Counter Equivalent for NRA?

I tend to agree and have no idea if there's an organization out there that can compete with the reach and pockets of the NRA. I hope there will be one, though--and the sooner the better.

I would think that with so many feeling so passionately about this subject, if they are serious they would be happy to donate money, form an organization, hold events, etc. for the cause. It's a great idea for those seeking change and I'm quite surprised that one doesn't already exist.

Well, MADD isn't selling anything either, as far as I know. There are other like organizations that band together for a cause such as GLAAD, NAACP, etc. as well as celebrity-led groups like Farm Aid and a host of others. 
I'm sure there are rich people and celebrities who feel the need for gun control that can band together and use their influence and money to start this movement. Not to mention the many many citizens that feel strongly about this. There is strength in numbers and this is an excellent idea. 

Not sure if this is your article link, I could not open it, but here is one:

"What will it take to counter the NRA?
Jun 12, 2016 11:45pm EDT by mnkh
Comment large8
4
After this latest horror, we know that reasonable gun control steps are desperately needed.

But we have been here before -- after Sandy Hook, after Gabby Giffords -- too many times to count.

But even when the public outcry has been at its highest, efforts to produce even modest legislative steps have been blocked by the NRA.

The NRA has for decades been the most powerful and most feared lobbying organization in Washington. Lawmakers considering gun control legislation are scared to death of NRA retaliation. Any major legislation that the NRA opposes stands little or no chance of passage.

The NRA has blocked a ban on assault weapons and a ban on high-capacity magazine clips. The NRA has been able to defeat universal background checks despite the fact that there is overwhelming popular support for them even among gun owners -- even among NRA members.

How is this possible and what can be done to change it?

The NRA is an incredibly effective machine for controlling gun policy. It boasts five million dues-paying members. It has hundreds of millions in annual revenue. It spends tens of millions on every election cycle. It pays for at least a half-dozen federal lobbyists and funds lawsuits and legal actions across the country to block and oppose any steps to regulate guns. In 2010, the NRA spent more than $240 million dollars more than the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the biggest spender among gun control groups.

The NRA keeps close track of friends and enemies, takes names and makes lists, identifying which legislators are with them or against them. They can swarm local, state, or Congressional offices with phone calls with a single rallying cry sent to its membership.

They have a relationship with its members that makes them a key part of their members' lives. While few people vote for candidates simply because they are pro-gun control, the NRA can deliver millions who will vote against candidates on that issue alone.

So how can we expect to get the kind of improvement in gun laws we need under these circumstances?

In my opinion, we will never achieve progress unless we have an organization to counterbalance the NRA -- an organization with a comparable size and commitment of membership, with comparable revenue and spending, and with the hardball tactics that the NRA excels at. In other words, an entity that lawmakers can fear when they don't support gun control as much as they fear the NRA when they do.

1. We need to reduce the fragmentation of the pro-gun control movement.

While there are other pro-gun groups, the NRA is clearly the alpha dog on that side. On our side, things are divided between the Brady Center, Moms Demand Action, Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Gabby Giffords' Americans for Responsible Action.

I have to believe that this diffuses the effort and that some way to effectively combine forces is needed.

2. We need an organization with committed dues-paying members.

Can we not get an NRA-like organization where people who support reasonable gun legislation can commit $40 or $50 a year in dues to fund this effort? If the NRA can get 5 million such members, can our side not get 5 to 10 million who have a similar commitment?

We should have a membership that can counter the NRA with our own automobile decals proudly proclaiming our support for reasonable gun laws. We should have a culture that -- like the other side -- takes pride in such a membership as a way of expressing our views and asserting our influence on the society we live in.

3. We need to match the discipline of the NRA.

Their side has the benefit of a certain simplicity of strategy. They oppose anything that would restrict gun ownership and usage. Our side will have to discipline itself to agree to support one single initiative at a time and commit ourselves to vote for candidates on the basis of that commitment.

4. We need to embrace tactics that will make lawmakers afraid.

We need to commit to identify lawmakers as enemies, go after them without mercy, spend aggressively, and commit to organized, orchestrated shows of force via telephone and email campaigns.

