Firearms Myth 10: Gun Rights Group X Doesn't Represent Me

Like all the other myths I've written about, this one also drives me crazy. When you talk to a gun owner out there about firearms lobbyists and rights groups, inevitably you'll mention one that will get a reaction from the gun owner. That reaction is often negative, and the gun owner will say something like "I don't like them," or "they didn't do enough to...," or "I'm a different type of gun owner and they don't represent me." B.S. If you are a gun owner, every legitimate gun rights group in the United States represents you, and you should be supporting them.

Look, I get it, some of the gun rights groups come with a certain stereotype and may not align with your personal style. They may annoy you in their delivery, and you may not like the issues they elevate. You may even disagree with them on some issues. But here's the deal, you are up against multi-billionaires who want to take away your rights completely, regardless of how you exercise them. You are upset with lobbyists over their approach on certain topics while liberal politicians are trying to ban you from owning a gun period. What keeps them from doing so are these large gun rights organizations. Do they get it right 100% of the time? No, of course not. Do they support you? Yes, you own a gun, and they are all about protecting your right to do so. 

I recently heard one YouTube gun commentator point out that we as gun owners moan and groan over our $25 a year membership fees to some of these organizations, yet willingly spend thousands of dollars each year on firearms, ammunition, and accessories. He's absolutely right. The bottom line is, without these rights groups active today, you won't be able to purchase or own any of that stuff.

I'll call out NAGR as one of those annoying rights group that make me pause. There's all kinds of hate about them as well if you read into their background or story at all. For me, it was their delivery...all those fake emails that are trying to look personal. All those scary stories that end with "now send us money." They annoyed the heck out of me, but you know what, they are a voice out there fighting to protect my rights. They are a lobbyist group who engages with elected politicians, furthering the preservation of the second amendment. They are a resource for people interested in guns to come and learn from. They are on my side, doing work I am not, so, I owe them my support.

I recently chatted with a gun owner who absolutely hates the National Rifle Association. This person is a hunter who thinks the second amendment has nothing to do with personal defense or liberty. That's another post for another day. Based on their belief, they don't like modern pistols, they don't like semi-automatic rifles, and they don't like today's magazine capacity beyond the standard 3-5 round count found in bolt action rifles. They view all those as items the public shouldn't have. They are the classic gun owner who draws the line with the question, "was that designed for the military?" The NRA obviously fights to protect people's rights to own all firearms of any type regardless of the driver or early adopter of any design. So, this person in particular doesn't like the NRA because in addition to supporting hunters, they also support every other lawful gun owner out there. My friend actually thinks that by protecting 2A rights from the liberty and defense perspective, that the NRA is intentionally helping to put people in danger. That ridiculous, but it's another post for another time. Here's the deal though, without the NRA, hunters wouldn't be able to own firearms either. The NRA is the loudest voice in protecting the 2nd amendment. They are the ones who stand up and fight every time politicians try to suppress our civil rights. The NRA-ILA keeps me informed on local issues and helps me engage my local politicians on related issues. I owe them my support.

I often reference the Cal Guns organization forums and website to make sure I'm up to speed on laws and just as a great source for firearms technology and related topics. They are a tremendous resource, and they fight the anti-gun voices here in my home state. I owe them my support, after all, I rely on them to continue fighting the issues they are fighting in court today; all attempts to suppress my rights.

You see anti-gun people don't like firearms period. They are attacking the modern types like AR-15s and polymer semi-automatic pistols, but their views extend beyond that. Look at Hillary Clinton and her favoritism toward total confiscation as was implemented in Australia. Obama, the leader of the Democrat party, has elevated nations with complete bans on firearms are more modern and civil than the US. More recently, in CA, we had liberal politicians claiming they could have prevented the San Bernadino terrorist attacks if only we had stricter gun laws. Their outlandish claims that "guns kill people," are not restricted to one brand or one model or one design. They aren't saying "modern sporting rifles are killing people." They are after guns in general. As with all liberal movements, they start by targeting what they can attack easily to win people toward their argument. When they win that argument, they move on to the next until they have controlled the entire issue. Listen to these politicians and anti-gun voices. They don't care about hunters. In fact, they often view hunters in a worse light than your average tacticool AR-15 owner because hunters are killing animals.

The question "was that designed for the military" when used by an anti-gunner or hunter really annoys me. I'm good with that question when it's from someone who is simply trying to learn, but when someone uses the question to discern whether or not a firearm is appropriate for private ownership, that's when I go ballistic inside. The very first firearm was designed for the military, specifically to suppress local populations in China who were rebelling against their government. So firearms in general were designed for the military. You could probably trace every modern firearm to a military objective at some point. Bolt action rifles used by hunters were designed "for the military." Lever action rifles that defined the old west were built to solve the challenge of single-shot rifles and initially adopted by the military (although civil war history buffs indicate they were adopted more by private citizens at first for use in the civil war). The point is, yes, that firearm (whatever it is) was designed for the military. Get over it.

When people talk about gun ownership, they don't differentiate between a bolt action hunting rifle and an AR-15. They talk about guns in general terms. Remember that giant gun statue at the UN headquarters? It's not a smashed Glock. It's a revolver with a twisted barrel. They hate guns period. That includes the guns you hunters own and love.

Gun rights groups don't always get it right, but we leave the fight up to them. We sit at home and enjoy our sport and freedoms far away from the courts and legislators. Gun rights groups are right there in the fight, on our behalf. They need our support. They need your support. Send them money. Become members. It doesn't matter if you don't like how they addressed a certain issue. Do you agree with your locally elected politicians 100% of the time? Nope. Neither will you agree with your gun lobbyist 100% of the time. So, engage. Become a member, participate in the discussion, communicate with the organization, attend their gatherings. Do your part.

They do represent you.