[Rebar]

Another thread got me thinking.

The usual estimate of gun owners is 80 million, I think this is a conservative estimate, but lets use it for now.

There are 3 million NRA members (anyone have an exact number?). Note: an NRA member may not be an actual gun owner, but lets assume they are for the moment.

Now the paradox - many politically active gun owners feel like the NRA is too soft, that they should push harder to repeal anti-gun laws. But if you ask a non-politically active gun owner about the NRA, they'll likely say that it's too extreme and they don't want to be part of it.

How can this be? How can it be both too extreme and too soft? Is it a problem with the NRA and how it gets it's message across, or has the MSM brainwashed folks that the NRA is evil, or a combo of both, or something I haven't thought of?

This is important, as the liberal/left has targeted the 77 million non-politically active gun owners as a potential audience for their misinformation agenda to hide their anti-gun agenda. Imagine if you would, if the AHSA fools 3 million people to join, what a coup that would be for the gun grabbers.

The primary counter to this is the NRA, and I think it's critical that it doubles or even triples it's membership, but it seems membership has pretty much stagnated. How can they make inroads into that 77 million who won't join? How can the NRA break this paradox and bring the wayward gun owners into the fold, and save them from themselves?

[WT]

The NRA-ILA website claims that the NRA has over 4,000,000 members. See link.

http://www.nraila.org/About/NRAILA.aspx

If 80 million Americans own firearms and only 4 million belong to the NRA, I conclude that the 76 million non-members do not feel that it is worthwhile to belong to NRA.

As a long time member of the NRA (about 40 years) I see little chance of significantly increasing NRA membership. The organization has major problems which it fails to address. I predict that NRA will be extinct in 50 years.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's simple enough: Non-political gun owners get their impression of the NRA from the media, who are rabidly anti-gun, and regard anybody who opposes any aspect of gun control as "extremists". Politically active gun owners are more directly aquainted with the NRA's actual behavior, and the kinds of compromises it routinely agrees to.

The problem with moving people from the first camp to the second, is that if you're getting your information from the media, you're not going to be aware of how threatened our liberty really is, so you'll have little motive to join the NRA.

[Kjervin]

I think that while the MSM does try to vilify the NRA, the biggest problem the NRA has is that gun owners, rightly or wrongly, tend to have a lot of negative things to say about the NRA. Whether it is at the range, at backyard BBQ's or on forums such as these, non-members get the sense that the NRA is not responsive to the needs of its members (whether deserved or not) and are hesitant to send their money to support an organization that only uses them to further an agenda that might not be the same as theirs. After all, how many threads here have some kind of "the NRA sold us out" feel to it? Hardly a ringing endorsement for someone to send them money or join, huh? Maybe the NRA needs to worry less about the MSM and worry more about it's membership.

Kj

[taliv]

i say plenty bad about the NRA and their compromises. (I'm an NRA member, and GOA life member)

but I think the single biggest factor here is people are too lazy to sign up.

the second largest factor is they don't want to spend the $30 for which they get no tangible benefit.

the third factor, is that the VAST majority of gun owners are not shooters. they don't compete in matches. they don't CCW. their guns aren't worth insuring. they don't hang out in gun shops. they don't hunt. guns are just a tool they don't use, and they're not going to vote guns when they're far more concerned about economy and jobs and war. it's simply not that big of a deal until somebody comes to take THEIR gun.

[Kjervin]

It's not laziness to refuse to spend money on something for which one does not receive any perceived benefit, it is wastefulness. It is the job of the NRA (and/or its members) to show these people the value of joining (educating them, if you will). If they cannot, the fault is not with the people (even if they will eventually suffer for their choices), the fault is with the NRA for not making its case.
Kj

[benEzra]

A lot of non-NRA members don't have a clue what the NRA's positions on the issues are. If you hear the MSM tell it, the NRA supports handing out automatic weapons to 16-year-olds with no background check required.

Most NRA-bashers also don't have a clue what is and is not already restricted according to Federal law.

[Poodleshooter]

A lot of those 80 million gun owners might have an elitist mentality:
Guns are ok for me,since I'm intelligent and stable, but other people are too irresponsible and might misuse them. These gun owners are actively anti-gun,so long as they can keep theirs.
Another group of those gun owners might not have any conscious thought about guns,but simply have an old .32 auto in the drawer in case of attack. They don't really care about politics or the larger issues of gun control. If handguns were banned,they simply wouldn't do anything. The .32 would just stay in their drawer till needed. They may or may not support the right to own guns, but they're not politically active and just don't care what the law says.
A lot of the 80 million are union voting hunters who don't care about what the NRA fights for right now. Us black rifle folks and handgun/urban gun owners have taken over a great deal of the NRA's lobbying time. Most of the old time hunters don't see their guns under attack,so why bother with the NRA? To an extent, they're very similar to the folks in the 2nd group above-apathetic about gun control.

There sure seem to be a large number of apathetic folks out there. Otherwise we'd be seeing more NRA members, or more folks joining the gun control side. As it stands,we're seeing neither. Until some drastic change occurs,that makes these folks afraid of having their guns confiscated,we probably won't see much change. Never underestimate the power of apathy.....

[boofus]

I'm an ez-pay life member of NRA but most of my friends who also are avid gunnies are not. They pretty much vote the same as a NRA gun owner, I know none of them that were rooting for Kerry. I think it is just plain laziness or cheapness that prevents them from joining.

[Gordon Fink]

[H]as the MSM brainwashed folks that the NRA is evil…?

Yes. I know, because I escaped that brainwashing.

~G. Fink, NRA member

[Andrew Rothman]

Ten years ago I could lecture most learnedly on how the NRA wanted to legalize machine guns and x-ray-invisible handguns.

Today, well... I am the NRA. (And I think they're too soft!)

I too escaped Mainstream Media brainwashing.

[biere]

Ballad of carl Drega, a book by vin suprinowitz and that last name is most likely mispelled.

There is a section in this book where he backs up with facts how the nra has compromised rights away. Makes the nra look like an anti-gun group, but maybe just the light beer version.

Now I need to say that I am totally and completely fed up and burned out with politics. From the supreme court decisions where they mention that part of their concept and thinking came from what the rest of the world is doing to politicians saying one thing in order to get elected and then not keeping their word, I am fed up.

