about extensively and heavily opined on by notable people on both sides of the debate. The NRA hasn't been in this bright a spotlight for many years. Justanonymous, I agree with you about WP:NORUSH. However the way we deal with NPV issues is to have a balanced paragraph that accurately reflects the RS's. If the RS's happen to paint the NRA in a bad light, that's too bad for the NRA, but it's not POV-pushing. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Zeamays, please stop your proselytizing. The comment and reference have been debunked and this discussion has called inclusion of the NRA ad and subsequent commentary into question altogether simply for the reason of what is included in What Wikipedia is not.

A request has been made with Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms for assistance with this article to return it to a higher quality. I am also requesting that you refrain from making edits to the Bushmaster Firearms International article. Good faith notwithstanding, please do not make edits that do not increase an article's quality, soapboxing is not taken lightly or tolerated on WP when a pattern has been established by an editor.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a fair attack on Zeamays. I don't see any of his/her comments as "proselytizing," and the reference has not been "debunked." I actually agree with him/her. Now as for the request to WP:GUN, I agree that outside input is probably needed to resolve this stalemate but I question whether WP:GUN was the right place to go, since it could be seen as an effort to canvas for editors who might have a pro-NRA bias. A better place would have been WP:RSN. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Nstrauss. The comments immediately above your remark are personal, and they amount to bullying. I am all for having both sides of the debate presented, not just one side. You won't find me deleting or undoing notable and referenced facts added by other editors. The fact that the Republican Governor of New Jersey has had some negative comments about the NRA recently should be part of the article. --Zeamays (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I was supportive of Scalhotrod asking WP:GUN to provide input. We have a broader quality degradation here and need help from people who understand the language. The ongoing american gun debate is eroding the quality here. WP:GUN editors are not pro nra editors- we are all just editors and we should assume good faith. Zeamays no bullying, editors need to understand that sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. We have to have a thick skin. Read below, Nstrauss and I had a spirited debate and reached broadly a consensus on a multitude of points and on the last minor quib, he thought it wasn't worth continuing to expend ink and in good faith I acquiesced. Nstraus, im still laughing about our homicide laws protecting the victim bit ;-). Zeamays, Please don't feel bullied because someone pushes hard, it hurts me you think that. FYI, Scalhotrod and I have disagreed plenty, take a look at Sandy hook. In all fairness, you did say you were a partisan. In a year I promise that likely little that any of us argue over today will still be here, it's a fluid environment. Go in peace, Cheers, but let's keep debating this and making it better.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Back to what I was saying earlier. According to Gallup polling, most Americans have a favorable opinion of the NRA, and the NRA has a higher approval rating than President Obama. Furthermore, most Americans agree with the NRA's proposal for armed guards in schools. Reading this Wikipedia article, though, you would think the opposite is true (on all of those points). That means the article currently violates WP:NPOV and it needs to be balanced. ROG5728 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
To add to that, let me also point out that according to the same Gallup poll I quoted, 83 PERCENT of Republicans support the NRA, but instead the article currently talks about criticisms of the NRA from one or two fringe clowns, as if they speak for Republicans as a whole. That's an absurd violation of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE, and it needs to be changed. ROG5728 (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree completely ROG5728, we need to take all of this out of criticism and write a balanced NPOV entry on this.-Justanonymous (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Just: (1) It was bullying because the substance of what they wrote was to single me out and tell me to quit the argument, so they could have their way. (2) Whether you or I or any other editor has a personal point of view is irrelevant in Wikipedia. My edits in National Rifle Association have not expressed any personal opinions, whatsoever, just facts. (3) Making an article better is not done by deleting facts and references one doesn't agree with, but by clarifying the language, improving the organization, adding suitable new material and finding reliable citations for support. If some editors find new, notable, well-referenced material one-sided, they ought to find opposing statements and citations, not delete what they don't like. A couple of the editors wrote on this page they didn't want to include the mention of Christie's statement because it made the NRA look bad or fit in with an anti-gun argument. That may be true, but it isn't an acceptable reason to delete the substance of what Christie said. (4) If some editors are concerned with the quality of the article, maybe they should propose an NPOV set of revisions not just disparage other editors. (5) The reason for putting in information on the ad was because Christie's statement cannot be understood without describing the ad. (6) You are certainly correct that nothing in a Wikipedia article is permanent, either mine or yours. Don't hold your breath. --Zeamays (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: While I was writing the above, two edits were added by ROG that just prove my point (3). ROG is blatantly POV. He wants Wikipedia to be in line with his views and a poll that doesn't deal with the specific criticisms. He thinks criticism of NRA shouldn't be included. WOW. --Zeamays (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I just want Wikipedia to be in line with reality, and in reality 83% of Republicans and a majority of Americans DO NOT have an unfavorable opinion of the NRA despite the misleading impression currently given by this article. And you're right, criticism should NOT be included unless it is given due weight. That is Wikipedia policy, not my opinion. ROG5728 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

