Range forces members to join the NRA


PDA






Grizfire
June 8, 2008, 07:02 PM
I'm considering membership at a particular range. I noticed on the application form that you have to be a member of the NRA, and must submit your NRA membership number, in order to be a member at this range. It says they must do this for insurance purposes.

Does anyone know what these "insurance purposes" are?

I'm not a member of the NRA, but I'm cool with their purpose. However, it seems a little weird to be forced into political activism. Additionally, I'm not sure I'd want to submit my NRA membership number if I was a member.

I just want to go plinking, ya know.

If you enjoyed reading about "Range forces members to join the NRA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dm1333
June 8, 2008, 07:08 PM
The range I belong to charges $40 a year which goes toward paying off their insurance policy. The also ask if you are a member of the NRA or if you want to join but it is not a requirement.

mr.trooper
June 8, 2008, 07:12 PM
One of the two indoor ranges in town is like that. Its a small private club.

In order to join, you need to be an NRA member, and you have to pay dues to the range as well.

this is often the difference between a range and a gun club.

Mojo-jo-jo
June 8, 2008, 07:13 PM
The NRA provides subsidized liability insurance to member ranges. One of the stipulations of the coverage is that all members of the insured range must be NRA members. The dues money from the members helps defray the cost of the insurance.

This subsidized insurance enables many ranges to stay open that could not afford liability insurance otherwise. Just consider how much a gun range must pay in liability insurance premiums.

Agree or disagree with the political efforts of the NRA, but consider that they do much more to keep the tradition of shooting alive than just lobby congress and send junk mail.

jnyork
June 8, 2008, 07:17 PM
Our club has both an indoor and outdoor range. We require NRA membership. Not only is it for insurance purposes, we feel if a person is serious about shooting, they should be part of the solution.

wally
June 8, 2008, 07:21 PM
I just want to go plinking, ya know

Its only because of "political activism" by groups like the NRA you can still buy guns, ammo, and have thoughts about "just plinking".

Their range, their rules, most ranges near cities know they can only remain open because of "political activism" from the NRA and others.

If you like to shoot, you should be an NRA member, period.

--wally.

Grizfire
June 8, 2008, 07:22 PM
Thanks guys, I'm feeling better about it. Maybe I'll let it go. Although I should add that I can easily shoot for free out on public land where I have easy access (in the summer).

Dookie
June 8, 2008, 07:22 PM
So next time I want to go to the race track I have to be a member of AAA to race? Or subscribe to motor trend, or be a lifetime member of NOPI?

Their business, their choice, but not fair to people who just like to shoot and have no political interest or are politically neutral.

Why don't we start making a database of all the gun owners and start separating them by who has a NRA membership and who doesn't?

bensdad
June 8, 2008, 07:25 PM
My club has NRA membership as a prerequisite. If you're not gonna be part of the solution, go shoot in your backyard until they come take your guns away.

ETA: Dookie, It IS fair to people who just like to shoot. They can "just like to shoot" at a different club or on their own property.

Warty
June 8, 2008, 07:29 PM
Yeah right, I'm an endowment lifer with the nra and frankly they haven't been all that when it comes to fighting for our rights.

at least the GOA answers a member's letter when they have a concern about the way the "club" is doing things.
I guess Ole Wayne is too busy with his pals that really spend the dough, like the Brady Bunch, to answer someone like me...

TexasSkyhawk
June 8, 2008, 07:29 PM
Their business, their choice, but not fair to people who just like to shoot and have no political interest or are politically neutral.

Why don't we start making a database of all the gun owners and start separating them by who has a NRA membership and who doesn't?

I'm all for that--and have been for years.

NRA members would get substantial discounts on all gun-related purchases, no waiting in line at ranges, half-price admission to gun shows, first shot at hunting leases, etc.

Hell, yeah I'm for creating a database.

For all the freeloaders out there who do nothing to help secure our RIGHTS except possibly yakking their gums, I think we SHOULD separate the cream from the crop.

Jeff

Warty
June 8, 2008, 07:31 PM
I do a lot more than Yakking...

but then it seems that it is all "yakking" when you really get down to it anyway.
Unless you are talking Insurrection, which I am not.

possum_128
June 8, 2008, 07:39 PM
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I cannot believe or understand why gun owners are not members of the NRA, GOA, etc.
For the sake of us all, become a member of at least one pro gun org. that can make a difference. Use it or lose it.

Professor Gun
June 8, 2008, 07:40 PM
One club I belong to requires NRA membership to join. If you have a problem with that requirement then you can go join a shooting range that doesn't require membership in the NRA.

"...forced into political activism..."? If you own a gun you are already involved in politics whether or not you recognize it.

It is unfortunate that so few gun owners are members of the NRA (or GOA or other Second Amendment organizations), if a larger percentage joined one of the Second Amendment lobbying organizations and got involved in just watching the political landscape and voting their conscience on the Second Amendment, a lot of our ridiculous gun control laws that punish law abiding gun owners would rapidly disappear.

R.W.Dale
June 8, 2008, 07:42 PM
So next time I want to go to the race track I have to be a member of AAA to race? Or subscribe to motor trend, or be a lifetime member of NOPI?


NO but if it's a NHRA or SCCA track..................

Their business, their choice, but not fair to people who just like to shoot and have no political interest or are politically neutral.

Again it's about the INSURANCE not politics. You odiously have no notion whatsoever of just how astronomically high liability insurance for a shooting range is.

TAB
June 8, 2008, 07:44 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I cannot believe or understand why gun owners are not members of the NRA, GOA, etc.


wait so becuase you own an object you need to be a member of a political org?

I was a life time member of the NRA, I no longer am. I could fill several threads with the reasons why I am no longer a life member.

uh-oh
June 8, 2008, 07:48 PM
The club I applied to last week requires NRA membership. I had held off joining NRA until recently, but I figured I'll join as many gun-rights groups I can: GOA, JPFO, VCDL, et c.

kingpin008
June 8, 2008, 07:49 PM
For all the freeloaders out there who do nothing to help secure our RIGHTS except possibly yakking their gums, I think we SHOULD separate the cream from the crop.

Freeloader? Excuse me? I'm not a member of the NRA, but I'm not a damn freeloader either. I'm active (like many others here are) on a local level, writing letters, calling our representatives, and showing up at hearings to fight gun control on a LOCAL level. Believe it or not, the NRA hasn't really done a whole heck of a lot for us fighting the little local fights, so we're doing it ourselves.

I'm glad that some of you think that being an NRA member gives you some sort of bragging rights, or entitles you to discounts on guns, no waiting for range time, etc - but the fact is, no matter how you fight, or who you fight with, WE ALL DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS. Period, end of story.

We talk about the anti's being the type of elitist, stuck-up idiots who are ruining things for this country, but yet it's alright for our own community to do the same?

Hypocrites. :barf:

possum_128
June 8, 2008, 07:52 PM
TAB stated: "wait so becuase you own an object you need to be a member of a political org?

I was a life time member of the NRA, I no longer am. I could fill several threads with the reasons why I am no longer a life member."

If you want to maintain owership of said objects..... then yes!
The NRA may not be perfect as I'm sure you are not either, but it's better than sitting on your behind and letting them take those "objects" away.

TAB
June 8, 2008, 07:54 PM
i would give up my guns before I rejoined the NRA.

romma
June 8, 2008, 07:54 PM
So your range is forcing you to join the NRA so you can be a member huh?

All I can say is "join the club"!

Yes there is a pun in there...

jerkface11
June 8, 2008, 07:54 PM
Shooting isn't the best hobby for people who wish to be politically neutral.

Sistema1927
June 8, 2008, 07:58 PM
Insurance is expensive.

NRA membership is cheap (as well as being vitally important).

Bazooka Joe71
June 8, 2008, 07:58 PM
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

How so?:confused:

tinygnat219
June 8, 2008, 08:00 PM
If you don't like the NRA, but the range is one of the few gigs in town that allows you to shoot. Get an Associate NRA Membership. It's 10 bucks a year and you get no magazine: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

You can also opt out of mail from them: www.nrahq.org/contact.asp
1-800-672-3888

Seriously though, I can't fathom why people who hunt, shoot, or train don't belong to the NRA. Without them, we'd have given up our 2nd Amendment rights long ago.

TexasSkyhawk
June 8, 2008, 08:02 PM
i would give up my guns before I rejoined the NRA.

You're Sarah Brady's kind of guy.

Jeff

possum_128
June 8, 2008, 08:08 PM
Bazooka Joe71 stated: "How so?:

If you don't know, I'm not sure if I can explain it. Let me ask you one question... what are you doing to secure your rights as a gun owner?
If you don't belong to any pro gun organizations, I ask what will you be doing when they come for your guns or past more bs bill that restrict the ownership. This is not about "bragging rights" as someone else stated, it's about protecting your rights.

We all need to get on the same page and stick together.

jcwit
June 8, 2008, 08:09 PM
TAB--This reminds me of the old viewpoint of Better dead than red what a asinine outlook. Give up your freedome over whatever your problem is with the NRA. You sir have a problem.

TAB
June 8, 2008, 08:10 PM
let me ask you possum what have you done to secure your rights?

How many rallys have you been too, how many phone calls, how many letters?

TAB
June 8, 2008, 08:14 PM
TAB--This reminds me of the old viewpoint of Better dead than red what a asinine outlook. Give up your freedome over whatever your problem is with the NRA. You sir have a problem.


I never said I would give up my "freedoms" I do alot to preserve that right, every single time my states law makers try to pass laws that restrict them, they get a letter, phone call and an email. I was lucky enough to attend a rally this year at the capitol as well. I just will not rejoin the NRA, atleast not with out drastic changes to it. If anything this thread is a perfect example of the nra... "join us or... blah blah blah"

jcwit
June 8, 2008, 08:23 PM
How many lawyers have you helped to hire to support the RTKABA? Have you ever been THE ONE to stop a law or ordinance from being enacted which would have limited the RTKABA?

TAB
June 8, 2008, 08:27 PM
How many lawyers have you helped to hire to support the RTKABA? Have you ever been THE ONE to stop a law or ordinance from being enacted which would have limited the RTKABA?


you 1st.

possum_128
June 8, 2008, 08:29 PM
Tab, I belong to the NRA, GOA Indiana gunowners, and I write, call and meet with my elected officals on all things that I believe in including all parts of the Bill of Rights. As far as rallys I have attended my share. Now how about you?

If you have a problem with the NRA, then I am sorry. But do you just stand on the sidelines and do nothing?

My other question to you is who are you to question me?

jcwit
June 8, 2008, 08:35 PM
TAP----Here's the answer (YES) sorry to disappoint you.

TAB
June 8, 2008, 08:35 PM
My other question to you is who are you to question me?

right back at you.

possum_128
June 8, 2008, 08:41 PM
Tab, first of all I have not questioned you one bit on what you do for your rights until you questioned me on what I do.

But I'm done with this. You are like trying to convince an anti. Good luck in your pursuits.

AK103K
June 8, 2008, 08:42 PM
I wouldnt join any club that required membership. Next thing you know, you'll have to be a member of the Repblocrats too.

The NRA needs all the drama, just like the politicians do. The last thing they want, is for the drama to go away, its a big part of their livelihood, just like the politicians. As with anything, its ALL about money. If they can keep you scared enough, they will continue to get yours.

TAB
June 8, 2008, 08:44 PM
no, you did not question mine, but you did question bazooka joes.

possum_128
June 8, 2008, 08:54 PM
TAB stated: "no, you did not question mine, but you did question bazooka joes."

I see. you must be his spokeperson, my bad. I was trying to answer his question. If I came off short then I am sorry to bazooka joe. But I don't believe he needs you or anyone else to defend him, not that he needs defending.

Okay now I'm done. No really I am:neener:

mnrivrat
June 8, 2008, 09:05 PM
I'm hoping this thing settles down before out of hand and out of THR for attitude folks !!

Their business, their choice, but not fair to people who just like to shoot and have no political interest or are politically neutral.

Seems like some of you are missing the main point here - the NRA pays for some part of the insurance premium on the range. That means they should have some say, and some ability to recover the money that NRA members have paid in to subsidize your range ! Is joining them such a heavy burdon for a person who wants a range to shoot at ?

I think its fair - "the NRA is paying part of the operating cost of the range" .

Nate C.
June 8, 2008, 09:06 PM
The local club here requires NRA membership as a prereq to join the range.

The NRA is definitely not perfect, but it is the most visible, most vocal and most effective 2AD advocate in Washington.

3KillerBs
June 8, 2008, 09:10 PM
Their business, their choice, but not fair to people who just like to shoot and have no political interest or are politically neutral.

Maybe people who think that way should be willing to pay the difference between the NRA subsidized insurance and the amount that would be required otherwise.

Its just like carrying a gun. If you don't want to do it then don't. But don't complain if others do.

If you don't want to join a range/club that requires NRA membership then don't. But don't gripe about it.

You could, after all, gather up a group of like-minded people and start your own range/club that doesn't have such a rule.

icecorps
June 8, 2008, 09:52 PM
The NRA helps keep ranges open.

Any ranges in your hometown close in the last couple of decades due to community pressure?

I have mixed feelings about joining the NRA too. But a range could just increase your dues by $100 a year instead and donate to the NRA.

MT GUNNY
June 8, 2008, 10:07 PM
For all those who are on edge of joining the NRA please go to www.nra.org and listen to CAM an Company every weekday between 7 to 10pm Mountain time. Very insight full to what they are all about.