I have come to the conclusion that you are either for people having a god given right, or you are trying to limit the natural rights of people and by doing so you are stealing and depriving them of their freedoms that they were born with.

I no longer accept compromise as being a half step forward. I see it as a legal way of saying, "yeah I admit you can make laws that limit my rights and freedoms, but I only will admit this if you give me that lollipop in your hand."

And that folks is a bad thing to do.

Another thing vin talks about in his book is how once you apply for a permit you are agreeing that you legally have to ask permission to do something. And then you can't go to court over it and fight against it.

I admit my thinking in black and white comes from being burned out with today's politics. I no longer accept that I have to try and live in the grey area. I no longer wish to gain a little ground by trading away something else.

So for me to give the nra money, they would have to get serious and talk about one right which everyone should have. And that is a right to own firearms. They would have to be gung ho and get so extreme that all the anti-gun folks who think they are shotgunners or hunters would disown the nra because the nra thinks everyone should be able to own any gun they want.

Sorry for the rant. I am so fed up with today's government and politics and the workings of politics that I can't stand any of it.

[MrTuffPaws]

Well, for the people that think them too extreme, you have to think just how the media and the NRA portrays its self. Media usually portrays them as reactionary and only showing up after the likes of Columbine. The NRA portrays themselves by sending out photos of Chuck so dripping with self righteous smugness, that on look and you know there is something wrong with him.

For those that think the NRA is too soft, they actually know what the NRA does and what they stand for. They feel ripped off when the NRA caves on registration or gun shows, and don't even get me started with what they have done with CA.

[No_Brakes23]

The money I might have spent on NRA membership is now going to my Handgun Safety Certificate which I shouldn't need at all, but even with the old "safety" requirements wouldn't have needed (As a veteren) except for the NRA caving on that issue.

Thanks NRA.

[Boats]

I love how it was the NRA which "lost" California. There must be some sort of mirror shortage going on down there I haven't read about. :rolleyes:

[dmftoy1]

I was an NRA member for 8 years when I had my FFL and I let my membership lapse in the early 90's. I've been contemplating signing up again but I want to find out if there's actually a way to keep them from sending me solitations constantly.

I'd even bite the bullet and pay for a life membership if I could be sure that they wouldn't bombard me with what I feel is junk mail asking for more money, etc. What turned me off on them in the early 90's was that it seemed like they were spending the majority of my membership $ (what was it then $25?) trying to get me to give them more money. If I give them a $1 I want them to spend .99 of it on trying to get better gun laws, creating shooting ranges that I can drive to (farmington NM is cool . . . but not close enough :) ) and creating classes, education, etc. The thing I don't want them to do is to turn into the democratic or republican parties or my old college where they are constantly holding their hands out.

On a semi-unrelated note. How much did the campaign finance reform act of a few years ago impact the NRA? Does it curtail how much they can donate to political campaign's, etc?

I belong to an organization similiar to the NRA for 4wheel drives. (UFWDA.ORG). It sends me a notice once a year asking for my renewal and a quarterly magazine about what's going on. That's perfect for my uses.

Just my .02 :)

Have a good one,
Dave

[garyk/nm]

Yet another variable to consider: how many of those 76 million gun owners who are not NRA members, belong to GOA or any of the other, more local groups? Look at membership in all pro-RKBA groups, not just NRA.

[Justin]

dmftoy1- The NRA has a reduced volume mailing list that you can get on. I don't know the exact procedure, I think there's a phone number to call or something like that. I've seen it referenced here on more than one ocassion, so a search through the archives might be fruitful.

[dmftoy1]

Thanks, I need to check into it. I've been meaning to join again for almost 9 months but keep putting it off. I guess I'd better call them. (It's not obvious from their website that it's an option)

Regards,
Dave

[Monkeyleg]

The NRA fights the battles they think can be won. Don't know how hard they're fighting in California on the serial-number ammo bill.

The non-political types are near impossible to motivate unless they see the threat right in front of them. Back in 1994, there was a ballot referendum to ban handguns in Milwaukee. Suddenly there were all sorts of gun owners handing out literature door-to-door and doing everything possible to defeat the ban.

The number of NRA members went from 2 million in the early 90's to 4.5 million when Clinton left office. That's a sign of what it takes to get people involved.

[bearmgc]

I belonged to NRA for several years, then felt they had compromised on gun issues. I also became very annoyed at their telephone and letter recruitment strategies. They innundated me with massive offers to join, when I was already a member. JPFO now gets my money.

[Standing Wolf]

Imagine if you would, if the AHSA fools 3 million people to join, what a coup that would be for the gun grabbers.

The same people who don't join the N.R.A. won't join that abomination.

[MountainPeak]

The fact of the matter is, MANY so-called 2nd Amendment advocates, only post on gun boards. They don't e-mail, they don't meet, send money, send letters, call, or even join orgs., that fight for their rights. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. RECOGNIZE yourself? I thought so, but I've long ago gave up on you! You know who you are! Ya buddy, it's YOU!!! :banghead:

[Brett Bellmore]

What turned me off on them in the early 90's was that it seemed like they were spending the majority of my membership $ (what was it then $25?) trying to get me to give them more money.

They were. I don't like all the junk mail either, but think of it this way: You give them $25 in dues. They spend every cent of it sending out mass mailings, and get back $26 in donations. Wasn't it worth it? They just turned $25 into $26, after all. Makes perfect financial sense, even if it does annoy the members.

[Monkeyleg]

Brett, I'm surprised at your post. You've been around here and TFL long enough to have read Mike Irwin's replies to these sort of complaints.

Perhaps you didn't believe Mike when he said that the mailings brought in much more than their cost. I believed him, though.

I've also done some admittedly rough number-crunching and arrived at much the same conclusion.

But I live in a state where the NRA has a ton of clout, and few politicians want to cross the organization. Members in CA, NJ, MA and other less gun-friendly states have reason to feel abandonded, but they're living on battlefields already owned by the enemy.

[No_Brakes23]

I love how it was the NRA which "lost" California. There must be some sort of mirror shortage going on down there I haven't read about. Well I was stationed in AZ and on deployment while most of these crap rules went down in Cali, so no mirror for me.