5. We need to be persistent.

We have to play catch up. We have to maintain consistent passion in between peaks of public interest. We have to know that the other side will only redouble their efforts in the face of a challenge and expect it to back down -- as it has in the past.

How can this happen?

I don't know. I don't mean to disparage the groups that have made the efforts they have to support gun control activities.

But I want to say to them that I am ready to be part of an army of supporters to match -- and hopefully exceed -- the army that the NRA has on hand.

If an organization will step forward and embrace an NRA-type movement with no-back-down tactics, I'll be there -- dues, phone calls, bumper stickers and all. "

Moms Demand Gun Sense is the organization that many of my liberal friends talk about.

I have given to them and to Everytown.  I think they are affiliated or work together.  I need to get more active and involved with them beyond just donations. 

happymomma , I don't disagree with you about starting somewhere.  I think Everytown/MomsDemandGunSense is an excellent start but just doesn't have the political pull and money that the NRA has.  I hope that changes ASAP.

I despise the NRA, yet I have never heard of any of these counter groups

They have a large presence on social media. You can follow them on Facebook or subscribe to their emails. They send out a lot of action alerts and sponsor marches and rallies. In fact, there is a lobby day planned for next Wednesday in Sacramento.

I completely agree

This bill introduced in 12/2015 calls for a ban on assault types...

www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/all-info

Thank you, @happymomma and gmcwife1 for your very kind comments. I get a lot out of discussions here and have been swayed in the past to take another look at different viewpoints from another angle when the author is polite. :-)

With all due respect, the mistake does kind of nullify your point that the reason good bills don't get through congress is because Democrats append unreasonable things onto them. It doesn't appear that was the case here.

So why does a reasonable bill, designed to keep guns out of the hands of people at high risk of using them for criminal purposes, die in committee in a Republican-controlled congress?

Your point above seemed to be that the lack of action was not necessarily the fault of NRA-funded Republicans. Who else might be responsible for this very moderate and logical bill dying in committee, and what might their motivation be?

Oh man, I had a nice reply all typed out and it went kerfluey. Bah!

At the base of my (unintended) poor example was the point that a whole lot of what goes on in Washington is for show. Both sides do it all the time! When Harry Reid was the Senate majority leader he was an absolute master at it. Right now he is loudly proclaiming the NRA and Republicans to be evil, but his past history and voting record show how much he has supported individual gun rights and what a friend he has been to the second amendment and individual gun ownership. On Monday he tweeted this:

According to his own website, though, that may be a bit hypocritical: www.harryreid.com/ee/index.php/sportsmen/rights

The Democrats rudely and disrespectfully walked out of a moment of silence on Monday, claiming it was the time for action. I have to ask, did their 15-hour filibuster actually accomplish anything more than the moment of silence? No. But it made for a lot of noise and theatre.

It may surprise you but gun control is not Democrat vs. Republicans. Have you asked why, when the Democrats held the majority, there were no special gun laws that passed? Well, Harry Reid isn't the only democratic gun enthusiast. But he reminds me of the cheating husband who points his finger at the wife as the cheater. He didn't want a lot of things coming to a vote that might endanger his Democratic colleagues from losing their jobs.
- nypost.com/2015/04/25/it-turns-out-the-gridlock-was-all-about-harry-reid/ (if you don't like that link, you will find many other articles about Reid blocking activity): -- www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852

So, he prevents any dissention except the filibuster and then complains about how the Republicans are obstructionists with the filibuster.

At any rate, you have a lot of reasons why they don't pass anything but try to make it look like the other guys' fault: fear of getting reelected is one of the main things, fear of showing party division, or, sometimes they just don't have the votes. As near as I can tell, a whole lot of what goes on in Washington is for show. And they wonder why we're angry.

How about both sides now buckle down and actually do something? The good news is that I heard that Tim Murphy's bill is going places. If I understand correctly, it's about mental health and contains provisions that could actually prevent another Aurora theatre shooting. Tim Murphy "relies on his three decades as a psychologist to advocate for meaningful reforms in the U.S. healthcare system."

Since the Democrats know a "no-fly no-buy" bill isn't going to get anywhere, I wonder why they don't push that nice simple 2-pager we talked about above? I would think that in the current atmosphere, it would be better for all of Washington to pass something like that than to do nothing. But I'm hardly a Washington expert.