I'm an armed citizen for what I believe to be good reasons, but I'm not getting into bed with the NRA.

I checked out a number of other forums, but most of them would not allow an OP on guns. The rules strictly forbade it. This seemed like the best place to post this article.

Do you have any comment on this article? Did you read it?

The baggage that comes along with their message has a definite anti-progressive slant to it.

the regulars in this forum do not appreciate drive-by posts. If you think an article is worth posting, we would like you to start the conversation with a comment about what you found worth in the article.

Yes, yes, we do have a couple prolific drive-by posters here....

I think it's worth posting because I think the author's larger point is that we really need to think outside the box when taking on a billion dollar lobbying juggernaut like the NRA. I don't know if subverting the NRA from within is a realistic concept, certainly not within a few years. But it sure didn't start out the way it is now.

Anyway, my apologies, it was not my intention to make my first post in this group seem like a drive-by. My personal view is that nuts like Wayne LaPierre and his ilk need to be taken out of the lobbying equation as they do not represent the majority of opinion by any stretch of the imagination. What's the best way to do it? I'm open to suggestions, but as a long range idea, I think Mr. Frost-Barnes, even with his tongue in cheek, might be on to something.

I'm a gun-owner, a Democrat and a person who can't stand the NRA. I think the NRA's actual influence is overblown and that they aren't the all-powerful boogeyman that folks think they are, but getting gun-owning Democrats (about 1/3 of Dems are gun-owners) to join the NRA and use that influence to redirect the NRA's influence is an interesting thought.

Thanks!

For the true account of how Democrats created the modern NRA, grab yourself a used copy of Restricting Handguns - The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out.

Interesting story. In a nutshell, FDR cynically attempted to distract attention from Prohibition by going after guns -- only to have Congress deluged by letters from gun owners. That stopped gun prohibition in its tracks. Of course today, lies re. "assault weapons", "gun show loopholes" etc. maintain the power of the NRA.

The entire chapter History of Handgun Prohibition is a great read. Every Democrat who is honestly interested in reducing gun violence in the U.S. should own this book......as well as others by liberal authors/scholars.

I'm pretty sure that's the standard they have.

The idea of "win from within" has been around for over a decade on DU.

The 5 year delay pretty much ends the discussion. Gun control minded people are not known for their perseverance.

The Democratic party left me around the middle of Clinton's terms. Working from within has you slammed as an idiot or traitor for voting for candidates who share pre DLC and Clinton values, instead of the latest dem corporate owned slightly less bat crap insane as repubs are on anti-work, anti-civil liberties, anti-woman candidates. The powers that be just keep getting more insane repubs so the more corporate dems seem to have not shifted ever more right.

While I've actually thought about the same idea and joining, I've decided not to because of various reasons. Don't want to pay dues to them. Don't want them using increased memberships to leverage their agenda. Believe it's effectiveness is akin to joining the KKK to help steer them to becoming the second coming of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

If as one poster noted, you have to be a member for 5 years to vote, then even more reason plan won't work.

Very good to think outside of the box to improve the current climate as the current box is too toxic to get anything done now.

Keep them coming.