Gun Clubs & NRA Membership


PDA






deadeyedog270
February 1, 2010, 07:06 PM
I was looking at gun clubs in my area and noticed that some require you to be a NRA. I love and enjoy guns but do not feel I should have to join a nother orginization and pay there dues on top of dues at the gun club just to do some shooting and to sight in my guns.
Do others have this problem?

I think I have found one that dose not waiting to here from the person that handels membership

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Clubs & NRA Membership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
CoRoMo
February 1, 2010, 07:08 PM
I don't have a problem with it. It's their place, their rules, their decision. They're just trying to help out an organization who protects your rights to love and enjoy those guns of yours. I voted no, because I'm not actually a member of any gun club.

Justin
February 1, 2010, 07:13 PM
The NRA is the largest insurer of shooting ranges in the country, of the ranges they insure, one of the stipulations is that members of the range also belong to the NRA.

As a gun owner, you should be willing to join an organization such as the NRA or the Second Amendment Foundation as without organizations like these, the forces of organized gun bigotry would have prevailed long ago.

testosterone
February 1, 2010, 07:18 PM
Both club I belong to and indeed every club in the area require an NRA membership.

By having 100% of members in the club as NRA members the local clubs get grants and other benefits from the NRA. One of the clubs I am in was given over 15K from the NRA last year alone.

That is money that would have just been assesments otherwise.

Ohio Gun Guy
February 1, 2010, 07:20 PM
I generally dont like Mandatory anything. However a gun organization may feel it owes its existance or its future to an action group who fights for our gun rights. Or the insurance situation above.

If you dont want to join, dont, but you'll have to find a place to shoot.


(I think you should join)

shockwave
February 1, 2010, 07:23 PM
Usually this is about insurance and not politics. Consider it a $25-$35 contribution to the range's insurance fund. Personally, I think if you're a gun owner and enjoy training with and using firearms, that backing the NRA is another kind of insurance as well.

LeontheProfessional
February 1, 2010, 07:24 PM
I am not a member of a gun club but the one near my house requires you to be a member of the NRA and the VSSA (Virginia Shooting Sports Association). Also Well put Justin. I could not have said it any better. It truly makes me sad to see the number of gun owner that refuse to support the NRA of any other Gun Organization.

Cactus Jack Arizona
February 1, 2010, 08:12 PM
I don't have to belong to any organizations because we have an awesome Conservation-run range in my neck of the woods. I have recommended to my family members and friends that they not join the NRA for various reasons.

LeontheProfessional
February 1, 2010, 08:22 PM
I don't have to belong to any organizations because we have an awesome Conservation-run range in my neck of the woods. I have recommended to my family members and friends that they not join the NRA for various reasons.
So sad.

Cactus Jack Arizona
February 1, 2010, 09:07 PM
Sorry, but I do have my reasons why. :uhoh:

deadeyedog270
February 1, 2010, 09:13 PM
I am not agenst the NRA I just have to take ever thing I put money to in my budget with a famly of 4 and 1 income

Sam1911
February 1, 2010, 10:00 PM
Sorry, but I do have my reasons why.Junk mail...it's always the junk mail.

(If it really is the junk mail ... the closest THR member get elected to go puke on your shoes!)

:D

-Sam

deadeyedog270
February 1, 2010, 10:10 PM
Junk mail...it's always the junk mail.

(If it really is the junk mail ... the closest THR member get elected to go puke on your shoes!)

:D

-Sam
I get junk mail any way that is why i got a recycle bin or i give it to the kids think they are getting some thing good they love them fake credit cards

LeontheProfessional
February 1, 2010, 10:31 PM
I just get email updates which is a lot cheaper for the NRA and easier for me to dispose of. I imagine that most new members of the NRA just get the email updates.

jaysouth
February 1, 2010, 11:10 PM
I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun unless you join the NRA. I quit shooting clay targets because of the anti gun(metallic cartridge and deer hunting) attitude of so many squires with five thousand shotguns wearing expensive English outdoors gear and driving Range Rovers. They will not support the NRA because it is too "extreme".

It really frosts because they get a free ride from the people that they consider inbreds and rednecks who ARE the NRA and stay active in the RBKA movmemt.

If shumer and obama get their way, those thousand dollar Beretta autos will be declared assault weapons in a new york minute.

If you can find anybody who does a better job representing gun owners than the NRA, by all means, support them, but it ain't GOA( I still send them money every year.)

If you enjoy shooting/gun ownership, you are a hypocrite for not belonging to the NRA. Were it not for the NRA, Senator Dodd's father, Senator Dodd the elder and Bobby Kennedy would have outlawed gun ownership about 1962. Sorry for the harsh words but that the way it is, you can own a gun because of the NRA and the individuals and clubs that have supported it for over a hundred years.

texas bulldog
February 1, 2010, 11:14 PM
I just get email updates which is a lot cheaper for the NRA and easier for me to dispose of. I imagine that most new members of the NRA just get the email updates.

ditto. i get very little snail mail from the NRA, and that's even without having gone to the link on their website to have it stopped. i get emails and extremely rare actual mail. it doesn't send me into a tirade when it happens.

the other common "reasons":
- they only care about hunting rifles!
- they only care about ARs!
- wayne lapierre makes too much money (nevermind what other CEOs of similar organizations make)!
- they compromise on everything; i don't support any organization that doesn't get their way 100% of the time!
- the sky is falling!

that about sum it up?

LeontheProfessional
February 1, 2010, 11:15 PM
Well put jaysouth. You just gained my respect for that one.

TexasRifleman
February 1, 2010, 11:15 PM
I love and enjoy guns but do not feel I should have to join a nother orginization and pay there dues on top of dues at the gun club just to do some shooting and to sight in my guns.

OK then go start your own gun club. And, when you learn that you can't buy liability insurance at any reasonable price unless you go through the package NRA has put together you will stop complaining.... or you will write a big check to the insurance company. Your pick.

texas bulldog
February 1, 2010, 11:20 PM
to answer the actual question...

i don't currently belong to a gun club. one that i'm interested in joining (http://www.austinrifleclub.org/) does not mention any requirement to join the NRA in their membership FAQs. as implied above, this wouldn't stop me even if it were a requirement.

PCGS65
February 1, 2010, 11:30 PM
The NRA has supported,plea barganed for gun laws and actually helped write anti gun/2A legislation. However that is what they don't want it's members to know. For the sake of this thread I will not elaborate further because it will get locked in a heartbeat. But you are more than welcome to do your own research on the matter. But don't call the NRA if you want an unbiased opinion.

Sorry guys but I cannot support an organization that supports gun control, and no my morals aren't for sale.

MinnMooney
February 1, 2010, 11:33 PM
I can't believe that almost half of the gun clubs don't require this. If our rights get taken away, there'll be no need for a gun club.

texas bulldog
February 1, 2010, 11:36 PM
you do realize the game of politics is played in the real world, not your fantasy world, right? when it becomes apparent that anti-gun legislation has the votes to pass, would you rather they let the other side do all the writing?

for instance...would you have preferred the AWB not have a sunset clause? without that, it would likely be in place forever. legislation rarely gets repealed (to my great dismay!).



edit: i'm sure the gentleman from fort worth will have a better response than mine...

SSN Vet
February 1, 2010, 11:51 PM
require... no
strongly recommend... yes

Understand that the NRA subsidizes insurance for gun clubs. If our club couldn't get insurance through the NRA the price would go up by a factor of 4X over night for half as much coverage. This would probably put the club under.

All he NRA asks of the club is that they have a min. percentage of club members (something like half) be NRA members. Since it's the NRA members dues that are helping to underwrite the insurance.

We've also had NRA tech. range consultants out on several occasions to show the club how to improve the safety of the ranges. And though the club pays for this service, it's a very reasoanble charge.

I think a lot of people don't appreciate that the NRA is pretty much THEE authority on range safety and firearms safety training.

If there is an accident at your club and they get sued. Having NRA consultants as an expert witness to testify that you complied with the highest standards for range safety will go a long ways. One such law suit would put most clubs under. And don't think for a minute that there's not some developer eyeing the property to build condos.

Political lobbying money is totally segregated into their political wing and does NOT come from regular member dues. So there's not really any good reasons for a club member to not join, regardless of their politics.

