What has the NRA recently done?


PDA






COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 08:42 PM
I am not a member of the NRA. I really am though on the fence about whether or not to join. I've seen plenty to make me not want to join, and very little to make me want to join.

My dad is a member and has even offered to pay for my membership. Seems like I should just take him up on his offer, but I haven't.

I've read the American Rifleman, and get a good chuckle out of it with an eyeroll. I'm not denying things are "bad", but I really hate the fear mongering that seems to be cornerstone of NRA propaganda. Now I realize they do have an agenda. For me though, trying to get to my emotions isn't going to work.

I like facts. So are there any websites or resources, preferably third party and independent, which show what the NRA has recently done to support the 2nd Amendment??

I've been to their website, but like anything with an agenda, its not the most objective.

So any constructive help in this would greatly be appreciated. You could convince a person to join the NRA

If you enjoyed reading about "What has the NRA recently done?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The Wiry Irishman
November 11, 2008, 08:44 PM
They've put up legal challenges to gun laws in Chicago and San Francisco.

They're also the only gun rights lobby with any sway in Washington.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
November 11, 2008, 08:49 PM
My dad is a member and has even offered to pay for my membership. Seems like I should just take him up on his offer, but I haven't.

It's free and you still won't do it. You are a lost cause. I submit that if you cannot figure out THAT no-brainer, shoe-tying should not be attempted! Tell you what - please don't ever join as long as you live - you would do more harm than good. We don't need your type. :mad:

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 08:52 PM
Free to me, not to him. Unless you're oferring to pay. But thanks for reinforcing everything that I do find wrong with the NRA membership. :rolleyes:

As I said, anyone have anything CONSTRUCTIVE?

No Fear
November 11, 2008, 08:54 PM
I've read the American Rifleman, and get a good chuckle out of it with an eyeroll. I'm not denying things are "bad", but I really hate the fear mongeringI'm not an nra member either but come on. There's very little "fear mongering" and sadly, there doesn't NEED to be much fear mongering because the threats against us are true. How old are you? Are you old enough to remember the last dozen state and federal BANS that have been strapped to our backs? Well I am. I have lived through enough bans, import bans, and administrative gun bans to recognize the TRUTH that we are in a war here against our government. If you choose to ignore that then you are either too young to remember the bans of 1968/1982/1986/1989/1993/1994/1996 or you don't care.

I'd tell you to join Gun Owners of America, but since you call bad news "fear mongering," you REALLY won't like GOA. GOA breaks down the specifics of bills and points out their possible anti gun implications, even more than nra does (as evidenced by nra's recent veterans disarmament bill which has disarmed veterans who merely have a financial steward).

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 08:56 PM
*Sigh*

And here I was thinking that people might actually be able to help. People keep saying "Join the NRA! Join the NRA!" but when someone comes along and wants some facts about what they've done recently to make sure that my dues aren't going to waste, I'm met with hostility.

Silly me.

EDIT: So, if someone actually has something useful to say, I'm all ears. But if you don't, then please keep your comments to yourself. They have no bearing in this thread. Thanks

MIL-DOT
November 11, 2008, 08:58 PM
(quote) "I'm not denying things are "bad", but I really hate the fear mongering that seems to be cornerstone of NRA propaganda. Now I realize they do have an agenda."

Sounding vaguely troll-like, ain't it ?

SuperNaut
November 11, 2008, 09:01 PM
Well, did you try the NRA website? Or how about doing a search of THR? If you've read American Rifleman you should have stumbled across the NRA-ILA articles that talk about what the NRA is up to.

Seriously, go to the NRA-ILA (http://www.nraila.org/) site and you'll find more than you need. However, I'm a little confused about what exactly you want, especially since the very first reply answered your question.

3pairs12
November 11, 2008, 09:02 PM
As stated earlier they put up legal challeneges in typically liberal gun grabbing cities. San Francisco and Chicago were the day after the Heller decision. That was recent enough wasn't it. It seems to me the other hostilities have also been met yours. My question is what have you done for RKBA? I joined the NRA and continue to renew my membership as well as TSRA. You really how to check out NRAs website. It is actually pretty informative.

Grizfire
November 11, 2008, 09:03 PM
It's free and you still won't do it. You are a lost cause. I submit that if you cannot figure out THAT no-brainer, shoe-tying should not be attempted! Tell you what - please don't ever join as long as you live - you would do more harm than good. We don't need your type.

No reason to be an @$$. The OP is simply asking for specific references to what he NRA has done to support RTKBA. So far now one has provided that.

Its been this way for me too, COMPNOR, I have only been told to join, but have never been given any specific reasons why.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 09:03 PM
I like facts. So are there any websites or resources, preferably third party and independent, which show what the NRA has recently done to support the 2nd Amendment??


In this case, I'm not interested in the horses mouth. Though I will go take another look. But I wouldn't mind some third-party facts.

And the first post gave me two things. So thats all they're working on?

indoorsoccerfrea
November 11, 2008, 09:04 PM
you have a legit question compnor, and 3pairs12 just about sums it up. you could google NRA and get all of the news headlines concerning lawsuits and whatnot, or you could just visit their webpage.

http://www.nraila.org/news/

Gord
November 11, 2008, 09:05 PM
blahblahblah

I take it you haven't heard of "principle," eh?

The Wiry Irishman
November 11, 2008, 09:06 PM
And here I was thinking that people might actually be able to help. People keep saying "Join the NRA! Join the NRA!" but when someone comes along and wants some facts about what they've done recently to make sure that my dues aren't going to waste, I'm met with hostility.

Did you see my post? Those two legal challenges only happened in the last couple months.

