If you're not an NRA member


PDA






Maximum1
September 25, 2007, 11:21 PM
JOIN THE NRA TODAY

And if you don't join you give up the right to whine and complain when the antigunners take away your guns!

If you enjoyed reading about "If you're not an NRA member" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
September 25, 2007, 11:28 PM
And don't complain about the junk mail. One phone call will stop all that.

Also, join SAF, GOA, CCRKBA, Pink Pistols, JPFO or at least one other group....

Roccobro
September 26, 2007, 01:53 AM
Reword the poll so the selections aren't more questions.

[x] YES, I am a member

Or

[ ] NO, I am not a member

AirForceShooter
September 26, 2007, 10:01 AM
I give up my right to whine???
When did you become the arbiter of what I can do???

AFS

19-3Ben
September 26, 2007, 10:37 AM
Afs: +1

tinygnat219
September 26, 2007, 10:45 AM
Join a local state group as well, like the VCDL. NRA is nice, but local is always best.

Juna
September 26, 2007, 10:57 AM
My state group, MCRGO, is phenomenal and stays more on top of things locally than the NRA (understandably). I get most of my info on current bills/events locally from MCRGO, but I'm also an NRA member. I strongly suggest joining BOTH the NRA AND a local state group for those reasons. That said, I think you should keep on top of the issues yourself as a firearms owner. The NRA does a lot of great things, but I find out about things faster on the internet usually b/c it takes time to churn out information from a large national group.

The NRA is the most powerful national watchdog for firearms owners.
Your state-based or local firearms organization is your state/local watchdog.

Then there's SAF, GOA, JPFO, etc.

orionengnr
September 26, 2007, 01:00 PM
NRA and TSRA, yes.

USMC - Retired
September 26, 2007, 01:47 PM
Use the link in my signature line and you get a discount on an annual membership! ($25 instead of $35)

Or join any other way. Just join!

granuale
September 26, 2007, 02:01 PM
NO WAY! :cuss: Here's one reason why:


Should Congress or the Courts Decide D.C. Gun Ban's Fate?
by Robert A. Levy

Robert A. Levy is senior fellow in constitutional studies and served as co-counsel to the plaintiffs in Parker v. District of Columbia.


Could the National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress be undermining the best pro-gun case ever likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court?

More than four years ago, three attorneys and I filed Parker v. District of Columbia, a Second Amendment case on behalf of six local residents who want to defend themselves in their own homes.

For reasons that remain unclear, we faced repeated attempts by the NRA to derail the litigation. Happily, the case survived. On March 9, in a blockbuster opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the city's gun ban — holding that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

Parker is the first federal appellate decision to invalidate a gun control statute on Second Amendment grounds. Federal circuit courts covering 47 states have held that there's no recourse under the Second Amendment when state and local gun regulations are challenged. That means Parker could be headed to the Supreme Court.

Enter Congress and the NRA. First, Reps. Mike Ross, D-Ark., and Mark Souder, R-Ind., introduced the D.C. Personal Protection Act. Then, on March 28, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, followed suit in the Senate. Both bills, pushed hard by the NRA, would repeal the D.C. gun ban.

Ordinarily, that might be a good thing. But passage of the bills would kill the Parker litigation. It isn't possible to challenge a law that has been repealed. Yet, Sen. Hutchison claims in her press release that she favors "both a legislative and judicial remedy. I hope the Parker case goes before the Supreme Court and that the court asserts that the right to bear arms is an individual, and not a collective, right. ..."

Incredible.

When asked to clarify the NRA's position, CEO Wayne LaPierre told us in a private meeting, "You can take it to the bank. The NRA will not do anything to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing Parker."

Maybe so, but actions speak louder than words. The NRA's aggressive promotion of the D.C. Personal Protection Act is baffling at best.

Parker is a much better vehicle to vindicate Second Amendment rights than an act of Congress. First, legislative repeal of the D.C. gun ban will not stop criminal defense attorneys and Public Defenders from citing the Second Amendment when they challenge "felon in possession" charges. Thus, if Parker is derailed, the next Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court could feature a murderer or drug dealer instead of six law-abiding citizens.