If the NRA stopped underwriting insurance programs for gun clubs... they'd pretty much all go the way of the Dodo bird.

shockwave
February 2, 2010, 12:05 AM
If shumer and obama get their way

We can put that away. They aren't concerned with guns. Not now. Before Obama, it was illegal to carry a gun into a national park. Now you can. Thank Obama for signing that into law. I'm not political and I don't care much for discussions about such things, but the crazy insanity about "gun-seizing Obama" and whatnot only resulted in runs on ammo and price increases that turned out to be totally unnecessary. Don't fuel the hysteria. Obama gets an "F" from the Brady people, he's OK in my book.

FROGO207
February 2, 2010, 12:48 AM
The local range does not require membership but strongly recommends you join the NRA. Make no mistake about it, now looks OK as far as gun control in the present admin. but it will only take a millisecond and things will change for the worse if they think that they can gain a foothold on more control.:banghead:

Tinpig
February 2, 2010, 12:59 AM
I don't belong to a club, but my range requires that you belong to the NRA, Mass. GOAL, and that you be a registered voter.

Tinpig

Bill2e
February 2, 2010, 01:32 AM
then don't join the gun club.

If you like your guns and shooting why won't you support the largest group out there fighting for your right the keep your guns?

Bill2e
February 2, 2010, 01:39 AM
I am not agenst the NRA I just have to take ever thing I put money to in my budget with a famly of 4 and 1 income

I am not telling you how to run you family budget. Think of it this way. It is $25.00 a year to protect those gun rights for your childern and grand childern. That is 50 cents a week, much less than a cup of coffee, a pack of smokes, a beer, ect. there are also time when you could have joined for free. It is all about priorites. Then NRA cost less to join than a box or two of ammo & you get 12 magazines a year.

Frank Ettin
February 2, 2010, 02:01 AM
Some things to think about --

[1] The NRA is 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] Facts of political life -- politicians don't listen to individual voters and they don't listen to or care much about reason. They care about numbers. One hundred phone calls or letters in support of or against something are better than 10. Ten thousand would be a lot better yet. It doesn't matter what the caller or writer says is the reason to support or oppose the thing. All that matters is the number on each side of the question.

[3] An NRA with 4 million members gets attention. An NRA with 5 million will get more, and an NRA with 10 million members could get some real serious attention. As annoying as the NRA can be, it's in our interests to see it grow and prosper.

[4] Politicians aren't swayed by fine arguments, logical demonstrations or even facts. They are swayed by how many voters (and potential voters and contributors) line up on each side of the question. They are influenced by political and economic power.

[5] Given all that, the NRA does what it reasonably can do in the political climate in which it operates. It can not perform magic. Under the right circumstances, it can, and has, effectively moved affirmative pro-RKBA legislation (like the law protecting gun makers from frivolous law suits and the National Park carry legislation). And sometimes it can block legislation we don't like. But sometimes the political deck is so stacked against our interests, the best we can reasonably expect the NRA to be able to do is help make the best of a bad situation.

[6] It's fine to talk about "no compromise." But remember that he who insists on all or nothing gets nothing. If the votes aren't there they aren't there.

[7] 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.

Cactus Jack Arizona
February 2, 2010, 02:30 AM
PCGS wrote: "The NRA has supported, plea barganed for gun laws and actually helped write anti gun/2A legislation. However that is what they don't want it's members to know. For the sake of this thread I will not elaborate further because it will get locked in a heartbeat. But you are more than welcome to do your own research on the matter. But don't call the NRA if you want an unbiased opinion.

Sorry guys but I cannot support an organization that supports gun control, and no my morals aren't for sale."

PCGS has it right. :eek: This is why I won't join the NRA.

JohnBT
February 2, 2010, 10:31 AM
" I have recommended to my family members and friends that they not join the NRA for various reasons."

I hope they ignored you.

John

berettaprofessor
February 2, 2010, 10:36 AM
Sorry, I've heard and understand both sides to the arguments but I've gotta go with Fiddletown on this one. I'm pretty close to "no compromise" these days, but I live in the real world, not "BerettaProfessorperfectworld".

I did notice, 2075 Rami, that you haven't said what organizations you will support (I believe you in fact said you don't support ANY organizations) nor did you say what things YOU do or contributions YOU make to help support 2A. Are there any? Or do you just bash the NRA and trust in the good will of politicians?

GunsAmerica Fan
February 2, 2010, 10:40 AM
For one thing, the NRA doesn't insure anybody. That is complete mis-information. The NRA has made a deal with an insurance company that pays them to sell gun clubs insurance. This is not to disparage the insurance of course. It is great, and a great convenience dealing with people who know all the issues with insuring a gun club.

I believe that belonging to the club is a privilege that other people work for, take care of and figure out how to pay for. If they want you to be an NRA member to support their right to exist in the future, it is their right. I am creating a "superuser" account on GA soon and I may require NRA membership as well. As much as we all would like to believe that the 2nd Amendment protects us, it doesn't. The sh*t politicians mold the constitution to their knee jerk feel good policies at will, and without the NRA we'd all be disarmed like every other free society has been before the dictator took complete control.

jcwit
February 2, 2010, 10:46 AM
Sorry guys but I cannot support an organization that supports gun control, and no my morals aren't for sale."


Thats your choice. On just what do you come to this conclusion, lets see some facts, other wise its only your opinion. You're putting forth the opinion, you provide the facts, no need for us to waste our time searching for your supposed knowledge.

Justin
February 2, 2010, 12:21 PM
We can put that away. They aren't concerned with guns. Not now. Before Obama, it was illegal to carry a gun into a national park. Now you can. Thank Obama for signing that into law. I'm not political and I don't care much for discussions about such things, but the crazy insanity about "gun-seizing Obama" and whatnot only resulted in runs on ammo and price increases that turned out to be totally unnecessary. Don't fuel the hysteria. Obama gets an "F" from the Brady people, he's OK in my book.

This post is utterly preposterous. Obama campaigned on reinstating the ban on so-called "assault weapons". The platform for the national democratic party has the assault weapon ban as one of its primary goals, and the only thing that's kept the Democrats from instating new gun control regulations is a fear of retribution at the next election.

The issue of carry in national parks was practically settled before Obama came into office, it's fundamentally a non-issue all around that doesn't do a whole lot to advance the cause of firearms freedom the way, say, national reciprocity for concealed carry permits would.

Atroxus
February 2, 2010, 12:28 PM
I didn't vote because I am not a member of a gun club currently. I did recently apply for membership at a gun club that requires NRA membership though, and don't see a problem with it.

searcher451
February 2, 2010, 01:02 PM
My club asks the question and strongly recommends membership, but it does not require it. Most all of the members of the club/range are members of the NRA anyway.

Prion
February 2, 2010, 01:17 PM
QUOTE] I have recommended to my family members and friends that they not join the NRA for various reasons.[/QUOTE]

Then I'll recommend that you sell your guns and take up knitting. We don't need free-loaders riding off our contributions and the NRAs hard work. No NRA, no guns.

[QUOTE]I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun unless you join the NRA[QUOTE]

JW2
February 2, 2010, 01:31 PM
My club requires a membership in "a" gun rights organization. It doesn't necessarily have to be the NRA. I feel that this is an acceptable policy, especially since there is a choice of organizations for those who may not agree with the policies of a particular org.

shockwave
February 2, 2010, 01:32 PM
the only thing that's kept the Democrats from instating new gun control regulations is a fear of retribution at the next election.

Good. Let's keep it that way. I am not misinformed, however. Last year there was a discussion of an "assault weapons" ban, and the quote they played on the radio was Obama himself speaking and he said, "there's no interest in that subject, no political will for it, and we have no plans regarding the subject." I consider it case closed. As for the Democratic Party Platform, the published document makes a single reference to "reinstating" the ban in the 60 pages of text, and I never heard any politician mention it during campaigning so it's safe to say it's a dead issue.

Total electoral suicide and they get it. I'm more worried about anti-gun people in general who come from all walks of life, and so the NRA gets my support.

Smokey Joe
February 2, 2010, 01:34 PM
I know a couple of these "all or nothing" types. Not being willing (able?) to compromise between reality and the ideal, they regularly cut off their own noses to spite their own faces. It's sad, but that's the way they are.

They deny themselves pleasure because they can't attain perfection in a given situation. Or because someone ELSE acted less than perfectly. (Hey, you can't control anyone's actions but your own!) So they stand on their ideals, and miss out on a lot of fun.

