Talk:National Rifle Association/Archive 1

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gun homicide para edited for question of racism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Michael Moore 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NRA "victories"????? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political Cartoon in The Palm Beach Newspaper 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, the tight gun control laws have turned out just great. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Rights and Responsibilities 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Big Disparity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Which controversies belong here 

message: "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)
thread_title:  NRA in the South 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Current campaigns 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible copyvio 

message: 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. --Jersey Devil 02:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  International Small Arms Treaty 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NRA Museum/Headquarters 

message: The material is likely accurate but needs cites.  Thanks.--Scribner 08:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites needed in the Criticisms section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Michael Moore 

message: :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)
thread_title:  The League Of Women Voters? 

message: How is forestall a "weasel word"??  —Tamfang 02:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Perhaps it's a question of dialect 

message: * New International Encyclopedia claims that Church was the FIRST president of the NRA.  The Wikipedia article, by contrast, claims that Burnside was the FIRST president.  It turned out that New International Encyclopedia produced the BIG FAT LIE.  I appreciate your help.  GhostofSuperslum 16:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The word FIRST was applied to each man

message: *   
* 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)
thread_title: [[New International Encyclopedia]] passages

message: I changed the title of the first group in the criticisms section from:
<B>From the Gun-prohibition Camp</B>
to 
<B> From those opposed to the NRA</B>
Most of the groups listed do not want to 'prohibit' guns. Title was inaccurate, misleading, and POV. NBGPWS 03:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Changed title in criticisms section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Board of directors 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  terrorists 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Board of Directors 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  NRA Rating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Criticism in the wake of Columbine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  
Criticism of / from the [[American Hunters and Shooters Association]]
 

message: # 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.
# Per WP:TC#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.
# Also, if the NPOV tag applies to the criticism section, then use  instead.
What else do you need a third opinion help with? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: You might also want to review WP:YESPOV. (Jclemens, not signed in) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ''Bowling for Columbine'' anyone...? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  liberal praise of NRA 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The lack of a history section is a major flaw. 

message: The finances information is way too old. This should be updated yearly.
Manncer (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Find a source and update the information.  ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 13:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finances 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  NRA and its Civil Rights Actions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article is very misleading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Last line of intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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  helps explain non-profit organizations better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BHenry1969 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonprofit status 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *The National Guard isn't a civil rights org. Why are we even having this conversation? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is nothing in that source that calls the Guard a civil rights org. In fact, the term "civil rights" isn't even used. Enough with your vandalism. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: *Nothing in that source calls them civil rights orgs either. So far, you've referenced 2 sources that don't support your claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

text: *Your WP:OR and WP:SYNTH won't cut it. Stop vandalizing the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  not the oldest continual civil rights  organization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rename article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Internal organization? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ambrose Burnside 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Camp Perry 

message: 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:
*http://www.cannabis.wikia.com/nra --Timeshifter (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truth-in-sentencing and two and three strikes laws 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Concealed Carry 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History section is weak 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: Sorry if I offended you. It was totally unintentional on my part. --Nstrauss (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

text: I sense a little personal bias here. Let's keep that out and stick to policy.--Nstrauss (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: No offense, but did you even read the comment you were purportedly responding to? --Nstrauss (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: WP should use secondary sources, not primary ones. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *There are times that the primary sources are the best ones. The policy allows it. Please don't pretend otherwise. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:49, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: Because they're reliable. We aren't the truth squad. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Police officers or guards 

message: 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)
thread_title:  National Registry for Mentally Ill 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I just added a section on 1977 and after -- fully sourced. Rjensen (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: A story by Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post ran on 1/13 on the front page  with a great deal of material that could (carefully) be incorporated into the article. Acroterion (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cincinnati Revolt 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please double-check. At the very least you overrode this edit. There may be more. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I did in fact delete "ostensibly", which certainly does not belong. Rjensen (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rjensen's latest edit 

message: 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. 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 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?"
- 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Finances Edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If the "factchecker" is being misleading, then yes it is. ROG5728 (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Others removed it, lets see what they think.  Emotional statements or personal attacks not needed. -Justanonymous (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  I trust Scalhotrod was working in good faith, agree this is not a fact checking edit. -Justanonymous (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We disagree and this is clearly POV pushing. -Justanonymous (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Language to describe NRA advertisement 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Call for dispute resolution

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NRA business model and Finances