But here is some info on the NRA's efforts down here.

http://www.elcajongun.com/rules.htm#HSC

[NineseveN]

As was said earlier, the NRA fights battles they think they can win. Yay. Go team, go. Ra ra ra...


The only thing with some cajones that they have done as of late is pull out of Ohio over the AWB there.

I think they're too soft personally, and I feel abandoned by them shortly after they get my money every year. I let my membership lapse, I'm waiting for them to earn my cash this year.

[ajkurp]

In my lifetime, the NRA has never seen a battle they acted like they could truly win, nor when winning, saw an issue they could not comprimise into a draw.

An ex-member. 18 years annual membership. Never again

[oct_97]

MountainPeak
Senior Member

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 503 "The fact of the matter is, MANY so-called 2nd Amendment advocates, only post on gun boards. They don't e-mail, they don't meet, send money, send letters, call, or even join orgs., that fight for their rights. If they did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. RECOGNIZE yourself? I thought so, but I've long ago gave up on you! You know who you are! Ya buddy, it's YOU!!! "

You are absolutly correct sir. I think that most people use the solicitations as an excuse not to belong or are ignorant to the fact that the NRA cannot use
your dues for poltical purposes. They MUST solicit in order to fight those that would take away our right to bear arms.

[Checkman]

All I can say about Mr. Vin Suprynowicz is that he's a writer. Writer's have the luxury of creating worlds that they like. He's also a professional editorialist which means he gets paid to write his opinions. Must be nice. I find all editorial writers to be irritating, regardless of their political affiliation.They go on and on about how we should do this and shouldn't do that. Meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world. One can never be sure about the person who is the writer.

It's well and good to talk about no compromise, no politics. Fine. Read your history and see what happens to the never say die, never compromise folks. They may be a problem for awhile, but eventually their cause is lost, they end up dead and history remembers them as monsters. And this applies to our history as well. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was a compromise, not a triumph of the die-hards.

I'm a member of the NRA and I'm proud of it.

[crewsr]

CA is losing ground on the gun issue because thats how the majority of "the people" want it. Dont blame the NRA for the lack a pair btwn thier legs as far as CA goes. For the pro-gun CA people on this thread, God Bless you right now thier is just not enough of ya in numbers. I'm from Minnesota.....not that much better.

What gets me is the general populations lack of motivation for protecting their Rights. I would like to see the NRA focus on shooting and 2ndA education
in public schools.......and sue if it cant get their way. I see this as to only way to teach the new generation in mass about fighting for their rights.

As a 34 years old Reagen-Conservative.......why do I feel like a civil rights 60's nutjob??

I too want them to be more aggressive.

I'm a life member to the GOA as well.

[NineseveN]

I don't think the King Of England saw our Declaration of Independence as a 'compromise'...

And on the same token, those that consitently compromise find themselves being assimilated into the trend more often than they do accomplishing that which they set out to do in the first place.

Some food for thought.

[Checkman]

I don't think the King Of England saw our Declaration of Independence as a 'compromise'...

I didn't say The Declaration of Independence, I said the Constitution was a compromise. Which it was. The Bill of Rights was part of the compromising that went on during the convention which saw the creation of the constitution.

The Constitution came after we were an independent country. The declaration could afford to be a more pure statement because we were rebelling. Ideological clarity is alwasy easier when the decision has been made to revolt - it tends to be an all or nothing act. It's after the rebels have won in their struggle that things get murky and deals have to be cut.

[NineseveN]

I read and understood exactly what you wrote. And you made my point for me. We haven't won our struggle yet, so compromise is a bit premature. Compromise is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. Our forefathers refused to compromise so that we would not have to bow down before the almighty king without checks, balances and freedoms that they felt were inalienable rights. Is it easy to laud compromise when our rights are being violated by a corrupt government? The documents you cite would not exist if it were not for the one that I cited, and the die-hard, fanatical struggle that brought that document to life in this country.

Read your history and see what happens to the never say die, never compromise folks.

What happens to them? They win, liberate a country from tyranny, draft our system of government and live on as national and historical heroes.


but eventually their cause is lost, they end up dead and history remembers them as monsters.

The "never say die, never compromise folks" that gave us this country and documented our RIGHTS are thought of as Monsters? MLK was a monster?


Anyway, don’t want to get too political or too off-track with this issue, just trying to illustrate, that those of you that think compromising is the better path where our rights are concerned are the same types of people that got us into this mess in the first place.

[Monkeyleg]

Not trying to continue the arguments over the Framers and the Constitution, but at the time of our Revolution, roughly a third of the population was for it, a third were Tories, and a third didn't care. (Funny how some things don't change).

Imagine if even a third of the gun owners out there belonged to the NRA. We wouldn't have to fight these ridiculous laws. Even DiFi would be pro-gun.

Instead, we have just 5% or so of gun owners supporting the other 95%.

[DF357]

Compromise means NEVER having the BEST solution.

[JohnKSa]

Wanna hear something really sad?

With help from TSRA (Texas State Rifle Association), there were 9 (NINE) pro-gun or pro-hunting amendments passed THIS SINGLE legislative session.

Although there are nearly a QUARTER OF A MILLION Concealed Handgun License holders in TX, there are only 36,000 TSRA members.

Here you have an organization that is really producing for the gun owners in the state of Texas and yet the membership is tiny.

What gets me is that a CHL costs over $200 by the time you factor in the license and class costs. But although they're willing to fork over for the CHL, clearly only a tiny number of CHL holders (not even talking about gun owners here--JUST CHL holders) are willing to pay TSRA $20 a year for membership. Yet without the efforts of the TSRA, it's likely that CHLs would be much more restrictive and may not have even come to TX at all.

NO compromise means rarely having any solution at all, and even more rarely having one that's even remotely tolerable.

How many of the NRA haters think that FOPA would have come about without the NRA? How many think that the Brady Ban would have sunset without NRA assistance--remember how the sunset got put in the bill in the first place? You guys are reaping the benefits of compromise at the expense of gun owners who support these organizations (yes--in spite of the warts) and yet refusing to even acknowledge that a good many of the firearm freedoms you enjoy are a direct result of compromise and of the efforts of the organization you decry.

Until you have something better to offer, you could at least refrain from attacking the organization that is responsible for FOPA, Brady sunset as well as for helping prevent the passage of too many gun control measures to list.

