In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

NRA members ,Knox faction?

sig-mansig-man Member Posts: 591 ✭✭✭✭
edited January 2002 in General Discussion
What is this Knox faction that is trying to divide the NRA, according to my latest American Rifleman in the election ballot. I thought we were all family in the NRA...
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • RembrandtRembrandt Member Posts: 4,486 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's a power play by some folks that would like to make NRA policy, steer the group in another direction and have cost us a lot of money......simply put...bad news.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,218 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    First time I heard of them was at the annual convention when it was held in Reno.I have never been able to find out what theirgripe is or what they plan other that to takeover control of the NRA.I believe they think that the present boarddoes not go far enough to fight legislation& that they would resist every law to restrict weapons. I could be very wrong on this & I really would like to hear from those who do know what it is all about.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    NRA is like any alliance, there will always be infighting, which is OK so long as it does not hurt the goal of this particular alliance, which is to protect second amendment rights. (or to use my membership money to fill my mailbox with junk mail, and ask me to renew every 2 weeks, when I'm good for 10 months).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    Knox is a regular editorial writer for Shotgun News, and in my opinion, has several good points. You may be aware that Shotgun News is considerably more staunch in their stand for Second Ammendment Rights when compared to the NRA. The NRA has been compromising away gun rights for years. Rather than go into it, I'll let you read for yourself. http://shotgunnews.com/knox/
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    You can find more about him here http://www.firearmscoalition.com/
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RembrandtRembrandt Member Posts: 4,486 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Knox writes a good story, but don't be fooled by it...much more to it than that. There are some very disturbing problems with this group that I would rather not share on this forum...they have done things internally that rank right up there with Bill Clinton. I'll just say that we are extremely fortunate to have the leadership that is currently in there....ask yourself where is the NRA today compared to when Knox was in charge....almost tiwce as large, is now the most effective lobbiest group on the hill, and is in the black...let the record speak for itself. Airing our dirty laundry on the internet and having it used by the grabbers would be counter productive....don't choose Knox.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Amen, Rembrandt knows whereof he speaks. The Knox faction goes all the way back to the convention in Cincinnati (How do you spell it???) in 1976 (or '75 - memory fails).
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • edharoldedharold Member Posts: 465 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I bring your attention to a proposed amendment to the by-laws of the NRA.At present the board is bullet proof. They and the officers use the money we pay as dues to insure their positions and generous remuneration. The election procedures of positions at large are set to insure their re-election. No one gets on the ballot without the blessing of the present board, and guess who they are. If directors were elected by state we would have greater ability to shape organization actions. I'm not a Knox supporter, just a life member who would like to have an opportunity to effect how the organization is run.My 2cents or more. Ed
    "They that would give up liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"Benj. Franklin, 1759[This message has been edited by edharold (edited 01-24-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • timberbeasttimberbeast Member Posts: 1,738 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ed, are you suggesting an NRA "electoral college"? I mean no offense, maybe I'm too dense to get your point??????
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    Thanks Ed, keep going.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • boeboeboeboe Member Posts: 3,331
    edited November -1
    Thanks Saxon, keep going....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • cbxjeffcbxjeff Member Posts: 17,599 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    OK, Rembrandt, If you don't want to share the info on the forum, please share it with me. I've only been a member for a few years, but I put my trust in their actions. I hope I'm not being misled.Jeffjeffrysmith@prodigy.net
    cbxjeffIt's too late for me, save yourself.
    It's too late for me, save yourself.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • edharoldedharold Member Posts: 465 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Sorry for confusion:. There is a pending amendment to the by-laws of the NRA to allow the election of directors by state instead of all members on all 25 board positions. Therefore I, from Washington State, would be able to vote for a board member representing Washington State,who I might know at least by reputation, and not be voting regarding a board member who constituents live in New Hampshire, and whom I don't know from Adam.The present board is oppossing this amendment as it reduces their power control who comes onto the board or to hold their present positions.