At the same front page weekdays at 5pm for 30 minutes is a new news brodcast.

Its all free, If you have Sirius you can listen to Cam an Company same time on the patriot channel 144

I enjoy listening plus you can text him from the same site and ask questions. they rebroadcast on the off hours.

Army
June 8, 2008, 10:13 PM
The NRA needs all the drama, just like the politicians do. The last thing they want, is for the drama to go away, its a big part of their livelihood, just like the politicians. As with anything, its ALL about money. If they can keep you scared enough, they will continue to get yours.
No, the NRA needs numbers, real numbers that can be brought against the numbers that the anti's make up as they go. With real numbers of members, the NRA can honestly say "We have more than 4 million law abiding citizens that disagree with you, Mr. Schumer."

The actions of the NRA does not scare me, the actions of politicians who's stated goal are to eliminate YOUR RIGHT to keep and bear arms....despite swearing to God to uphold that very right...scares the hell out of me. The NRA has vowed to fight these politicians all the way, while the politicians have vowed to screw you.

The NRA is NOT a government voting body, but they are the most powerful voice and lobby for the preservation of the 2nd Amendment, as they help push pro-gun bills, and fight anti-gun lies. They cannot make laws, but they do fight for those that keep your guns in your house and hands.

Joining costs as much as a box of ammo, is that too much?

Hk91-762mm
June 8, 2008, 10:21 PM
MY 2 cents
Im an NRA lifer!
I belonged to a club as there Sgt@arms . At a meeting I proposed that we as a whole take 10 min every meeting and we write a letter to 1 of our represenitives--I would supply the pens and paper and Envelopes and stamps !
MY motion could not get a second To My motion !!!
I was PIZZZZEEEDDDD OFF to say the least.!!!!
Most members did not belong to any shooting org. Many were Golfers with guns-[when it gets bad Ill put my trap gun away and go golfing]
The rest were Union guys who voted democrat [or what ever the union told them to do ]
Im so happy some Gun Clubs actually force there members to take a stand for the rights they enjoy! Good for them ..!!!!
I had a sign on my gun show table ==It read ---IF your not regestered to vote-You dont deserve to own a gun....!!!!!!
And i got a bunch of krap over it too from the Non voters who rode the wagon and never helped fight the fight ....

Bazooka Joe71
June 8, 2008, 10:41 PM
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I cannot believe or understand why gun owners are not members of the NRA, GOA, etc.


If you don't know, I'm not sure if I can explain it.

Point taken, because you sure as heck didn't. I know you said you're done, so I am basically wasting my breath, but to narrow my question of "how so" down, I would just like you to explain to me how me not pumping money into a pro-gun organization is making me a part of the problem? The problem is antis trying to take our guns away...Am I trying to take your guns away?

BTW, you didn't come across as short to me, so no apology is necessary.

TexasSkyhawk
June 8, 2008, 10:52 PM
In AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association), we have a saying and that is, "We have met the enemy, and it is us."

That saying gets trotted out when fellow pilots do or say things that are so beyond stupid that they leave people shaking their heads in disbelief.


The NRA needs all the drama, just like the politicians do. The last thing they want, is for the drama to go away, its a big part of their livelihood, just like the politicians. As with anything, its ALL about money. If they can keep you scared enough, they will continue to get yours.

We have met the enemy, and it is us.

I continue to have a hard time grasping and accepting how much sheer ignorance there still is within our gun-owners and gun-rights community.

Let's do a little refreshing on the "drama" and manufactured "fear" of the past few decades and how the NRA created it or fostered it or fueled it simply to feed the money machine.

Bear with me while some of us old-timers take a stroll down Memory Lane--

Anyone besides me remember any of this?

http://usera.imagecave.com/jdkinman/FreedomRestoredLoRes1.jpg

Every single person who owns a Glock or any other "plastic" gun can thank the NRA for defeating this--

http://usera.imagecave.com/jdkinman/PlasticGunsLoRes1.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/jdkinman/ClintonAdsLoRes1.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/jdkinman/1994VictoriesLoRes1.jpg

http://usera.imagecave.com/jdkinman/EddieEagleLoRes1.jpg


How many states would have Concealed Carry Laws were it not for the NRA's efforts, clout and guidance? How many states would not have The Castle Doctrine were it not for the NRA? How many of you NRA-naysayers hired lawyers to help Katrina victims try and recover their CONFISCATED firearms (not suppoed to happen in America, is it?) or hired lawyers to help ensure that it would never happen again.

I guess all that was just a bunch of hyped up drama, too.

Jeff

MaterDei
June 8, 2008, 11:00 PM
Nice pics, TexasSkyhawk.

never_retreat
June 8, 2008, 11:03 PM
Many ranges/clubs get their liability insurance threw the NRA. Being a member is usually a prerequisite for the policy. My club uses the NRA insurance, and we have over 400 non LE members that are insured with the NRA. The police departments carry their own liability so we don't have to count them for our policy.

The club might let you join if you show proof of your own liability insurance. But that will cost you more than the 40 bucks to the NRA.

justin 561
June 8, 2008, 11:12 PM
Its only because of "political activism" by groups like the NRA you can still buy guns, ammo, and have thoughts about "just plinking".\

Are we pulling these facts out of the air? The NRA is NOT the sole reason we're allowed to own "guns, ammo" or "just plinking"

For all the freeloaders out there who do nothing to help secure our RIGHTS except possibly yakking their gums, I think we SHOULD separate the cream from the crop.


So let me see if I get this, I must be a member of the NRA to not be a "freeloader?" I'm pretty sure my letters to my sen, state gov, and local gov, is just freeloading? Be real please.

Okiecruffler
June 8, 2008, 11:24 PM
What has happened to THR?:confused:

OP stated his range required NRA membership. The insurance issue was explained. But then we had to degrade into a freeforall on the NRA's policies and members vs. non-members. In 6 years we've fallen along way from the original spirit of this board. Seems like there are alot of folks who just go from thread to thread looking for a reason to be offended or a chance to beat their chest. I guess it's the nature of the beast, was just hoping this beast would behave differently.:(

Sapanther
June 8, 2008, 11:26 PM
I will not join the nra simply because so many people DEMAND that I do such a thing. You are calling me a freeloader because I want to exercise a couple God Given Rights. One of those being the ablility to pick and chose who I associate with. Any orginization that fosters the kind of HATE that the nra does in folks who are not members can kiss my ass for all I care.

TexasSkyhawk
June 8, 2008, 11:37 PM
Are we pulling these facts out of the air? The NRA is NOT the sole reason we're allowed to own "guns, ammo" or "just plinking"

Oh? What are the other reasons, do tell?

Would it be elected officials' love and deep residing respect and reverence for the Bill of Rights and especially the Second Amendment?

Or is it the media's fierce protectiveness and defense of gun-owners, hunters and those who shoot in self-defense?

Perhaps the International Association of Chiefs of Police (anyone remember Joe McNamara?) and their steadfast belief in citizens' right to keep and bear arms, as well as carry them concealed just like the police do?

Who or what else, pray tell, helps us fight and protect and advance our Second Amendment rights if it's not the NRA?

Quote:
For all the freeloaders out there who do nothing to help secure our RIGHTS except possibly yakking their gums, I think we SHOULD separate the cream from the crop.
So let me see if I get this, I must be a member of the NRA to not be a "freeloader?" I'm pretty sure my letters to my sen, state gov, and local gov, is just freeloading? Be real please.

Letters are good--I write a ton of them myself. The letters I write to my pro-gun elected officials also contain a check to properly show my appreciation for their views and to help ensure that they stay elected so they can continue to have and promote the views I like.

I also send out faxes--about once a week the wife and I generate our "Don't mess with our guns" message and fax it to the White House, AG, our two Senators, our representative, governor, etc.

Communication is good--for damned sure officials need to know we're out here.

But letting officials know you're part of a multi-million member organization that is the oldest civil rights organization in America carries even MORE clout.

Letting officials know you're part of a large organization that actively promotes safety and education to children, ala Eddie Eagle, carries even more clout.

Letting officials know you're part of a large organization that promotes hunter safety and education carries more clout.

Letting officals know you're part of a huge organization that holds seminars all over the country to help teach women how "not to become a (crime) victim" carries a LOT of clout since chances are good that if you're wife is not already a member of that organization, she will at least vote like you.

Besides, most NRA members I know write letters, send faxes and e-mails and call their elected bozos anyhow.

But they also lend their name and money to an organization that does so much more in the name of the Second Amendment and the advancement of firearms in general.

I stand by my freeloader label. If it pisses some people off, I'm not losing any sleep. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Jeff

Gunnerpalace
June 8, 2008, 11:43 PM
I'll state my opinions after Heller.

Flyboy
June 8, 2008, 11:46 PM
Their business, their choice, but not fair to people who just like to shoot and have no political interest or are politically neutral.
I'm fairly certain the NRA proper does little-to-nothing politically. As a 501(c)3, they're forbidden to engage in lobbying and such.

The NRA-ILA is the political arm, but it's a separate entity. The NRA is an educational and sporting institution.

Such is my understanding, anyway--feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.

TAB
June 8, 2008, 11:52 PM
the NRA is not a nonprofit, they are a not for profit. there is a very big diffrence between the too.

Kentak
June 8, 2008, 11:56 PM
As with anything, its ALL about money. If they can keep you scared enough, they will continue to get yours.

As if the threat to RKBA is manufactured, exaggerated, and hyped by the NRA? No one is demanding you join anything. My tag line is a plea for an action that I believe will help the cause of RKBA. The whole reason for advocacy organizations is to pool resources to do things that would be difficult or too costly to do as individuals. Sure, you can go it alone and write letters, make phone calls, donate to pro-gun candidates, etc. That's fine, and important. But, you're discounting the advantages of a powerful advocacy organization like the NRA. They have the resources and contacts to influence legislation in the formative stages. They have the resources to alert members to threats to our rights we might not even be aware of until it's too late. They have the resources to mount media campaigns when and where needed. They have the proven track record of making or breaking political careers. Yeah, all that takes money, and lots of it. That's life.

Your rant against the NRA sounds more like whining than a rational case.

K

AndyC
June 9, 2008, 12:06 AM
I applaud any private range who expects NRA membership as a prerequisite (there's one around here I'm considering joining, if they'll have me).

Don't like the conditions, tough - bugger off elsewhere and whine.

GigaBuist
June 9, 2008, 12:07 AM
The NRA-ILA is the political arm, but it's a separate entity. The NRA is an educational and sporting institution.

I can't believe it took the thread that long before somebody got to that. It's sorta important.

Membership in the NRA doesn't mean you're involved in the political arm of the org. That's what the NRA-ILA does and your dues don't go there. Folks have to make separate donations for them to get any funding.

Take a step back, slow your roll, and learn a little about how the org. has to manage its money. They're not shoving ever single dollar they get into Congressmen's campaign coffers. Hell, they're not sending ANY of your membership dues there.

JohnBT
June 9, 2008, 12:10 AM
"I will not join the nra simply because so many people DEMAND that I do such a thing."

Let me get this straight. You're living your life by reacting to stuff on an internet forum. That's sad. I suggest you think for yourself and look at the facts.

John

Bazooka Joe71
June 9, 2008, 12:21 AM
The NRA-ILA is the political arm, but it's a separate entity. The NRA is an educational and sporting institution.

Thanks for that...I learn something new everyday.

So um, what would be better for our RKBA: Pumping money into an educational and sporting institution or educating even just one fence sitter and getting them to purchase a firearm?



(BTW, I am far from anti-NRA by a long shot and will eventually get a life membership...I just don't understand how someone could call me a "freeloader" if I don't/didn't)

Grizfire
June 9, 2008, 12:22 AM
Don't like the conditions, tough - bugger off elsewhere and whine.

You mean like public land where I've been shooting for free for years, without any political stipulations?

I wonder, how badly do these ranges/clubs want customers?

Bazooka Joe71
June 9, 2008, 12:27 AM
You mean like public land where I've been shooting for free for years, without any political stipulations?

I wonder, how badly do these ranges/clubs want customers?

In some cases, not bad enough...But c'mon buddy, with the free public land that you have, it ain't like stipulations are keeping you from joining.:)

mnrivrat
June 9, 2008, 12:33 AM
Just a on topic thread reminder that there are many places that you can't go without joining as a member.

Fitness clubs , VFW , and on and on. Going back to the OP's concern ,it has been addressed fairly well but then a lot of NRA bashing and defending took over. My last need to post in this thread is just a reminder that when an organization sponsers a project ( in this case the NRA sponsering the range by paying for part of the expenses) it is reasonable to expect that you may need to buy membership. That is not making a politcal statement as much as a reasonable support for those that support you.

As far as the NRA bashing - some might want to look at the history of the organization and remind themselves why the NRA was started in the first place, and what its roll was prior to having to defend our legal rights under the 2nd amendment. They became politicaly involved because they had to , not because they started out that way. That's all for me folks - have a civil day ! :D

GigaBuist
June 9, 2008, 12:34 AM
So um, what would be better for our RKBA: Pumping money into an educational and sporting institution or educating even just one fence sitter and getting them to purchase a firearm?

I don't see that as a mutually exclusive choice. It's fairly simple to do both.

Check out the Brady Group's blog (http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/ ... copy and paste, it's not a live link on purpose) and their latest efforts. They went from pushing an article out every two weeks to about 5 stories a day during the work week. The new theme is pumping up gun related deaths, heavy emphasis on kids getting their parents guns and shooting somebody on accident.