I'm not saying to support them, just try to stop attacking. They may not be doing it exactly the way you would but they're doing more than anyone else--and it's not even a close race.

[JohnBT]

"I'd even bite the bullet and pay for a life membership if I could be sure that they wouldn't bombard me with what I feel is junk mail asking for more money, etc."

Bothers you does it? I upgraded to Life last year. Yesterday I received an offer to upgrade to Endowment level for $175 instead of the usual $750.

I've been leaning toward doing it all day - about 60-40, yes I will, no I won't. You know what, the whiners pushed me over the top. :neener: The battle won't be won with hot air and naysaying.

John
Member www.vcdl.org

P.S. - The NRA-ILA mailings are not paid for with dues. It's against the law. You could look it up with little or no effort along with the 'don't send me any more junk' phone number.

[JohnBT]

"Q: How can I reduce the amount of mail I receive from the NRA?

A: Simply email us at membership@nrahq.org or dial 800-NRA-3888 and request to be placed on the "Do Not Promote" list. This will significantly reduce the amount of mail you receive without affecting important mailings, magazine service, or your membership renewal."

There, that was easy.

JBT

[javafiend]

NRA needs to reach out to non-traditional gun owners, perhaps through innovative new ad campaigns.

:neener:

[biere]

This is from the nra-ila websight and their myths and fables section.
start quote
The truth is, NRA supports many gun laws
end quote
for more, here is a link.

http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.htm#FABLE III:

Please note there is no period at the end of that phrase so yes I chopped off some of their examples of gun control they accept. Go to the link or search for others if you wish and enjoy seeing that the nra wishes to limit who may posses a firearm.

Here is a quote about ammo from the same link.

The 1986 federal law prohibiting the manufacture and importation of "armor piercing ammunition" adopted standards NRA helped write.

End quote.

Oh, the authors name I mentioned is properly spelled Vin Suprynowicz and I am doing that since I messed up the spelling. I did not check to see if anyone else had it right or wrong.

I did not mention vin and his book because I think he is a great writer or anything else.

I mentioned it because this is the first book I have read that goes after the nra and has good facts that are easily searched out.

If everyone else in the world is happy supporting the nra I am happy that they are happy.

I am happy that I don't support a group that states they are in favor of gun control.

And as far as the post about not picking on the nra, sorry but the nra deserves to be picked on when there are things like this going on.

begin quote
In Utah this year, Utah Gun Owners Alliance lobbyist and M.D. Sarah Thompson had worked to get through "a good bill that would have honored concealed-carry permits from any other state without restriction," notes Dennis Fusaro, who himself was let go from GOA in March for not being cooperative enough with the gun-grabbers at the NRA.

In the final days of the session, however, NRA lobbyist Brian Judy arrived in Salt Lake City and made a deal to accept an amendment that the out-of-state permits would only be honored for 60 days.

"Sarah had the senators pretty well under control and was pushing them with grass-roots pressure, and then Brian Judy goes in the back room and accepts this bad amendment," Fusaro reports.

end quote.

Please note this is a quote from something vin wrote and here is the link for the whole thing.

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/june_2001/americas_largest_gun_control_organization.htm

[javafiend]

Vin: "That's not the problem. Those laws are already enforced. So the people they're really going after are people who are violating one of the 20,000 unconstitutional gun laws,..."

Sad to see that Vin is still peddling that 20K gun laws myth.

[dmftoy1]

"I'd even bite the bullet and pay for a life membership if I could be sure that they wouldn't bombard me with what I feel is junk mail asking for more money, etc."

JohnBT: Ok, you convinced me. Just bit the bullet and got a life membership. Once the materials arrive I'll see if I can "reduce" the number of unwanted mailings. :)

Have a good one,
Dave

[JohnBT]

http://rimfirecentral.com/forums/images/smilies/yippee.gifhttp://rimfirecentral.com/forums/images/smilies/yippee.gifhttp://rimfirecentral.com/forums/images/smilies/yippee.gif

And I mailed my upgrade check yesterday as promised. You know, what we need to do is get the unhappy-with-the-NRA folks to organize a Take Back the NRA campaign. I figure there must be a million of them that would join for 5 years so they could vote. Heck, some of them might even run for office. ;)

I'm not on the DoNotBotherMeSoMuch list and they really don't send that much mail to me. What they do send is usually interesting information.

John
Member www.vcdl.org

[medmo]

There is no valid excuse for not having an NRA membership if you are a gun owner and support 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights. The same applies to anyone not having membership in GOA and any local or state groups. You should be supporting all of them.

They mail me too much stuff... They call me on the phone... I don't agree with all of their tactics and opinions.... What have they done for ME lately... Lame. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Without the NRA, GOA and other local groups the gun control environment across our country would be extremely far worse than it is today.

United we have strength and clout. As individuals we have neither. If any of this applies to you then get off of your butt and get the checks out in the mail this week.

[JohnBT]

Whoa. Now you've gone and upset them. :cool:

John
Member www.vcdl.org

[NineseveN]

Show me, in detail what the NRA has done for "gun owners" since, say, just before the Clinton ban. I want examples. Perhaps I am missing something. I doubt it, so we’ll see. All this rally-speak and cheerleading is useless. Trying to tell me I am less of a gun owner than you are because I don't support an organization that has gotten into the habit of making compromises on our behalf when concerning our rights and then saying they're fighting for us is absurd. They are a "Hunter's Rights" organization, and if I ever choose to start capping deer, then maybe they can have some of my money. The second amendment had absolutely nothing to do with hunting, period. Being soft on the very weapons the framers intended for us to own as a defense against tyranny in government makes the NRA come up lacking in my book. They take one step forwards, and then 2 half-steps back every time I see them act on anything.

Again, the only admirable thing they have done that I can recall off hand is bowing out of Ohio over the AWB. I give them props for that, and if it signals a move ahead in this direction from here on out, they can have my money so long a they keep moving that way.

[JohnBT]

"Show me, in detail..."