Thanks, I'll take the flawed fun, rather than the lonely, angry, wish for perfection or nothing.

GunsAmerica Fan
February 2, 2010, 02:16 PM
Thank you for not closing the thread for being political Justin. What you said was the right answer and it needs to be said over and over.

Extremely Pro Gun
February 2, 2010, 06:23 PM
Honestly, If you like guns you should probably be an NRA member unless you live in another country. Then it would be pointless.

JohnBT
February 2, 2010, 06:23 PM
www.nrahq.org/clubs/aff-form.pdf

Here are the benefits of range affiliation and just one is a big one - $5,000.

"Range Grants - Open to 100% NRA membership clubs and limited to $5,000
per applicant per year by approval of the Range Development Committee"



My father used to pay $15 a year to join the NRA and skip getting the magazine. I think it was $15, maybe it was $12 years ago. He just read my magazines.

John

KAC1911
February 2, 2010, 11:00 PM
Great stuff guys. If you own firearms we need you to support the NRA. They are not perfect but no organization is either. We would have lost more than we have already lost in the past 30 years if it wasn't for them and others fighting for us. Just like a vet thank him/her for the freedom you have. This is a constant battle with the anti-gun movement and with the UN trying to disarm all of us too. You non supporters will have no one to blame but yourselves when we loose our rights that many men have die honorably for.

Dominus
February 3, 2010, 12:15 PM
My local range is a county run place.
They don't require NRA membership but they do have NRA safety courses, hunting courses, permit courses.......... So there are plenty of members around to promote NRA membership. All and all, bring in new people, get they hooked on shooting then bring on the membership pitch.

USMC - Retired
February 3, 2010, 02:33 PM
My local club requires NRA membership of all members. Just makes good sense. It's one of the best ways they can protect thier business/club, both with insurance for mishaps and insurance that the members/customers will always be able to participate.

Not trying to highjack your thread here but if you are not a NRA Member and wish to become one I have a thread for folks to get NRA memberships at a discounted rate in the "Goup Buys, Deals & Contests" section of THR.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=262682

Or you can just use the link in my signature line.

Jaybird78
February 3, 2010, 10:04 PM
Yes, my private club requires it. I recently had the opportunity to get a LIFE membership at the discounted rate. I jumped on it. Also I continue to send money by "rounding up" when I purchase items from MidwayUSA. Which buy the way is too often if you ask my wife.

The NRA is the 800 lb gorilla that I want fighting on my side.

Tinpig
February 4, 2010, 11:05 AM
You can join the NRA for as little as $10:

One Year Associate Membership (No Magazine or Voting) $10

Tinpig

deadeyedog270
February 4, 2010, 04:22 PM
I herd back from the place I was waiting on and they do not require you to be a NRA member but tike you to be, I will probly join the NRA when funds are not so tight witch will not be for a nother month (dang truck repairs) right now I just want to get some place to do some shooting at a indoor range so I do not have to stand in 18 deg F weather

menacingsquirrel
February 20, 2010, 01:13 PM
I'm a member of two clubs; one requires and the other recommends. One club costs $45 per year, the other $300. Guess which one required NRA...

I'm also a member of GOA.

HexHead
February 20, 2010, 01:31 PM
I am not a member of a gun club but the one near my house requires you to be a member of the NRA and the VSSA (Virginia Shooting Sports Association). Also Well put Justin. I could not have said it any better. It truly makes me sad to see the number of gun owner that refuse to support the NRA of any other Gun Organization.
It also helps them make sure the members are committed and not just a bunch of yahoos just looking for a place to shoot.

btg3
February 20, 2010, 05:57 PM
The NRA is far from perfect, but it's not too much of a stretch to say we're better off with it than without. As to anyone's own personal decision whether to support the NRA or not... just reflect on whether you are part of the solution or part of the problem.

rocky branch
February 20, 2010, 06:09 PM
I am fortunate to have a small farm I retired to.

My range stats at my front porch.
I don't like a lot of organizations.
I don't agree with some NRA stuff.

I belong to the NRA.

A gun owner who doesn't is a fool.

mljdeckard
February 20, 2010, 06:10 PM
^^Not that tricky, is it?

Zundfolge
February 20, 2010, 06:35 PM
Most of you folk opposed to joining the NRA for various political reasons are angry at the wrong wing of the organization.

Those of you that have political problems with the NRA (either because you think they're not strong enough 2A supporters or because you're pro gun Democrats and you think the NRA are GOP shills) you're real problem is with the NRA-ILA.

The NRA is a sporting/safety/education organization, its the ILA that does the political stuff.

Even if you don't think the NRA-ILA is pro gun enough or is too pro-Republican, there is still a TON of good done by the main NRA organization, from insuring ranges to organizing much of this country's competitive shooting to firearms education programs to CCW training and more.

The insurance the NRA provides to ranges is significantly cheaper for the range than going the private insurance route.

I guess this comes down to Reagan's 80% rule ... someone that agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend.

Keb
February 20, 2010, 06:42 PM
Obama only signed the National Parks Carry because it was a Republican Rider on a Bill Obama was forced to sign. Don't give him credit.

Range Insurance: I would bet NRA sets the conditions to get a master policy, a lone club would usually be turned down or hit wth a sky high premium. I'd bet the insuror looks to the NRA or range design expertice.

wlewisiii
February 20, 2010, 06:52 PM
Thankfully, no, the club I belong to doesn't. I will not ever give one penny willingly to the NRA.

William

mljdeckard
February 20, 2010, 07:31 PM
No. You will continue to benefit from their efforts for free.

WCW
February 20, 2010, 11:25 PM
We have set up an informal gun club on our place mostly because the ranges in our area require NRA membership. As far as liability insurance goes we had no problem acquiring it at a very reasonable rate without the NRA’s help or interference. The people who use our facility unanimously are disenchanted with the NRA and most of them are former members. I myself was a member as a youth and withdrew when the paranoid radicals took over the origination. At one time they were dedicated to the use of firearms as a sport and now advocate that their members should own weapons that have been solely designed to kill another person. Having been shooting and hunting for over 60 years no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon and those who frequent our facility all agree with me. The only membership we require on our place is the human race

mljdeckard
February 20, 2010, 11:42 PM
^^Keep that up, and you will get Zumboed like the other Fudds.

Sam1911
February 20, 2010, 11:50 PM
advocate that their members should own weapons that have been solely designed to kill another person. Having been shooting and hunting for over 60 years no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon and those who frequent our facility all agree with me.

I know what you mean! I feel exactly the same way about AR-15s, M14s, M1 Garands, M1903s & '03A3s, M1 Carbines, Mausers, Enfields, etc. ...

Can I come shoot some of those killing machines with you?

-Sam

Art Eatman
February 21, 2010, 12:12 AM
"Having been shooting and hunting for over 60 years..."

Well, okay, I won't call you a newbie, but I've been at it for longer than that. :D I started in with my grandfather's .22 in 1940.

"...no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon..."

That's right in there with, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."

I don't recall anybody ever saying that any of the AK/SKS critters are target weapons. They're not, but neither is a Model 94 Winchester.

An AK or SKS shoots a 140-grain bullet at about 2,300 ft/sec. That's plenty good enough to kill a deer in a clean and ethical manner.

You're old enough to recall when any rifle which would shoot to or inside of two MOA was considered quite adequate for deer hunting. The AK/SKS rifles commonly do this.

In other words, you reallly oughta know better than to say silly stuff like you did.

hso
February 21, 2010, 12:18 AM
Hasn't the 30.30 been used to take more whitetail deer than any rifle?

Isn't the ballistics for the AK shooting a 7.62X39 just about the same? Seems so. :scrutiny:

Probably practically the same since my wife took her first deer with an AR shooting 7.62X39.:cool:

Does the fact that SKSs are being used to take deer make them any less suitable for hunting because they were military weapons?:uhoh:

Perhaps if they were "sporterized" like the Enfields and Springfields that were used in WWI and WWII were they'd be more acceptable?:rolleyes:

I, OTOH, don't hunt, but I shoot clays and the occasional 3-gun match. Does the fact that the Germans in WWI considered the use of the Model 97 a war crime and I use the modern equivalent for 3 gun mean that no one should have shotguns? If shotguns are ok somehow because the 3-gun matches are "target shooting" and shotguns are also used in hunting then since I see guys running AKs in the 3-gun matches (and whupping my backside) along with their acceptable "war crime" shotguns and people actually do use AKs like lever action brush guns are used to hunt white tail how is it that the AK isn't anything other than a killing machine?