ETA: There's plenty more they did if you dig back in time a little. They're also very active on the local level, not just national. And there's more to them than lobbying, too. They run lots of gun safety and competition type stuff. My conversion from anti-gun to pro-gun was due in no small part by working on their pistol qualification program. They also donate money to help build ranges and buy equipment for shooting clubs. The Purdue Rifle/Pistol club has a few guns that were purchased with NRA grants that we never could have afforded ourselves. Bringing new shooters into the community and sustaining those already there does as much for the preservation of gun rights as lobbying.

TAB
November 11, 2008, 09:07 PM
they didn't put up a legal challenge in SF... they piggy backed on some one elses...Frankly anyone could have won that law suit... all they had to do was file.

SuperNaut
November 11, 2008, 09:07 PM
And the first post gave me two things. So thats all they're working on?

That is fallout from the most recent big win for 2a advocates, so it is foremost in our minds. But I do appreciate your snark so, yes they have only worked on those two things, ever.

jfrey
November 11, 2008, 09:13 PM
I used to be a member years ago, but after repeately getting weekly mailings wanting even MORE money and their "compromise on any issue" attitude, I wouldn't be one of their members even if the membership was FREE. GOA is supported by Ron Paul and they have a "no compromise" way of approaching the anti-gun BS traitors. Remember the GCA '68 and the 10 round mag law. Now ask yourself if you want to belong to the nra.

tkaction
November 11, 2008, 09:16 PM
You have got to be kidding! If you lived in PA. you would see that without the NRA we would be buried in gun restrictions but instead we have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation. My CCW allows me to carry anywhere except federal property and courthouses.
No gun restrictions or mag capacity issues. All of this is a result of having more NRA mmbers per capita than any other state. They wield a lot of politcal and monetary power. I hate to be snide but where have you been during all the gun issues the last 20 years. Everywhere its the NRA said this , did this, opposed this, financed this.
They are the only choice you have. Its not fear, its fact
and it requires diligence.

msb45
November 11, 2008, 09:17 PM
When Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia (that's his name, really) signed illegal ( in violation of state preemption) gun laws that the District Attorney publically refused to enfore it was an NRA court action that stopped this idiot.

That alone is worth it.

NRA Life Member and proud of it.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:20 PM
I was a member of the NRA (thanks to my father) when i was younger (much younger).
I've long since let that membership go, and for the time being have no urge to renew.

While I believe the NRA is good at what they do - I feel they're too short sighted, and their tactics promote knee-jerk reactions at the worst possible times. I've seen too many opportunities to further the pro-gun movement blown because of fired up rhetoric and mindlessly emotional rally-cries.

It is said the NRA is the 800lb gorilla. My problem with that, is that's ALL they are. I mean, think about it. If you're walking through the woods, and an 800 pound gorilla jumps out and is about to attack you, what do you do? Do you try to reason and negotiate and see the gorilla's point of view?
Of course not - you draw down and prepare to fire.

I view the NRA in roughly the same light as I view the Brady crowd. Lots of emotional pleas, lots of "energizing" rhetoric, too short-sited and blind to actually accomplish anything.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:23 PM
When Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia (that's his name, really) signed illegal ( in violation of state preemption) gun laws that the District Attorney publically refused to enfore it was an NRA court action that stopped this idiot.

That alone is worth it.

NRA Life Member and proud of it.


First, if the district attorney refused to enforce it - what exactly was stopped?
Second, in a situation like that - all it would really require is a simple law-suit. I doubt it even cost them that much money. When even the DA says the law is on your side, we're not talking major landmark victory....

It's great they're there to do things like that - and pony up some money (lord knows they get enough of it..) to prevent some poor sap from having to do it on his own, but it seems like this has been their sole purpose for some time now.

I have yet to see them in the last many years really accomplish a whole heck of a lot in terms of turning the tide of anti 2nd mentality in Washington.
Maybe I just haven't been paying that close of attention, but where were they in '93 and '94?

tkaction
November 11, 2008, 09:24 PM
Like I said you dont live where i do or you dont care.
1 guy here said they are too soft , another said they are too hard. Well goldilocks...mine is just right

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 09:24 PM
Did you see my post? Those two legal challenges only happened in the last couple months.


Yes, so thank you The Wiry Irishman. I'm going to google them a bit later.

longdayjake
November 11, 2008, 09:26 PM
One thing that I know that they do is they contribute to candidates running for office that have shown a dedication to the preservations of the second amendment. That seems like something good.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:27 PM
I didn't say they were too hard - they're not. They get nothing done.
They're blowhards who talk a big game, but only win skirmishes and harassing firefights.
When it comes time for an all out battle, they're largely useless.
Again - '93, '94? where were they? In the meantime - what do they do? Get people fired up, talk a big game, and ask for lots of money.

The Wiry Irishman
November 11, 2008, 09:27 PM
I believe they filed the protest of the post-katrina gun confiscations in New Orleans that led to them being stopped. They also filed a suit in tandem with the SAF (another effective organization to look at joining if you decide the NRA is not for you) to force them to return the confiscated guns. Link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318478,00.html)

They've also put several million dollars toward passing concealed carry laws in your home state of Missouri. You can find many stories about this by googling "NRA missouri concealed carry" and similar phrases. They put a good bit of money (4 million if my memory serves me correctly) into the fight for concealed carry in my home state of Michigan, as well.

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 09:27 PM
That is fallout from the most recent big win for 2a advocates, so it is foremost in our minds. But I do appreciate your snark so, yes they have only worked on those two things, ever.


Well good to know my money where my money would be going. :rolleyes:

Some more examples would have been appreciated instead of the responses I was getting.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:28 PM
I believe they filed the protest of the post-katrina gun confiscations in New Orleans that led to them being stopped. They also filed a suit in tandem with the SAF (another effective organization to look at joining if you decide the NRA is not for you) to force them to return the confiscated guns. Link

They've also put several million dollars toward passing concealed carry laws in your home state of Missouri. You can find many stories about this by googling "NRA missouri concealed carry" and similar phrases.