    "They that would give up liberty to obtain safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"Benj. Franklin, 1759
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 25-0625-06 Member Posts: 382 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I have been an NRA Life member for many years, and I have not agreed with every thing they have done and are doing now. There are many issues that the Board of Directors have not wanted us to be aware of and this is one of the reasons they want to maintain control by controlling the election process. I do not care who sponsers the amendment for one director from each state. I am going to vote for it because it is good common sense. Read the replys of Heston in the NRA publications. Think about it. The people he claims will not be elected can still be elected at large. If it were not for Neal Knox we would have never had the Cincinnati Revolt and changed the direction NRA was headed. A few years later Knox, because of his uncompromising stances in Washington, pissed off Harlon Carter and he axed him. Knox never has gotten over it and has done some things I do not approve of. However, I feel this state amendment thing is a good idea and whose time has come. We should view the idea on its merits, not who proposed it. Personnaly, I feel the Board and Nominating Committee should not be allowed to print who they support in the magazine. Everyone should have an equal chance to be elected whether board approved or not.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • WyomingSwedeWyomingSwede Member Posts: 402 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I agree also...the present board is a bunch of good ole boys that have no intention of letting in any new blood. I favor the state by state representation for the NRA board. Then if you have some issues you at least have someone in your state to bird dog. Knox may not have all the answers...but a veil of secrecy is not the answer either. These issues have never been fully expounded either on the internet or perhaps where more appropriately "the American Rifleman." swede swede
    WyomingSwede
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RembrandtRembrandt Member Posts: 4,486 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    If the amendment were to pass it would probably give the Knox faction a few more board members because of his strength in certain states....but don't kid yourself, this is nothing more than a power struggle by Knox that has been going on for some time. Anyone that has been involved activly within the NRA for the last 10 years knows what I'm talking about. No matter what you think of both sides, actions speak louder than words....let the records of both factions be compared. When Knox was in power, our friends on the hill were running for cover to distance themselves from Knox. Just because Knox talks a tough line doesn't mean the politicians listen to him, he scared them...so much so that many of our friends voted against measues to keep from being associated with him. Membership was about 1,700,000, less than half of what it is today, and the NRA was not as influental as a political force. Knox's leadership produced some horendous financial shortfalls and just about broke the bank. Under current leadership, the NRA membership is at an alltime high...over 4,500,000 members. The NRA was recently lsited as the most powerful and effective lobbist group in DC, surpassing AARP. The NRA is financially sound and no longer in the debt that Knox left everyone to clean up.Before you buy into Knox's sales pitch, go back and do your homework....check his record when he was in power (not his rethoric in Shotgun News)...and if you are impressed by what you see, then vote for the amendment and his group....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • ZakZak Member Posts: 11 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Count me in on the "email me privately if you don't want to post it here."I've only been a member for two years (not yet eligible to vote) and am more than a bit concerned that my state (Tennessee) has NO voice on the NRA board, and as such, we get VERY little local support--in fact, NRA sometimes seems to work counter to the goals of our state RKBA org.Most of what I read from Knox, I agree with--I suppose when I can finally vote, I'll be part of the "Knox Faction." I don't think it's wise to take the advice of someone on an internet message board, ("Don't vote for those guys, just trust me on this,") with absolutely nothing to back it up.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,218 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The art of politics is knowing how to get something accomplished. Just saying "No" to everything can wind up costing you everything. I know the idea of resisting all proposals sounds good but think of what happens to the tree that doesn't bend in a hurricane.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 25-0625-06 Member Posts: 382 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Rembrandt, as I said, I do not care where the idea came from. Neal Knox or someone else. I think it is a good idea to have one member from each state. You keep talking about the past of Knox and his group. I do not care about that, I care about the overall picture of the NRA. I think you are mistaken about Knox leaving the NRA in bad finacial shape. That had more to do with Marion Hammer and James Baker than Knox. Knox has been out of power since 1982 when he was removed as head of the ILA. That is all beside the point. Let the Bylaw stand on its own merits, Not who proposed it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.