There are really three types of criticism to the nra:

  1. that it isn't strict enough in defending gun rights.....Tha it's too liberal
  2. that its too strict and that it doesn't compromise
  3. that its out of touch with its membership (disputed by ROG fairly effectively, it appears to be very in line with members from the stats)

The first two should be included in a well written and organized criticism section. -Justanonymous (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just, that was a good joke, or was it a joke? If you don't understand what critics are actually saying, you are living in an echo chamber. Wikipedia articles are not "feel-good" pieces to stroke the feelings of the in-crowd who agree with the subjects of articles. --Zeamays (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's get back to the NRA advertisement please. If there are other WP:NPV issues they belong in another talk thread. --Nstrauss (talk) 06:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Christie critique is pretty foreseen, the guy goes nuts anytime anybody even dares glance in the general direction of where his children might have been, it's just the way he is. It's not a critique at the NRA per se, it's a critique at anybody who mentions his kids, go through the record. At the same time he's completely unempathetic because we did just lose 20 children! The NRA didn't out of the blue pick to point out Obama's children, we just lost 20 children, as a parent I get it. It's fine to use the bodies of the dead as a political tool and to parade around the survivors but don't you dare mention my kid. The Pundits, well those guys just want ratings. It's pretty straight forward, this advertisement is just one in a long history of incendiary NRA advertisements and positions according to liberals and I'm sure the Brady Campaign has some crazy advertisements that the NRA and it's supporters abhor and think are horrific. Zeamays, you looking for those at the moment to add to the Brady website? haven't seen you agressively pouring too much ink over there. They've had advertisements since then but the last talk is dated 4 December! Hmmmmmm. Why don't you zealously cover their ads?-Justanonymous (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We're here to improve this article, not to impugn other editors' motives -- right? So let's cool it. As for the substance of your comment, there's a nugget of truth buried in there, namely that Christie blows his stack all the time, which makes any particular comment slightly less notable. Nevertheless he's still a high-profile Republican, and any time he denounces a traditional Republican ally is quite notable. As for your comment that this is just another ad incendiary to liberals, no, the point is that the ad was roundly criticized by people on both the left and the right -- and that's very rare and extremely notable. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We disagree and this is clearly POV pushing. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Also this was not roundly criticized, NBC asked as many people as they possibly could to denounce this and on Meet the Press Senator Cruz did not. So please don't overinflate the criticism please. Let's be objective. Christie blew his top and a few talking heads were besides themselves....we do have 20 dead kids right? If we can't talk about school protection for elites now, when can we mention their unequal school security? Shocking that Andrea Mitchell was so besides herself at the mention of Obama's kids (who were not called out by name and who were not pictured in any way). This is just liberal POV pushing - very clearly. The agenda is very clear.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
So aside from Christie how many notable elected officials have come out against this ad? I don't think talking heads in infotainment outlets who have to fill in 24 hours of onair time are notable. How many elected officials have come out? can we have sources?-Justanonymous (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
As Nstrauss wrote 1/23/13 above, let's go back to the topic. But one comment, Just: Stop trying to bait me into making this personal and don't bully me about my positions. Keep to the topic. You began by attacking Gov. Christie, then switched to justifying NRAs attack ad, to claiming NRA and Brady campaign ads are equivalent, to baiting me. Keep on-topic! As of now there is little that can be added regarding the notability of Gov. Christie's statement. It was notable for the reasons given by Nstrauss. Inclusion on grounds of notability is not decided by a poll or by counting up how many pols share a view. It should stay. --Zeamays (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree. Justanonymous, it's time to cool it with the "liberal POV pushing" drumbeat. It assumes bad faith and at this point it's uncivil. The people who disagree with you have made good faith arguments and you can make substantive counterarguments without impugning anyone's motives. Let's stick with the following discrete subjects. If there's something else someone wants to talk about re the advertisement, make a new subheader. If you want to talk about general bias in this article then start a new discussion thread. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Respectfully to all, this is a broad encyclopedic article on the NRA. It is an article. It is not a loose collection of citations. If a criticism section is needed, then it should broadly cover the criticisms of the NRA and if the NRA is praised, a section for that can be inserted as well.. It is not a place for petty POV pushing attacks which is what people have recently tried to do. The NRA is always putting out material that many people take offense to. It's not notable. We have a governor who blew his top and we have a half right half wrong supposed fact checker - who is not a really a fact checker on a lone advertisement. these do not meet WP:GNG, do not meet Wikipedia is Not a Newspaper, Wikipedia is not a loose collection of a quote that every lone governor makes. I will not cease to call this POV pushing and weasle wording - that is what this is. They don't merit inclusion based on WP:GNG, What Wikipedia is Not, and WP:OR. Sorry guys-Justanonymous (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No offense Justanonymous, but I'm sensing more than a little WP:IDHT from you. In effect you're saying, you're right, period, and you're not going to consider any counterarguments, and any counterarguments you do hear are not only wrong but made in bad faith. This is an example of disruptive editing and is grounds for an WP:ANI complaint. Now quit your whining, start acting like a grown-up again (I know you can do that), and put together some civil and coherent arguments under the subheaders below. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
no offense taken but there is no consensus. Others have spoken against the inclusion here. The fact they haven't participated in your little format is no reason to discount them.. The fact they're not going ad nauseoum here back and forth with you doesn't mean they agree with you. You have failed to reasonably make your point here. And nobody appointed you arbitrator of this little party. So respectfully, please get in line. Make your point or go away. I could say that you and Zeamays are WP:idht. I've given solid reasons, you have not provided reasonable refutation. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
You could say that but you'd be wrong. You're the one who has been acting uncivilly, assuming bad faith, and stifling discussion. Neither Zeamays nor I ever suggested that there was consensus, clearly there is not. Hence the need for a civil discussion. As for the organization of this discussion, as Zeamays pointed out in the last couple of days you have managed to muddle multiple content issues: (i) the Kessler article, (ii) the Cristie quote, and (iii) NPV issues extending beyond the paragraph at issue. If you don't like the organization I've proposed then change it. But if you want to turn this thread into your own personal rant then you're just being disruptive. Please stop, re-read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, and then do your best to reengage in the content dispute in a productive manner. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I have followed policy and consider your words harrassment. I take serious offense, I have done nothing but tried to be reconciliatory when Zeamays said he was being bullied. My words are on record. That said, the addition of two random sources violate WP:GNG, What Wikipedia is not, WP:OR. The addition is not notable on a general article of the NRA - as I have stated before. The votes and views of the editors are on record with their rationale. There is no consensus. Let us discus civilly, I have stated my position, please state yours, also please refrain from baseless personal attacks and accusations at me Nstrauss-Justanonymous (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Kessler WaPo "Fact Checker" reference

