Subscribe: Comments for Snowflakes in Hell
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
adam  bear arms  board  bod  comment enemies  comment  don  enemies  government  issue  kraut  lot  meetings  nra  people  time  years 
Rate this Feed
Rating: 3 starRating: 3 starRating: 3 starRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments for Snowflakes in Hell

Comments for Shall Not Be Questioned

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State ...

Last Build Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:05:18 +0000


Comment on Enemies Within? by Sebastian

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 18:05:18 +0000

Any NRA member can attend Board meetings and committee meetings, save committee meetings that go into executive session. You can also get a copy of the bylaws by requesting one from the Secretary's office. The BoD does technically have real power, but it's a large body, so it's hard for any one individual to dominate the body. And that's by design.

Comment on Enemies Within? by Bruce McCullough

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 16:19:19 +0000

Andrew Branca (author of "Law of Self Defense", with a foreword by Ayoob) has written on his facebook page: "For folks who don't know, I 100% supported Adam in his last run for the NRA Board, I support him this time, and I intend to support him every single damn time he runs until he wins a seat. Not to be ambiguous about my position on the matter." If Branca likes Kraut, that's enough of an endorsment for me.

Comment on Enemies Within? by MattW

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 15:27:45 +0000

I certainly understand there are things out of the Director's control that may prevent them from attending some Board meetings. And I certainly feel for Ms. Hammer if there are personal or health issues that are serious enough to prevent her from being at the meetings. But in general do we really want Board seats to be taken up by people who don't have the time to actively serve? Or do we want people who are passionate and have the capability to actively serve on the Board. I think the BoD activities aren't public enough, including attendance. I was surprised to even find out the fact that the Bylaws aren't publicly available. Unless the BoD is mostly ceremonial, in which case why even bother?

Comment on Enemies Within? by ParatrooperJJ

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 14:22:45 +0000

The attendance issue is something you deal with before you get elected to a board.

Comment on Enemies Within? by Dave

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:59:00 +0000

Until you’ve actually interacted with a politician directly on an issue, and seen first hand how much weaseling is done to avoid doing anything meaningful. They are masters at deceit, telling you what you want to hear and doing the minimum possible to get reelected. A great example are congressional letters of response that promise nothing yet mollify our constituency. Many of us consider our “people” to be the exact opposite of this, but they’re wrong and wrong for exactly the same reasons we underestimate politicians. Elections are popularity contests that cater to our innermost, base and vapid self interests. Some very high profile of our side are essentially politicians who may or may not share our views, but at least for the time being at least tacitly work on our side. It is naive to think that you can “work your way” on to any policy directing board with non status quo views. If you are outside the established norms, that body will actively work against you to the tune of soliciting, even paying for votes or proxies, character assassination, sometimes outright lying. I’ve seen this first hand and on more than one occasion. These types of boards are literally no better than junior high school cliques of cool girls. Their behavior patterns are exactly the same.

Comment on Enemies Within? by Countertop

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:05:16 +0000

Reviewing the crazy commentators over there it sounds like most of his supporters aren’t actually NRA members (or at least most of those commenting at Ammoland). Which means this is a big nothingburger since they can’t vote (and last I checked you needed to be a life member or an annual member for five consecutive years to vote)

Comment on Enemies Within? by HSR47

Tue, 23 Jan 2018 05:54:44 +0000

In response to your bullet points, in order: * I've been interacting with Adam on a fairly regular basis for several years, and his messaging has always been extremely consistent. The notion that he's some kind of Bloomberg plant is somewhere between a paranoid delusion and an extremely uninspired attempt at character assassination. * Adam is a dedicated supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, he has a lot of thoughts on how the NRA could be more effective, and he has a LOT of friends in the industry. On the whole, I've gotten the distinct impression that his campaign to get on the board has largely been the result of those people hearing Adam's thoughts and pushing him to at least try to put his ideas into action. Go take a look at his published platform and you'll see what I mean about his ideas: -- The TLDR is that the NRA has done great things to a point, but that there are a lot of areas where it has substantial room for improvement. * Exactly. If the things he's been reporting are accurate, it seems that his detractors within the NRA are falling victim to the Streisand Effect. In other words, if those reports are accurate, they just serve as a proof that Adam is correct about the NRA having significant room for improvement. * You're right that the battle over the right to keep and bear arms is, at it's core, a social issue. I think a good analogy for her is the 1986 FOPA: On one hand virtually all the gains we have made in the last 30 years are the direct result of FOPA. On the other hand, we must continually strive for more; we cannot accept the status quo under FOPA as anything other than a launching point for greater liberty. Similarly, Mrs. Hammer has made great contributions to our ability to exercise our right to keep and bear arms. That being said, some of the positions she has taken of late, especially with regard to certain firearm accessories, highlight that she is not necessarily onboard with the ways in which our gun culture has evolved over the last 30 years. Frankly, some of the things she has said in the last few months are as problematic as Bill Ruger's support for magazine capacity limits. Much like Bill Ruger, Merrion Hammer has helped build something that will outlive her, and which others can build upon. In short, I can respect her achievements while also believing that it's time for her to move on and be replaced by fresh blood.

Comment on Enemies Within? by Sebastian

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:57:45 +0000

There are celebrities on the Board who are not engaged with the organization at all, and at least one of whom I'm pretty sure has never even shown up to be sworn in. Attendance by many of those is an issue. But Marion does have a good reason she's been absent a lot (which I'm not going to talk about in public, because I don't know her personally, and don't remember if the information I know is current or whether it was told to me off the record). Also, she's still quite engaged in the issue and with NRA. The problem Adam Kraut brings up is real, but how many people can consistently give up three weeks a year to attend the BoD meetings? I'm not saying everyone has a good excuse, but some do, and publishing something like that isn't going to help make allies.

Comment on Enemies Within? by MattW

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 22:25:18 +0000

Well, first off her paranoid rant in the editorial not only raises Adam Kraut's profile, but also raises questions about herself that I wasn't even aware of. Maybe there are good reasons she hasn't attended a Board meeting in 3 years - but that alone may very likely change how I will vote this next ballot. If you don't have the time, interest, or ability to attend and engage in BOD activities, then I think an Honorary Board is just the place for you. And if Kraut is an anti-gun plant he sure has fooled a lot of industry people as well.

Comment on Enemies Within? by Alpheus

Mon, 22 Jan 2018 20:58:36 +0000

I'd make a poor revolutionary, too, even though I happen to be a so-called anarcho-capitalist, and thus would favor complete abolition of government. Hey, I may be crazy -- few people would make the case that we need no government -- but I'm also a realist: if I had a magic wand that instantly got rid of all government, but left the people as they are, it's clear that the People, convinced that we need government, would merely organize and set up new governments. Hopefully, this would be done democratically, but there's a *huge* chance that a lot of bloodshed would be involved as well. Hence, I'm in favor of small changes. Do we *really* need a government court system? Why don't we try a privatized civil court system and find out? If we made a mistake it wouldn't be that difficult to roll back the changes...and if we succeed, we can then say, "Hey, why don't we try privatizing the road system now?" or "You know, perhaps we don't need a government-run education system?" or even "What do you think about privatizing the police force now -- or at least allow other security firms to compete with the public force?" (Granted, these are huge changes -- I'd advocate finding ways to make even these changes a *lot* more gradual, but these are merely examples that come to mind.) As much as I sometimes wish for Revolution, I know that very few revolutions, if any, actually end with greater freedom. More often than not, they end with a lot of bloodshed and a dictator in charge of government. So, yeah, gradual change beats Revolution pretty much every time...