It's a awfully difficult to logically defend a position that a firearm that functions just like so many others is somehow different in some intrinsic way from every other one that works like it.

jfh
February 21, 2010, 12:27 AM
WRM: I am really, really glad to see another psychologist showing up here--I'm only an edpsy type, but with some additional work at UST and UMnMSP in C Psych. Like you, I also did firearms education. Three years at a boys' camp in NW WI.

I had to be certified, of course; they accepted NRA certification. If I let my certification lapse, could I still instruct at your club? Would your liability insurance cover me? Does it include coverage for the MN carry permit instruction?

At any rate, respond here, or PM / e-mail me to tell me more, if you don't want to respond here. Depending on where your club is, I might want to come up and try some clay pigeon shooting.

Jim H.

stickhauler
February 21, 2010, 12:55 AM
Quote:
the only thing that's kept the Democrats from instating new gun control regulations is a fear of retribution at the next election.
Good. Let's keep it that way. I am not misinformed, however. Last year there was a discussion of an "assault weapons" ban, and the quote they played on the radio was Obama himself speaking and he said, "there's no interest in that subject, no political will for it, and we have no plans regarding the subject." I consider it case closed. As for the Democratic Party Platform, the published document makes a single reference to "reinstating" the ban in the 60 pages of text, and I never heard any politician mention it during campaigning so it's safe to say it's a dead issue.

Sure, it's a dead issue, because Dear Leader Chairman Maobama said so in a radio interview. He also said his administration would be the "most transparent" in our history, and that any legislation would be posted on line for a minimum of 5 days before it was voted on too didn't he? How are those "promises" working out so far?

His own agenda was posted for all to see, prior to the election under the address www.change.org, turned into www.change.gov within minutes of the election. Check out his agenda:

http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/

under urban policy, crime and law enforcement sub heading:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

Now, if you have any knowledge about the Tiahrt Amendment, you know their description of what the amendment does is a out-and-out lie, it restricts people like his buddy the Mayor of Chicago from having access to trace data. It allows access to the data to only law enforcement agencies.

For those who dislike the NRA, what 2nd amendment group do you belong to? None I'd wager, and there lies the problem. Those of us who have spent our hard earned money, and worked to assure your 2nd amendment rights are getting pretty tired of carrying you deadbeats who expect to enjoy your rights, but fail to even lift a finger to help. Those unwilling to defend their rights in my opinion don't deserve them.

Justin
February 21, 2010, 01:00 AM
I hunt only occasionally. My primary interests in firearms is based in the realm of competitive and defensive shooting.

Despite this, I have never failed to speak up in defense of the rights of hunters, be it in the context of gun control or animal rights.

Yet time and again, I encounter people from that side of the aisle who are more than willing to throw the rest of us under the bus.

WCW, I'm glad you aren't an NRA member. Those of us who shoot and compete with the sorts of guns you find so offensive don't need your help.

While you may disparage shooters like me, rest assured, I'll be out defending your right to own hunting rifles, over and under shotguns, and to hunt wild game.

Art Eatman
February 21, 2010, 11:01 AM
Back around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a lot of unrest in the Baltic states. I recall ABC-TV footage of the sequestration of deadly weapons which could be used against the authorities.

These deadly weapons included Olympic target rifles, those .22 rimfire single-shots; and rather nice-looking over/under shotguns.

Government does not distinguish between an AK and a Purdey. Government sees no difference between a hunter and a survivalist militiaman. Senator Feinstein is among the forefront of those publicly stating this sort of view, as she spoke at length against any civilian ownership of firearms. No gun clubs allowed in her world!

What's ironic in this thread is the hostility against the NRA for its alleged extremism. Yet, if you follow the commentaries of the other four major national pro-gun groups, the NRA policies and actions are often regarded as wimpish.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2010, 11:08 AM
Having been shooting and hunting for over 60 years no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon

You are free to believe that of course. It's not an uncommon feeling among gun owners unfortunately.

As long as you do not advocate me not being able to own one we're all good.

The argument that "some guns are designed to kill" however is just silly and that's where you show yourself as full of BS.

If gun A shoots a projectile at 2500fps that will kill a deer and
Gun B shoots a projectile at 2500fps that will kill a human being

If I enjoy shooting holes in paper with Gun A and
I enjoy shooting holes in paper with Gun B

Can I not switch Gun A for Gun B and achieve the same results? Of course I can.

What you mean to say is that some guns have MORE design features for combat than hunting.

But, you know that of course you just chose to be disingenuous in your post for dramatic effect.

Humans choose what guns are used for, not the guns. You are saying that some inanimate object has the innate ability to make humans kill.

You are full of it.

SwampWolf
February 21, 2010, 01:27 PM
I first became a proud member of the National Rifle Association when I was a teenager in the late fifties. I kept my annual membership up until shortly after I was married, with two youngsters to feed and clothe and still in college, I was able to scrape up the $25.00 quarterly payments to pay off what, at the time, seemed like a lot of money ($100.00) for a life membership. As time went on, I began to hear objections from fellow shooters as to why they balked at joining the NRA, some of which include:

(1) The NRA is too "extreme" in their defense of the right to keep and bear arms (rtkba). Or they're not extreme enough.
The NRA does not exist or act in a political vacuum. Whether you like it or not, sometimes compromise is the only way to get a share of what you might want-or, alternatively, by standing inflexibly to your principle (even a good one), means you get nothing. Has the NRA always been right in the various positions they've taken over the years? Of course not. No organization (or individual) is perfect and no organization can ever hope to address the needs of every member. But,imo, one thing is absolutely certain: you would not be able to own a gun in America today, Second Amendment or no, if it wasn't for the NRA.

(2) The NRA sends me too much junk mail.
Toss it in the trashcan like you do every other uninvited piece of mail-but never seem to complain about.

(3) The NRA is always asking me for money.
Well, duh, how do you think the war to preserve the right of gun ownership is being waged? It's no different than any other cause. Revenue is needed to engage and prevail in the battle. The NRA will always need more money. That's just how it is. And, by the way, just because you became a life member or even a member in a higher tier of the organization, does not relieve you from an obligation to continue contributing money from time to time along the way. Sorry, like I said, that's just how it is. :(

If every gun owner were a member of the NRA, this fight to preserve the Second Amendment would be a whole lot easier. And, for those posters who voiced disdain for the NRA, I'll say this: many of us are getting pretty darned tired of carrying the water for some of you. Joining the NRA? That's the very least you should do.

Zundfolge
February 21, 2010, 04:02 PM
Having been shooting and hunting for over 60 years no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon...

Well considering the purpose of the Second Amendment is not sport shooting and hunting but is instead to leave the tools of revolution in the hands of the people I fail to see where you and your buddies are helping even your own cause.

Keep in mind that in US vs. Miller, the reason the ban on Miller's sawed off shotgun was upheld was because it had no "military use" ... using that logic, outlawing hunting and sport shooting along with your hunting and target guns is MORE constitutional than banning my "evil" black rifles.

But don't worry, I and the other "paranoid radicals" in the NRA will be here defending your right to kill helpless forests creatures and poke holes in paper whether you approve or not.

benEzra
February 21, 2010, 04:24 PM
no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon and those who frequent our facility all agree with me.
Mine is a target weapon; I shoot USPSA matches with it. If I ever take up hunting, it will probably become a hunting weapon. It's basically an autoloading .30-30 that uses detachable magazines.

Would you consider a Ruger Mini Thirty to be a legitimate hunting weapon?

http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/images/5806.jpg
http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/models.html




Out of curiosity, I wonder how you feel about the most popular civilian target rifle in the United States?

http://www.odcmp.com/Photos/07/EJrHPClinic/pic00028_std.jpg
Camp Perry style (iron sights only)


http://www.f-classinfo.com/page11/files/page11_1.jpg
F-class benchrest (300-1200 yards, IIRC)


http://www.trijicon.com/photo_gallery/DeboraJ.Cheek1LoRes.jpg
IPSC competition


http://www.whitetailjournal.com/assets/Doug%20Howlett/LindaBuck.jpg
Hunting (that one's a .308 Winchester)


Do you think those should be banned, too? Or excluded from shooting ranges?