Can someone please take a stab at summarizing why the Kessler reference does not belong here? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Christie quote

Can someone please take a stab at summarizing why Cristie quote does not belong here? --Nstrauss (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Call for dispute resolution

This discussion has gone nowhere lately. I propose we proceed to WP:DR. Does anyone want to weigh in on where we go? I propose either WP:RFC or WP:DRN since it appears we have a mishmash of neutrality, reliability, and notability issues. However I humbly request that someone else tee it up. (It seems every time I tee up a DR escalation I screw it up somehow.) --Nstrauss (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

NRA business model and Finances

Hi Folks, so my understanding is that the NRA is made up of various units. The main org (NRA) is actually a "non profit club" (501-c-4) with 4 non-profits (501-c-3) and a lobbying group. Here's what Guidestar says...

"The NRA is a 501(c)(4) membership association with four 501(c)(3) charitable subsidiaries and a Section 527 Political Action Committee separate segregated fund. The NRA’s four charities are NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, NRA Foundation Inc., NRA Special Contribution Fund (dba NRA Whittington Center), and NRA Freedom Action Foundation."

Money is donated to them AND moves between them and is also spent on various programs and such. I just want everyone to understand this when we make statements in the article. So unless we have a source that says $X was donated for ???, its probably safer to say it just went to the NRA versus the ILA, the Foundation, or whichever. Makes sense?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

well money cannot readily move between these types of organizations. I sit on boards and can attest that there are very strict rules on how monies are collected and used depending on the charter. we have zero insight into the internal mechanics and shouldn't guess. they're private corporations. We can only report what they publish and disclose it comes from them or their tax records if they are public. We shouldn't guess, estimate and should be very careful with so called watchdogs who might have agendas and fail WP:OR.-Justanonymous (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually non-profits can donate to other non-profits, I know this because I sit on the board of a 501-c-3 that regularly makes donations. Of course its part of our mandate to do so. But in the article, we have a referenced statement about the NRA Foundation making a $12M donation to the NRA (supposedly the 501-c-4 part). The refs are the Bloomberg and FactCheck articles.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
right, it's just not readily clear how they're set up and their internal mechanics are closed. I worry that Bloomberg fails OR and likely has an agenda. Neither Greenpeace nor Sierra Club have Financial Sections, why is one here when most of what we can add is largely guesswork? We're likely largely guessing and relying on sources that fail OR. It also changes from year to year.-Justanonymous (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
We're in agreement, I was just pointing out an aspect that I thought we should keep in mind when making edits.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter in Lede