Second, a bill aimed at D.C. does only part of the job. It could be repealed by a more liberal Congress. And it will have no effect on state law outside of D.C. In effect, those who support the D.C. Personal Protection Act will be opposing an unambiguous Supreme Court proclamation on the Second Amendment, applicable across the nation.

Third, the Supreme Court is more conservative today than it's been for some time, and probably more conservative than it's going to be. In the unlikely event that five current justices decide to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by upholding a total ban on handguns, that would be the time for Congress to act. Until then, the D.C. Personal Protection Act is premature and counter-productive.

Meanwhile, if Congress wants to help, there are positive things it can do. D.C. has no federal firearms licensees. And handguns, unlike rifles and shotguns, can't be purchased out of state. So even if Parker wins, D.C. residents could not buy a handgun.

Congress should allow interstate handgun sales as long as they comply with the law in both states. And Congress should change how D.C. processes gun registrations. The city requires multiple pictures, fingerprints, and on and on. The process can take months. Congress can mandate that D.C. officials accept the National Instant Check System used everywhere else.

My colleagues and I have drafted alternative legislation — now in the hands of selected senators —that accomplishes those objectives and more, without extinguishing the Parker suit.

Finally, the NRA has suggested that the D.C. Personal Protection Act is "must" legislation. But the D.C. handgun ban was enacted 31 years ago. Why is it only now that legislation must be passed — especially when the effect of that legislation will be to kill the best chance ever for the Supreme Court to affirm that the Second Amendment means what it says?


This article appeared in the Washington Examiner on April 3, 2007.

GTSteve03
September 26, 2007, 02:04 PM
No thanks.

I prefer to send my hard-earned money to local gun rights groups like Georgia Carry, not to groups like the NRA that compromise and make deals with the gun grabbers.

Jeff82
September 26, 2007, 02:50 PM
Let your state and local organizations know about the Joaquin Jackson Recall Petition. (See thread right here in "Activism") We're trying to clean up the NRA board by recalling a member that has done harm to the effort to keep our "black rifles" and other "politically incorrect" guns. Watch the numbers daily. We fail if we don't get 100 minimum in three different states.

The line in the sand has been drawn. We must send the message to the Board that the voting membership will not tolerate an NRA leadership that waffles on our Civil 2A Rights!!

baz
September 26, 2007, 02:51 PM
I'm an associate member, e.g. the $10/yr membership. It gets me their gun insurance, and I think they do some good. I don't need the magazines, though.

Robert Hairless
September 26, 2007, 02:58 PM
I don't need the NRA. I carry a copy of the Second Amendment in my wallet. If a federal agent wants to take my guns all I have to do is whip out that copy and say "You can't do it. I am protected." Then they will go away and leave me alone. I have rights.

At this moment the poll shows that 57.35% who voted are NRA members and 46.65% are not NRA members.

What that number means to me is that almost half the people who voted are carrying the other half of the people. That's great! If we can get more people to not join the NRA we can improve those numbers until, maybe, we can have just one person carrying the load for everyone else and then we can all laugh at him for not being as smart as the rest of us.

JesseL
September 26, 2007, 03:08 PM
I've been a life member since I was 8 years old - 21 years now.

I can completely understand why someone interested in the RKBA would choose not to be an NRA member though.

1. The NRA has a long history of political compromises. You can argue political reality vs. moral purity all day long, but I respect anyone's choice to distance themselves from what they see as an organization flawed by politics.

2. IMO, Nobody who isn't actually complicit in the destruction of their rights ever loses the right to complain about the loss. Blaming the victim is in extremely poor taste, to say the least. Rights are something you should be able to keep without needing to defend them.

tinygnat219
September 26, 2007, 03:24 PM
I don't need the NRA. I carry a copy of the Second Amendment in my wallet. If a federal agent wants to take my guns all I have to do is whip out that copy and say "You can't do it. I am protected." Then they will go away and leave me alone. I have rights. :scrutiny:

If this isn't wishful, simplistic thinking I don't know what is. I would LOVE for reality to be that simple, but it's not. The reality is, the Constitution has been trampled upon by both the Bush and Clinton administrations. We have to fight to take back what is ours.

