Please Remember Your Priorities


PDA






Rogmatt
November 11, 2008, 08:50 AM
Folks, people are spending hundreds and even thousands on guns and ammo as product is flying off the shelves around the country. While this is good temprarily for the folks in the business, it does not help secure the future of the business.

People are willing to pay even inflated prices for certain items right now to get what they want or need in case there is a shortage or ban in the future. While all this money is being thrown around, please, please save a tiny bit to join the NRA, as they will be fighting the good fight will the citizens of this country stock up.
In the next couple years, the NRA will have to fight perhaps its toughest battle since it's existance with lobbying, public relations campaign, commercials, grass roots meetings, and membership drives. While some people have complaints about them for this and that, the bottom line is that the NRA is best equipped, more than any other entity, to fight the good fight to preserve our 2nd ammendment as we enjoy it now without the restrictions.
Not only join, but encourage all you gun owning friends, and even those folks who just shoot occassionally or own a pistol for home protection. The NRA does not choose parties, and should appeal to all gun owners on both sides. I have seen the NRA praise & recognizes both Democrats and Republicans for their efforts to preserve the second ammemdment.
It will be great to see the NRA report record memberships in the months to come. Thanks for your consideration, and thanks for caring about this issue, as your membership helps me also, and other like minded folks.

https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp

If you enjoyed reading about "Please Remember Your Priorities" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Starship1st
November 11, 2008, 09:01 AM
I renewed my NRA membership this month and will be sending them a donation to help fight the anti gun legislation sure to come.

It is also time to contact our state and federal representatves about supporting our 2nd Amendment rights. :cool:

X-Rap
November 11, 2008, 10:37 AM
I agree, today if a gun owner doesn't belong I'm afraid they should be considered one of them not one of us. These times are no joke and how we come out the other end will be decided by the unified front that gun owners project in the comming months.
If 50 million members would have their say then I think many in congress would listen.

TCB in TN
November 11, 2008, 11:44 AM
While I agree with much of what the NRA tries to do, I disagree with how they go about doing much of it as well. So this you either join the NRA or you are not one of "US" is neither right nor constructive.

hso
November 11, 2008, 12:32 PM
If not the NRA then the SAF or GOA or JPFO. While you're at it join your state RKBA organizations and any local ones as well.

This isn't about joining only one RKBA organization, but more about joining one and working to protect RKBA.

Here's a list - http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=292484

FourTeeFive
November 11, 2008, 12:34 PM
Is there anyone here from the NRA? I'm a member, but I wish they would quit wasting their money on all the mailing and trash they send me. Now more than ever they need to spend their (our) money where it counts!

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 12:36 PM
today if a gun owner doesn't belong I'm afraid they should be considered one of them not one of us


And its comments like this which really put me off to join the NRA. So thanks!

bergs98
November 11, 2008, 12:47 PM
I'm "one of them" if I don't belong to the NRA?? Whatever.

X-Rap
November 11, 2008, 12:54 PM
So maybe 50 million compnorfor2a.orgs. is better, no thats what we already have isn't it? When you have to go into a fight why not be the big dog? I agree with hso in that we should support as many rkba orgs. as possible but if you can put your money in only one spot I say NRA. Its true they may not be perfect but when the gun grabbers talk hate its toward the NRA and they are the biggest thorn in the side of the antis. If you think what I said is devisive I suggest you get a thicker skin because what the left will attempt to do to the unity of gun owners in the future will be far more offensive than what I said.
I have listened to the free loaders for years b***h and complain about the NRA and stay on the side lines and talk a good story. I challange all gun owners to join and give $100. per year.
There can be little doubt that we had gun owners vote for Dear Leader or stay home this last election, this is the first election since Clinton that we were not considered a factor. Lets not let it happen again.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 12:59 PM
There you go again:


I have listened to the free loaders for years


So because I enjoy shooting but don't support the NRA I'm a freeloader?

I don't recall being a member of the NRA as a requirement to owning a firearm.

I've got quite thick skin, just no tolerance for "us vs them" attitudes. I mean, you sound like somebody is on his way out the door when you talk like that.

So if I'm not a true gun owner because I won't join the NRA, well then fine. I guess I'm not a true gun owner.

But using that type of "persuasion" to get people to join isn't helpful either. I mean, instead of getting people to join you've just turned one away!

Way to suceed in your mission! :rolleyes:

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 01:09 PM
The NRA doesn't represent me or my view of the 2nd Amendment. They've been behind every major gun law that's passed since 1934, negotiating our rights away... and in some instances such as the '34 and '68 laws outright supported them.

The last straw for me was their staunch opposition to the Heller case. They stood in the way of the case trying to prevent it from being heard by the SCOTUS. Our winning that case did more for our gun rights than the NRA has done in the last 74 years.