Accidental child deaths from firearms are extremely rare in this country, and I'm willing to believe that the Eddie the Eagle program might be partially responsible for this. They've been declining for years, if I recall correctly, but we still need to do everything we can to minimize them. One, to protect the children, and two to take that ammunition away from the Brady Bunch.

Don't like the NRA-ILA branch? Fine. Don't send them any money and return their surveys with "STFU" written on them. Whatever floats your boat.

R.W.Dale
June 9, 2008, 12:35 AM
You mean like public land where I've been shooting for free for years, without any political stipulations?


until the tree huggers shut that down over lead concerns and you're left BEGGING to join a range. Don't think it can happen? Ask the ATV crowd about recreational access to public lands.

If I were left to the whims of the government fro my shooting hobby I would be tripping over myself to join a range. I did the public land thing for awhile, there's no comparison to a real shooting range with real facilities.

OH and shortly after joining the OFGC the public land where I shot was pretty much put OFF LIMITS

Sapanther
June 9, 2008, 12:43 AM
"I will not join the nra simply because so many people DEMAND that I do such a thing."

Let me get this straight. You're living your life by reacting to stuff on an internet forum. That's sad. I suggest you think for yourself and look at the facts.

John

Keep reading, and don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was because this thread,forum or anything else on the internet. It is because anywhere I turn that has something to do with guns, folks are demanding I join an orginization that fosters HATE in anyone that doesn't belong to it.

Comments such as "if you aint with us, you're against us", " if you aint part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and my personal fav "Freeloader" only contribute to the image of unwashed redneck who doesn't want to include anyone "not from around here" in their activities.

Folks around here bitch and moan about regulations, lists, requirments from .gov, but joyfully submit to an organization that routinely elects people who throw certain legal guns under the bus. When the light is shined on said people, how often are they immediately tossed on their arses?

Shadow1198
June 9, 2008, 01:31 AM
For all the whining some do about the NRA, I don't see anyone else stepping up to the plate and accomplishing nearly as much as the NRA has, especially in recent years. I realize there are other organizations out there, but none of them have been remotely as effective as the NRA. I wish all gun owners would realize, if we stopped the in-fighting, stopped trying to figure out which group is better, and if ALL of us joined the NRA it would likely be the single largest organization in the US and we......gun owners.......might finally gain some godd@mn respect in this country from politicians. Then they might no longer try half @ssed attempts at pretending to be pro-gun, and would instead realize it would be career suicide to be anything to the contrary. Unless there are other ranges around, suck it up, join the NRA, and have fun. Join the NRA anyways. ;) I don't always agree with everything the NRA does, but the fact remains they have been the single most effective group out there fighting on our behalf.

Bazooka Joe71
June 9, 2008, 01:41 AM
I don't see that as a mutually exclusive choice. It's fairly simple to do both.

You are absolutely right...BUT this is THR, so I'll make an argument.:p

What if I only had $30.00 a month extra to spend, do I spend it on taking a fence sitter to the range and converting him/her or do I give it to the NRA?

Comments such as "if you aint with us, you're against us", " if you aint part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and my personal fav "Freeloader" only contribute to the image of unwashed redneck who doesn't want to include anyone "not from around here" in their activities.

Like I said before, I will eventually get a life membership to the NRA, but uh, *ahem* +1.

Feanaro
June 9, 2008, 01:41 AM
You may not be interested in being part of the process but the process is most certainly interested in you.

Army
June 9, 2008, 02:29 AM
Folks around here bitch and moan about regulations, lists, requirments from .gov, but joyfully submit to an organization that routinely elects people who throw certain legal guns under the bus. When the light is shined on said people, how often are they immediately tossed on their arses?

Once again, the NRA cannot legislate. They only do what they can to change elected officials minds. In 1986, rather than everyone losing much of their 2ndA rights, the NRA pushed a compromise that only limited the manufacture of Class III weapons for civilian purchase. They didn't throw any guns "under the bus", they saved ALL our guns from registration, and probable confiscation. Full auto people can still buy full autos, and the rest of us can still go to public lands or private clubs and shoot our guns.

Here in California, we cannot buy new guns chambered for .50BMG. Not because the NRA tossed them under the bus, but because NOT ENOUGH GUN OWNERS VOICED OR SENT THEIR ANGUISH TO SACRAMENTO. Most gun owners simply said..."Where's the NRA?".

We said....where the hell are you?

The NRA has never berated anyone for not joining, but has lost many legal fights because they didn't have the membership horsepower to bear against the anti's.

Look at the AARP, millions of their members back legislature that improves SSI, insurance for the elderly, retirement needs, ADA regulations, and Sansa Belt golfing pants (ok, made that last one up). Rarely does any Congressman or Senator want to butt heads with the AARP....because they have the member horsepower to back their lobbyists. Yet, there is no Constitutional clause that says you have a right to anything after you stop receiving a paycheck.

It's not enough to know we have a 2ndA that avows a God given right to self preservation and personal liberty. It's not enough to simply go to a range to exercise that right. It's not enough to be a lone voice in the wilderness, contacting your legislatures...what Sen/Con will listen to a "gun nut"? You would cry a blue streak if your cable TV was deemed a national shame, with unnamed scholars and "scientists" declaring the programming causes crime and murder, and outlawed private transmission of shows and movies while only allowing the government to produce TV for licensed viewers.

Yes, that is a bit of fantasy....but not for gun owners. 'If I could, I would outlaw all guns; "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in!"' Dianne Feinstein has no illusions about the 2ndA, she wants to crap on it, and you. Constitution be damned. She is far from the only one that has the ability and forum to push their anti-freedom agendas, an agenda that gives not one damn about you or yours. Do you think Charles Schumer knows or cares who you are? He DOES know the NRA, he DOES know the horsepower they bring to the halls of Congress at every anti-2ndA vote brought up....he also knows that the NRA can be divided on gun issues---real hunters don't use assault weapons, duck hunters don't need 30 round "clips", the Police are outgunned by machine gun wielding crooks that bought them from gun shows, etc....hey, it worked on a certain famous writer for Field And Stream....and it works on the less informed.

But what are they afraid of? Lobbyist horsepower, like the kind that the NRA has brought to bear on occasion (1994 elections ring any bells?). GOA is a fine organization to join, but it is without the membership batting average of the NRA. But, and it is indeed a BIG but...

...the NRA does not pass laws. The "people" we elect to bring OUR voices to Washington DC do. Because of that, the NRA must be big enough to have the loudest voice of all. Sen/Cons live and exist solely for votes for them and their ideas, so it's up to you to bring your vote to bear on the protection of your personal liberties, and the 2nd Amendment.

The NRA can be, and should be, the most feared lobby on the hill. Feared because WE will not ignore any attempt against our freedoms by those who feel they know better than us how we should live.

I'm the NRA.

Robert Hairless
June 9, 2008, 03:09 AM
What if I only had $30.00 a month extra to spend, do I spend it on taking a fence sitter to the range and converting him/her or do I give it to the NRA?

If you have $30 a month extra to spend, that's $360 a year. NRA membership for that year costs $35. So you could pay for the NRA membership and have $325 left to take your fence sitter to the range and convert him/her.

Of course I don't know the current cost of converting the kind of fence sitters you know. I'm surprised to hear that it costs $30 a month for a year to convert one. Maybe it's because I've only converted the low-cost, introductory model, bottom-of-the-line fence sitters. Not one of the fence sitters I ever tried to convert took 12 months to convert, and certainly not month after month, year after year, until the end of time. If you're talking about the cost of converting 12 fence sitters a year, that's way beyond my scope. I know lots of pro-Second Amendment people and lots of anti-Second Amendment people, but I don't know so many fence sitters who would go to the range even at my expense. Maybe I don't get around as much as I should.

There was one guy who told me he was a fence sitter and might be persuaded to become a shooter if I paid his way every month. After I thought about it for a few seconds, though, it dawned on me that he might be just another freeloader with a story that didn't even sound right.

Because NRA membership costs only $35 a year, your $360-a-year budget would pay for 10 memberships each year: one for you yourself and the rest as gift memberships for nine fence sitters. Have the NRA send all of you America's First Freedom magazine each month as part of that members and then all the fence sitters you're talking about would recognize why they need to support the NRA. And you could donate the remaining $10 to the NRA/ILA.

Bazooka Joe71
June 9, 2008, 03:14 AM
What if I only had $30.00 a month extra to spend, do I spend it on taking a fence sitter to the range and converting him/her or do I give it to the NRA?

Dang it Robert, why did you have to exploit my lack of knowledge for the cost of an NRA membership!!!!!!!:fire:

:p

OK:

What if I only had $35.00 a year extra to spend, do I spend it on taking a fence sitter to the range and converting him/her or do I give it to the NRA?

What about now?:)

Robert Hairless
June 9, 2008, 03:29 AM
My apologies, BazookaJoe. It is much easier to argue when you don't know what you're talking about.

Let's go with your amended hypothetical: now you have only $35 a year to convert a fence sitter. Your way is kind of hit-or-miss. My way is a sure thing.

Yes, I can show you a guaranteed way to convert a fence sitter for only $35 a year. Click on this link and join the NRA now: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp?CampaignID=default.

When you have done that you will have spent your $35 this year to convert one genuine fence sitter. Guaranteed.

You will then be able to return to this thread and help convert other fence sitters at no additional cost. As a bonus--call it the Robert Hairless Special for online conversions--you get to talk about freeloaders who think they get points for doing what normal people do in addition to supporting the NRA: like write letters and make phone calls to legislators, and breathe.

Bazooka Joe71
June 9, 2008, 03:39 AM
My apologies, BazookaJoe. It is much easier to argue when you don't know what you're talking about.

Let's go with your amended hypothetical: now you have only $35 a year to convert a fence sitter. Your way is kind of hit-or-miss. My way is a sure thing.

Yes, I can show you a guaranteed way to convert a fence sitter for only $35 a year. Click on this link and join the NRA now: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/s...aignID=default.

When you have done that you will have spent your $35 this year to convert one genuine fence sitter. Guaranteed.

You will then be able to return to this thread and help convert other fence sitters at no additional cost. As a bonus--call it the Robert Hairless Special for online conversions--you get to talk about freeloaders who think they get points for doing what normal people do in addition to supporting the NRA: like write letters and make phone calls to legislators, and breathe.

Wow, seriously?

After that, only one thing comes to mind...

Comments such as "if you aint with us, you're against us", " if you aint part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and my personal fav "Freeloader" only contribute to the image of unwashed redneck who doesn't want to include anyone "not from around here" in their activities.

But maybe that's just me, since I don't know what I'm talking about.

TexasSkyhawk
June 9, 2008, 03:53 AM
Another example of "We've met the enemy, and it is us."

Keep reading, and don't put words in my mouth. I never said it was because this thread,forum or anything else on the internet. It is because anywhere I turn that has something to do with guns, folks are demanding I join an orginization that fosters HATE in anyone that doesn't belong to it.

Hate?

First and foremost, I "hate" that you're not a member--apparently--of any pro-gun organization. I don't "hate" you per se, but I do hate it that you do not join up with several million other gun owners who are fervently working TOGETHER and COLLECTIVELY to protect and advance the RIGHTS for the other 90% who are doing little more than sitting on their asses bitching about how the NRA fosters "hate" and "throws legal guns under the bus" and other such BS.

If THAT isn't being a part of the problem rather than the solution, I don't know what is.

Comments such as "if you aint with us, you're against us", " if you aint part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and my personal fav "Freeloader" only contribute to the image of unwashed redneck who doesn't want to include anyone "not from around here" in their activities.

Again, what I "hate" is a complete lack of comprehension or semblance of objectivity.

Speaking for me personally, I want to include EVERYONE who owns a gun, wants to own a gun, is thinking of owning a gun, has shot a gun, wants to shoot a gun, has pictures of guns or even thinks about guns in the collective membership.

I don't know too many NRA members who don't feel pretty much the same way I do about that.

After all, if we had even HALF of all gun owners alone as members, every state would have open carry with a Castle Doctrine, there would be virtually no taxes on ammo or guns, zippo lawsuits against manufacturers and you wouldn't even be able to spell t-r-g-g-e-r l-o-c-k, let alone see it on almost any new gun you buy today.

So I guess that that's what we're ultimately working towards, those who will reap the benefits of the members' hard work, dedication, financial contributions, etc, but without having to have lifted a finger, let alone lower themselves to joining a hate group, will benefit just as equally as those who did all the work.

Kind of like right now what with all the states that have passed CCL and Castle Doctrine laws. Members worked their butts off to get those passed. Yet those who refused to even join for even one year simply to add to the numbers (politicians look at numbers), are reaping the same benefits without having to have done much of anything.

Sounds like freeloading to me.

Jeff

evan price
June 9, 2008, 04:12 AM
Quoth Tejas Skyhawk: I "hate" that you're not a member--apparently--of any pro-gun organization. I don't "hate" you per se, but I do hate it that you do not join up with several million other gun owners who are fervently working TOGETHER and COLLECTIVELY to protect and advance the RIGHTS...etc

Yes, because all those folks that shell out thirty bucks a year and rest quietly in their smug, self-assured awareness that They Have Done Their Part For RKBA... and do nothing else the rest of the year...are really doing so much for the rest of us.

No, no, we understand. You're part of the Collective Unity. Workers of the World, Unite.

I would say, forego that NRA membership, and spend $30 a year on postage writing letters (Real, truthful, fact filled, intelligent letters, with professional formatting and grammar and spellchecked and everything) to your Congresscritters.