Nope, you didn't say please. :neener:

OTOH, the Brady bunch seems to think the NRA has been effective. Read all about it at...

www.stopthenra.com

John
Member www.vcdl.org

[NineseveN]

Nope, you didn't say please

I deserved that, Knight to rook 3. ;)

As for the link...it's looking to me like it's plain old political hype. Make the biggest monster out of your enemy as you can and trumpet your own victories as HUGE battles being won, no matter how small or even ficticious they may be. Same thing the NRA does to a point, except the NRA doesn't fabricate statistics, only intent.

Good link though, didn't think anyone would bring that up in this discussion.

[JohnBT]

"Knight to rook 3"

Bobby F. might get away with playing it to the edge, but it's not recommended.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_20_2.gif


John

[Waitone]

NRA is not perfect. No organization is. But what impresses me is the NRA impact is significantly larger than its size. Socialists and various statists in this country fear the NRA's effectiveness. Any number of advocacy groups point to the NRA as the most effective, most imitated, most respected grassroots organization. I find it quite appropriate that those who would strip the citizen of the right to self-defense fear this one organization.

Fear is a great motivator and if it is fear of the NRA that keeps Schumer and Feinstein rocked back on their heels, I'm in. I am sick of the incrementalism by our opposition. I don't like to see my side agree to anything. I am not happy with a lot of what the NRA does because I WANT ROLLBACK AND I WANT IT NOW. Fortunately I'm not in the political arena but the NRA is and it does a great job. If you can find a more effective organization join up.

[sfhogman]

Waitone,
Well said.

Jeff

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

One of the most effective ways to prevail in the forum of public opinion is to label the other side (whomever they are that particular day) as 'extremists'. That way folks who are neutral or leaning sympathetically in your direction don't have to give it much thought.

Going down the same path, "capturing the center" is how you win elections, and especially if you can convey that your approach to the question at hand is the "Mainstream" position.

The NRA is doing a decent job of portraying Gun Owners in a more favorable light and reducing the effectiveness of the media and antis in trying to demonize us. However, we all could do much more. That takes some dollars and some efforts to organize people who should count to get up off their rear ends and participate.

The NRA will only be extinct and "not matter" if we allow it to happen. The organization is certainly not perfect, but then neither is democracy. However the effectiveness of both depend largely on the PARTICIPATION of those who are impacted. As the saying goes, we ARE the NRA, and I for one have recruited 11 new members just this year.

[JohnKSa]

Hey, I'll switch memberships in a millisecond if someone shows me something better. I'm not talking about idealistic organizations that sound great but can't produce, I'm talking about a real world organization with the political clout to encourage politicians to go along with their views and the views of members.

What? You can't build an organization like that overnight? You sure as hell can't--it took over 100 years. So before you decide you want to tear it down, you'd better have something to replace it.

Unless you're the ruler of a dictatorship, compromise is an absolute necessity to achieve political goals. At least until everyone thinks exactly alike.

BTW, compromising one's IDEALS is not the same as the compromise required to make political progress in a climate of wide-ranging political views.

Carry permits are a perfect example. There is no way that most states would have been able to pass laws that simply legalized handgun carry with no restrictions. However, they have been able to pass carry permit laws. As a result, the progression in TX has led, over a period of years from virtually no legal handgun carry, to permit carry, to now, starting on September 1, ANYONE will be able to carry a handgun in their vehicles. WITHOUT A PERMIT.

Strictly speaking, carry permits are a compromise from the ideal that law abiding citizens should be able to carry handguns. However, they have led to many gun-right advances.

So, because I advocate carry permits does that mean that I have compromised my IDEALS in regard to bearing firearms? No, it means that I realize that in the fight to regain firearms rights it is necessary to compromise, to exercise some give and take, in order to make progress. People don't all think alike and you can't get them to move from dark to light in a single step.

[NineseveN]

One step forward, 2 half-steps back.

In PA, Act 17 comes to mind and how the NRA sold us out.

The fact that many anti-gun candidates or those that have a history of voting FOR gun control get "A" ratings from the NRA comes to mind.


The NFA act comes to mind (even though not recent):

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts." —American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..." (P. 22)



Check out:
http://www.jpfo.org/speech.htm



Where is the NRA on the June 13th, 2005 letter by the ATF banning imported barrels because they figure they can reinterpret the law after over 35 years?:

And S.397? (while I agree this might be a little paranoid, people said the same thing about the "Sporting purposes" language of old, and look what it got us? Everything banned or regulated in some way, at the discretion of the ATF):
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146323



The bottom line is, the NRA is a great outfit for training, competition and advocating hunter's rights.

I don't compete
I don't hunt
I don't train with the NRA

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

Nothing in there about "Sporting purposes".

The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.
Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court, 2003

That about sums it up. And until the NRA takes that stance, and hits the road to advocate ALL firearms rights, but ESPECIALLY in the spirit that the Second Amendment dictates, they can piss off.

If they're not going to do anything, when the FedGov outlaws everything except .22's, then I will be a criminal. Come get my guns, bring body bags and save one for me. Sad, sad world these days.

[medmo]

I don't compete
I don't hunt
I don't train with the NRA

There is the problem NineseveN. It's not all about you. That is why it is called the National Rifle Association and not the NineseveN Rifle Individual. You are bringing up stuff from seventy years ago referencing the NFA of 1934 and the FFA of 1938? I guess Wayne LaPierre should take a black eye for that one.

Check it out: http://www.nra.org/

If this organization doesn't deserve your membership for the $ amount of a couple of boxes of ammo per year than you are nothing more than a selfish tight wad. You nit pick the NRA while ignoring the incredibly significant "good" that it does for the rights of gun owners. Go ahead and stay with the useless grabastic, unorganized group of INDIVIDUALS that have absolutely zero impact on the political/legal process. You don't have to genuinely feel the gratitiude but us folks that do support ALL of the national and local organizations that actually effect the political/legal process would appreciate even an unfelt and insincere "Thank You". I really don't appreciate your NRA bashing. If I want to read that kind of garbage I can go here: http://www.handguncontrol.org/

[NineseveN]

There is the problem NineseveN. It's not all about you. That is why it is called the National Rifle Association and not the NineseveN Rifle Individual.

What happened to, "I am the NRA". :neener:

The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting, target shooting or even training. It has to do with keeping and bearing arms. That's a right that shall not be infringed, control is an infringement. So as long as the NRA advocates some measure of gun control, even what they term "reasonable gun control", they're party to an infringement on the rights of every American citizen. And really, while they are much better in a lot of areas, in the area of defending the true Second Amendment, they are no better than the Brady Bunch.