If you wish to own something more than black powder rifles, bolt action rifles or shotguns, join pro-gun group like Gun Owners of America.

I'm a proud member of GOA and will send every spare dollar I have to them.

http://www.gunowners.org/

Also, if you're serious about keeping your firearm rights you will need to do FAR more than send money to various pro-gun groups. You will need to make phone calls, send faxes and emails to your representatives. Never let up, send them non-stop. Set a reminder to yourself in your Outlook to send emails and faxes at least once a week.

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 01:16 PM
Is there anyone here from the NRA? I'm a member, but I wish they would quit wasting their money on all the mailing and trash they send me. Now more than ever they need to spend their (our) money where it counts!
That's because the NRA is more concerned with making money than they are supporting "black rifles". The NRA caters to a specific group... the Zumbo crowd. They tend to protect hunting arms more than they protect "hi capacity" magazines, black rifles or other non-PC firearms.

Watch this interview of NRA Board Member Joaquin Jackson. Listen carefully to what he says. This is the mentality of many who sit on the NRA board.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSGySNLyACE

If that doesn't turn your stomach, nothing will.

damien
November 11, 2008, 01:17 PM
My membership is in good standing. Both of my last two "panic" purchases fron Natchez, I did the NRA roundup.

Two more panic purchases to go...

Restocking ammo, I shot a lot this summer.

X-Rap
November 11, 2008, 01:30 PM
I'm sure you were turned away before you read my post so I will not despair.
As far as the NRA being a vehicle of compromise, that would certainly seem to be a valid point but I hope you can also see that they have never had the full backing of gun owners in America and until the majority stands up with all their resources they might not be able to be no compromise. If time were turned back and the presence of the NRA vanished I doubt we would be having these gun debates today.
There is little evidence that shows me tha NRA is anti handgun, semiauto, or right to carry.
GOA is a stand up org. as are others but they simply don't have the clout. We need huge numbers and consensus on the 2a, and have 2 yrs. to make that point, I will encourage and support the growth of both the GAO and NRA with the hopes both their numbers will trully represent the number of gun owners someday.
Until then I will continue to despise the ones on the sidelines who talk of rights but would let others defend them.
I whole heartedly agree in activism but also know that affiliation with well known groups will get more attention than the individual in most cases.

SoCalShooter
November 11, 2008, 01:44 PM
I am a life time member and I completely agree with you. I sent my 20 bucks last month.

MD_Willington
November 11, 2008, 01:50 PM
Why not join SAF.org as well, I'm a member there, and will be joining the NRA very soon.

lions
November 11, 2008, 02:00 PM
The last straw for me was their staunch opposition to the Heller case. They stood in the way of the case trying to prevent it from being heard by the SCOTUS.

They did this because they weren't sure if we could win. And they weren't too far off, we won 5-4, if only one vote had gone the other way that would have been an enormous blow to the 2nd.

Just Jim
November 11, 2008, 02:11 PM
Lets see now. People by the millions called our government to say "No Bailouts" but the government did it anyway.

People by the millions called our government about too many illegals here and the government does nothing.

I doubt money to the NRA is going to do any good because our government isn't listening to anything we the people have to say.

If it makes you feel good, do it but don't think anyone is listening.

jj

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 02:18 PM
They did this because they weren't sure if we could win. And they weren't too far off, we won 5-4, if only one vote had gone the other way that would have been an enormous blow to the 2nd.
And that's exactly kind of behavior I've come to expect from the NRA. They buckle under pressure. They always compromise, and when they do it's my black rifles that get thrown to the sharks.

The lamest excuse I can imagine is the one that the NRA just wasn't sure they could win. The SCOTUS will NEVER be more conservative than it is right now. The GOA and just about anyone else with an ounce of gray matter between their ears realized this was perfect timing for the SCOTUS to hear such a case. Keep in mind, these cases don't grow on trees either.

Now look at where we are. If we hadn't gotten that decision we would be going into an Obama Presidency without Heller and where he will seat at least 4 Justices. Was it the NRA's plan to wait another 8 years and hope another liberal Democrat doesn't take office and seat even more liberal judges? Maybe their master plan is to wait until all guns are banned and we have 9 liberal justices before they supported a case that actually went all the way to the SCOTUS?

The NRA should have been in the fight with their considerable resources making sure we had the victory most of us knew we would get. But instead they sat on the side lines... no, WORSE, they actively tried to derail the case.

It's time we support real pro-gun organizations that fight for the 2nd Amendment as a whole and not just for the Zumbo's of the world.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 02:58 PM
I'm sure you were turned away before you read my post so I will not despair.