All of this is all fine and dandy - it's great things that they do on these fronts.

When it comes time to fight major legislation - when's the last real landmark AWB they've defeated? What legislation have they gotten repealed on the federal level?

oh... right...

mbt2001
November 11, 2008, 09:29 PM
Katrina, Shall issue, Florida Gun law (at work), Castle Doctrine, Heller... Not to mention that one guy with the malfunctioning m16.

In various states BTW.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:31 PM
If you lived in PA. you would see that without the NRA we would be buried in gun restrictions but instead we have some of the least restrictive gun laws in the nation.


On state issues, they're great. They're big enough to bully around state lawmakers.

Put 'em in front of congress, and they just don't cut it. PA and DC are completely different ballgames, that require different strategies. They just don't get it done on the national level.

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 09:31 PM
They've put up legal challenges to gun laws in Chicago and San Francisco.
You mean after they opposed Heller and did everything they could to derail the case so the SCOTUS wouldn't hear it?

Gee thanks NRA. Glad you could join the party.

It's the same organization that did nothing when the government banned machineguns in 1986.

It's the same organization that backed the 1934 GCA.

It's the same organization that backed the 1968 GCA.

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

mljdeckard
November 11, 2008, 09:31 PM
I'll make it really simple. Those of you who aren't NRA members are luxuriating in the protection being provided by the rest of us. You're welcome.

If ALL gun owners in America were NRA members, then they wouldn't HAVE to use spam, extreme marketing tactics, etc to get the job done. They would have so much clout, it wouldn't MATTER who was president, none would dare oppose them.

msb45
November 11, 2008, 09:32 PM
In Philly you could "beat the rap, but not the ride". You want to spend a night in a Philly lock-up? I don't. Besides it saved some honest street cops from getting sued when some "community organizer" would cause somebody to get arrested.

They filed and injunction and got the thing overturned. For once the legal system worked without costing a mint. Funny thing is the interpretation of the state constitution saying the right "shall not be questioned" isn't that tough for a non-activist judge to understand.

The NRA needs to be more hard core and understand the slippery slope goes downhill. Get a membership and vote for the board that will do that. I did.

hso
November 11, 2008, 09:32 PM
Lawsuits - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-09-10-gunsbans_N.htm
http://www.theppsc.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1836
sues

Youth programs -
http://www.nrahq.org/youth/

Other training programs -
http://www.nra.org/programs.aspx

While they're not the only RKBA organization out there their impact is well established. Along with other RKBA organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, etc. they are responsible at the local, state and national level in helping to restore and ensure our 2A rights. If they're effective at the state level perhaps that's good thing instead of bad since other organizations don't seem to be as effective. I do know that they played a big role in the evolution of CCW in TN to remove specific handgun testing, liability bonds and excessive filing fees.

Again, if you don't like them for some reason join and actively support one of the other national RKBA organizations as well as your state RKBA organizations. Work on the state and local level as an advocate for RKBA.

Don't want to support any one of the national or state RKBA organizations or act as an advocate yourself? Then what do you want?

ozarkhillbilly
November 11, 2008, 09:34 PM
If you want a web site to go to and see what the NRA has done to uphold the 2nd Amendment, then go to the Brady web site or any other anti-US Constitution site and they will tell all about what the NRA has done to stop them and their "reasonable" gun laws.

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 09:35 PM
I'll make it really simple. Those of you who aren't NRA members are luxuriating in the protection being provided by the rest of us. You're welcome.
That's pure BS.

I back organizations that don't sell half of the gun owners down the river to protect their precious hunting rifles. If you have a black rifle in your collection, you can thank ME and people like me, not the NRA.

I have you, and people like you, to thank for the GCA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968. Gee, thanks a bunch.

patsygarret
November 11, 2008, 09:35 PM
I rarley post anything on topics and probally shouldnt since my memory and where I get my information get jumbled but here it goes and I already apologize for being wrong as I usually am cause I am married!! I am a member fo the NRA and always try to get others to join. The NRA keeps me posted on new bills/laws/legislation, new equipment, and I can remember not too long ago an incident in Kansas or Oklahoma I believe that a company (Texaco) I think had fired employees after searching the vehicles and finding firearms. Not stolen or otherwise illegal, just firearms. the vehicles were parked in the companys lot that was also for customers. Point being in the same place you could have a gun in your car but not if you worked there? I am not sure if/how the NRA was involved in the case but it didnt make headlines, so that says that most people are OK with the case. Also I beleive after the Katrina disaster I heard that goverment officials were disarming citizens and I heard the NRa stepped in. Even if the NRA just backs an already lawsuit it is still an attempt and action for 2A supporters. I am just 29 but have seen various bans on my black rifles, and not to mention the enormous amount of individual state laws. Dont fool yourself its just a slow ban, but the way it is going it will be an eventual complete ban. Banning all or part of my AK will trikle down to banning the Holland rifles and Perazzi shotguns. I LOVE my right to protect myself and family and every voice is needed and even if the NRA is just a single voice with a megaphone, I AM THE NRA. GOD BLESS. once again other than my opinions I apologize for any incomplete information that I have given.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:36 PM
Here's the deal.

The NRA is great for making sure that individual entities operate within the framework of the existing federal guidelines. This is a good thing, they should be commended for it, they're very good at it - and they deserve recognition.

However, it's still operating within those federal guidelines.

When it comes time that somebody wants to change those federal guidelines, who's fighting for us? Who's actually getting our side heard, our concerns addressed, and ensuring that the federal guidelines themselves are not an infringement upon our rights? It's certainly not the NRA.

The NRA is good at making sure the states don't over-step the confines of the law. They're not so good at making sure the laws themselves are not overstepping the constitution.

tkaction
November 11, 2008, 09:38 PM
All of this is all fine and dandy - it's great things that they do on these fronts.