Justin
February 21, 2010, 04:41 PM
I find it telling that WCW hasn't seen fit to respond to this thread since his last post.

wlewisiii
February 21, 2010, 04:43 PM
Banned? No. Laughed at for being ugly black rifles? He*l yes.

William

gordy
February 21, 2010, 04:45 PM
How did we go from the nra memberships to deer rifles?
My club does not require you to be a member of the nra. I don't think that should be a issue. I am on the board so I could change that if I wanted to.
How many of the nra members here are members of the aarp?
They are giving MUCH money to anti gun things.
I just started getting all the crap from the aarp and did some research and was dumdfoundid as to how much money they give to things that I don't like.
Yes you can say that the nra gives and takes on the gun issue. You can say that no one wins then. But when I told them (nra) that I was layed off, they just told me to rejoin when I could afford it. That is cool I think.
But anyway if you are a member of the nra and aarp you are supporting both side. and that is not good.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2010, 04:53 PM
...How many of the nra members here are members of the aarp?...I for one am not. All AARP solicitation go immediately into the shredder.

SwampWolf
February 21, 2010, 04:56 PM
Same here. AARP lost its way (such as it was) a long time ago.

benEzra
February 21, 2010, 05:06 PM
Banned? No. Laughed at for being ugly black rifles? He*l yes.
I'm sure the Old Guard in the early 20th century said much the same thing about those newfangled military-style bolt-actions that all the young whippersnappers were shooting. After all, high-powered bolt-actions, and calibers like .30-06 Springfield and 8mm Mauser, were designed to kill human beings at extreme ranges and had no legitimate sporting purpose. Yet somehow, new shooters ignored the criticism and embraced bolt-actions in droves. And it wasn't that long before bolt rifles became the dominant sporting rifle in the United States.

The wheel has come full circle, hasn't it? Now it's the military-style bolt-actions being held up as the One True Way by the old guard, and it's the modern-looking autoloaders with protruding handgrips that have become the dominant sporting rifles in this country. The "black rifles" aren't just the future of the shooting sports, they are the present. Look around.

Keep enjoying your military-style bolt-actions, and your military-style lever-actions. Heck, enjoy military-style falling-blocks and flintlocks, if that floats your boat; I won't laugh at all. I'd appreciate the same common courtesy in return, but if you feel the need to laugh at those who choose differently than you, do so. Just don't be surprised when you don't find many Gen-X and younger shooters following your path.

Larry Ashcraft
February 21, 2010, 05:30 PM
Well, I've got some of all of them. My favorite action of all time is the 1903 Springfield, but I enjoy Winchester lever actions, my M1 Garand, my Mini-14 and my AR15.

And just a reminder to anyone who has failed to notice it: Hunting and target shooting are not mentioned in the second amendment.

spoon
February 21, 2010, 06:33 PM
Guys-- Guys

Some of us are carrying a lot of water for you....
With out the NRA none of us would have a gun ....

REMEMBER :cool: I AM THE NRA :)

This should be like a fresh drink of cool water in July to be a member of the NRA.

Let us not forget what has happened to England, Canada, oh crap, all of them just about.
You want to be like them? If you do, vote for Obama and his "gang" again..
I do not want to walk with you....I fear this path to much to give up now...:cuss:

mljdeckard
February 21, 2010, 06:46 PM
This thread reminds me why I am in the process of switching all of my hunting to evil black rifles. When someone tells me; "You can'tg use an AR-pattern rifle for hunting.", I want to be able to tell them, "I use NOTHING BUT AR-pattern rifles for hunting."

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2010, 07:11 PM
I guess I am just dense.

I have always believed that it was the person pulling the trigger, not the firearm, that decided what the intended use was.

I believed it so much I even quoted Teddey Roosevelt, who believed the same, in my signature.

How could I have known that those inanimate objects in my gun safe were just man killing machines waiting to trick me.

And all of those deer that I've eaten that fell to an M14? I guess that was just a trick as well?

I am now afraid to take an AR out of the closet for fear it will make me go on a rampage.......since my own free will apparently has nothing to do with it.

smoking357
February 21, 2010, 08:06 PM
As a gun owner, you should be willing to join an organization such as the NRA or the Second Amendment Foundation as without organizations like these, the forces of organized gun bigotry would have prevailed long ago.

So the NRA opposed the '34 NFA, '68 GCA, Lautenberg, etc.? Did the NRA intervene on behalf of Paul Ogden in his suit against the City of Indianapolis over firearm return policy? Did the NRA attempt to keep Alan Gura from filing Heller? Did the NRA get permission to argue in McDonald in opposition to Alan Gura's wishes? Did the NRA fight to keep misdemeanants from having their gun rights stolen?

The fact is, forced associations are noxious to freedom, and the NRA has done a lot to hurt our cause. You're entitled to your politics, but others are entitled to disagree.

Larry Ashcraft
February 21, 2010, 08:12 PM
Did the NRA intervene on behalf of Paul Ogden in his suit against the City of Indianapolis over firearm return policy? Did the NRA attempt to keep Alan Gura from filing Heller? Did the NRA get permission to argue in McDonald in opposition to Alan Gura's wishes? Did the NRA fight to keep misdemeanants from having their gun rights stolen?
The NRA didn't cook my breakfast this morning either, but I still support them.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2010, 08:19 PM
...the NRA has done a lot to hurt our cause....And what organizations have actually done more to help our cause? And exactly how?

...Did the NRA attempt to keep Alan Gura from filing Heller?...For just one example, the NRA has a very good reason for it's position at the time. Rehnquist and O'Connor were on the Court and not well disposed to our arguments. An adverse ruling would have been disastrous. When the composition of the Court changed in a manner congenial to our interests, the NRA became a major supporter of the litigation.

smoking357
February 21, 2010, 08:39 PM
you do realize the game of politics is played in the real world, not your fantasy world, right? when it becomes apparent that anti-gun legislation has the votes to pass, would you rather they let the other side do all the writing?

for instance...would you have preferred the AWB not have a sunset clause? without that, it would likely be in place forever. legislation rarely gets repealed (to my great dismay!).


How about: "Members! The Constitution is dead! Take to the streets with your guns. Muster at your local NRA meeting point with your arms, and we will occupy all government buildings until the Constitution is restored. Long live America! Long live the Constitution!"

Collaborating with the enemy is never acceptable. Cf. Mayor Bates in Red Dawn.


"Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a vice."

Thomas Paine

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current."

Thomas Jefferson

mljdeckard
February 21, 2010, 08:42 PM
There's a difference between "collaborating with the enemy" and using the due process of government to correct rights violations. If the enemy is the government, are you saying we shouldn't ever talk to our anti-gun legislators or file lawsuits at all? After all, to talk to them is to acknowledge their legitimacy.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2010, 08:47 PM
you do realize the game of politics is played in the real world, not your fantasy world, right? ....
How about: "Members! The Constitution is dead! Take to the streets with your guns. Muster at your local NRA meeting point with your arms, and we will occupy all government buildings until the Constitution is restored. Long live America! Long live the Constitution!"

Collaborating with the enemy is never acceptable. Cf. Mayor Bates in Red Dawn....It looks like your answer to texas bulldog's question is "no."

smoking357
February 21, 2010, 08:51 PM
For just one example, the NRA has a very good reason for it's position at the time. Rehnquist and O'Connor were on the Court and not well disposed to our arguments. An adverse ruling would have been disastrous. When the composition of the Court changed in a manner congenial to our interests, the NRA became a major supporter of the litigation.

Ahem, I was actually at GRPC, post Heller. I heard Gura and Levy speak.

The NRA is now being asked to butt out of McDonald, and it could do gun owners a huge favor by doing so.

By the way, if our rights are subject to the opinions of five politicians, they really aren't worth much. We must remind ourselves that to secure our rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. We should further consider that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it. If we have no rights but only those privileges that five government employees wish to confer on us, we ought to consider establishing a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as shall seem most likely to effect our Safety and Happiness.

smoking357
February 21, 2010, 08:54 PM
There's a difference between "collaborating with the enemy" and using the due process of government to correct rights violations. If the enemy is the government, are you saying we shouldn't ever talk to our anti-gun legislators or file lawsuits at all? After all, to talk to them is to acknowledge their legitimacy.