Well you're right to a point. Because you're not the first to espouse these "Us vs Them" thoughts. Of course, I've been on the fence, and still am to a degree. My dad is a NRA member and has even offered to buy my membership.

But you've done nothing to convince me either about the postives of joining, other than continuing the "Us vs Them" which won't work for me.

So yeah, thanks for continuing to give me pause to joining this organization, instead of doing something to convince me.

Happiness Is A Warm Gun
November 11, 2008, 04:10 PM
The lamest excuse I can imagine is the one that the NRA just wasn't sure they could win. The SCOTUS will NEVER be more conservative than it is right now. The GOA and just about anyone else with an ounce of gray matter between their ears realized this was perfect timing for the SCOTUS to hear such a case. Keep in mind, these cases don't grow on trees either.

Actually when Heller was filed the supreme court was less conservative. When NRA was trying to block the case 2 that's right 2 of the justices that voted for it were not members of the SCOTUS.

Keep that in mind. I respect Heller & Guru but if they had gotten "their way" and got their day in court earlier (remember Heller has been fighting this 6 years) almost certainly they would have lost.

The SCOTUS would have ruled that there is no individual right and paved the way for a complete ban aka England and eventual confiscation of all firearms.

Now I am preaching the NRA is the end all of gun rights but take it into context. Heller was no legal scholar and Gura isn't even pro gun so it is possible they could have gotten it wrong.

If the case had been heard before January 31, 2006 Alito would NOT have been on the court and instead sandra day o'connor.

Now in her earlier years O'Connor would clearly have voted against the ban however near the end she made some pretty liberal (non constitutional) ruling so it isn't so certain instead of 5-4 it would have been 4-5.

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 07:02 PM
Actually when Heller was filed the supreme court was less conservative. When NRA was trying to block the case 2 that's right 2 of the justices that voted for it were not members of the SCOTUS.
When the SCOTUS agreed to hear the case (Nov 20th, 2007) it had the same justices as it currently has, and the NRA opposed the case.

The Heller case took 4 years to work its way through the lower courts. They filed their case in Feb of 2003. This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS, not until Nov of 2007 anyway.

So, your excuse doesn't hold water. The NRA opposed the case after the current SCOTUS agreed to hear it.

jakemccoy
November 11, 2008, 09:03 PM
I am a life member of both the NRA and the SAF.

Teamwork is not a concept that you can teach a grown person. A person has to learn it growing up. People who understand teamwork know that, occasionally, you'll hate members on your team. Heck, sometimes, you may even hate the team. However, a good teammate will always support the team when it comes down to it. Also, when it comes time to play in the game for real, a team player will not take kindly to anybody who's against the team.

The team concept applies to the NRA or any other gun association that a gun owner may join. No gun association is perfect, but gun associations are the only groups that we've got going for us. Gun owners who aren't on the team (i.e., any gun association) simply aren't participating in this "game" of protecting the Second Amendment. Protecting the Second Amendment is not an individual sport.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 09:10 PM
The problem with that analogy is just because a somebody isn't on a team doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.

Or are you saying that a person who writes letters weekly to their senators and congress-person, and instructs new people in the art of shooting isn't doing anything, whereas the guy who buys a membership and then bitches online about how unfair the gun laws are but actually isn't doing anything is fully supporting RKBA?

(For the record, I'm currently neither)

The other problem is in an actual sport, you aren't trying to convert people to your cause. Protecting the 2nd, you are. So saying "You're on of THEM" really going to do that?

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 09:21 PM
First, this isn't a game.

Second, (and to continue your analogy) if one team doesn't suit your needs you can always find another team to play with. I've chosen a team that won't sell me or my rights down the river to protect the Zumbo's.

It could be construed that if you support the NRA and the NRA backs another anti-gun law like they did with the GCA of 1934 or the GCA of 1968, then you're funding an organization that is working to disarm a large segment of the gun owning public.

Where was the NRA when they banned the production and sale of new machineguns in 1986? They claimed after the ban they would do everything in their power to repeal it... and yet they did absolutely nothing. They almost immediately dropped the campaign to repeal the law and have done nothing since...

They took our dues and proceeded to leave us hanging. Thanks NRA.

If they took half of their junk mail campaign budget and spent it on trying to repeal BS laws on the books like the 1986 ban, I would gladly become a member again. But they won't.

I won't fund a group like that any longer.

jakemccoy
November 11, 2008, 09:29 PM
The problem with that analogy is just because a somebody isn't on a team doesn't mean they aren't doing anything.

Or are you saying that a person who writes letters weekly to their senators and congress-person, and instructs new people in the art of shooting isn't doing anything, whereas the guy who buys a membership and then bitches online about how unfair the gun laws are but actually isn't doing anything is fully supporting RKBA?