When it comes time to fight major legislation - when's the last real landmark AWB they've defeated? What legislation have they gotten repealed on the federal level?

You just got 10 reasons to join and its not enough!
What are you doing then? some secret organization we dont know about. They are a fabulous organization that is visual nationwide and they have convinced me that my graduate degree went to an intelligent man.

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 09:38 PM
Get a membership and vote for the board that will do that. I did.
I tried that.

...and we got men like this on the board anyway:

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

Watch that video carefully, all the way to the end.

3pairs12
November 11, 2008, 09:40 PM
Then who is doing that Sinixstar?

The Wiry Irishman
November 11, 2008, 09:48 PM
While they're not the only RKBA organization out there their impact is well established. Along with other RKBA organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, etc. they are responsible at the local, state and national level in helping to restore and ensure our 2A rights.

hso makes an excellent point. Many of the other posters have made a good point, albeit vitriolic and somewhat narrow, that if you're not in the NRA you're not doing your part for RKBA. I think it's more true that if you're not in some RKBA organization, that's the case. If you decide that you can't justify an NRA membership, I would strongly encourage you to look into the other organizations hso mentioned. My favorite is the SAF, they filed suit against the Chicago handgun ban minutes after Heller was handed down, and that case could lead to incorporation of the second amendment to the states, addressing the concerns gun owners like Sinixstar have that the NRA doesn't do enough to prevent laws from overstepping the constitution. I'm not a fan of the GOA, though many gun owners are, and there's the JPFO, too, who also have a no-compromise approach, not to mention the state-level organizations present in almost everywhere in the nation.

My personal preference was to join the NRA to contribute to its lobbying, its safety, training, and competition programs, and its legistlative action, then join one of the smaller organizations (SAF) with a more no-compromise approach, so I cover both practical and idealistic concerns with my money.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 09:48 PM
Then who is doing that Sinixstar?

With the way things have gone for a long time now... nobody from the pro-2nd side.

3pairs12
November 11, 2008, 09:51 PM
Just wondering? I am the member of 2 orgs and NRA is 1. Has sturm pointed out to me in a discussion much like this one GOA is good 1 to be member of also and may join there.

msb45
November 11, 2008, 09:51 PM
I watched the video, yep he's a Fudd. Dude I voted for McCain and got Obama! It's time to step it up, not back down.

On Veterans Day we need to think about real sacrifices and move forward. When the first wave at Omaha Beach was getting zapped the follow-up waves keep coming. Dealing with clowns like the video pales in comparison to what other did to keep us free.

If you prefer GOA or SAF great. Just fight the fight. Read my sig line, it's not cute, it's what I believe.

The Wiry Irishman
November 11, 2008, 09:51 PM
With the way things have gone for a long time now... nobody from the pro-2nd side.

See my mention of the SAF's Chicago incorporation case in the post above yours.

sturmgewehr
November 11, 2008, 09:54 PM
SAF is a great organization and I do need to send them some money. That will happen this week.

There's more to keeping our rights than supporting pro-gun organizations like the GOA and SAF. We need to organize demonstrations, send email and faxes to our representatives. Right now is the time to really put the pressure on our elected officials.

3pairs12
November 11, 2008, 09:56 PM
Hand written and snail mailed letters also. They take stock in the effort of a hand written letter supossedely it represents the veiw of 17 constiguents.

armedandsafe
November 11, 2008, 09:58 PM
Then go take a look at www.saf.org and www.ccrkba.org.

Pops

f4t9r
November 11, 2008, 10:10 PM
Some people see the glass as 1/2 full and some see it as 1/2 empty.
Then there are some who see nothing good in anything. You just waste your time talking to these people. I have a hard time dealing with people who are always negative.
Well yes they did that , BUT !!!!!!!

Beatnik
November 11, 2008, 10:12 PM
All of this is all fine and dandy - it's great things that they do on these fronts.

Fine and dandy?

Here's what they've done recently....

THEY SETTLED WITH NEW ORLEANS.

They had a black-and-white case complete with video footage of a 70 year old woman getting tackled by the SWAT team, an opportunity to press Katrina as a civil rights violation, an opportunity to point out the REAL reason for gun ownership in this country (exactly instances like post-Katrina), and the opportunity to embarrass the ever-living *&^T% out of a major US city and possibly even have its do-nothing grabber mayor eating out of a dumpster by now.

Instead, they settled for getting a couple firearms back to their original owners.

If that's a victory, then all you us-vs-them types really need to reevaluate where the line is, and what side you're actually on.

There's facts for you... don't let the bandwagoneers get to you, everything you need to make an informed decision is beaten to death every time someone makes a passionate plea begging us to waste our money.

Oh, and NRAphiles, please note that if you pushed membership for educational reasons, I'd be 100% behind you. That is, after all, the original purpose of the group and presumably why they were so asleep at the wheel for the entire 20th century.

Explorer1
November 11, 2008, 10:14 PM
As an NRA instructor, I can attest the NRA does LOTS of great stuff. I also am not a fan of many of their political activities as we are giving away the slowly but surely. Only recently, after Heller, has there been any real offense in protecting our Constitutional rights.

That said, they do a GREAT job of supporting training and ranges. I am also involved in the Friends of the NRA activities and see the benefits of the money they provide to kids and ladies shooting programs as well as range development and improvements.

jhansman
November 11, 2008, 10:14 PM
Ummm, called me once a day for two weeks, even after I asked them to take me off their list. PITA.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 10:43 PM
See my mention of the SAF's Chicago incorporation case in the post above yours.

See my mention of the fact that operating within a failed federal framework - is not a victory by any stretch of the imagination.