The GOA can have my money, they get it.

Insulting me isn’t very THR-like of you. I am not a tight-wad, but why should I support an organization that does not fight for my rights? What sense does that make?

And after you insult me like a total child, I am supposed to thank you and the NRA for countless years of appeasement and gun control? The lesser of two evils is still evil. No thanks. You need to step back and cull some of that emotion you seem so fit to attack me with.

You sir, while having your heart in seemingly the right place, are disillusioned. I'm going to ask you to lay off the personal attacks and insults. If you cannot do that, you're not really worthy of my time to discuss this with.

[medmo]

"And really, while they are much better in a lot of areas, in the area of defending the true Second Amendment, they are no better than the Brady Bunch."

Insulting and defaming the National Rifle Association and any other group that defends 2nd Amendment Rights is not at all THR of you.

My opinion that you sound like a narrow minded tight wad is nothing more than an opinion. Prove me wrong. Go make that check out and send it in. We need ALL of the help we can get from ANYWHERE we can get it.

[NineseveN]

Perhaps I should have used "effective" in stead of "better". It wasn't an insult or an attempt at one. There's a difference between criticizing an organization and insulting an individual. On THR, it is perfectly acceptable to say, "Smith and Wesson has terrible quality control", it is not, however, okay to say, "Joe, you own a Smith and Wesson, so you are a dirt bag".

Apparently, you fail to see the distinction. Right now, your only comeback is that I am cheap. You have not challenged even one of the reasons I have stated as to why the NRA won't get any more $$$ from me until they change their attitude and approach, all you've done is insult. When you have no argument, you are left only to attack the opposition as fiercely as you can in hopes that others will join in on the mob mentality and gather as support for your argument. Your stance is typical of the NRA and their die-hard supporters. No matter what point you raise, they ignore it and say, "we still need your money". How nice.

When the NRA stops perverting their use of the notion of protecting the Second Amendment and they actually fight for us n a consistent basis, they can have that check. I'll even write it out now and stash it in my safe. Until then, if they want my money otherwise, they can try and wrestle it from the GOA (which is not at all perfect, but they at least get the point).

As for you, you don't know me, so your uninformed opinions as to my character are worth exactly what you paid to post them here, nothing.

[javafiend]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Nonsense. There is no shred of evidence that Thomas Jefferson ever wrote or said such words. See Bogus Quotes Attributed to the Founders (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html).

[NineseveN]

Well, you have your one website that says so, I'm looking for more. Hard to wade through the thousands of hits that say he did write that. Regardless of who wrote that, is it any less true? I don't believe so.

[javafiend]

Well, you have your one website that says so, I'm looking for more. Hard to wade through the thousands of hits that say he did write that.

And not one of them can give a correct verifiable cite. Amazing, isn't it? People believe what they want to believe, and go along with the herd.

Regardless of who wrote that, is it any less true? I don't believe so.

I'm not sure any more. The Swiss own weapons, and have kept their freedom. The Iraqis were armed to the teeth, and those worthless PoS *still* allowed Saddam to come to power.

Here we sit in America, drifting to tyranny, and yet we have 300 millions or so weapons in private hands.

[NineseveN]

I wouldn't bring the Iraqi's into it, different culture, and that makes things different. Because of their culture, not just their rulers, they have never known freedom such as we do. You can arm certain cultures to the teeth, and they'll still become someone's servant. Some cultures, will bring stones to a tank fight when they have no other weapons simply because they refuse to lie down and serve another.

It's a big world out there. Regardless on the alleged Jefferson quote, the very website that was linked to denounce the quote gives a number of others that fit the bill just as easily, though written in a different style and more difficult for some to understand fully.

[JohnKSa]

I'm not going to argue about the "rightness" of what the NRA did 70 years ago. The people that made those decisions are dead and gone.

Getting back to the present, you can concentrate on the negatives or the positives. Sure, like any organization made up of fallible humans, there are warts. But there have also been advances in the last 20 years or so. FOPA is a major one. The concealed carry movement is another. The Brady sunset is another. 397 is another--naysayers notwithstanding. Besides the gains, there have also been victories in terms of bills defeated--those are too many to list.

The fact is that the NRA WORKS. It's not perfect, but it WORKS. And more to the point it works BETTER than anything else out there. Until something better comes along, it will do nicely.

Again, it's critical to understand where I'm coming from. I don't think it's reasonable to expect all gun owners to support the NRA. Many people for one reason or another just don't feel like they can. I can understand that. I just wish that gun owners in that position would refrain from ATTACKING the NRA and trying to tear it down.

[medmo]

"When the NRA stops perverting their use of the notion of protecting the Second Amendment and they actually fight for us n a consistent basis, they can have that check. I'll even write it out now and stash it in my safe. Until then, if they want my money otherwise, they can try and wrestle it from the GOA (which is not at all perfect, but they at least get the point)."

I just got off the phone with Wayne LaPierre. He told me that they would stop the perversion tomorrow. Now will you send in the check?

"The Big Picture" and "You" aren't even on the same continent. GOA isn't close to the size and strength of the NRA. Am I a member? Yes, because I support any and all groups that significantly support The 2nd Amendment. Here is another example so stay with it and you might get my point. Though I own a couple of Glocks and have had bad experiences with them due to their management. I think the folks in the big offices there really stink. Am I a member of GSSF? Yes, because I support any and all groups that significantly support The 2nd Amendment. Let me know if you need more because I have other memberships in organizations that significantly support The 2nd Amendment.

What do you have a case of Pro 2nd Amendment Group elitism here or what? You can solve that by supporting them all. Do you need the address or a stamp?

[NineseveN]

Not sure there's a point to arguing with you, in fact, I am quite sure it is the opposite. If you want that squirmy feel-good sensation by trumpeting that you support a veritable cornicopia of so-called, "pro-second amendment" organizations, hope you enjoy it.

The second amendment is about the normal, every day, free citizen having the liberty to have access to and own firearms as a defense against any that may try and remove their rights from them. It has nothing to do with huntng, sport shooting or any of the other crap that the NRA puts before actually defending the RKBA.