I think it's been established that the NRA isn't perfect. However, they also do a LOT of good for our rights. Imagine where we would be without them!

The critical mistake that we often make as RKBA Constitutionalists is that we expect them to look out for everything, where we need to be doing that! :banghead: Shoot, it's our responsibility as citizens to keep the .gov in check. While the NRA is a nice proxy organization / thinktank, they shouldn't be the only ones charged with fighting for our rights.

So, here's what we need to do. Join 'em, soon our numbers will be large enough within the NRA to force a change at the helm. This is a membership driven organization, and we have to let our voices be heard and if the NRA suddenly had 10 million members, guess who'd be listening REAL closely.

Robert Hairless
September 26, 2007, 03:24 PM
That's why I keep the copy of the Second Amendment with me, Jesse.

It's indeed in extremely poor taste to blame the victim who will not protect himself, especially the victim who wants to be above the fray. This country needs more victims like that because they have principles. We should admire and respect people with principles who refuse to compromise by supporting anything less than perfect organizations.

There's no one who has earned more respect than a victim with high principles and a lofty moral ground.

cdrt
September 26, 2007, 03:37 PM
NRA Life, CRPA Life, TSRA annual and even the other NRA (Naval Reserve Association). :D

JesseL
September 26, 2007, 04:08 PM
I'm going to make an analogy:

Most of us here take our personal defense seriously and arm ourselves
accordingly. We know that there are bad people out there and do our best to keep them from doing us harm. We actively defend our right to live.

Now if there's someone (for the sake of argument, let's say a young woman) who doesn't choose to arm themselves for self defense. If that young woman is attacked by a rapist, should we tell her that she's got no right to complain since she didn't do enough to defend herself?

People have a few basic rights, including the right to own effective tools for self defense and the right to not be sexually assaulted. Anyone who violates any of these rights is scum that isn't fit to share oxygen with you and me.

People who defend these rights are serving an admirable purpose, but I can't really fault someone if they take their rights for granted and become irate when they're violated either. You're supposed to be able to take you're rights for granted, because they're rights. It's just a shame that we live in a world where it doesn't always work that way.

cpttango30
September 26, 2007, 04:39 PM
I joined the VCDL right after the VT attack. They took a common sense approch to the whole thing.

I am starting to dislike the NRA. I live just south of the HQ. When there, going to the musem I did not see a car in the assigned parking that cost less that $65,000. You can aford to pay people that muc money yet you come beggin to me to always send you more and more money. I even got a phone call from them and they were bold enough to tell me they had me down for $300 to support some bill all they needed me to do was to comfirm I wanted to do it and give them my credit card number to finish it up.

While I think Ted Nugent is funny. He is doing us no good waiving rifles over his head telling the demo president candidates to go F off. Not to mention that they look to be fully loaded while he is doing it in-front of thousands of people. He is making us all look bad to a lot of people and he is making owners of AR-15's look like they are a bunch of long haired raving morons that act like bafoons.

What we need on the NRA board of directors is Soccer moms. Be pissed at me if you want to I do not care. The more women that become outspoken to our cause the more we will get heard. Haven't you heard of the three types of commo? Telephone, telegraph, and Tellawomen.

MaterDei
September 26, 2007, 04:54 PM
NRA and TSRA member.

The NRA is not perfect but they are effective. To deny that is foolish.

fletcher
September 26, 2007, 05:03 PM
I am not an NRA member - I haven't found yet that I have anything to gain from being a member.

Now, before you flame me, note that I do send them money, but have not joined.

What that number means to me is that almost half the people who voted are carrying the other half of the people.
I hope that was sarcastic, because it's extremely ignorant to think that someone must join the NRA to defend gun rights.

cmidkiff
September 26, 2007, 05:04 PM
I am an NRA member... can't find that choice on your poll though.

Bartkowski
September 26, 2007, 05:14 PM
I am a member, even though they send me that evil junk mail some of us complain about.

USMC - Retired
September 26, 2007, 05:23 PM
I am not an NRA member - I haven't found yet that I have anything to gain from being a member.

Now, before you flame me, note that I do send them money, but have not joined.

