Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Latest changes

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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wackjobs

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cites needed in the Criticisms section

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The word FIRST was applied to each man

[edit] New International Encyclopedia passages

  • This article incorporates text from an edition of the New International Encyclopedia that is in the public domain.
  • 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 an edition of the New International Encyclopedia that is in the public domain.
  • 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)