This article is being seriously degraded by partisan edits. The lede does not need to add in parens the incorporation date of the 501c corporation. That goes in the body, where a serious editor can add the founding, incorporation of the 501c and the reasons for the creation of the ILA, the legislative branch. Do some work for us. Let's keep the lede clean and uncluttered with overly complicated sentences and without minutiae that are just POV pushing. The way it reads by adding the year of incorporation right next to the founding is partisan POV pushing attempting to dilute the history of the organization. Belongs in body. This is not a platform for pro or anti gun people, this is an encyclopedic article that describes the NRA. It needs to read like a good solid article, not a collection of contested sentences with unnecessary descriptors added every time somebody has an issue with a statement.Justanonymous (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at Sierra Club and Greenpeace, two similar organizations to the NRA, neither have this kind of partisan wordsmithing in their ledes. Let's go write articles-Justanonymous (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree, the lede has become larded up with loaded anti-NRA language. Most notably the NRA lobbies for the interests of gun owners and manufacturers, not for "its reading" of the second amendment. Time for another fix. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
The "its reading of" language was added in this revision. I don't think RJensen did anything wrong since it was an improvement over the previous, even more loaded language. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Justanonymous, what do you think of my changes? (Do you still think I'm an anti-NRA POV-pusher?) --Nstrauss (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and made a few other changes for clarity. Overall, I'm assuming good faith from the vast majority of editors on here with a few clear exceptions. I just want the article to be NPOV and factual and read like an encyclopedic entry. I think we have to work through the entire article and take a pretty heavy hand to some of the items in there. Scalhotrod advocates a clean slate approach for some of the sections and I agree.-Justanonymous (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I like your changes except for the new references to the NRA-ILA. It seems like it's getting too far down in the weeds. Most newspapers talk about the NRA (not the ILA) when describing the NRA's lobbying activities. Also, I believe somewhere I read that the NRA is actually an umbrella group comprised of 9 different legal entities. A description of the organizational structure may be appropriate for the body but not for the lead, especially if one of our goals is to reduce clutter.
I agree that there are portions of the article that need major work but I'd advocate for a thorough clean-up effort instead of a clean-slate approach. A lot of work has gone into these sections and it would be a shame to lose it. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the vast majority of the article sections can be cleaned up and to Scalhotrod's point I think there are maybe one or two that might benefit from a clean slate - mostly the criticism and praise (haha) sections. I'm torn on the NRA/ILA thing. There are a ton of programs under the NRA. It's mostly a safety, training, proficiency and publishing organization. The ILA is the one that is licensed for lobbying and that's its own unique beast. The history of the organization and its transformation are fascinating and I hope we can have that come across in the article. Aside from the hystrionics going around out there, the NRA should have a high quality NPOV factual encyclopedic article - there is a lot of history there. Thx for the help. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Certainly the ILA engages in the NRA's highest profile activities but you still don't see major news outlets referring to it. I think its inclusion in the lead is slightly confusing and a bit on the technical side. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I buy that, let me reword that out. It'll probably make the lede cleaner and shorter.-Justanonymous (talk) 20:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Justanonymous, what's the difference between a gun and a firearm? Aren't they synonyms? --Nstrauss (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with the term gun if we wikilink to the term gun because there the reader will get the feel for the broadness of the term. The challenge is that gun has become synonymous with "pistol" in common language - while in academic circles it is truly a very broad term that includes land and naval canons. I'm worried that it'll be narrowly interpretted to only mean handgun. The term firearm is in common language come to mean revolvers, semiautomatic pistols, rifles, semiautomatic rifles, flintlocks but it does not include cannons or naval cannons which the academic term gun still includes. Firearm is the term that you hear around people who handle pistols, rifles, etc and gun generally means pistols.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I have no problem with firearm, I was just curious. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
To add on, firearm is the term used in most laws and gun typically means any tube that's closed on one end and shoots a projectile out of it (including artillery). Firearm is specific to small arms in most definitions. I have no objection to using the term "gun" colloquially in articles though, because most people understand it to mean small arms. To disagree with justanonymous on one point though, I don't think "gun" signifies a handgun to most english speakers; I think that it offhandedly means any small arms firearm to most people (including revolvers, autoloading pistols, rifles, shotguns, etc.), even those unfamiliar with them. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Non Profit Report for the National Rifle Association of America". Guidestar.org. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
  2. ^ See NRA, "Statement From the National Rifle Association" (April 16, 2007)
  3. ^ Gregg Lee Carter (2012). Guns in American Society. ABC-CLIO. p. 594. ISBN 978-0-313-38671-8.
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference toasters was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference factcheckfinances was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Rifle_Association/Archive_1&oldid=1137038471"