(For the record, I'm currently neither)

The other problem is in an actual sport, you aren't trying to convert people to your cause. Protecting the 2nd, you are. So saying "You're on of THEM" really going to do that?

Such a person may be doing something. However, if they're trying to do something as an individual, they simply aren't playing in the same game. The rules simply aren't set up for individuals to participate. Anyway, this monster is too big for any single person to have an effect.

As long as you understand the team concept, that's the main thing. Get on the team somehow, somewhere. If teaming up with Congress via letters is your method of getting on the team, then there you go.

It's not about us versus them. Work with me.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 09:32 PM
Fair enough, so how do you draw those single people onto your team?

Certainly not by using the "Us vs Them" theme. Oh it might work on some, those who are sheep of a different color so to speak, but for those who actually think things through you might want to try a different tactic, instead of constantly referring to them as well, Them.

And maybe for you, its not. But I point you to a NRA member further up the thread, who uses just those words. And he isn't the only one. Its a recurring thought that pops up whenever joining the NRA is brought up. And its not one individual either. Seems half(that might be too much, but more than a few) espouse that concept.

I don't care if I like them or not. But if the only thing they can say to try and convince me to join is if you're not one of us you're one of them, or stop freeloading on those who actually to join, its not a strong arguement.

I've seen plenty of reasons not to join. Very few that make me want to.

jakemccoy
November 11, 2008, 09:33 PM
I edited my post above after you posted #27.

jakemccoy
November 11, 2008, 09:35 PM
First, this isn't a game.

Obviously...It's just an analogy. An analogy is a comparison of concepts, not of literal terms. Have you ever played organized team sports?

Second, (and to continue your analogy) if one team doesn't suit your needs you can always find another team to play with. I've chosen a team that won't sell me or my rights down the river to protect the Zumbo's.

You're being divisive. As I said in my post above, gun associations collectively are one team. People who participate with others to protect the Second Amendment are also on the same team. The people who are not on the team are the people who are hell bent on thinking as individuals in all circumstances. These people have no positive effect and frankly aren't even allowed to participate anyway.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 09:37 PM
And I edited my post after seeing your edit. ;)

Highland Ranger
November 11, 2008, 09:40 PM
Living in NJ where 99 and 44/100% of our NRA dollars flow out of the state, I probably have the most to complain about - we have been abandoned and left to our own devices.

Having said that I re-upped for 5 years this week and bought an EBR I certainly don't need.

Call it voting with my dollars and borrowing the analogy from above, taking one for the team.

You should too.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 09:43 PM
I find it hard to take one for the team when it could mean me no longer being able to enjoy my firearms.

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 10:28 PM
You're being divisive.
No, I'm being realistic. You can join whatever organization you wish, be it HCI or the NRA. It makes little difference to me, in the end you're the one that has to live with your decisions.

I'm making an informed decision on which organizations I'll back and which ones I will not back.

If people would send the money they normally send to the NRA to the GOA, our guns rights would be far more secure. But people are happy with the status quo... that is, until they wake up one day and their rights are gone. Then you will be sitting around, like we were in 1986, going "what just happened, where was the NRA?".

rust collector
November 11, 2008, 11:23 PM
Perhaps it would be more constructive to give a little of our background before passing judgment on the NRA or other members of THR. Please tell us what you have done for our 2d amendment rights.

I've been a member of the NRA for more than 20 years, have taught hunter safety classes for 25 years, and I take friends and relatives to the range frequently. I do write and interact with my state and federal legislators.

I do not agree 100% with the NRA's policies, but that can certainly be said of the American League of Bicyclists, Izaak Walton League, Kiwanis and my religious denomination as well. Still, they do good work and they are much more effective at accomplishing good things that I could possibly be on my own.

The NRA helps. Dissembling does not.

Rimmer
November 12, 2008, 07:02 AM
Highland Ranger;
Living in NJ where 99 and 44/100% of our NRA dollars flow out of the state, I probably have the most to complain about - we have been abandoned and left to our own devices.

Having said that I re-upped for 5 years this week and bought an EBR I certainly don't need.

Call it voting with my dollars and borrowing the analogy from above, taking one for the team.

You should too.
Excellent post.

I believe that was the intent of the OP. If your involved, GREAT, if your not, the NRA is a viable option.

Edit: Highland Ranger, see the link for what the NRA has done in Jersey.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/State/Specific.aspx?st=NJ

The NRA will never be perfect for everyone.
My 2, if you don't like the NRA, fine. Start your own thread and say so. This one is about being pro-gun and one way to pro-actively keep them.
This is "The High Road" after all. Although from time to time it morphs into something less.

If you enjoyed reading about "Please Remember Your Priorities" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!