Oh, talk plenty - at gunpoint. That is the idea of our form of government. Do what you will to protect my rights and to discharge your duties under the Constitution. Tread not upon these rights, or we will find new servants.

P.S. I am a member of the NRA and will always be so, though I do admit huge faults in the organization. Among the more activist gun owners, the NRA is called Negotiate Rights Away, and membership in the NRA is seen as a naive gesture, a slight improvement over membership in the Brady Campaign.

berettaprofessor
February 21, 2010, 08:55 PM
How about: "Members! The Constitution is dead! Take to the streets with your guns. Muster at your local NRA meeting point with your arms, and we will occupy all government buildings until the Constitution is restored.

Wow. Doing this at the current time will only get anyone who follows it in jail or dead. Someone on this board (Catherine?) has a signature that "it's too late to fix things and too early to start shooting"....and they're correct. As another thread recently concluded...you'll know when it's time when you run out into the streets with your rifle and you're not the only one there.

I'm an NRA Life Member who doesn't agree with everything they do. I particularly didn't like that I got a call at 6:00 this evening (Sunday) asking me to listen to a recording of LaPierre spreading fear about the impending UN Gun Ban. I don't like such obvious ploys aimed to increase the NRA/ILA budget without necessarily having a real target. Listen up Wayne, this wolf-shouting hurts your cause with your own group.

But I'm a Life Member because the voting power of the NRA is unrivaled. Yes, Gura's a genius and the GOA has a place and voice as well. But it's the NRA who has the political clout to say enough is enough. They each have their place. Gura and the SAF carry the fight through the courts, the NRA takes the fight to the political realm and occasionally gets one wrong, but usually gets it right.

Justin
February 21, 2010, 08:58 PM
So the NRA opposed the '34 NFA, '68 GCA, Lautenberg, etc.?

Despite claims to the contrary, the NRA and it's membership did oppose at least portions of the NFA. If not for their actions, the NFA would undoubtedly require a $200 transfer tax and federal registration for the use of handguns. The same goes for the Gun Control Act of 1968. Without the actions of the NRA, the GCA would have included federal ownership registration requirements. No doubt opposing the GCA was a difficult task since public sentiment in favor of gun control was at an all time high due to the assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy.

Did the NRA intervene on behalf of Paul Ogden in his suit against the City of Indianapolis over firearm return policy?

I don't know anything about this case. There are plenty of times when the NRA doesn't take up a legal battle because the case isn't one that could be won, and would therefore set bad legal precedent.

Did the NRA attempt to keep Alan Gura from filing Heller? Did the NRA get permission to argue in McDonald in opposition to Alan Gura's wishes?

The NRA's actions with regard to both cases that Gura has been involved with have been, frankly, ridiculous. These actions by the NRA are some of the things they've done with which I most disagree. But rather than get bent out of shape and drop my NRA membership, I opted to support the 2nd Amendment Foundation along with the NRA.


Did the NRA fight to keep misdemeanants from having their gun rights stolen?

If you're again referring to Lautenberg, it is my understanding that the NRA did oppose the law proposed by Lautenberg. Of course, the fact that the NRA lost out on that one particular legal battle, while having opposed anti-gun measures that were continually proposed by Frank Lautenberg seems to gain them no credit.

If you've actually taken the time to read my posts about the NRA, you know there are plenty of things they've done with which I disagree. It still doesn't change the fact that they're considered the most powerful lobbying organization in all of Washington DC.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2010, 09:00 PM
...If we have no rights but only those privileges that five government employees wish to confer on us, we ought to consider establishing a new government,...I guess that's your plan then. Let us know how it works out. Have a nice day.

Justin
February 21, 2010, 09:01 PM
For those of you who believe the NRA just negotiates our rights away, would you please care to point to even a single piece of legislation that Gun Owner's of America has proposed that was subsequently passed into law?

mljdeckard
February 21, 2010, 09:03 PM
Smoking 357, you are the first THR member I have EVER out on my ignore list.

Zundfolge
February 21, 2010, 09:17 PM
So the NRA opposed the '34 NFA, '68 GCA, Lautenberg, etc.?

The NRA-ILA was formed AFTER the '68 GCA (in RESPONSE TO the GCA).

Prior to the formation of the NRA-ILA the NRA was NOT a political/lobbying organization, they were purely a sportsman's/education organization.

Its like complaining that the SCCA (http://www.scca.com/) and NHRA (http://www.nhra.com/) don't fight in DC against CAFE standards, seatbelt laws or the GM bailout. :rolleyes:

smoking357
February 21, 2010, 09:18 PM
Smoking 357, you are the first THR member I have EVER out on my ignore list.

If that's what quoting Jefferson gets me, wait 'til I get around to Henry.

Justin
February 21, 2010, 09:27 PM
Yeah, quoting Jefferson, that's it. http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=29698&d=1128794076

It's not that you're saying things that people disagree with, so much as the blatantly antagonistic way in which you make your arguments.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
So the NRA opposed the '34 NFA, '68 GCA, Lautenberg, etc.

The NRA actually re-wrote portions of NFA. And you better be glad they did.

The original draft included all handguns. This means you would have to pay the $200 transfer tax on every handgun you bought, and have to get your CLEO to sign off for every handgun purchase.

NRA, which was not a political organization at all at the time by the way, was asked to help with the legislation and they re-wrote portions of it to remove handguns.

Machineguns were doomed regardless thanks to the gang violence of the day. NFA was going to pass in one form or another, that's an absolute fact.

So really, if you are going to use examples you should at least get your facts straight, and tell the whole story.

Putting that BS spin on the story to make it fit your argument is dishonest, and even if you have a valid point it disappears when you have to resort to dishonesty to make the point.

taliv
February 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
talking to anti gun senators...

this months' NRA mag has a little blurb in it about the pro-gun legislation the NRA helped get into the appropriations bills. it says we should all thank Murtha for helping get the pro-gun legislation passed. He's definitely not someone we (or our men in uniform) thank very often.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2010, 09:32 PM
If that's what quoting Jefferson gets me, wait 'til I get around to Henry. Quoting Jefferson, Patrick Henry or anyone else is not a reasoned response.

smoking357
February 21, 2010, 09:45 PM
I guess that's your plan then. Let us know how it works out. Have a nice day.

WIN! I just got a gun owner to crack on the Declaration of Independence. Does anyone even recognize it, anymore?

Man, CSNKY got more polite treatment for advocating the complete ban on private firearms transfers.

Pretty much as I suspected.

Since we're all just hobbyists, I'm going back to the reloading forum.

Frank Ettin
February 21, 2010, 09:56 PM
...I just got a gun owner to crack on the Declaration of Independence. Does anyone even recognize it, anymore?...I am familiar with the Declaration of Independence. But you're not John Hancock. Do you have anything worthwhile to offer this discussion?

JohnBT
February 22, 2010, 09:12 AM
"but others are entitled to disagree."

And we have facts, not just sound bites like you are using.

John

hso
February 22, 2010, 09:15 AM
I love and enjoy guns but do not feel I should have to join a nother orginization and pay there dues on top of dues at the gun club just to do some shooting and to sight in my guns.
Do others have this problem?


This has gotten prety off track of where I think the OP intended to go. All he seems to be asking about is whether having unfunded mandates from a range/club is common.

In my area there are several firing ranges. One very undeveloped outdoor range only requires you pay your key fee every time you use the range or join and pay an annual key fee while a very well developed range with outstanding facilities provides a no-sponsorship option for NRA memebrs. A commercial indoor range has no other membership requirements and a commercial outdoor clays range has no other membership requirements. A county range has no requirements either. So, out of 5 ranges locally, none of them require you to be a member of any other organization.

SwampWolf
February 22, 2010, 02:27 PM
Since we're all just hobbyists, I'm going back to the reloading forum.

