Talk:National Association for Gun Rights

Comment
"1 million" members? Utter nonsense.

NAGR is a one-man show run by Dudley Brown. It provides no services other than constant fund-raising appeals spam.

The NAGR is not registered as a federal lobbyist with the U.S congress. It is not even registered as a lobbyist in Virginia, where they are located. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.172.128.56 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment
I came to Wikipedia looking for info after getting an emai from the National Association for Gun Rights. I found a great looking very professional page, but reading between the lines, the place is a scam. It just writes to gun folks with excellent pleas for money. They almost got me right before the election. The article in Wikipedia on NAGR is clearly there to gve credibility to the scam. The page probably needs to be removed and something put in place so that it isn't created again. It certainly lacks notability if nothing else. I hope someone reads this and takes care of it. It's way above my pay grade to remove a page and there's no way I'd be able to keep it deleted. The scammer is clearly expert at Wiki. Please check and see if he has been deleting messages in TALK calling him out on this. 24.4.128.248 (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Comment
As per the AfD closure by Seraphimblade I want those participants in the discussion who did not favor the outcome to know I appreciate the points that were raised. While I stand by my points and approve of the decision, I've been working on some revisions to the article that may help address some of the grey areas to avoid similar issues in the future. Expect those in a few days time. Rf68705 (talk) 07:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that one idea that would help nearly all aspects at once is to find additional sources that wrote about other aspects of NAGR and put sourced material from that coverage into the article.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Membership number
The 1.8 million members claim comes from paperwork filed for an unsuccessful lawsuit based on a statement by Dudley Brown. Because the number is based only on Brown's statement, the filing is a primary source, not a reliable one. Simple arithmetic shows discrepancies. Per the organization's web site, membership dues are $35 a year. The organization's facebook page offers a special membership price of only $25. Multiply the claimed membership of 1.8 million times $25. Even if all members chose the cheapest possible membership dues, the organization's income and budget would be $45 million. If the organization's 2012 budget/income was $6,000,000, the highest possible dues-paying membership would be 240,000; the actual number is likely much lower because some members elect to donate more. I removed the membership number from the organization infobox. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 17:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs work but we need to build it
This organization seems a bit mysterious. Some of the material may be their own statements which needs to be identified as such. Some boring factual material which I added got deleted within hours. We need to build an article here. North8000 (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the entire article is controversial, nothing is "boring factual material". Please add solid references. heather walls (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "the entire article is controversial".  Do you mean that:
 * You feel that organization is controversial?
 * You feel that the existence of an article on this topic is controversial?
 * You feel that all of the content in the article is controversial?
 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello North8000, I don't feel anything. I know that the article was up for deletion and was not decided-on either way which makes it in its entirety controversial. The original supporter of the article claimed that they would return to improve the article and did not do so. Adding more unsourced material is not an improvement on its previous state. Best, heather walls (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The pattern of just going through and just outright deleting everything in an article that is not cited is not right. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:UNSOURCED, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." It's Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline or essay.  The policy suggests caution and allowing time for contributors to add reliable sources.  It was tagged as needing better sources since Nov 2012.  That should be enough time.


 * Also, just because material has a reliable source doesn't mean it belongs in an article (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:IINFO). For example, the last paragraph under the Federal goals heading contains nothing about or directly related to NAGR, gun control, gun rights or anything else about the article contents.  Dudley Brown's involvement in the Republican Convention doesn't belong in this article unless some connection to this article or its contents is stated in a reliable source.  I will remove that paragraph momentarily. Take care, DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion items that I took issue with were two undisputed "sky is blue" statements. And they were in for hours, not months.  One was their self-statement of their IRS status, attributed as such, the other was that there was a fundraising letter signed by Rand Paul. As one of the long term most active persons at wp:ver development / discussions, I can tell you that there is little support for using that one phrase out of context in that way.  Using it to knock out unchallenged, sourced material on technicalities regarding the sourcing.  BTW, I am NOT a fan of NAGR.....they seem mysterious to me, and a real article might help there.  And just knocking out hours-old undisputed, sourced material on sourcing technicalities is not the way to get there.  North8000 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

National Association for Gun Rights GuideStar Information
The National Association for Gun Rights is committed to transparency. Their financials are available for free at www.guidestar.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandongunlover (talk • contribs) 22:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Association for Gun Rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151023092522/http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/C00481200/ to http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/com_supopp/C00481200/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002122/http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00481200 to http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?C00481200

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dudley Brown -Rand Paul.jpg
 * Dudley Brown M249.png