Sinixstar
November 11, 2008, 10:45 PM
They had a black-and-white case complete with video footage of a 70 year old woman getting tackled by the SWAT team, an opportunity to press Katrina as a civil rights violation, an opportunity to point out the REAL reason for gun ownership in this country (exactly instances like post-Katrina), and the opportunity to embarrass the ever-living *&^T% out of a major US city and possibly even have its do-nothing grabber mayor eating out of a dumpster by now.

Instead, they settled for getting a couple firearms back to their original owners.


That's because no matter how they like to bill themselves, they are not a civil-rights organization, they are a gun organization first and foremost.
That will always trump basic civil rights. They are admittedly a single-issue group. It's not their place to take on little old ladies getting taken on by the swat team, thier job is to get guns back to owners, and fight gun laws. Period.

This is largely why they're so ineffective on the national stage.
You cannot look at national issues, least of all national issues of the civil rights variety, in a vacuum - and have any expectation of success.

cliffy
November 11, 2008, 10:59 PM
Support NRA to your last dollar's value. I wish I had more dollars, but I'm among the barely able to support my family. I'm a hundred dollar supporter, but when I hear of billions of dollars spent on rediculous causes, I'm a lost cause. Yet, all us lost causes could band together and perhaps create a viable voice. I don't know what else to say . . . cliffy

Logan5
November 11, 2008, 11:06 PM
I recently taught the basic pistol safety course to two more people who are requesting state concealed carry permits. It's easy to disagree with NRA-ILA positions, but on a basic level, we all have more places to shoot, more competitions to shoot in, and more potential friends to shoot against in them thanks to NRA programs. The NRA has had to get involved in, and good at, political things kind of in spite of itself. The main point has always been places to shoot, matches to shoot in, and fellow members to shoot against. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have the impression that most new shooter education happens via NRA programs, and that they do a good job overall.

mljdeckard
November 12, 2008, 12:17 AM
No other organization has much clout at all in D.C., whether you like them or not. If more gun owners were members, they wouldn't HAVE to hustle for funds like prostitutes. They wouldn't HAVE to make the best worst deal they could. They wouldn't negotiate with the other side, because they wouldn't HAVE to.

It's like being in a big fight, attacked from all sides, and 1/10th of the people in the middle are beating the bad guys back, while the other 90% are making excuses about not liking how the defenders fight because they fight dirty and everything isn't going perfectly. Again, you're welcome.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 12:31 AM
It's like being in a big fight, attacked from all sides, and 1/10th of the people in the middle are beating the bad guys back, while the other 90% are making excuses about not liking how the defenders fight because they fight dirty and everything isn't going perfectly. Again, you're welcome.


That's to assume that the rest of us are just sitting on our hands...

mljdeckard
November 12, 2008, 12:49 AM
I never said you're doing nothing. Just not anything really effective.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 12:56 AM
I never said you're doing nothing. Just not anything really effective.


if you say so... :evil:

HeavenlySword
November 12, 2008, 01:55 AM
There might be a reason we haven't joined the NRA. It could have furthered American Gun Ownership drastically by widely publicizing the 70 year old granny getting tackled by a SWAT team.

Publicizing that incident, given enough time, could reinforce castle doctrine all across America, stop police from using no-knock entries, increase the amount of gun-owners in America, and maybe even wake up the people to "Not only does authoritarian governmental power NOT save you from natural disasters, it kicks you in the face when you try to save yourself."

owlhoot
November 12, 2008, 02:52 AM
NRA membership is an individual prerogative. And it is easy enough to recite a multitude of reasons not to belong to the NRA - some of them may even be valid. But when I hear them, I can't help but think, here are the summer soldiers and the sunshine patriots of the war to preserve our gun rights. It is extremely unfair to condemn the NRA for their faults when you do not give credit for their virtues. And it is extremely short sighted to withhold your membership when numbers matter so much when dealing with politicians. NRA has an auxiliary membership program (sans magazine) that costs only a few dollars, yet it gets your name on the roll which is what counts.

Do the right thing. Join the NRA.

Frank Ettin
November 12, 2008, 03:28 AM
[1] They are the most effective RKBA organization. They have the largest membership of any of them, and they do the best that they can with that membership base. Politics is strictly a numbers game. If the NRA had more members, it could be that much more effective. And those folks who complain about the NRA's so called failures need to tell us who did, or could have, actually accomplished more.

[2] The NRA is at the forefront of shooter education and safety training. Their program for certifying instructors in a variety of disciplines helps make competent training more readily available to the public. And their "Refuse to be a Victim" program is excellent.

kfire
November 12, 2008, 03:32 AM
They've probably raised Lapierre's pay again.

Wayne Lapierre, Jr., Executive VP National Rifle Association $810,705.

Seems he bumps it up a hundred grand every couple of years. I remember it was 500k then 600 and next 700. I could give but I'd then have to find 32,427 others so we could pay his salary. Then I am guessing he stays at expensive hotels and flys around alot like the guys from United Way.

Frank Ettin
November 12, 2008, 03:36 AM
And kfire, what do you think the going rate is for an Exec VP of an organization the size and with the budget of the NRA?

TAB
November 12, 2008, 03:49 AM
it depends on the CEO... some make a few hundred k others make 10s of millions...

Reguardless of all that, he makes more then twice as much as the POUS and it takes... wait for it...
23163 NRA members just to pay for him. I think I'll spend my $35/ year on stamps so I can write my congressmen.

garymc
November 12, 2008, 04:36 AM
They didn't prevent the 94 ban. On the other hand, why do you think it wasn't renewed? Didn't Bush say he'd sign it if Congress put it in front of him? I think he had a pretty good idea he wasn't going to see it. If they hadn't opposed anti-gun Representatives and Senators and supported pro-gun ones, would it have passed? You are welcome to pick questions #1 or 3 to answer. Perhaps everything they said in opposition of the renewal of the 94 ban was "fearmongering." Would that be because no assault, excuse me, home defense weapon ban could ever pass the Congress? Nobody has mentioned the firearms insurance they have.