When every pro-gun item on their desk bears the NRA's hallmark, it's easy to marginalize. When actual, breathing, voting citizens express their own independant and spontaneous feelings in a nice correspondance, it adds up.

Hey, what can I say, I paid my ten bucks to the NRA. One of us, One of us...

Robert Hairless
June 9, 2008, 04:20 AM
Wow, seriously?

After that, only one thing comes to mind...

Comments such as "if you aint with us, you're against us", " if you aint part of the solution, you're part of the problem", and my personal fav "Freeloader" only contribute to the image of unwashed redneck who doesn't want to include anyone "not from around here" in their activities.

But maybe that's just me, since I don't know what I'm talking about.

Play fair, BazookaJoe.

First you said you were talking about converting a fence sitter. Your original budget was $360 a year. I showed you how to do convert 10 fence sitters for that money and have $10 left over.

Then you reduced your annual budget to $35 a year. So I showed you how to convert 1 fence sitter for that meager amount.

Now you ignore both my proven ways to convert fence sitters. I know how to convert fence sitters but I don't know how to convert freeloaders, especially the kind who don't like being recognized for what they are.

I don't know why freeloaders dislike being recognized for what they are. It seems to me that they should take great pride in knowing that they're being carried by other people and boast about it. Maybe it's because they're embarrassed. But I don't really know. I also don't know why they identify themselves and try to talk other people out of doing what they won't do. I think they should know that if they succeed in talking everyone else out of supporting the NRA there won't be anyone to carry them.

Do you ever watch the judge shows on television? The most amazing cases to me are some of those in which people refuse to repay loans made to them by friends and relatives. "Well I would have paid him/her except that he insisted I do it. I'm not going to repay a loan made to me by someone who demands that I do it. Who does he/she think he's talking to anyway?" Ingratitude, cheapness, and density are hard to elevate into virtues no matter how it's done. But it's fun to watch the attempts as long as one doesn't take them seriously. I don't.

It was you who said you didn't know the cost of NRA membership after you delivered one of your tirades against it. I hope you're not griping about that now. :)

Bazooka Joe71
June 9, 2008, 04:31 AM
Alright Robert, just a couple more things:

1. I thought (and I'm still not 100% sure) you were implying that I was a fence-sitter and I should buy a membership to "convert myself," but if you weren't then how is buying a fence-sitter a membership a sure-fire way to convert them? Is buying Rosie Oddonell a membership to a gym going to make her skinny?

It was you who said you didn't know the cost of NRA membership after you delivered one of your tirades against it.

2. If I recall correctly, I have said MULTIPLE times in this thread that I am by no means anti-NRA and eventually I will have a membership...What exactly would you call a tirade?

3. You are basically saying no NRA membership=freeloader. WTH??? I don't feel like wasting my breath on something that has already been touched on, so I'll just say to refer to what Evan Price had to say.

BTW, since you are obviously much more knowledgeable about helping us keep our rights, instead of spending 25 minutes writing your previous post, why not write a letter to your local congress critter?

Just a thought...I sincerely hope we can still be friends after it's all said and done. :)

Robert Hairless
June 9, 2008, 04:35 AM
Hey, what can I say, I paid my ten bucks to the NRA.

On behalf of NRA members everywhere, I thank you for spending $10 on an associate membership for the year. We all are grateful.

In case you might not know, being an NRA member does not prohibit you from "writing letters (Real, truthful, fact filled, intelligent letters, with professional formatting and grammar and spellchecked and everything) to your Congresscritters."

You also are allowed to telephone and e-mail them, convert fence sitters, vote in elections, attend rallies, post gung-ho messages about the Second Amendment on Internet gun forums, and complain about the NRA.

As a full member--which costs an additional $25 but also gets you an informative magazine such as America's First Freedom, insurance, and other benefits--you'll have additional information and also be able to appreciate NRA- supported programs such as those that make Concealed Weapons Permits possible in most states.

Of course I do understand that there are heroes amongst us who would be able to: have CWP laws in every state without the NRA, perhaps by writing their legislators or e-mailing or telephoning them; to certify themselves as CWP instructors; to write, print, and publish all the instructional materials; and then attract unto themselves the people who want or need a CWP and instruct them so the states grant the permits.

I don't know how to do such things so I support the NRA in doing them.

I also have never known a Congressman or Congresswoman who liked being called a "Congresscritter." Those I've known think of themselves as people. They're not awfully sophisticated I suppose.

coloradokevin
June 9, 2008, 04:51 AM
I'm all for the mission of the NRA, but I'm tired of the "All or nothing" approach that many gun owners speak of whenever the NRA is brought up.

The NRA is a good organization, but membership with them is not the only way to be politically active on the gun issue. Similarly, not every environmentalist is a Sierra Club member, not every police officer is an FOP member, and not every rock climber is among the ranks of "The Access Fund". While all of these organizations may meet their goals appropriately, the fact that a person does not belong to any one of them is not necessarily indicative of an apathy towards the issues.

I will fully agree that the NRA has made positive headway on the legal facets of gun ownership in this country, but I don't agree that it absolutely "can't be done without them!". Blindly following any organization based on their history alone is an open door to allowing that group to drift away from your real goals!

So, while I support the NRA... I won't be critical of those who don't.

With that in mind, I'm sympathetic to those who are bothered by the NRA's requirement of membership for all persons shooting at ranges that they insure. I understand why it is done, but I can still see that there is an active shooting community beyond the NRA, and many of the non-members are still activists for the gun ownership issue.

Robert Hairless
June 9, 2008, 05:01 AM
2. If I recall correctly, I have said MULTIPLE times in this thread that I am by no means anti-NRA and eventually I will have a membership...What exactly would you call a tirade?

You do recall correctly. I couldn't have said it better. Thanks. :)

I have other things to do right now and although I think you've made the relevant points more effectively than I could have done so, I now bequeath you to TexasSkyhawk or someone else with greater joyous sufferance.

If you and others here are specimens of what's really protecting our Second Amendment rights instead of the NRA we all depend on you. Keep up those conversions of fence sitters and those letter writing campaigns to your Congresscritters. Somebody is doing a lot for gun owners. I hadn't known it was you. :)

Please don't think I am not your friend. I have never said I wasn't and eventually I will come to think well of you and maybe even that you are not a freeloader.

http://psmc.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/pogo-enemy.jpg

Bazooka Joe71
June 9, 2008, 05:17 AM
2. If I recall correctly, I have said MULTIPLE times in this thread that I am by no means anti-NRA and eventually I will have a membership...What exactly would you call a tirade?

You do recall correctly. I couldn't have said it better. Thanks.

Uhh, that was a tirade I guess? What it because "multiple" was in caps? What am I missing?

Please don't think I am not your friend. I have never said I wasn't and eventually I will come to think well of you and maybe even that you are not a freeloader.

Keep up those conversions of fence sitters and writing those letters. If you're a specimen of what's protecting our Second Amendment rights we all depend on you.

*+ cartoon*


Yep, so you finally answered my question...Non-NRA member = free loader.

I can't tell you how thankful I am that all gun owners don't think with this same logic...I can't honestly tell you that I would be proud to be pro-gun if it were like that.

BTW, thank you for that sad attempt at belittling me with that last sarcastic remark.

Shadow1198
June 9, 2008, 06:48 AM
I think many people completely overlook the one simple part about joining an organization to support a right, concern, policy, social issue, etc etc or whatever the subject may be. Think about it like this. ALL of the facts are on gun owner's sides. I mean the anti gun group is basically entirely built out of misconceptions, lies, and half truths. By all logic that movement should have died out decades ago under it's own weight. But you know what, it didn't. Do you (speaking generally, no one in particular) know why that is? The gun control crowd knows how to appeal to people's emotions, and they have made the effort to reach large audiences in such a manner that they have generated lots of public support, no matter how ill-informed. Support being the key word. Why do gun control policies still continue to be pushed? Because there are organizations with large numbers of people backing them up, meaning it's that much harder for politicians to ignore them.

Okay, stay with me on this. Now think about this. If every gun owner paid for a yearly NRA membership and 90% of them still just sat back and did nothing, guess what? It wouldn't matter anyways. You know why? Because whenever someone would raise the issue of gun control, regulations, bans, etc etc guess who would step up? The NRA would, and they would tell said politician, "Look here pal, these are the facts.......Oh, and by the way, our organization has 100,000,000+ members". Judging by some studies I've read, apparently something like 40% of Americans own guns, and at last glance I believe the population of America is somewhere around 302 million. Now can you imagine how much work would get done on our behalf if we had a pro gun organization with some 100 + MILLION members?! No one would brush us off, no one would attempt to ignore us, they would be forced to take us seriously. THAT'S why I joined the NRA. People can write all the letters to Senators and Governors that they want, and I applaud that. Though how serious do you think politicians will really give one letter as opposed to 100+ MILLION people standing up and saying "You're trampling on all of OUR rights, stop it!". At $10 a year for an associate membership, there really is no excuse for every gun owner to not be a member of the NRA as far as I'm concerned. Lets start working together as opposed to playing the "divide and conquer" game that the other side probably enjoys watching us play.

JohnBT
June 9, 2008, 08:57 AM
"I never said it was because this thread,forum or anything else on the internet. It is because anywhere I turn that has something to do with guns, folks are demanding I join an orginization that fosters HATE in anyone that doesn't belong to it."

Hate? I suggest you need to learn to ignore the few strident voices. And it is just a few. The majority of NRA members are not strident name-callers.

Meanwhile, you're still reacting to those other people and not thinking for yourself about the pros and cons of the NRA.

John
Member www.vcdl.org
NRA Patron

Prometheus
June 9, 2008, 10:06 AM
I would give up my guns before I rejoined the NRA.
The nra is as much a problem to the efforts of RKBA as the brady bunch. It's a shame most members of the gun community prefer to blindly mail off a check rather than research where their money is actually going and what an organization does besides provide lip service.

Most gun owners can see through the lies of the clintons or obamma when they say they are pro-2A, but can't withe nra... makes no sense.
find out more:
the nra FRAUD (http://www.patriotpages.net/nrafraud.htm)

ilbob
June 9, 2008, 10:31 AM
several gun clubs I belong to require NRA membership to join.

i have never heard of a commercial range requiring it.

jcwit
June 9, 2008, 11:01 AM
With the comments I see buy some of the people on this thread I'd hate to see what the letters to their Congressman & Senator would be like.

PershingRiflesC-7
June 9, 2008, 11:22 AM
********

Deleted to conform to THR standards on political material.

Nobody's_Hero
June 9, 2008, 11:24 AM
What do the letters look like? Those letters to congressmen and senators probably contain grossly offensive statements borne of years, perhaps decades, of frustration caused by not getting anywhere [by writing letters].

(just speculating, I mean, I'm no Sherlock Holmes)

TexasSkyhawk
June 9, 2008, 12:33 PM
The nra is as much a problem to the efforts of RKBA as the brady bunch. It's a shame most members of the gun community prefer to blindly mail off a check rather than research where their money is actually going and what an organization does besides provide lip service.

Again, the sheer ignorance and institutional paranoia among some of us is hard to grasp.

But I reckon these are also the same folks who who subscribe to the National Enquirer, believe every Elvis sighting report they read, and secretly desire to change their place of birth on their birth certificates to Roswell, New Mexico.

It is also another reason why my wife and I are no longer GOA members. When a supposedly pro-rights organization can exist solely on creating conspiracies and innuendo against its larger brethren rather than on its own merits, then while its mission may be admirable, its credibility is not.

Again, if anyone doubts the effectiveness . . . call up any congressional staffer and metion GOA, then mention NRA--see which one evokes instant name recognition. See which one the congressman respects/fears more.

And as far as having a "Democrat" on the NRA's board, so what? The NRA has given "F's" to Republicans and the NRA is not about political parties--it is about civil rights.

One of the staunchest pro-gun senators to ever come out of Texas was once a Democrat--Phil Gramm. He later switched to the Republican party, but nobody here in Texas would have objected one damn bit if he'd been on the BoD or anything else with the NRA.

When it comes to guns, there ARE party lines--but there are also one helluva lot of Democrats that vote the way their constituents expect them to vote in favor of the Constitution.

Does anyone honestly think we'd have all the CCL laws and Castle Doctrine law in the states we do WITHOUT support from Democrats? Likewise, does anyone also honestly think that ALL Republicans voted in favor of ALL pro-gun laws in ALL states?

Individual efforts are great--but just because I'm an NRA member does not mean that I can't, or no longer write letters and correspond with my elected officials. But my letters also carry more clout when I let the congressman know I'm an NRA member--he/she knows there are millions more who think like me on the issue of "no more gun laws" and that we historically vote as a block.

Were it not for AOPA (Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association), not one general aviation pilot or airplane owner has any doubt that we'd be overwhelmed with user fees, more restricted airspace, more restrictions on where we can fly and when, etc.

And flying is not protected by the Constitution--the right to keep and bear arms IS protected.

I'll never think for one minute that the NRA is perfect or even close to it or that everything they have done has worked out wonderfully to all of our advantages.

But I'll also look at their track record and see that they've overwhelmingly won more for us than they've lost.

Jeff

La Pistoletta
June 9, 2008, 12:39 PM
"Force" is a bit of a misnomer in this case. Maybe if the range was governmentally subsidized, or if members already had a contract and the requirement to join the NRA was suddenly introduced.

tinygnat219
June 9, 2008, 02:03 PM
Tab,
Saw in post "57" in this thread that you think the NRA is a for-profit institution.

the NRA is not a nonprofit, they are a not for profit. there is a very big diffrence between the too.