The most glaring reason to join to me is the strength in numbers reason. Every NRA member is part of a large block of voters that politicians can not ignore. You may think that one member does not make a difference but it does. Membership is contagious. Once someone becomes a member they tend to spread the word to thier shooting friends and family.

Coyote Rider
September 26, 2007, 05:30 PM
The Nra Poses As Pro-second Ammendment. They Are Infiltrated By Moles At The Top Level. Right Now They Are Supporting The Bill In Congress To Disarm Veterans. Most Nra Members Are Good People, But The Money They Donate Is Used To Take Away Our Guns.

JohnBT
September 26, 2007, 05:56 PM
I Disagree With Your Warped View Of The Nra. You Need To Quit Reading The Goa Emails And Believing Them.

I Used A Capital To Begin Every Word In Case You Need Them There To Read. I'm Not Making Fun Of You.

John

azredhawk44
September 26, 2007, 05:56 PM
i wIll oNe uP yOur rIdiculous uSe oF cApital lEtters.

I will also comment (using proper English) that I am an on-again, off-again NRA member. They do something that gets under my skin about every 3-4 years, and I let my membership lapse accordingly.

Maximum1
September 27, 2007, 12:11 AM
Never read so many shortsighted reasons for not joining in my life....But like I said, “If you don't join you give up the right to whine and complain when the anti-gunners take away your guns!”

One other point, there are ALWAYS things in life that you don’t like about someone or something and you can sight one or two reasons why but THE FACTS ARE…The NRA has successfully defend both the Second Amendment and INDIVIDUAL gun owners throughout its long history and to point to one or two is..Well….COMPLETELY FOOLISH and VERY SHORTSIGHTED.


To those who are not so shortsighted JOIN THE NRA they ARE OUR BEST CHANCE of keeping our Second Amendment Right.

dralarms
September 27, 2007, 12:36 AM
I am a life member and this year I got my son and my wife memberships. My wife will get her life membership next.

Maximum1
September 27, 2007, 12:47 AM
“i wIll oNe uP yOur rIdiculous uSe oF cApital lEtters.”

What a RUDE individual. Please show some discretion and self-control.

Maximum1
September 27, 2007, 12:49 AM
"The Nra Poses As Pro-second Ammendment. They Are Infiltrated By Moles At The Top Level. "


Boooo. Seriously, do you see them around every corner or just in the NRA?


.

Jack A. Sol
September 27, 2007, 01:13 AM
when the NRA stops resting on its laurels from 15 years ago and stops giving away our gun rights maybe i will join. until then heres my reasons for not joining

1-NRA now has a mirror website in spanish. Apparently they intend to cater to those who care so little about the society of the country they live in that they wont learn the language (but still want guns. Hmmmm, i wonder why?) http://www.nraespanol.org/

2- NRA with the help of Kay Baily Hutchison is attempting to pass legislation in DC that would remove the anti-hand gun legislation. This would have been great 5 years ago, but they convieniently waited until a landmark pro second amendment court descision to do it. net effect? if it passes, the court descision is moot and will not be appealable to the supreme court, thus leaving us with only the communist "militia=national guard" rulings currently standing.

3-NRA has for at least a decade turned a blind eye to the true meaning and intent of the second with regards to assault weapons and the training and use there-of. it has instead focused on hunting and law enforcement niether of which are covered in any way by the second. they have effectively immasculated the second by insisting that these sporting enthusiasts and tools of oppression are upholding the 2A by thier activities.

4- If i joined the NRA with the opinion that my $35 membership fee was going toward supporting the second i would be wrong. after the free hat and stickers and other *****, plus the cost of printing and mailing the magazine, and the near endless flood of MAILED requests for more money, then the phone calls they absolutely spend at least 50% more than my membership fees in postage and other administrative expenses!! net effect - they spend more than you give them trying to get more money from you.

5- the magazines they send you are pure unadulterated propaganda. specifically designed to create fear and panic in you to elicit a response of some sort.
I have enough fear in my life, i dont need it from the "good guys" too.