Adios...:rolleyes: When your argument, such as it is, is devoid of logical reason, is patently specious and lacks a practical application, I really can't blame you for running for cover. You may consider yourself "just a hobbyist" but don't pretend to speak for me: I am committed defender of our Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights, including,of course, the Second Amendment-the bedrock of all that we hold dear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For over one hundred years,The National Rifle Association, for all its foibles, real, imagined or otherwise, has been the most effective deterrent against those hell-bent on taking away our God-given right to keep and bear arms. I am, have been and always will be a proud member of this revered institution. I make no apologies for my membership and will countenance no besmirching of its stellar reputation.

mcdonl
February 22, 2010, 02:35 PM
I have not joined yet, $20 is still a lot to me but whenever I order from Midway I always donate.

lol - Why cant we chose to do that on our IRS forms like we can choose to donate to the clean election fund?

deadeyedog270
February 22, 2010, 02:47 PM
This has gotten prety off track of where I think the OP intended to go. All he seems to be asking about is whether having unfunded mandates from a range/club is common.



Thanks hso I was about to say the same thing not what I intended for this thred to become a debate on the NRA I was just looking for info on what other gun clubs do,
so please every one cool down. I have no problem if the Moderator has to close and lock the thred.
Thanks

btg3
February 22, 2010, 07:24 PM
There seemed to be 2 questions...
1. The poll asks whether NRA membership is required at your gun club.
2. The original post ask if anyone has this problem.

If there's any objection to discussion of the second question, then I'm confused as to why it was posed along with the poll.

Cactus Jack Arizona
February 23, 2010, 04:51 PM
Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA. :eek:

SwampWolf
February 23, 2010, 07:35 PM
Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

Without the NRA, the Second Amendment's continued validity is at great risk. Seriously.

wlewisiii
February 23, 2010, 08:06 PM
The NRA loves the status quo as it lets them keep playing off gun owners fears and keeps them coughing up the money. Seriously.

William

jcwit
February 23, 2010, 08:14 PM
The NRA loves the status quo as it lets them keep playing off gun owners fears and keeps them coughing up the money. Seriously.

William

If you think you have a better idea or program, IMPLEMENT IT.

Put your ideas where your mouth is. Seriously.

BHPshooter
February 24, 2010, 05:46 PM
Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

Rights do not come from the Bill of Rights, they come from God/Nature. The BOR merely affirms a few of them, in the hope that the legislature would steer clear of them.

Of course, they haven't steered clear of them in the least, and that's where the NRA-ILA comes in.

As someone previously pointed out, the NRA (not to be confused with the NRA-ILA) is involved in its original purpose: to promote and preserve marksmanship skills in the American populace. They focus on:
Widespread, quality training for people who are new to shooting, or new to a particular shooting discipline
Safety training for school-age children (Eddie Eagle)
Training range safety officers
Helping people/communities with range design
Developing skilled, attentive instructors
Allowing ranges an affordable avenue to insurance (as mentioned earlier)

I could go on, but I think I've made my point. I have no reservations whatsoever about supporting their education and training measures.

The NRA-ILA is who you really seem to have a beef with. I have some gripes of my own on the matter -- but the NRA is still the 800lb Gorilla, and Congress knows that they swing a big stick. Many legislative disasters, like the '34 NFA and '68 GCA, could have been much worse. I wish they hadn't been passed at all, but it could have been even worse.

I am certainly not saying that I agree with them 100% of the time, but I probably do 80% of the time... Certainly more than the 0% that I agree with VPC and the Brady Campaign.

Also, when you join the NRA, your money goes to the educational branch, not the political branch. You don't have to give the ILA a cent if you don't want to.

Wes

cskny
February 24, 2010, 06:36 PM
I knew my ears were ringing for a reason!

Hey Smoking357, I didn't know you thought:

"... but others are entitled to disagree"

I don't remember you saying that in that "other thread" ;)

Just kidding. You seem to have made enough people mad in here without my help, so I'll shut up now.

tuckerdog1
February 25, 2010, 12:02 PM
Not required, but strongly encouraged.

Tuckerdog1

TexasRifleman
February 25, 2010, 12:05 PM
he NRA loves the status quo as it lets them keep playing off gun owners fears and keeps them coughing up the money. Seriously.


For the longest time I agreed with that, especially after what happened with Hughes.

I decided I would join and kick and scream and yell from the inside about it rather than sit on the outside where no one would listen.

I no longer believe that, but it took exposure to the goings on inside the group to see it. The reality is that the NRA isn't nearly as powerful as most people think.

There are times I wish they were. Lots of money goes into NRA, lots of money goes out, no major legislative changes. That's true. But that doesn't mean that NRA doesn't want it to change, just that change is a hell of a lot harder than it seems. With all the anti groups out there, maybe holding the status quo and small progress here and there is all we can hope for at the moment, ever consider that possibility?

The post Katrina stuff is a good example. After the New Orleans mess NRA spent a small fortune going to several states and fighting for passage of laws stopping gun confiscation during periods of emergencies. Very small progress, tiny niche law changes. VERY expensive.

cskny
February 25, 2010, 12:08 PM
I shoot at a large county subsidized facility. No NRA membership required nor is it recommended.

However, training programs required for handgun permitting DO recommend NRA membership prior to permitting for legal protection.

Sam1911
February 25, 2010, 12:10 PM
Very small progress, tiny niche law changes. VERY expensive. And worth every single penny.

-Sam

TexasRifleman
February 25, 2010, 12:10 PM
I shoot at a large county subsidized facility. No NRA membership required nor is it recommended.

Let me make sure I understand this, not trying to start anything.

You shoot at a government subsidized range and that government entity recommends against being an NRA member?

Even if you were not an NRA fan that should bother you a great deal.

cskny
February 25, 2010, 12:43 PM
Let me make sure I understand this, not trying to start anything.

You shoot at a government subsidized range and that government entity recommends against being an NRA member?

Even if you were not an NRA fan that should bother you a great deal.



Sorry, I miss-typed or you miss-understood or both.

I didn't mean they "don't recommend it" as in they tell you that you shouldn't be in the NRA. I meant that it never comes up, period. They take no pro or anti position and make no recommendation. It sounded as if some facilities "recommend" that you be a member, although they don't expressly insist.

Again, I apologize, once you asked I could easily see how that was miss-understood.

TexasRifleman
February 25, 2010, 12:44 PM
No that's cool, I just wanted to ask. Thanks for clearing it up.

cskny
February 25, 2010, 12:52 PM
No problem. It was a good question, I phrased it pretty stupidly.

Orion8472
February 26, 2010, 11:05 AM
Did the NRA have anything to do with:

Losing the battle that created the 1994 "assault weapons ban"?

Keeping another one from being drawn up after its sunset?

Creating the evidence needed for the Supreme Court to overturn the gun laws in Washington D.C.?

What has been a major victory that the NRA has had a complete hand in. . . . one that wouldn't have been won had it not been for the NRA being there.

jfh
February 26, 2010, 11:33 AM
"Did the NRA have anything to do with Loosing (sic) the battle that created the 1994 "assault weapons ban"?

I would unquivocably say no. It really is important to understand the cultural and political climate in the late Eighties and early Nineties. There was a succesfull anti-firearms 'craze' that began in 1988 (Josh Sugarman's promotion of confusion about military-style semiauto firearms as machine guns), swept forward by Sarah Jane's successful promotion of her husband as a gun violence victim, then pushed onto the national stage by sick Willy Clinton. The result was, of course, a plethora of antigun initiatives in Congress embraced by all the Democrats and numerous RINOs--with many other Republicans looking nervously over their shoulder. Personally, I have never seen such antigun hysteria as existed at that time, not even in the Sixties following the national political assassinations.

Even with this craze running full tilt, the House had a hard time finding its majority. During this time, the NRA actively lobbied--and until a lone New York State Representative caved in (a 'Republican' IIRC), a successful passage was not assured. Once that vote was taken, the House and Senate versions had to be reconciled.

It was during the reconciliation of the Senate and House versions of the bill that the NRA was most effective. It worked behind the scenes to make sure that 1) the Democrats' attempts to build sweeping categories of illegal semiauto firearms was weakened, 2) that certain firearms had to be called out by name, and that 3) certain generic, utility models (the Mini-14) were NOT included on such named lists. Most importantly, their lobbying efforts assured the inclusion of a sunset.

Overall, the real-water carrying in this effort was done by Bob Dole for the good guys. The AWB that resulted provided something 'all' politicians could vote on--the Democrats could crow about (remember Metzenbaum's proclamation of 'the Camel's nose is under the tent!' as he revealed a new set of bills to, among other things, effectively outlaw reloading) as a success to their constituencies, while the RHINOs and other more conservative Republicans had pieces they could vote for and brag about with their constituencies.