Having said that, I let my membership lapse twice because they couldn't quit inserting the name of a previous employer between my name and address, no matter how hard they tried.

sturmgewehr
November 12, 2008, 06:46 AM
The reason the '94 ban sunset and wasn't reinstated is because the voters, not the NRA, kicked the Congressmen responsible for it out of office. It was one of the biggest upsets in Congressional history. After that, it became a hot potato issue that no Congressman dare touch if he wanted to stay in office.

sturmgewehr
November 12, 2008, 06:55 AM
No other organization has much clout at all in D.C., whether you like them or not.
Since they're currently the largest and admittedly not the strongest 2nd Amendment advocate, you just want to accept that vs. getting people to join more aggressive organizations? Just leave it the same... let the negotiate our rights away... it's the best we can do. Bologna.

If more gun owners were members, they wouldn't HAVE to hustle for funds like prostitutes. They wouldn't HAVE to make the best worst deal they could. They wouldn't negotiate with the other side, because they wouldn't HAVE to.
That's exceptionally naive if you honestly believe that. They are one of the largest, best funded and most influential lobby groups EVER... and yet they are one of the weakest because of their willingness to compromise. They're no where near being bankrupt when they make such compromises either. This excuse simply doesn't float.

They will always "hustle" for funds regardless of their financial position. They are like any other business, always seeking more money. That in and of itself isn't a crime, although it's very annoying to people like me who watch them squander the money on compromises and inaction (like Heller) vs. taking hard-line positions and backing them.

taprackbang
November 12, 2008, 07:01 AM
Has the NRA dealt with GCA 68 and NFA34 yet?
If so, when? And if not, how much longer til' they do?
NFA 34 and GCA68 are the crux of our RKBA problem.

And why the NRA's high esteem of that rogue gov't agency 'that regulates firearms?'

Which RKBA group do you join? Only 2, and I will let you guess
which ones they are.

taprackbang
November 12, 2008, 07:07 AM
Wayne Lapierre, Jr., Executive VP National Rifle Association $810,705.


Wow! Did not know that!
A bought man is a pliable man.
In other words, can a man be paid to turn a blind eye to certain
key issues, like NFA 34 and GCA 68?

Rimmer
November 12, 2008, 07:16 AM
What's going on in Missouri?

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/State/Specific.aspx?st=MO

Try visiting the NRA web site. They and the local volunteers are active all across the USA, in every state.

NRA Link (http://www.nra.org/home.aspx)

Rimmer
November 12, 2008, 08:11 AM
Beatnik: Here's what they've done recently....

THEY SETTLED WITH NEW ORLEANS.


"After Years of Stonewalling, New Orleans Mayor Admits Illegal Gun Confiscation, Settles with NRA"
Text (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6058)

This was a three year legal effort. NEW ORLEANS settled with the NRA. This was about the unconstitutional confiscation of lawfully owned firearms.

Maybe I'm missing something but this legal "precedent" might be a positive for gun owners, today and tomorrow, throughout America. You know, something to reference should confiscation come up again. Maybe SCOTUS would take it into consideration. Just say'in....

Vonderek
November 12, 2008, 08:46 AM
These Pro- and Anti-NRA threads seem to come up on a bi-weekly basis. The OP to me sounded like he was already predisposed against the NRA and is just agitating...stirring the pot and causing dissension amongst other members here. If anyone truthfully is seeking information on the NRA there are about a thousand threads on it here already and it is about 30 seconds worth of time using the search function. You can also go to their website. Or Google "NRA" and it will give you several lifetimes of results to pore through. I for one am tired of defending my organization. You're either for it or against it and no one is going to change their minds.

Phil DeGraves
November 12, 2008, 08:55 AM
Publicizing that incident, given enough time, could reinforce castle doctrine all across America

As I remember, they did publicize that incident. But they don't own ABC, CBS or NBC and those leftwingers are certainly not going to publicize it. So exactly what sort of publicity are you advocating and how?
Sounds like to me, that there are a lot of people here that like to complain and do little else. For those people, nothing anybody says is going to change their mind. "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up."

I can understand sturm's resentment, but the NRA of 40 years ago is not the NRA of today and if you want them to protect what is left of the class 3 issue, you can do that by being a member and letting them know how you feel. They are more likely to represent the interests of members than non-members. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. As far as national impact, Bill Clinton said that the NRA was directly responsible for the election of a Republican Congress during his tenure in office as President (and thank God for that, too, as he could have and would have wreaked havoc on our second amendment rights had he had a Democrat majority in Congress.)

homers
November 12, 2008, 09:07 AM
Enough already, I getting a bit PO at people who either own guns or claim to support the 2nd amendment yet don't do jack to make sure it's not trampled on!

pay $40-$50 a year, get a friend to join and stop freeloading off the rest of us who are carrying you.

I trust the NRA to most do the right thing, I don't trust Obama and the anti-gun politicians at all.

Vermont
November 12, 2008, 09:08 AM
It sounds to me like the OP was just begging for reasons to join the NRA. If his mind was made up against joining the NRA, he wouldn't have asked the question. Instead of giving him reasons to join, many posters insulted him and ignored his question. It's disappointing, to say the least.

Thanks to those who gave respectful and well thought out answers.

ilbob
November 12, 2008, 09:09 AM
The NRA has several different faces.