People like you are too busy scoffing up the table scraps the NRA negotiates for you from the gun-grabbing socialists to even get the point.

I hope they're enjoying your money.

Principle, it's what's for dinner.

[JohnKSa]

I hope they're enjoying your money.Actually YOU'RE enjoying the money. You just don't realize it because you refuse to acknowledge the benefits you have solely because of the work the NRA has done on behalf of U.S. gunowners (including you.)People like you are too busy scoffing up the table scraps the NRA negotiates for you from the gun-grabbing socialists to even get the point. You too enjoy the "table scraps" but you aren't grateful. Instead you denigrate the organization that has bought back your precious rights using the money of the people you ridicule for supporting it.

Once again--unless you're the dictator, or are proposing armed revolution, negotiation and compromise are necessary to make political progress. That should be abundantly obvious to anyone who bothers to spend a second or two thinking about the process. Anyone who denies this fact is either incredibly ignorant, intentionally obtuse, trying to incite revolution, attempting to create a political crisis, or simply arguing for the sake of argument.

What a person believes forms his principles. What a person is forced to accept forms his reality. What a person is forced to accept does NOT alter his principles unless he allows it to.

[Kamicosmos]

The NRA 'comprimised' on the 1934 Gun Control Act, because originally, it was to apply NFA taxes to ALL guns, including HANDGUNS. If it had gone through in it's original form, we would have been gun free in 1934 beacuse no one could have afforded that kind of tax on handguns and 'normal' rifles.

I am a member of NRA. I joined my local state gun organization as well. Actually, I joined them instead of GOA. Why? Because NRA and WMSA have DONE THINGS on state and federal levels. GOA has done....? I'm not saying GOA is not a worthy organization to join. As another poster said, its taken the NRA over 100 years to build up thier reputation and membership. It will take GOA a while too. But...My local organization was critical in getting MO CCW laws passed, with the Help of the NRA. The GOA is a 'no-comprimise' organization, and guess what? They have not compromised on anything!

That's why I am a member of these two organizations. My next tax return is tagged for a Life Membership in NRA. All these that say I need to get something for my money. Grow up. You have received a lot of stuff from the NRA and your local state organizations, with or without 'your money'.

[ruger270man]

its the simple fact that a large majority of that 80 million is the one rifle, one shotgun, once-a-year, shoot at a paper plate a week before deer season crowd.

quite unfortunate.

and a good portion of that group doesnt even know the true definition of an assault rifle (according to the 1994 ban), but they trust CNN that theyre bad..

and they think their hunting rifle is safe from Ted Kennedy, even though 'ol Teddy wants to ban armor piercing ammunition..

"but my .308 isn't armor piercing!!" :rolleyes:

give me a break

[Red Dragon]

I think if more people were truly educated about firearms instead of being fed the constant shovels full of BS about 'em by the media, than things would be different.

[JohnBT]

"People like you are too busy scoffing up the table scraps the NRA negotiates for you from the gun-grabbing socialists to even get the point."

scarfing up, not scoffing up

If you're going to insult us, how about putting a little more effort into it? :D

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Life Member

[NineseveN]

:rolleyes:

Looks guys, do whatever you want. You think your NRA cheerleading is helping our rights? Fine, be my guest. I feel differently.

You can make your snide remarks about me all you like, I could care less. You only read the hype. The NRA has a vested interest in gun control, because we won't need them anymore if it ever goes away, which is why they say, "we support reasonable gun control".

Our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Control is an infringement, period. ANY organization or person that says they support the RKBA but is also in favor of any gun control, reasonable or not, just doesn't get it. They have no idea what the 2A is about.

And spare me the thing about them being responsible for the AWB sunset. It expired because the Dems lost control based largely on that VERY ban, when the Repubs came into power, they knew that it was a loser issue for them if they didn't steer it towards expiration. The ban would have expired with or without the NRA.

The NRA is a political player and a lobbyist for gun makers first, THEN an advocate for our rights afterwards. They fully and publicly endorse candidates that want to ban semi-automatic firearms, want more restrictions on CCW and more regulations on what firearms and in what calibers the unwashed masses may own. They give some of these folks "A" ratings (ILA). But some of you can't see past your NRA pom-poms to realize this. They want gun control, without it, there would be no use for them anymore.

Funny thing, and check this if you know any insiders. They made a HUGE deal about removing liability of gun manufacturers for misuse of their product in the commission of a crime. They lobbied for the manufacturers...and that's cool, IF the prices of firearms go down in the next 3-5 years. It should, without all the lawsuits and insurance against lawsuits, American gun manufacturers will see less overhead, will we see a price break?

Now, the interesting thing here is, the ATF announced July 13th that they are going to reinterpret a 38-year old piece of regulation, which amounts to banning the importation of barrels and receivers (like for Ak-style rifles, FALs, Cetmes etc...) and they have made little to no comment about it.

When I called and asked about this (in August mind you, more than a month after the announcement), all 6 people I talked to at the NRA had no idea what I was talking about. When some folks from another forum got them information on the letter and sent e-mails/letters, the NRA said they don't agree with it.

But we're still waiting to see them do something about it. If they are in the pockets of gun manufacturers as I suspect they are now, they will do nothing. Banning imports is good for domestic manufacturers, this is good business for them.

So anyway, think what you will, toe the NRA party line all you like. Support them, love them, attack anyone that doesn't support them.


When was the last time the ACLU compromised on freedom of speech or civil rights?

"Any person can say what they want at any time, but no more than 10 words at once, and not near a school, and not while wearing BDUs, and not while wearing boots, and not without a permit. Furthermore, to get this permit, we endorse having to be trained by an ACLU speech trainer for safety reasons. If your spouse says you called them a bad name, or if they say you hit them, the government will remove your freedom to speak until you prove your innocence in the court of law. Also, you may not speak in languages from other countries, and books on those languages will be banned from import. Now, all of these things aren't our ideas, but we had to compromise in order to stave off something worse. We are committed to fighting for your rights, but we do believe in reasonable speech control, and we have always supported that."

Somehow, I don't see that coming from the ACLU or ANY advocate for freedom of speech. But replace the speech talk with firearms, and that's exactly what our dues to the NRA have gotten us.