There is no doubt in my mind that, without the NRA efforts, the 1994 AWB would not have had a sunset. Looking back now, do you really think it could have been actively repealed anytime since 2004?

Somebody else may have the cites needed to back up my contentions--I lost many of mine in a crash, and I simply don't have the patience anymore to trot them out for every NRA-naysayer who works to spread dissention and break ranks of firearms owners.

Jim H.

Orion8472
February 26, 2010, 12:18 PM
I fixed my spelling error. :o

I ask the questions I did, because I don't know the answers to them. Thanks.

SwampWolf
February 26, 2010, 03:28 PM
A very well thought-out response jfh. Thanks for the input.

texas bulldog
February 26, 2010, 03:45 PM
smoking357:

i'm a little late in reading your response to my question from a month ago.

suffice it to say that if you are openly supporting armed insurrection against our government, i'll take a pass at this time. if you haven't noticed, we are winning right now. public opinion has swung well in our favor, and the past few years have seen significant progress. i believe more is on the horizon. and despite your suggestions, the NRA has actually played a positive role in achieving that progress. sorry, i just don't think we're at the point of storming the capital steps.

for the record (and as pointed out countless times on this forum), the composition of the court was quite different when the NRA opposed filing Heller. like them, i believe we would have lost with the justices who were replaced. considering the precedent that would have been set, that would have been a crushing defeat.

as for the current proceedings, the court actually asked to hear from the NRA. would you expect them to decline in that case?


it's pretty clear that you fall on the "fantasy world" side of the question i posed. feel free to read my other posts to see where i stand on any particular gun rights issue. i think you'll find that we agree. however, my personal wants and desires don't become the law of the land just because it's what i want.

texas bulldog
February 26, 2010, 04:02 PM
Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

wrong. your right to self-defense and the effective means thereof come from God (or nature, if you prefer). this right existed long before the COTUS and will exist for eternity. the 2A merely affirmed that pre-existing right. the NRA-ILA, in turn, does what it can to defend that right against those who would see us all in chains, begging for scraps from the government's table.

if that image is comforting to you, by all means, don't support the NRA...

texas bulldog
February 26, 2010, 04:28 PM
There are times I wish they were. Lots of money goes into NRA, lots of money goes out, no major legislative changes. That's true. But that doesn't mean that NRA doesn't want it to change, just that change is a hell of a lot harder than it seems. With all the anti groups out there, maybe holding the status quo and small progress here and there is all we can hope for at the moment, ever consider that possibility?

this is a good point that too few gun owners seem to understand. there are two sides here. heck, george soros pours money into anti-gun groups by the tanker load, as does bloomberg. there are instances where simply "maintaining the status quo" is a victory, and an expensive one at that.

i will wholeheartedly agree that gun laws in this nation are not anywhere near where they ought to be. but attacking the NRA because you don't like how things stand is cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Orion8472
February 26, 2010, 04:35 PM
Seriously, I thought it was the 2nd Amendment that gives me the right to keep and bear arms, not the NRA.

wrong. your right to self-defense and the effective means thereof come from God (or nature, if you prefer). this right existed long before the COTUS and will exist for eternity. the 2A merely affirmed that pre-existing right. the NRA-ILA, in turn, does what it can to defend that right against those who would see us all in chains, begging for scraps from the government's table.

if that image is comforting to you, by all means, don't support the NRA...

The law doesn't recognize "God", or "nature". The 2nd Amendment may have affirmed the notion of self protection, . . . but it also sets up a judicial weight upon it.

texas bulldog
February 26, 2010, 04:49 PM
The law doesn't recognize "God", or "nature". The 2nd Amendment may have affirmed the notion of self protection, . . . but it also sets up a judicial weight upon it.

perhaps, but the founding fathers certainly did. you know...something about all men being endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. it was these rights that the BOR was designed to affirm (not create).

are your rights granted to you by the government to be revoked at its discretion, or are you born with them?

i, for one, certainly believe the latter.

Orion8472
February 26, 2010, 05:12 PM
I believe that each person has the right to self preservation, whether or not a "creator" is thrown into the mix. Though the founding fathers utilized the concept, . . . and I'm glad they did, . . . they set up what must be amended, and it takes some fancy doing to amend. I'm glad for their foresight in keeping the government at bay by setting up the judicial "check and balance". And I think that is the reason for them setting up the amendment, because no one should be told that they can't defend themselves by a governing body.

I have nothing really against the NRA. I hope they continue to do all they can for those freedoms to keep from being infringed upon.

SwampWolf
February 27, 2010, 09:27 PM
I believe that each person has the right to self preservation, whether or not a "creator" is thrown into the mix. Though the founding fathers utilized the concept, . . . and I'm glad they did, . . . they set up what must be amended, and it takes some fancy doing to amend. I'm glad for their foresight in keeping the government at bay by setting up the judicial "check and balance".

It's not a matter of the "creator" being "thrown into the mix", it's an acknowledgement the Founders recognized and espoused; that only God allots rights and that the government grants nothing. Government is established to insure that our God-given rights are protected. Government doesn't give us any rights; those rights are intrinsic and were endowed by our Creator. The checks and balances you speak of involve an interaction between three branches of government; the legislature, the executive and the judicial. The judicial branch of government is also constrained by the other two branches (or should be). None can act unilaterally without "checks and balances" from the others-at least, that was the plan.

stickhauler
February 27, 2010, 11:51 PM
In truth, the founders didn't even believe they needed to enumerate the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights, it was considered a given that law abiding citizens held these rights courtesy of their creator, not a government.

The Bill Of Rights was only added as an enticement to persuade the states to ratify the Constitution, largely to entice Virginia to ratify it. It was the intent of the founders to elect Washington our first President, had Virginia not voted to ratify the Constitution, they wouldn't have been possible. Remember, back then, just as in the Civil War era, men considered their allegiance to their home state a priority, not any central governments wants or needs.

Had Lincoln had his way, Robert E. Lee would have commanded his army in the War of Northern Aggression. He opted to follow the lead of his home state instead, and entered the war with his fellow Virginians.

Orion8472
February 28, 2010, 12:23 AM
Again, I appreciate the devout stance, but any "creator" or "god" is irrelevant to established law. FWIW, people recognized the need for self preservation long before religions placed it upon ancient media. If anything, they are based in nature. Self preservation is just natural. . . . . . . . . . I don't mean to be offensive to a religious belief, but without a 2nd amendment laying down what it did, any belief that "a firearm is a god given right" would hold no water. Establishing a 2nd amendment, which is the PEOPLE'S "check and balance" upon the government, needs nothing more than what is stated.

The problem with just having it as "a god given right". . . . they could easily state, "you CAN protect yourself, but not with a firearm". The statement "it is a god given right for me to protect myself" it too broad and the conclusion could be anything.

stickhauler
February 28, 2010, 01:10 AM
I simply stated it like that because in the reading I've done of the founders own words on the subject at the time.

Many try to claim the amendment applies only to an militia, or only to defending one's self, and that sport shooting, or hunting isn't mentioned so it wasn't seen as a right by the founders. But that ignores the fact that many people fed their families from what game they could harvest at the time, or that frontiersmen often had contests to see who was the best shot among them, with livestock or the "pot" collected from the collected shooters as the prize for the person who won the contest.

Actually, the "well regulated" phrase was meant more that arms should be of a similar nature for a militia, so that if you ran out of ammo, your fellow soldiers could loan you a few rounds.

Orion8472
February 28, 2010, 10:00 AM
Yep! And that's why I try to stick to the NATO-ish rounds.

I was thinking about the wording of the 2nd Amendment, . . . sometimes I wonder if they should have included the words "Because of" at the beginning. The reason why I say this is because the founding fathers were meaning for the people to defend against enemies, both foreign and domestic, . . . which included a tyranical goveernment coming into power AND making use of the "state militias", or volunteer armed forces, to do their bidding. So, it would be "Because of a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State [to protect from foreign enemies], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed [to also help protect from foreign enemies, as well as domestic tyranny]."

Anyway, that's all I have to say on this topic, as it is taking a different direction from the OP.

I am unaware of my location's gun clubs requiring an NRA membership, but I have not attempted to join one, so I can't answer the OP with any specifics. Good topic.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Clubs & NRA Membership" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!