One is the NRA itself. Its a group of hunters, shooters and gun owners who have banded together to promote their own best interests. The NRA is the national sanctioning body for a number of different shooting sports (dozens anyway). It trains the coaches and range officers, and runs the leagues, matches and tournaments through a large network of volunteers. It also manages a large number of mostly volunteer firearms instructors, and maintains the means to train and certify those instructors. Tens of millions of people take NRA firearm safety classes every year, including the Eddie Eagle classes for children, self defense classes, and muzzle loading rifle classes (just to name a few of the hundreds of classes the NRA offers). The NRA also supports hunter safety efforts, and supports the maintenance of hunting lands. They also have range development people who help people figure out how to build new ranges, both indoor, outdoor, commercial, and club. This is the more practical side of the second amendment. Helping people to learn to shoot and handle firearms safely and having safe organized activities and places to shoot is pretty darn important to the second amendment.

The NRA/ILA is the political action affiliate of the NRA. Thats probably what you think of when you hear the word NRA. It directly lobbies for the RTKBA and hunting protections, mostly at the federal level, but at the state level to some extent. They also have some efforts to train people in these efforts so there are grass roots volunteers operating in every state fighting the good fight.

There is also a legal defense fund affiliate that pays for legal costs associated with various RTKBA issues.

Don't forget the National Firearms Museum affiliated with the NRA.

There is the NRA foundation that raises money for various shooting related activities, including a lot of youth oriented ones. Got to get the next generation involved.

I've probably missed more than a few things, but all of them directly or indirectly contribute to supporting the RTKBA. Sometimes the indirect efforts are more important than the direct ones.

rbernie
November 12, 2008, 09:22 AM
They are more likely to represent the interests of members than non-members. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.Dingdingdingding!

We have a winnah!

BBQLS1
November 12, 2008, 09:35 AM
Fine and dandy?

Here's what they've done recently....

THEY SETTLED WITH NEW ORLEANS.

They had a black-and-white case complete with video footage of a 70 year old woman getting tackled by the SWAT team, an opportunity to press Katrina as a civil rights violation, an opportunity to point out the REAL reason for gun ownership in this country (exactly instances like post-Katrina), and the opportunity to embarrass the ever-living *&^T% out of a major US city and possibly even have its do-nothing grabber mayor eating out of a dumpster by now.

Instead, they settled for getting a couple firearms back to their original owners.

If that's a victory, then all you us-vs-them types really need to reevaluate where the line is, and what side you're actually on.

There's facts for you... don't let the bandwagoneers get to you, everything you need to make an informed decision is beaten to death every time someone makes a passionate plea begging us to waste our money.

Oh, and NRAphiles, please note that if you pushed membership for educational reasons, I'd be 100% behind you. That is, after all, the original purpose of the group and presumably why they were so asleep at the wheel for the entire 20th century.

What should they have done then? They got what they could back to the owners. They prompted the passing of laws to keep it from happening again. I'm not sure there was much more to be done by the NRA.

The Criminal Prosecution doesn't belong to the NRA.

MaterDei
November 12, 2008, 09:43 AM
Your dad is a member. Have you asked him why it's important to him?

The NRA is ME and others like me. Politicians fear the NRA not because of what they do but rather who they are. Me, others, and hopefully you. The sheer number of gun owners who are active enough to simply join the NRA is where our power lies because we are voters and voters are who the politicians fear and respect, not lobbyists. When an NRA lobbyist steps into a politician's office the politician doesn't see one guy, he sees over 4,000,000 voters.

If you want to join a group other than the NRA that's great but do it in addition to joining the NRA. Join us, we need you.

schloe
November 12, 2008, 09:45 AM
I think the time and money you want to devote to gun owners' rights can be much better spent elsewhere. I'm not a member and I never will be.

You have to remember that the NRA is only interested in fighting for our rights just enough to keep itself around.

sturmgewehr
November 12, 2008, 09:46 AM
Has the NRA dealt with GCA 68 and NFA34 yet?
If so, when? And if not, how much longer til' they do?
NFA 34 and GCA68 are the crux of our RKBA problem.

Repeal the GCA's of '34 and 68? THEY HELPED AUTHOR THEM AND SUPPORTED THEM!.

From American Rifleman Magazine circa 1968.

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

MD_Willington
November 12, 2008, 09:53 AM
They are helping a bunch of us Legal Permanent Residents smack WA State... the only State in the union that discriminates against us...

sturmgewehr
November 12, 2008, 10:03 AM
Where was the NRA when Mr. Olofson (a National Guardsman) was charged and ultimately convicted of being in possession of an illegal weapon? His FACTORY AR15 doubled in front of police officers and he was reported to the ATF who then brought charges against him. The NRA should have had their hired gun lawyers all over that, but they didn't. Now the precedent is set, if your legal AR15 (or other semi-auto) doubles up, you can be charged and convicted of a felony.

Talk about being asleep at the wheel...

jimmyraythomason
November 12, 2008, 10:21 AM
What have we/they,the NRA done? Understand this one fact. Until WE elect government officials who believe that the U.S. Constitution is THE law of the land and honor their oath to protect it. Until we quit voting our pocketbook and vote our convictions then we must rely on the NRA to fight against those that WE put into office to protect our 2nd amendment rights(as well as all others). Until some other RKBA group grows larger and has more clout than the NRA, then they/we are all that stands between US and the loss of the 2nd Amendment(quickly followed by all others).

welldoya
November 12, 2008, 10:25 AM
I was a member of the NRA for many years but let it lapse several years ago. The main reason is I got tired of getting stuff in the mail wanting more money. And I really got tired of those fake polls with questions designed to really get us excited and send them more money. I hate being thought a fool.
I don't really have the extra money to send them and figured all the crap they were sending me pretty much negated my initial $35 a year membership fee so why bother ?
Now, I would join again if they would take that $35 and put it towards doing some good and quit spending it on postage and junk mail to ask me for more money.
I would also kind of like to know the salaries of the top 5 employees of the NRA.

jimmyraythomason
November 12, 2008, 10:31 AM
Welldoya. No member dues are used to send out the polls etc. That is done by the NRA-ILA. So unless you contribute directly to the ILA "your" money isn't being used.