That is incorrect, they are a 501(C)3 tax-exempt organization.

JohnBT
June 9, 2008, 02:41 PM
"It's a shame most members of the gun community prefer to blindly mail off a check rather than research where their money is actually going"

Let's talk about yearly dues and what they can be used for. Hint: it's not politics.

That $35 check for annual dues CANNOT by federal law be used for lobbying and political efforts. It's the law.

Dues are used for education, training, etc.

Facts are important. You need facts if you are going to make an informed decision.

JohnBT - and the B ain't fer blindboy ;)

JohnBT
June 9, 2008, 02:44 PM
Forgot something. Because of the federal restrictions on the use of dues, we now have the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF. That's Institute for Legislative Action and Political Victory Fund.

That's why we get mail from the NRA and 2 other NRA groups

I know this info was posted earlier, but the facts need to be repeated until everyone understands.

John

pbearperry
June 9, 2008, 02:50 PM
Joining the NRA is a good start.If you can afford to join other pro gun groups do so.Get out and be heard by voting out anti gun politicians whenever possible.I had a local Democrat running for office knock on my door.He started his speech about making the world a better place.I asked him what his stance ws on gun control and he perked up saying we need more gun laws.I am sure me slamming my door in his face made him realize he would not get my vote.Thats all these liberal pinheads understand.If enough folks showed their displeasure,they will change their stripes.Or maybe not?

MD_Willington
June 9, 2008, 02:51 PM
You mean the Lewiston Pistol Club, so you can use the range near Moscow Idaho?

In that case, yep they want you to join the NRA...

JohnBT
June 9, 2008, 02:53 PM
"When push comes to shove, Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Rats will call the tune for Boren to dance to and dance he will."

Proof of this please? He hasn't been following the party line so far, has he? I don't think you even know.

I like the idea of having a pro-gun Democrat talking to Pelosi and all the others. Of course, with his pro-gun record he would be talking to them anyway, but now he's an NRA Board Member and proud of it.

I don't see the problem. It's not like we elected him King of the NRA.
_______

From Tulsaworld.com

""The Second Amendment is an important part of Oklahoma and this nation's heritage, and I pledge to uphold it for all who wish to keep their families safe and for sportsmen, shooters and hunters everywhere,'' the Oklahoma Democrat said.

"I harvested my first buck at age 9 and have taken one every season since," the 35-year-old Boren said in his statement, recalling that he had to calm his "buck fever'' on the morning of his first hunt. "

Matt King
June 9, 2008, 03:02 PM
I am a member of the NRA.
No other group does as much to protect the Second Amendment.
Are they perfect? No.
Are they the best we got? Yes.

Also, lots of democrats are pro-gun especially on the state level.

Okiecruffler
June 9, 2008, 03:24 PM
Alright, I was trying to stay out of this fight, but now you're bad talking one of mine. Boren had 2 choices, Obama or Hellery. Which would you choose? I know your next arguement, "He could switch parties". I know this is hard for some of you to grasp, much like civility apparently (I'm referring to both dogs in this fight), but there are still Southern Democrats in this world who are trying to get their party back from the socialist who have taken it from them. You check Borens voting record against your favorite Republician, see which one votes in favor of gun rights more often. Of course that would take some effort and we wouldn't want that.

scndactive
June 9, 2008, 03:42 PM
I'm not a member of the NRA, but I'm not a damn freeloader either. I'm active (like many others here are) on a local level, writing letters, calling our representatives, and showing up at hearings to fight gun control on a LOCAL level. Believe it or not, the NRA hasn't really done a whole heck of a lot for us fighting the little local fights, so we're doing it ourselves.

If we lose the big fight those little fights won't mean much will they?

MarcusWendt
June 9, 2008, 04:05 PM
i would give up my guns before I rejoined the NRA.

I think that pretty much goes hand in hand.

The more I read your posts TAB the more I think you are a Brady shill.

PershingRiflesC-7
June 9, 2008, 05:47 PM
I had a well-crafted response for both of you but then realized that I have taken the thread into non-High Road territory while pointing out why I do not belong to the NRA (political reasons that are verboten on THR). I have noted your responses.

To the forum administrators: I am deleting my original post material to avoid further thread deterioration.

fletcher
June 9, 2008, 06:03 PM
There are a LOT of self-righteous NRA members here, and that attitude has deterred me from joining for a few years now. Everywhere I look it's nothing but "we're better and care more because we're NRA members". How does paying $30 a year and getting a magazine beat me paying the same amount (or more) in donations to NRA-ILA? I guess I just don't care enough.

It's not that I dislike the NRA or what they do (they're the best pro-2A group on a national level, and have the most power, as well as have a number of good education and training programs), but I just have a hard time typing in that credit card information for a membership when I recall threads like this.

siglite
June 9, 2008, 06:32 PM
Ok. I haven't read the entire thread. But there's some serious BS floating around here that needs addressed.

Allow me to give you my position on the NRA.

"Completely Neutral."

Yeah, they've done some stuff at the national level. Even done some stuff at the state level here.

But they're not the end-all be-all. There are some people in this thread that think their membership dues and writing a letter or two a year constitute "activism." And as such, you get bull**** like this:

I stand by my freeloader label. If it pisses some people off, I'm not losing any sleep. If the shoe fits, wear it.

What an ignorant thing to say. I'm not currently an NRA member. And observe my response to the following:

How many lawyers have you helped to hire to support the RTKABA? Have you ever been THE ONE to stop a law or ordinance from being enacted which would have limited the RTKABA?

"1" and "yes" respectively. And you know what? The NRA had nothing to do with it. They were conspicuously absent from the committee hearing that resulted in the striking of a ban in WV. I've spent at least a thousand dollars out of my own pocket this year in expenses and time, without asking for a dime from anyone. It costs money to take off work. It costs money to drive to the state capitol. It costs money to print fliers. It cost me $200 in fuel alone driving to every gun store (in a two county area) I could find to spread the word. We're not even halfway through the year. There is much more to come. My wallet's getting kind of thin.

But some folks think that their $25.00 membership donation to the NRA makes them high, mighty, and holier than thou. Let me tell you. Your NRA donation is the CHEAPSKATES way out. You've bought your peace of mind for $25.00. And your freakin membership didn't even go to the right organization. (NRA-ILA)

I'm not saying don't join the NRA. I could care less. I think you should probably send what you can to the NRA-ILA. They screw up sometimes (I've seen it SEVERAL times with my own eyes) but net ends are usually a gain for gun ownership/rights. But I'm damn sure not going to call you the "enemy" because you didn't pony up your $25.00 false peace of mind.

Poper
June 9, 2008, 06:34 PM
that attitude has deterred me from joining for a few years now. Too bad. If you could have better control of your own thoughts/emotions, other people's actions, thoughts and words would not preclude you from doing the right thing. It appears you are using what you perceive as others' "self righteousness" to allow you to be lazy or a freeloader (or maybe a lazy freeloader) without conscience. I hope I am wrong, though.

Thank you for your expressed support of NRA/ILA. As a NRA member, I am most politely and graciously -personally- asking you become an active, card carrying member of NRA. Please get out of the wagon and help us pull. Our work load is much lighter when shared with larger numbers.

Poper

dm1333
June 9, 2008, 06:38 PM
Judging by some studies I've read, apparently something like 40% of Americans own guns, and at last glance I believe the population of America is somewhere around 302 million. Now can you imagine how much work would get done on our behalf if we had a pro gun organization with some 100 + MILLION members?! No one would brush us off, no one would attempt to ignore us, they would be forced to take us seriously. THAT'S why I joined the NRA.

You don't need any better reason than this to join the NRA and to contribute to both the ILA and PVF.

Two other comments were made about the NRA being an organization that fosters hate, and that NRA members were smug about their $35 a year dues and sat back and did nothing. I've never, never, not even once seen anything in all the mailings I get from the NRA that was close to being hateful. I've never been smug about what I give to the NRA each year either.

Think about the math in that quote above, 40% of 302 million is actually just over 120 million, and the member rolls of the NRA are at about 4 million. What are the other 116 million or so doing to protect our rights? Just some things to think about.

Titus
June 9, 2008, 06:39 PM
As a NRA member, I am most politely and graciously -personally- asking you become an active, card carrying member of NRA.

Was the preceding paragraph really polite or gracious?

fletcher
June 9, 2008, 06:42 PM
Too bad. If you could have better control of your own thoughts/emotions, other people's actions, thoughts and words would not preclude you from doing the right thing. It appears you are using what you perceive as others' "self righteousness" to allow you to be lazy or a freeloader (or maybe a lazy freeloader) without conscience. I hope I am wrong, though.
I may be misunderstanding you, but this is exactly what I mean. First of all, you may consider joining to be "the right thing", but I'm completely fine just making my donations to NRA-ILA where it can be used directly for (or against) legislation in some form, and continuing to convert antis and middle-ground people to active pro-gun people. It's very brazen and incredibly ignorant to attempt to label me, or even suggest that I be labeled, as a freeloader.

Thank you for your expressed support of NRA/ILA. As a NRA member, I am most politely and graciously -personally- asking you become an active, card carrying member of NRA. Please get out of the wagon and help us pull. Our work load is much lighter when shared with larger numbers.
This is why I think I may be misunderstanding you, but your first paragraph came across as very offensive (sometimes the typed word just doesn't work). That being said, what exactly am I not pulling by helping ILA, but not the base organization with cash donations? Let me phrase it this way - donating $35 (cost of membership) to NRA/ILA is freeloading, but the same $35 to the NRA would somehow allow me to pull my own weight? That just makes no sense.


Maybe the NRA's new slogan should be "Join the NRA - because if we can make pro-gun people this angry, imagine how the antis must feel!" (I'm just kidding about that one ;))

Bartholomew Roberts
June 9, 2008, 06:47 PM
Most gun owners can see through the lies of the clintons or obamma when they say they are pro-2A, but can't withe nra... makes no sense.
find out more:
the nra FRAUD

Well, there are certainly valid reasons to be disappointed or upset with the NRA; but that website is an exercise in deliberate ignorance at best and misinformation at worst.

The NRA tried unsuccessfully to scuttle a rare 2nd Amendment victory -- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that D.C.’s gun ban violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The lawyer of the very case you mention has acknowledged that the NRA had valid fears about the outcome of the case for RKBA as well as pointing out that the NRA has since joined him and offered invaluable help to the Heller case. Don't you think it is a bit disingenuous not to mention something like that when bringing up this fact?

The NRA helped craft the 1934 NFA act, the 1968 Gun Control Act just to name a few.

Yes, they helped craft them in the sense that they could have been a lot worse than they were. The original NFA proposal included handgun registration as an example.

Furthermore, people like to overlook the fact that the NRA at this time was an organization of sport shooters who did not have any active political lobby (and would not have one until 1978).

Now in 2007, the NRA has joined forces with the very people who would love to disarm American's -- the Brady Campaign. Who helped craft H.R. 2640? Why Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and FORMER NRA BOARD MEMBER Rep. John Dingell (D-MI).

I think that bill has been pretty well discussed here. You forgot to mention that Sen. Tom Coburn (GOA's 2004 MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN THE NATION Senator) also supported the final version of that bill. In fact his support was critical in making it the much better legislation for gunowners that it was. Sen. Coburn has a well-established record of being a solid gun rights supporter - is he a sell-out also or could their possibly be a valid reason for his support?

The NRA currently has on its board of directors, Joaquin Jackson, who was caught on video stating the mere civilians shouldn't be able to own magazines that hold more than 5 rounds.

Wow... here is another current NRA director being caught on video telling Clinton and Obama to "suck my machineguns (http://digg.com/politics/Video_Ted_Nugent_Threatens_Obama_And_Clinton_With_Machine_Guns)."

If the purpose of the quote is to evaluate the attitudes of NRA Board Members, then why only present the one board member who has said something anti-RKBA? Aren't the opinions of the other 74 board members relevant? For that matter, do we also care about the actions Joaquin Jackson has taken over the years to protect RKBA?

There are certainly reasons to be critical of the NRA; but the reasoning on display at your link is not anything to be proud of.

Tarvis
June 9, 2008, 07:00 PM
Was the preceding paragraph really polite or gracious?
Not really, but it wasn't rude or abrupt either.

Poper
June 9, 2008, 07:00 PM
Titus:
Was the preceding paragraph really polite or gracious?
I intended it so, yes. Utilizing Fletcher's quote, I only wanted to highlight the apparent willingness to allow others to influence one's emotions rather than utilizing their God given intelligence to filter out the garbage and make a reasoned decision/response. (Please note theI hope I am wrong, though.
quote.) This is not a behavior of only a single individual. It is much more common than we could reasonably expect.

dm133 makes a VERY good point.Think about the math in that quote above, 40% of 302 million is actually just over 120 million, and the member rolls of the NRA are at about 4 million. What are the other 116 million or so doing to protect our rights? Just some things to think about.

My empassioned invitation remains. To demonstrate my good will, I will offer to reimburse Fletcher for the first year of a two year membership, with "proof of purchase", so to speak. Of course this is not an open offer and he must accept my public THR offer here, but I will cheerfully accept another new NRA two year member.

Just my 2 cents.