6- In it's attempt to remain viable to the media brainwashed public, the NRA is jumping thru hoops to cooperate (read compromise the 2A) with anti-gunner John Dingell on the Caroline Mcarthy gun ban in the works. I'm sure they can get the M! garand removed from the list as it has a "sporting purpose"

7- NRA refuses to assist or persue ANY lawsuits or action to reverse the NFA, 1986 ban or GCA 1968 or to remove or loosen the restrictions it enacted.

8- NRA insists on stricter enforcement of the current unconstitutional laws.

9- NRA continually chooses less than desireable candidates to endorse, consistently choosing the republican candidate (in most cases) over a superior pro gun stance candidate. In montana they endorsed Burns over anyone else even tho there was substantial evidence that Burns was taking bribes and obviously corrupt.

10- NRA is currently in a "pre-emptively give our remaining rights away" mode with it's "we're willing to compromise statements and stance made late last year when the Dem's took a majority. Anything to maintain it's membership roll count right?

11- Zumbo was an NRA Life Member. nuff said


It's getting pretty darn close to the time for NRA to either undergo a makeover or to be eliminated in favor of another more pro-active group. They have done a lot to promote safety and keep the tradition of shooting alive, but with LaPierres' metro-sexual limpwrist management it has really gone down the tubes. maybe it's time for the Neal Knoxian group to re-assert control, perhaps led by Jeff Knox (his son).
This arguement that "the NRA is the only real lobbying force on the hill and we need to support them" is a load of hot runny stinking *****. By continuing to comprimise with the NRA we continue to lose. We are well past the point where we can give any more and ust realize that if we don't cut our losses and choose another course we will lose!! It's the same thing as continueing to vote for republicans because they are the lesser of 2 evils. By not moving elsewhere we sabotage our own efforts.

With so many abhorent stances currently undertaken and persued by the NRA, i find it absolutely repulsive and literally vomit inducing to swallow my pride and become a member again. I'll stick with the MTSSA or GOA thanks.

Jack

louisdove
September 27, 2007, 01:15 AM
"What we need on the NRA board of directors is Soccer moms. Be pissed at me if you want to I do not care. The more women that become outspoken to our cause the more we will get heard. Haven't you heard of the three types of commo? Telephone, telegraph, and Tellawomen."

Honestly a great point/idea. Imagine if the polititians had to look at us as the NRA/RKBA and the Women vote.

"This is a membership driven organization, and we have to let our voices be heard and if the NRA suddenly had 10 million members, guess who'd be listening REAL closely."

What it that was 100 instead of 10....improbable but not impossiable,

azredhawk44
September 27, 2007, 01:50 AM
What a RUDE individual. Please show some discretion and self-control.

I did. Posts such as Coyote Rider's annoy me to a great extent and I could have made considerably more commentary on it. Seasonally it comes up on this forum (and others) that posts made to this forum should at least make an effort to be composed for public consumption. That includes a half-hearted attempt at punctuation and spelling.

But posts attempting to shame me into an action that:
1) I do when I feel is appropriate
2) I don't do when I feel is inappropriate

make me further analyze the source of the information. Let's see... your quote above demonstrates that you repeatedly attempt to use shame as a tool of manipulation.

Frankly, given the NRA's drafting of legislation (by proxy of Orrin Hatch) right after the CATO victory in Parker, I'm disgusted by them. They should be ashamed.

As should anyone deliberately trying to puppet-master anyone by means of fear or shame. Brady, NRA and Maximum1 all appear to be culpable in that regard.

ArfinGreebly
September 27, 2007, 02:30 AM
I could have sworn I saw a thread like this somewhere else today.

Really.

Maybe I'm stuck in the Matrix and the black cat just walked by me again.

Hmmm.

What happens if I flip this switch here . . .

Art Eatman
September 27, 2007, 10:29 AM
RE Zumbo and Jackson as NRA members, meaning the NRA is a horrible outfit and nobody should ever, ever even think of joining: Three Marines on Okinawa once raped a girl. Therefore, the Marine Corps is a horrible outfit, and nobody should ever, ever even think of joining.

Nothing like higher reasoning capability, neh?

:barf:

And this thread is not a specific program of activism.

Enuf.

If you enjoyed reading about "If you're not an NRA member" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!