Frank Ettin
November 12, 2008, 10:45 AM
...he [Wayne Lapierre] makes more then twice as much as the POUS and it takes...
You can't compare them. In addition to his salary, POTUS gets some pretty neat housing, domestic and personal staff, an office budget, some very neat transportation benefits, personal security and a dandy retirement package.

...Has the NRA dealt with GCA 68 and NFA34 yet? If so, when? And if not, how much longer til' they do? NFA 34 and GCA68 are the crux of our RKBA problem....
And what makes you think that either the GCA 68 or the NFA 34 are vulnerable at this time? If they are vulnerable, why hasn't one of the other RKBA organizations fixed them yet?

I think the time and money you want to devote to gun owners' rights can be much better spent elsewhere....
And what other national RKBA organization has actually accomplished anything?

...I would also kind of like to know the salaries of the top 5 employees of the NRA....
And how much should they be making, based on the going rate for senior executives?

alsaqr
November 12, 2008, 10:54 AM
Has the NRA dealt with GCA 68 and NFA34 yet?
If so, when? And if not, how much longer til' they do?
NFA 34 and GCA68 are the crux of our RKBA problem.


The NRA and all the other pro-gun groups could spend their entire budgets for the next 50 years and the NFA34 and GCA68 would not go away. The best shot we had at it was from 2001-2006: But our fine gun loving friends in congress had no time for our issues. :mad:

olyeller
November 12, 2008, 11:04 AM
I fully expect you nra bashers to lobby your local and national representatives yourself.

Unless you can afford to hire your own lobbyists, do all us a favor and chip in for the effort, huh?

X-Rap
November 12, 2008, 11:09 AM
In 34 and 68 what other org. was even in the fight? In 34 FDR and his hacks had the country by the nuggets and could have outlawed then.
In 68 there were 3 high profile assassinations in that decade and gun sentiment was not exactly loving in the general population.
See a trend? I think it is numbers, someone else posted about compromise and I agree. If the NRA had the membership of all the gun owners in the country there would not be compromise because 10s of millions of men and women would be speaking with one voice.
This next administration will be the master of the Bully Pulpit and he will have the media in his pocket more so than any president before.
If any gun owners think he will not use the full spectrum of the government to get what he wants then take leave of us now but the rest of us need to band together in that one voice and show the strength and commitment to defeat what is comming.
The NRA will never be everything to everybody, for me I miss the old Jack Booted Thug days but that turned off some of the more passive members. I have a feeling that phrase will be revived again although probably under regretable circumstances.
And as for the other groups, what have they really done in comparison to the NRA? I'm betting you will find the reason for their lackluster accomplishments due mainly to lack of numbers. Can we at least agree on the numbers thing.
For the price of a few boxes of ammo we can belong to a good national and state org. at the minimum the more the better.

SuperNaut
November 12, 2008, 11:16 AM
All the guys complaining about the mailers must not realize you can opt out.

Frank Ettin
November 12, 2008, 11:17 AM
X-rap, +1.

RPCVYemen
November 12, 2008, 11:27 AM
All the guys complaining about the mailers must not realize you can opt out.

How do you do that? Can you do it online?

Thanks,

Mike

COMPNOR
November 12, 2008, 11:36 AM
These Pro- and Anti-NRA threads seem to come up on a bi-weekly basis.


That's funny, because while it certainly has turned out that way, that was not what this thread was suppose to be about. I was seeking information about what the NRA has recently done to make them worth supporting.

[/quote]
The OP to me sounded like he was already predisposed against the NRA and is just agitating...stirring the pot and causing dissension amongst other members here.
[/quote]

I certainly apologize if that's what you think, because that was certainly not my intent. I'm not predisposed against the NRA. But I'm certainly not inclined to join them either. I was hoping maybe I could get some good information.



If anyone truthfully is seeking information on the NRA there are about a thousand threads on it here already and it is about 30 seconds worth of time using the search function. You can also go to their website. Or Google "NRA" and it will give you several lifetimes of results to pore through. I for one am tired of defending my organization. You're either for it or against it and no one is going to change their minds.


Oh, I've read several of the threads on THR about the NRA. And its mostly people bickering back and forth about why to join and why not to join. Several of the not to join reasons appear to have been done many years ago. Some may condemn an organization for what happened 40+ years ago. I'll be a bit more forgiving. That's why I was looking for what they've done recently. As for googling, my google-fu has never been any good. I was hoping there might exist out there a resource that says "this is what the NRA has accomplished in the last 5 years" or something. Something that was not directly related to the NRA. If such a thing does not exist, then say so. If it does, point it out.

I'm not asking you to defend your organization. I'm asking to be supplied with FACTS, so that I can draw my own conclusions. Sadly, most people in this thread were not helpful, and stuff like this:


Enough already, I getting a bit PO at people who either own guns or claim to support the 2nd amendment yet don't do jack to make sure it's not trampled on!

pay $40-$50 a year, get a friend to join and stop freeloading off the rest of us who are carrying you.


really turns me off. And its not just one member, its a prevalent attitude. Because saying that says that if you're not a member of the NRA, you aren't doing squat(even if you are).

This really was just a simple question that many people are taking way out of context.

SuperNaut
November 12, 2008, 11:36 AM
How do you do that? Can you do it online?

Adjust your account HERE (https://www.nramemberservices.org/default.asp).

If that doesn't work, call them.

Jeff White
November 12, 2008, 11:43 AM
Closed at OP's request.

Mal H
November 12, 2008, 11:44 AM
Closed as requested by the original poster. It has gone too far afield from the original request for information on why to join the NRA.

If you enjoyed reading about "What has the NRA recently done?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!