Poper

Gunnerpalace
June 9, 2008, 07:04 PM
There are certainly reasons to be critical of the NRA

As I see a lock I will stat my opinion ahead of time,

I will join the NRA (I'll even become a lifetimer) if Heller goes good I want the NRA to begin the process to get machine guns back, I know there will be hundreds of others but I want them at the forefront, they do that, they will have redeemed themselves from 922o, In my eyes.

dm1333
June 9, 2008, 07:09 PM
Poper,

I'll thow in with you on that offer. If one of you guys who thinks the NRA is a bad organization or part of the problem wants, I'll buy you a membership for a year with only one condition. You read all the mail and see what they are doing and at the end of the year you start a thread here and give a thoughtful paragraph or two about what you believe about the NRA at the end of that year.

For everybody else? The membership of the NRA, GOA, etc. fall way short of the numbers of gun owners in this country. What groups do you belong to that swing a big stick like they do in politics?

Poper
June 9, 2008, 07:10 PM
what exactly am I not pulling by helping ILA, but not the base organization with cash donations? Let me phrase it this way - donating $35 (cost of membership) to NRA/ILA is freeloading, but the same $35 to the NRA would somehow allow me to pull my own weight? That just makes no sense.
Oh! But it DOES make sense! By adding your name to the NRA active member numbers, you help swell the ranks and give additional teeth and strength to the NRA. Additionally, you enhance the other programs NRA sponsors, such as Hunter Safety, Shooting Ranges and Shooting Sports support/sponsorship, etc.
I, and many like minded members, are Annual Sponsors of the Whittington Center, eventhough I have never had the opportunity to use it. (I have seen the Visitor's Center once, though.)

C'mon! Join us! We're not bad people! And it is true that there is strength in numbers.

All the best,

Poper

PS: Neither of my previous posts were intended to offend. Please accept my apologies if they did.

jcwit
June 9, 2008, 07:19 PM
Siglite thank you for letting this disabled American Vet know how much of a CHEAPSKATE I am. I really feel better new.

Plink
June 9, 2008, 07:21 PM
If you want to continue owning guns, you either need to become a "political activist" or join the NRA and let them do it for you.

Never before have us gun owners faced such threats to our rights to own guns. Each of us needs to pull our weight. Some of us are carrying the load for a great many others.

There are how many tens of millions of gun owners? Yet the NRA has what, 2.5 million members or so? They, and other organizations like the GOA are our best, and pretty much our only line of defense to help keep our rights.

dm1333
June 9, 2008, 07:28 PM
But some folks think that their $25.00 membership donation to the NRA makes them high, mighty, and holier than thou. Let me tell you. Your NRA donation is the CHEAPSKATES way out. You've bought your peace of mind for $25.00. And your freakin membership didn't even go to the right organization. (NRA-ILA)

The NRA is about more than just political action to protect your gun rights. The range that I belong to (remember how this thread started) charges 40 bucks a year, to cover insurance. I'll have to double check but I bet I know what organization helps insure the range. ;)

siglite
June 9, 2008, 07:37 PM
Indeed dm1333. That's why I professed my stance on the NRA as "completely neutral."

And $%^&. Sitting here thinking about all the peripheral stuff the NRA does, I reminded myself that I'm going to be taking my son to a two day, completely free, youth shooting camp completely funded by the NRA. They'll even be providing food. Rifles, ammo, targets, range, and lunchies.

I suppose I'll take enough cash with me to make a donation. Lest I be a cheapskate myself.

*** ETA: It's THIS VERY WEEKEND.

You can't see me, but I'm slapping myself in the forehead.

siglite
June 9, 2008, 07:43 PM
jcwit,

I would say that your contributions to your nations freedoms (including the 2nd) go far FAR above and beyond "hiring a lawyer, being 'the one' to stop some ordinance," and certainly WELL beyond a $25.00 donation/membership.

dm1333
June 9, 2008, 07:44 PM
I'm a supporter of the NRA because of all the "peripheral stuff" that they do. And because they are the only 800 pound gorilla we gun owners have. I also realize that sometimes the big gorilla isn't really interested in small jobs that the rest of us care about but on the whole life is a lot better with the gorilla in our corner.

dm1333
June 9, 2008, 07:47 PM
I'll be looking for a pm from anybody interested in taking me up on my offer for one guest membership for a year. I'm just a blindly nationalistic person who never really considered the ramifications of joining the military out of a misguided sense of "serving my country", but I have to sign off and go make Michigan safe for democracy. :rolleyes:

pbearperry
June 9, 2008, 08:22 PM
Why is it that so many people cannot see the obvious?Picture this...
Pres.Obama:AG Hillary,how many people are involved with the NRA at this point?
AG Hillary:Mr. President,they have had a huge surge in members and are at about 50 million members strong.
Pres Obama: OK who else can we try to control?

owlhoot
June 9, 2008, 08:56 PM
Numbers talk and I suspect that the NRA numbers are the only ones that the anti's look at. I think it is extremly shortsighted not to be an NRA member regardless of any prejudices against the organization. After all, membership costs no more than a single box of ammo.

Citroen
June 9, 2008, 09:23 PM
Mr. jcwit - please PM me with the necessary data and I will pay for your NRA membership. I appreciate your service to our country and would consider it a privilege to pay your dues in memory of my father who is buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

If the money is all that is standing between you and membership, please allow me to remove that barrier.

John
Charlotte, NC

starshooter231
June 9, 2008, 09:32 PM
Ok so the range requires membership in the NRA, if you don't like it don't join that range. My range doesn't require membership in the NRA they do encourage you to join the NRA. The benefits to my club for having NRA members are lower insurance and they get $5 for every member that joins the NRA.
So that means lower costs in operating, and more money for improvements for the club.

jcwit
June 9, 2008, 09:40 PM
Citroen, we have a slight misunderstanding. I am a member of the NRA and have been longer than I care to remember and will continue to be for many more years GOD willing. Thank you for the thought though.

plexreticle
June 9, 2008, 09:48 PM
I don't really care for the NRA even though I've been a member for years.

Like em or not they do have the most clout and lobbyist for protecting our gun rights.

MinnMooney
June 9, 2008, 11:26 PM
Most ranges are private property and/or owned by a cooperative (which may be the membership). They have the right to make the rules and if the NRA helps with insurance fees or legal help then I think every member should belong.

punchdrunk
June 9, 2008, 11:34 PM
Easy. Join the NRA and join the range.

Or join a different range that doesn't require NRA membership.

Or go buy some land and do all the legal work and start your own range and make your own rules.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 9, 2008, 11:47 PM
I will join the NRA (I'll even become a lifetimer) if Heller goes good I want the NRA to begin the process to get machine guns back, I know there will be hundreds of others but I want them at the forefront, they do that, they will have redeemed themselves from 922o, In my eyes.

For the record, the NRA helped fund the first ever challenge to 922(o) (Farmer v. Higgins, 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)) (http://www.nrafoundation.org/lawseminar/biographies/halbrook.asp) and paid Stephen Halbrook to work the case.

Note that this case started in October 1986, so the NRA went to work immediately on rescinding 922(o). The NRA not only lost this case, it helped set some unfavorable precedent in the 11th Circuit.

It was results like this that have made the NRA extremely cautious and gun shy when it comes to lawsuits over the Second Amendment; not that you ever see their critics acknowledge some of these early cases.

So in this case, the NRA challenged 922(o) over 22 years ago.

I'd also add that few people start out as machinegun shooters right off the bat. Most people come to shooting through programs that wouldn't exist except for the NRA. Without NRA range programs and insurance, there wouldn't be a lot of places to shoot. If the NRA did nothing more than its competitive shooting role, it would still be serving an extremely critical function of keeping shooters from becoming extinct as a segment of the voting population. This is one of the main reasons the antis hate the NRA above all other organizations - they know if they can just put a chokehold on new shooters, they will eventually have the votes to legislate anything they want.

kidcoltoutlaw
June 10, 2008, 12:00 AM
Should already be an NRA member unless they are a felon,

Thanks,Keith

JohnBT
June 10, 2008, 12:05 AM
"Everywhere I look it's nothing but "we're better and care more because we're NRA members"."

Everywhere? You're obviously not looking everywhere. Okay, you saved $35 in dues and sent it to the NRA-ILA. That's good. Why not join, too?

You can't blame it on other people. You chose not to join. Don't come crying that's it's somebody else's fault because you don't like how they talk and you don't want to be a member. Pure childishness.

John

fletcher
June 10, 2008, 12:07 AM
Everywhere? You're obviously not looking everywhere. Okay, you saved $35 in dues and sent it to the NRA-ILA. That's good. Why not join, too?

You can't blame it on other people. You chose not to join. Don't come crying that's it's somebody else's fault because you don't like how they talk and you don't want to be a member. Pure childishness.

John

My, my, aren't we a little hostile? Every NRA thread that pops up degenerates into this with spotty arrogance from a handful of NRA members, and much the same from a cluster of NRA-haters. I'm not blaming anything on anyone - it's pretty clear that I chose not to join a group whose members personally attack me for simply not being a member. Would you shoot at a range full of people that make the experience unpleasant for you? Probably not. Great way to develop an argument to encourage someone to join - It makes me happy to know that what I do donate to ILA goes to defend the rights of those that flame me for it. I choose to send my 2A support money to ILA because that way it can and will be used for the court cases and other legal action. I'd much rather the same money go there than to a membership which will be partially eaten with a magazine that I don't want in combination with similar overhead and other such things. I'm appalled at how un-THR some of the participants of this thread are.

Feel free to spew as much more BS as you want, I'm out of this thread. It's probably overdue for a lock anyways, and the noise is drowning out anything productive that may have been happening.

Shadow1198
June 10, 2008, 04:53 AM
Think about the math in that quote above, 40% of 302 million is actually just over 120 million, and the member rolls of the NRA are at about 4 million. What are the other 116 million or so doing to protect our rights? Just some things to think about.

That was exactly my point. I mean heck, if another organization comes along and takes up the torch from the NRA on the topic of protecting our rights, I'm all for it. The thing is, at this point in time the NRA is the only organization that has near the capabilities of really affecting an outcome in politics. If another organization comes along and does a better job, you can be sure I'll join. The NRA isn't perfect but, they're what we've got right now, so I say support them. I'd say a large percentage of that remaining ~116 million or so of gun owners are either whining about the NRA, joining other less effective organization purely out of spite to the NRA, and are busy being non-members and simply writing letters. I hope no one mistakes my position. I am the farthest thing from a "bandwagoneer". It just so happens the NRA is currently the most effective organization at protecting our second amendment rights, and I support them because of it. I didn't see the GOA or any other national organization sue New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin for unconstitutional firearms confiscations, and WIN in a federal court. I didn't see anyone else get the San Francisco handgun ban struck down, not once but TWICE, the second time being the California State Supreme Court. There were several other important things the NRA accomplished in the past couple of years, though for the life of me I can't think of them at the moment. Everyone just send in their $10 or $35 and stop whining. ;)

Defensory
June 10, 2008, 05:08 AM
Posted by Grizfire:
Range forces members to join the NRA

I'm considering membership at a particular range. I noticed on the application form that you have to be a member of the NRA, and must submit your NRA membership number, in order to be a member at this range. It says they must do this for insurance purposes.

Does anyone know what these "insurance purposes" are?

I'm not a member of the NRA, but I'm cool with their purpose. However, it seems a little weird to be forced into political activism. Additionally, I'm not sure I'd want to submit my NRA membership number if I was a member.

I just want to go plinking, ya know.

NOBODY is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do. The range has private property rights and can require NRA membership if they wish.

If you don't want to join the NRA, you're free to find a different range to shoot at.

Gee, now wasn't that pretty simple?! ;)

42
June 10, 2008, 06:37 AM
I will probably not join the nra in the uk due to how they operate and their attitude though I will support the libertarian party.

JohnBT
June 10, 2008, 09:19 AM
"My, my, aren't we a little hostile? "

You are confusing bluntness with hostility.

"it's pretty clear that I chose not to join a group whose members personally attack me for simply not being a member. Would you shoot at a range full of people that make the experience unpleasant for you?"

A range full of people? Not one person was friendly? I have been around NRA members my entire life. The ranges I have belonged to for years require NRA membership. I have yet to encounter any unpleasantness from any of them, either about my politics or anything else. In fact, as a group I've found them to be the most helpful, friendly folks around.

Maybe you just rub folks the wrong way.

John

Bartholomew Roberts
June 10, 2008, 09:32 AM
It makes me happy to know that what I do donate to ILA goes to defend the rights of those that flame me for it. I choose to send my 2A support money to ILA because that way it can and will be used for the court cases and other legal action.

Money sent to the NRA-ILA is used to lobby Congress for better gun laws. If you want to support the NRA's attempts to file lawsuits and challenge existing gun laws, then the right organization is the NRA Civil Defense Fund (www.nradefensefund.org/ ). Likewise, if you want to support getting pro-RKBA candidates elected to Congress in the first place, send money to the NRA PVF (www.nrapvf.org/).

I didn't see the GOA or any other national organization sue New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin for unconstitutional firearms confiscations, and WIN in a federal court. I didn't see anyone else get the San Francisco handgun ban struck down, not once but TWICE, the second time being the California State Supreme Court.

Actually, the Second Amendment Foundation played a role in both of those lawsuits and worked with the NRA. Which is a nice pairing in my opinion; because it matches the NRA's clout and money with a smaller group that has had better success in litigating gun rights.

Hokkmike
June 10, 2008, 09:35 AM
They are not "forcing" you to join the NRA as you are free not to seek membership at that range. It is merely a condition of joining up. My club has no such preconditions but many in the area do.