YMMV. What you see depends on where you stand, what you’ll stand for, and if you’re even standing at all.

[NineseveN]

scarfing up, not scoffing up

My apologies, it was after midnight, had been a long day at work. I am glad you were able to catch that mistake, it was a focal point of the discussion. :rolleyes:

[biere]

Someone said that since the folks who did the 1934 law drafting are dead it should be forgotten, I disagree.

That is the beginning of a time line that shows the nra is for gun control. Course their web sight says the same thing as well.

In my previous post on page 2 I have a quote about a utah bill. The people of utah had a bill that would have had no restrictions on out of state ccw permits.

The nra spokeman comes in and gets that changed to a 60 day limit. Please note the nra person came in and did this, they were not helping with the original bill.

This sort of action by an nra spokesman can only mean 2 things to me.

Either they are happy limiting the rights of gun owners, or they are playing politics and wanted their name on the bill or they wanted to be able to show they changed a no restriction bill to a 60 day limit.

I find it disturbing that so many people feel the best way to protect my gun rights is to support a group who is in favor of gun control. I don't care if it is some gun control or limited gun control, it is still gun control.

So while the true supporters of gun rights may not have a big old group with lots of history behind them, at least I am not sending money to a group that works to limit the 2nd amendment while saying they support my rights mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

This is simply something I will always disagree with folks about. If they feel they are helping to support thier gun rights by giving to the nra, I guess they are just picking a lesser evil in my opinion.

On this subject I will not give money to an evil.

[Justin]

Oh for crying out loud.

Look, the NRA really didn't have much say in the NFA and here's why:

At that time, the NRA was a purely educational and competitive organization. They weren't engaged in politics at that time because there simply wasn't a need. They were forced into playing political catch-up with regard to the NFA. Heck, Homer Stille, US AG at the time, is on record as proposing that not only should all guns be heavily taxed, but that every single round of ammunition should be taxed as well.

Heck, the NRA's hardcore lobbiest organization, the Institute for Legislative Action didn't even get started until 1975.

Has the NRA done things that I disagree with? Sure. But to claim that they are doing nothing or working to actively sell us out is nothing more than ill-informed hyperbolic smoke-blowing, and you know it.

[NineseveN]

NRA and the NFA of 1934:

"The NRA supported The National Firearms Act of 1934 which taxes and requires registration of such firearms as machine guns, sawed-off rifles and sawed-off shotguns. ... NRA support of Federal gun legislation did not stop with the earlier Dodd bills. It currently backs several Senate and House bills which, through amendment, would put new teeth into the National and Federal Firearms Acts."

"The NRA supported The Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which regulates interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and pistol or revolver ammunition..."


"The NRA supported the original 'Dodd Bill' to amend the Federal Firearms Act in regard to handguns when it was introduced as S.1975 in August, 1963. Among its provisions was the requirement that a purchaser submit a notarized statement to the shipper that he was over 18 and not legally disqualified from possessing a handgun."

"In January, 1965, with the continued support of the NRA, Senator Dodd introduced an amended version of his first bill, now designated 5.14 and expanded to cover rifles and shotguns as well as handguns."


-American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22-23


:neener:


Let it be known, I don't have opriginal copies of the issue, so this may not be entirely accurate. I am still trying to track down a copy without paying an arm and a leg. This info can be found on the www FWIW.

[medmo]

NineseveN..... I finally get your point. For you everything is an ALL or NOTHING proposition. If the rest of us lived by those principles we would all have NOTHING mostly. It must be a lot of fun living in your head. How simple everything must be for you. That goes back to my previous opinion of narrow mindedness. I don't think you'll ever send in the check which reinforces my other previous opinion of tight wad.

From all of the opinions you have posted you obviously have no use for the NRA. You keep mentioning shooting sports and hunting as if they are vile activities. Hunting and sport shooting is what a lot of gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates due with their guns. I'm guessing that if you had the ability to make the NRA disappear you would do so immediately. Do you think that would improve the situation for gun owners and supporters of The 2nd Amendment? Think for at least a minute and weigh both the positive and negative consequences before deciding.

[NineseveN]

Medmo, give it a rest, you act like I just spit on your grandmother...and you make too many assumptions.

You're right, when it comes to my inalienable rights, your goddamn right there is no compromise. Spare me the candy corn rhetoric about compromise. What kind of a person doesn't get it? There is no compromise on our rights, you either havr the absolute right to keep and bears arms without infringement, or you don't. Here's a clue, the Constitution says we do, but because of all the garbage gun legislation and a blatant disregard for the Constitution, we don't...and the NRA had a part in that through these compromises made on our behalf. I am sure they had the best of intentions, but they just don't get it. Neither do you. Those that would accept their rights being compromised at the end of a sword, or even a pen, would live as slaves...

That goes back to my previous opinion of narrow mindedness.

Pot, kettle, hypocrite.

I don't think you'll ever send in the check which reinforces my other previous opinion of tight wad.

Because I won't send a check to the organization of your choosing, I am a tight wad? You're silly.


From all of the opinions you have posted you obviously have no use for the NRA.

Someone give this kid a cookie.

You keep mentioning shooting sports and hunting as if they are vile activities. Hunting and sport shooting is what a lot of gun owners and 2nd Amendment advocates due with their guns

Nothing wrong with either (not too fond of hunting personally, but for some, it's a nice thing no doubt), but neither of them have ANYTHING to do with the Second Amendment. Now, either counter that, or leave it alone. Thanks for playing.

I'm guessing that if you had the ability to make the NRA disappear you would do so immediately.

You're guessing wrong, and obviously purposefully. I never said the NRA should go away, I think they are an excellent advocacy group for shooting sports, hunting, firearms safety and training. There are many people that are in need of such a group, the NRA does a fine job, but that's where it ends.


Do you think that would improve the situation for gun owners and supporters of The 2nd Amendment? Think for at least a minute and weigh both the positive and negative consequences before deciding.

I think it would degrade things for those that are members of and support the NRA, but if they went away, perhaps some of their non-appeasement talent could move on to an organization that actually cares about the Second Amendment more than itself.

[LawDog]

Enough. Until some manners and common courtesy are learned, nobody is going to play on this thread.

Locked, for discourtesy, barnyard manners and mud-slinging.

LawDog