SSN Vet
June 10, 2008, 10:05 AM
Although I should add that I can easily shoot for free out on public land where I have easy access (in the summer).

that right is also being defended by the NRA...

every possible angle is being used by the Brady Bunch and their ilk to undermine you 2nd ammendment rights.....

banning firearms use on public land, banning "dangerous environmental contaminents, like lead", driving insurance cost through the roof, zoning ordinance changes, frivilous lawsuits designed to bankrupt firearms dealers... you name it.

Lashlarue
June 10, 2008, 10:23 AM
heir business, their rules. I find ranges that force you to use their ammo more bothersome.[1] You can't find which brand of ammo is most accurate in your gun, which many times is why you go to the range in the first place[2] You cant find which brand or size is the most trouble free. some guns are very picky about what you feed them..

siglite
June 10, 2008, 10:41 AM
My, my, aren't we a little hostile? Every NRA thread that pops up degenerates into this with spotty arrogance from a handful of NRA members, and much the same from a cluster of NRA-haters.

I've noticed that too. The irony is, that those who so aggressively promote/defend the NRA here on THR probably do more harm than the good they think they're doing. If one were making a decision on the NRA based on this thread alone, and no other factors, it'd be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the NRA is full of arrogant blowhards that hate you. (I know better. You know better.)

Again, my stance on the NRA is completely neutral. I just want to point this out to some of the folks in here. And, I've noticed that some of the folks who in the past carried this attitude, have softened their approach.

And I'll be making a donation to an NRA-something this weekend. Because I'm going to be using NRA services.

lmccrock
June 10, 2008, 11:20 AM
I joined the NRA because I wanted an M1 from CMP, and the club required I join the NRA before I could shoot a qualifying match. That was in California. I never saw anything the NRA (actually, ILA) did politically there. The STATE organization was very active, and while the CRPA did not prevent the laws, they lobbied successfully so that Glocks may be purchased in CA now (the original legislation would have banned Glocks). Now I am in Texas, and I belong to the TSRA which is active politically.

Yes, in California, I carried petitions for ballot measures and got signatures and sent them in.

I am curious why so few go to the NRA annual meeting. I do not mean the Expo/Gunshow, but the actual meeting. I went when it was in Houston. The Expo was PACKED. The meeting had lots of empty seats.

Lee

Hook686
June 10, 2008, 11:54 AM
I'm amazed that so many belong to ranges/gun clubs that 'force' them to be members of the NRA. The gun club I belong to requires membership in the NRA, but forces no one to join. Seems like a simple enough choice to make.

The club requires $100 per year plus NRA membership. $60 is credited if one provides help on one club activity (typically a couple of hours effort). The NRA provides funds for range improvements and youth competion, which in turn opens the door at the CMP sales office.

The whole scenario strikes me as a bunch of pluses.

Poper
June 10, 2008, 11:58 AM
Fletcher said:
Every NRA thread that pops up degenerates into this with spotty arrogance from a handful of NRA members, and much the same from a cluster of NRA-haters. A pretty arrogant statement in itself.I'm not blaming anything on anyone - it's pretty clear that I chose not to join a group whose members personally attack me for simply not being a member. We are not attacking you. We sincerely wish to add your voice and all other gun owner voices to ours to take full advantage of the force multiplier that comes with sheer numbers and the most recognized organization in defence of our Second Amendment rights.

Fletcher also said:
I'd much rather the same money go there than to a membership which will be partially eaten with a magazine that I don't want in combination with similar overhead and other such things. I'm appalled at how un-THR some of the participants of this thread are.
Why do folks insist on ignoring the fact they can decline the Magazine and can request NO promotional mailings be sent them? That might go a little ways toward soothing their conscience.

NRA is the 800 lb. Gorilla. Belonging to JFPO, GOA or (place your State here) Shooting Association is a big help, too, but adding your name to the roster to help increase the attention getting clout of the 800 lb. Gorilla certainly can't hurt.

I, for one, am grateful for the things the NRA has done in the past, continues to do today and will do in the future. And I will continue to support them regardless of naysayers.

As a side note, my younger brother is an avid hunter. About 4 years ago he took off on a anti-NRA rant at the hunting cabin. When he finished, I said, "If it wasn't for the NRA's efforts resisting PETA and the anit-gun folks, we probably wouldn't be hunting right now." He was pretty quiet when he realized it was true.

Like it or not, the NRA is the most effective 2A proponent organization we have. Adding my voice to theirs certainly cannot hurt.

Just my 2 cents.

Poper

Titus
June 10, 2008, 01:01 PM
The irony is, that those who so aggressively promote/defend the NRA here on THR probably do more harm than the good they think they're doing. If one were making a decision on the NRA based on this thread alone, and no other factors, it'd be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the NRA is full of arrogant blowhards that hate you.

Amen. I'm not sure why so many seem to think that subtle or not-so-subtle passive-aggressive insults are a good recruiting method. How many new members do these threads produce versus how many people confirm their desire to not associate with members of the Association?

dm1333
June 10, 2008, 01:44 PM
Well Titus, I offered a free membership for one year. The only stipulation was that at the end of the year the person who took the membership start a new thread here and write a thoughtful paragraph or two on what they thought of the NRA.

I'm just putting this out there again. Anybody here on THR who thinks the NRA is part of the problem or is just sitting on the fence deciding to join or not can take me up on this offer. If you are in the military remember that they are still offering a one year membership for free. I think. Nobody seems willing to take me up on this offer so I think the answer to your question is none.

Titus
June 10, 2008, 01:51 PM
Thanks for putting that offer out there! It seems to be easier to give away free renewals than new memberships but it's worthwhile to make the effort. :)

Soybomb
June 10, 2008, 01:59 PM
I'd also like to point out that the NRA itself is not really what I would call political but instead functions as a gun safety and training group. The political side seems to fall more under the NRA's political victory fund, and their Institute for legislative action.

I do get a little tired of "the only way to preserve the rkba is to join tha nra" and "simply by joining the nra i've become a champion in the fight for our rights" mentality. There is a lot more than just joining the NRA. I hope the NRA members aren't too quick to assume that simply sending in some money every year means they are the gold standard in working to preserve the rkba and also respect the very significatn contributions to the cause non-nra members make as well.

Bazooka Joe71
June 10, 2008, 05:12 PM
I believe I started all this mess by asking the question, "how so?" in the first page...So how about I apply for a membership in the next day or two, that way this thread wasn't complete waste of time and then we can just lay this thread to rest, or take it out to pasture:)

MisterPX
June 10, 2008, 05:23 PM
My 2 cents..

If you don't want to join the range becasue they make you join the NRA/GOA/NBA/AARP/etc, then don't join the range. Problem solved, and you won't need 7 pages of bickering about the NRA;)

Bazooka Joe71
June 10, 2008, 06:18 PM
My 2 cents..

If you don't want to join the range becasue they make you join the NRA/GOA/NBA/AARP/etc, then don't join the range. Problem solved, and you won't need 7 pages of bickering about the NRA

It would still be 7 pages, as 'your 2 cents' have been said about 50 times, but it didn't stop you from posting it again did it?:)

aerod1
June 10, 2008, 07:05 PM
That requirement would make me want to join that gun club. Sounds like a good club. There are other ways to work for RKBA but NRA should surely be one of them.
See my sig line.

Pat McCoy
June 10, 2008, 07:16 PM
To answer the original question, the NRA has lined up a liability policy for clubs which includes a discounted rate (similar to what it does with auto rental cars, etc) for clubs. To take part a club needs more than 50% of it's members to be NRA members. This policy is not always the best coverage or price, so I suggest clubs do some shopping for companies that write in their state.

possum_128
June 10, 2008, 09:28 PM
Bazooka Joe71 stated ; "I believe I started all this mess by asking the question, "how so?" in the first page...So how about I apply for a membership in the next day or two, that way this thread wasn't complete waste of time and then we can just lay this thread to rest, or take it out to pasture."

No Joe I believe I started this mess when I responded to your question of "how so". Oh well leave it up to two guys from Indiana to screw up a thread.:D

Bazooka Joe71
June 10, 2008, 09:40 PM
Oh well leave it up to two guys from Indiana to screw up a thread

Oh well. What else are we good for?

toivo
June 11, 2008, 01:22 AM
Same thing at my club. I would say they "require" members to join the NRA, not "force" them. We get our insurance through the NRA, so it's the 50% rule. Because membership numbers are always changing, the feeling is that it's easier to just have all members join the NRA.

Not everybody is happy about it, for some of the reasons discussed in this thread. Every year we get proposals to amend the rule to allow the requirement to be met by joining another organization, like GOA or state and local groups, but the proposals always get voted down by the membership. Democracy in action...

Just for the record, I'm not 100% happy with the NRA, but they are the strongest advocate for gun rights out there right now. And they gave our club a grant to improve our rifle range.

Poper
June 11, 2008, 01:38 AM
they gave our club a grant to improve our rifle range. They didn't HAVE to do that. Pretty nice of them, if you ask me. Just another good thing for the Shooting Sports, IMHO. :)

Poper

MisterPX
June 11, 2008, 03:45 PM
It would still be 7 pages, as 'your 2 cents' have been said about 50 times, but it didn't stop you from posting it again did it?

Well played Sir, well played. :)

ptmmatssc
June 11, 2008, 05:55 PM
Wow , long thread and lots of hostility .

My .02 is this . Our club requires NRA membership because of the insurance we get through them . Dues are a whopping $35 a year and a liberty NRA membership is $10 . So for $45 a year , a member has unlimited access to a multitude of ranges (pistol,rifle,skeet, etc) .

If it wasn't for the break we get on insurance , we would have folded long ago .

alsaqr
June 11, 2008, 07:28 PM
Seriously though, I can't fathom why people who hunt, shoot, or train don't belong to the NRA. Without them, we'd have given up our 2nd Amendment rights long ago.



#1

Prometheus
June 12, 2008, 11:21 AM
I will join the NRA (I'll even become a lifetimer) if Heller goes good I want the NRA to begin the process to get machine guns back, I know there will be hundreds of others but I want them at the forefront, they do that, they will have redeemed themselves from 922o, In my eyes.


The nra has been against machine guns and fought to get the limits and bans on them now. link (http://www.patriotpages.net/nrafraud.htm) or just do a google search and turn up dozens of quotes by virtually every nra president and board of director.

As to heller, the nra also fought to keep that out of the USSC. After all if the Second Amendment is found to be an individual Right by the supremes, the nra stands to lose a lot of money in the future trying to fight gun control it has helped pass or is promoting. It's all about money to the nra. They are nothing more than a giant self serving money pit.

I feel horrible about my previous donations and years of membership to the nra. At this poitn I'd sooner give money to the brady bunch. Atleast they are up front about their adgenda! :cuss:

Poper
June 12, 2008, 11:45 AM
Prometheus:
Please refer to Bartholomew Roberts' Posts #111 & 132.

Partial For the record, the NRA helped fund the first ever challenge to 922(o) (Farmer v. Higgins, 907 F.2d 1041 (11th Cir. 1990)) and paid Stephen Halbrook to work the case.

Note that this case started in October 1986, so the NRA went to work immediately on rescinding 922(o). The NRA not only lost this case, it helped set some unfavorable precedent in the 11th Circuit.

It was results like this that have made the NRA extremely cautious and gun shy when it comes to lawsuits over the Second Amendment; not that you ever see their critics acknowledge some of these early cases.

So in this case, the NRA challenged 922(o) over 22 years ago.

I'd also add that few people start out as machinegun shooters right off the bat. Most people come to shooting through programs that wouldn't exist except for the NRA. Without NRA range programs and insurance, there wouldn't be a lot of places to shoot. If the NRA did nothing more than its competitive shooting role, it would still be serving an extremely critical function of keeping shooters from becoming extinct as a segment of the voting population. This is one of the main reasons the antis hate the NRA above all other organizations - they know if they can just put a chokehold on new shooters, they will eventually have the votes to legislate anything they want.
If a person were to read all of a thread's posts prior to his own, it may help prevent so many silly half-truth re-statements. :banghead:

IMHO, but it seems to me, by perpetuating this stuff and pitting GOA against NRA, SAF, JFPO, NSSF, etc., we and our favorite organizations become useful idiots for the Brady-ites and others that wish to dispose of the Second Amendment.

JMTC

Poper

cracked butt
June 12, 2008, 12:10 PM
Just think of NRA dues as part of your club dues structure for which you get many benifits:

-NRA trains Counselors and intsructors who in turn train anyone who wants to learn how to use a shotgun,pistol, or rifle, along with other cleasses such as home defense and handloading.
-NRA gives money to NRA affiliated clubs for range development.
-NRA provides club with insurance that might be nearly impossible to purchase otherwise.


Without the NRA's involvement, a lot of clubs/ranges wouldn't exist.

LiquidTension
June 12, 2008, 12:44 PM
My range requires you to be a member of a "gun rights organization." NRA, GOA, JPFO, Grassroots SC are all acceptable. I didn't choose NRA for various reasons.

-v-
June 12, 2008, 01:40 PM
NRA has greatly soured its image to me, especially with their "looking out for GA concealed carry" by sponsoring a rival bill that was significantly more restrictive then another one that was already being mulled over in the house and was fairly likely to be passed. And when it looked like their restrictive anti-carry bill was going to be left by the way-side, they raised such a stink that would get many a prissy teenage girls to turn away in embarrassment. If they were really looking out for my rights to own firearms, why didn't they just throw their support behind the bill that would let us carry in more places, and kill off the lame "public gathering" clause that gives police carte-blanche authority to arrest anyone caught carrying a firearm (with a permit!) for any reason or no reason what so ever? Hmm? Sorry, NRA has permanently lost my support on those grounds.

JohnBT
June 12, 2008, 02:14 PM
You don't like GA House Bill 89 that was signed this year?

Among other improvements...

allowing licensed carry permit holders to possess a firearm in any private motor vehicle, while on any publicly accessible parking lot;

prohibiting gun dealer entrapment schemes, such as those orchestrated by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg;

allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in State Parks, recreational areas, wildlife management areas, and public transportation;

creating a stricter time limit for various stages of the concealed carry license application process; and

allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in restaurants.

JohnBT
June 12, 2008, 02:18 PM
"After all if the Second Amendment is found to be an individual Right by the supremes, the nra stands to lose a lot of money in the future trying to fight gun control it has helped pass or is promoting."

I doubt it. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court will have very limited immediate effect. It will require additional lawsuits (think about the fight that's still going on over integration and abortion, for instance) and meanwhile the antis will be introducing new legislation to restrict firearms and shooting by some other means.

IOW, don't get your hopes up even if it goes our way.

John

JohnBT
June 12, 2008, 02:25 PM
And lastly, since I see my 1:30 client in the parking lot...I'd like to comment on the link to the Patriot Pages.

"The NRA has 'covertly' worked in the past to take away 2nd Amendment Rights. That's a cold hard fact.

The NRA helped craft the 1934 NFA act, the 1968 Gun Control Act just to name a few. These laws help restrict the 2nd Amendment."

Covertly? LIES. There wasn't anything secretive about it. They were defending our rights. The laws were going to be passed one way or the other.

Why did the NRA get involved with the drafting of these bills? That's easy. Because who in their right mind would trust the gunbanners to draft bills without some kind of supervision or input or feedback. I suppose the NRA could have stayed and ignored the situation, but no, they didn't because it would have resulted in a more restrictive bill.

"That's a cold hard fact."

Nah, that's a cold hard twisting of the truth. IOW, it's a LIE.

I'd say that linked site is full of it.

John

Poper
June 12, 2008, 03:01 PM
Sorry, NRA has permanently lost my support on those grounds.
Such a statement reminds me of a 7 year-old's "I'm gonna take my ball and go home!"
Just how is this helpful?
Want to effect a change in the most influential protector of the Second Amendment's methodology? Join. Get ACTIVE. Get INVOLVED. Develop friendships and line of communication. LEARN persuasive communications skills. EARN the respect of your peers. APPLY your God given talents and passions to effect the changes and visions YOU seek! BE a part of the solution you seek!
Is it easy? Nope.
Is it fast? Nope.
Will it cut into your range time? Probably.
Will it cost you money? Probably.
Is it rewarding? Yes!
Is it something you can take pride in? Yes!
Will it help others? Yes!
Is it worthwhile Yes!

Will you feel better about yourself? I think so. You'll earn self respect, for sure, and the respect of others and your posterity, too. But just drop out because you don't agree 100%?

That is just plain, immature, Bovine Scat. - IMHO.

<rant off>

Poper

oldfart
June 12, 2008, 03:04 PM
Nine pages - wow!

I've been an NRA member for a number of years. Membership was (and is) a requirement of the club I shot at. That club is 17 miles away. It takes me a gallon of gasoline to go there and return. Today that's $4.17 but who knows what it'll be tomorrow. I haven't shot there in over a month partially because I can't afford the gas and partially because I've secretly hated the idea of having to belong to the NRA to shoot there. All you faithful disciples can (and have) recite all the good things the NRA has done until hell freezes over and I'll still remember being told I needed to be "educated" to properly appreciate the value of "The NICS Improvement Act" that was being pushed through congress with the help of the NRA.

Folks, I spent a lot of time and money to acquire an education. I think I've gone far enough down that road. Far enough that I finally realize I gave my money to the NRA to represent me, not educate me! With their backing of that particular piece of legislation the have strayed too far from the ranks of 'representatives' for me to bother trying to round them up again.

Like the GOP, the NRA needs to have some real bad times to show them the error in their ways. The GOP will probably get Obama and the NRA...? Well, they're not going to get any more of my money.

MakAttak
June 12, 2008, 03:07 PM
Folks, I spent a lot of time and money to acquire an education. I think I've gone far enough down that road. Far enough that I finally realize I gave my money to the NRA to represent me, not educate me! With their backing of that particular piece of legislation the have strayed too far from the ranks of 'representatives' for me to bother trying to round them up again.

...

...

>.<

So you'd rather have someone respond to illogical, false arguments than try to show you that your arguments are false?

I'd like my representatives to act in my best interest and if that means dissuading me from a faulty position, so be it.

I will not rehash the "NICS" debate again. If people still insist on believing what they wish despite all evidence to the contrary, argument is pointless.

TexasSkyhawk
June 12, 2008, 03:38 PM
I feel horrible about my previous donations and years of membership to the nra. At this poitn I'd sooner give money to the brady bunch. Atleast they are up front about their adgenda!

Based upon many of your statements, wouldn't surprise me a bit if you already were.

As fars the NICS legislation, where I get irritated is when the GOA called it the "Veterans Disarmament Act" and so many of the numbnuts who blindly parrot that have A) Zero idea what the bill was truly all about, B) Are NOT A VETERAN--so do not ride MY coattails to promote YOUR BS agenda, and C) were clueless as to what the alternative language that ORIGINALLY went into the bill contained and how damaging it would have been for CCL.

No, old fart, I don't need much more educating school-wise, at least. A BA, BS, MA and MBA is about all I need these days and now that I'm retiring soon, I don't even need those.

I just need a (RC)BS degree, I reckon. :)

But I've also learned that when it comes to my rights and how this government operates, you can't be too well educated.

Jeff

Bartholomew Roberts
June 12, 2008, 04:07 PM
I feel horrible about my previous donations and years of membership to the nra. At this poitn I'd sooner give money to the brady bunch. Atleast they are up front about their adgenda!

Prometheus, I spent most of post #111 in this thread explaining the ways your statements were disingenuous. But just in case you missed it:

The nra has been against machine guns and fought to get the limits and bans on them now.

The NRA helped fund the first ever challenge to 922(o) (and lost - see post #132)

link or just do a google search and turn up dozens of quotes by virtually every nra president and board of director

On the contrary, I see a few quotes taken out of context from over 70 years ago. However, when I look at more recent quotes I see guys like Nugent (an NRA board of director) advocating for machineguns.

As to heller, the nra also fought to keep that out of the USSC.

The NRA fought to consolidate Heller/Parker so that they could include other grounds for the law to be dismissed instead of a straight Second Amendment challenge. One reason they did this is because the NRA knew firsthand from challenging 922(o) that there was a great deal at risk here.

However, Heller's own lawyer, Robert Levy has commented that the NRA had valid concerns and that since then the NRA has been a tremendous source of help to their case. Strange no one who decides to criticize the NRA ever mentions that point when they bring up Heller...

It's all about money to the nra. They are nothing more than a giant self serving money pit.

Your posts are chock full of questionable reasoning; but this one takes the cake. The NRA is limited by its charter to promoting the shooting sports and safety. The money you pay to the NRA for an annual membership doesn't even go to lobbying, PACs, litigation or challenging gun control. It goes to programs like Eddie Eagle, Range Safety, Boy Scout shooting programs, Building new ranges, etc.

At $120 million annually ($30 x 4 million members), the NRA rakes in far more money from these programs than they do from the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF (the lobbying and PAC arms). If tomorrow, it was legal to carry a loaded machinegun down mainstreet, the NRA would be just as necessary as they were from 1873-1934 when there was no federal gun control at all.

Even if you STILL believed that the NRA needed the spare change generated by gun control to keep its money in order to justify its existence, you would have to be a fool to think that Heller would change that. Has the NAACP folded its doors since Brown v. Board of Education? Are they starving for funds? How about NARAL or NOW? Did they fold up and go home after Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood? Every one of those organizations receives more money today than they did at the height of their particular battles. Given that Heller is just the first step in a long line of litigation, anyone who thinks the need for the NRA will shrivel up and die after an individual rights ruling is a bloody fool.

jcwit
June 12, 2008, 04:39 PM
To those not thinking the NRA does not defend or help with local issues I see on another forum where locals are trying to close a range called The Blue Trail Range in Conn. As I understand it this the range once owned by the Lyman family. The NRA got involved last week in fighting to keep it open. I guess we'll see how this all turnes out.

Bazooka Joe71
June 12, 2008, 05:36 PM
Nine pages - wow!

Well, 8...And all but about 5 posts have not even come close to answering the OP's question.:p

JohnBT
June 12, 2008, 06:14 PM
"Folks, I spent a lot of time and money to acquire an education. I think I've gone far enough down that road."

I heartily recommend education throughout life. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

John

Walkalong
June 12, 2008, 06:24 PM
My Range does the same thing. You must belong to the NRA. I generally don't like being told what I HAVE to do, but it is, after all, a private club and can do as it wishes. I have no problem with it. There are other places around here to shoot where you do not have to be. Our yearly range fee is quite reasonable and making members belong to the NRA is no big deal to me.

As far as insurance purposes, I have no clue, but I do believe the NRA helps ranges get insurance, which could be it. Someone here should know.

Arrogant Bastard
June 12, 2008, 06:36 PM
The range is not forcing anybody to do anything. You don't have to go to that range if you disagree with their policies.

Bazooka Joe71
June 12, 2008, 07:21 PM
MisterPX,

The range is not forcing anybody to do anything. You don't have to go to that range if you disagree with their policies.

My Range does the same thing. You must belong to the NRA. I generally don't like being told what I HAVE to do, but it is, after all, a private club and can do as it wishes

See?:p

-v-
June 12, 2008, 10:30 PM
You don't like GA House Bill 89 that was signed this year?
Among other improvements...
allowing licensed carry permit holders to possess a firearm in any private motor vehicle, while on any publicly accessible parking lot;
prohibiting gun dealer entrapment schemes, such as those orchestrated by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg;
allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in State Parks, recreational areas, wildlife management areas, and public transportation;
creating a stricter time limit for various stages of the concealed carry license application process; and
allowing concealed carry permit holders to carry in restaurants.

While I will not debate that those things were passed, the version of HR89 that I saw back in January when I was first made aware of it did not have those elements. Its main thrust at that time was that employers could not ban the carry of firearms in cars parked on their property. The competing bill, HR 915, had all those elements and more in it. Thus, it seemed rather odd at the time that the NRA would back a more conservative bill and issue statements such as "The NRA report card on Georgia will be based entirely on the success of HB89 and ONLY HB89." If they were truly interested in fighting for the rights of firearms owners, that seems like a rather odd statement to make. Seems more like petty politiking over being top dog rather then looking out for our rights. Now I am glad that the revised HB89 included all those provisions, it is definitely a step in the right direction, but the lead up to this has sullied my view of the NRA.

Also, the 3 page rant that I received from them in the mail about "Dem Libhurals gunna takes urz gunz awayz!" also did little to convince me to support then. If you want my support, (and my hard-earned money!) lay out why I should support you in a reasonably articulated and thought out logical argument, highlighting the pro's of why I should support your organization and the work that you have done in the past to advance said right. Rants, hyperbole, and fear mongering is what extremists do, who likewise have, in my eyes, little chance of success.

That, and there are plenty other organizations that support the 2nd amendment that are not the NRA.

JohnBT
June 12, 2008, 10:53 PM
HB 915 - What's not to like? A quick read reveals some interesting language. The first paragraph I copied includes a penalty of 1 to 10 years and/or a fine of $25,000. John

www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/versions/hb915_LC_28_3829_a_3.htm

"(a) Any person who attempts to solicit, persuade, encourage, or entice any dealer to transfer or otherwise convey a firearm other than to the actual buyer or who willfully and intentionally aids or abets any such person shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of not less than one nor more than ten years or by a fine not to exceed $25,000.00, or both."

"b) Upon conviction of the offense of carrying a concealed weapon, a person shall be punished as follows:(1) For the first offense, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and(2) For the second offense, and for any subsequent offense, he or she shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than two years and not more than five years.(c) This Code section shall not permit, outside of his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business, the concealed carrying of a pistol, revolver, or concealable firearm by any person unless that person has on his or her person a valid license issued under Code Section 16-11-129 and the pistol, revolver, or firearm may only be carried in a shoulder holster, waist belt holster, any other holster, hipgrip, or any other similar device, in which event the weapon may be concealed by the personīs clothing, or a handbag, purse, attache case, briefcase, or other closed container. Carrying on the person in a concealed manner other than as provided in this subsection shall not be permitted and shall be a violation of this Code section."

""(1) 'School safety zone' means in, on, or within 1,000 feet of any real property owned by or leased to any public or private elementary school, secondary school, or school board and used for elementary or secondary education and in, on, or within 1,000 feet of the campus "

"SECTION 10.Code Section 38-3-51 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to the emergency powers of the Governor, is amended by revising paragraph (8) of subsection (d) as follows:"(8) Suspend or limit the sale, dispensing, or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives, and combustibles"

JohnBT
June 12, 2008, 10:55 PM
"Well, 8...And all but about 5 posts have not even come close to answering the OP's question."

It only takes one factual post to answer a question. Five should be more than enough. The rest is discussion of some sort.

john

If you enjoyed reading about "Range forces members to join the NRA" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!