Why so many anti-NRA?


PDA






Lone_Sheep_Dog
September 23, 2010, 11:55 PM
I can't believe how many shooters are against the NRA. I do get annoyed by the mail they send me asking for money, but they have to because so many shooters refuse to participate in donating money to protect their rights. If all gun owners joined the NRA then they wouldn't have to ask for money so much. I suspect that we would have so many more gun freedoms if we all joined the NRA. Think of how powerful we would be in Washington. No politician could stand in our way.

One guy at a booth at a gun show in Atlanta got so offended when I told him I was an NRA member. He was trying to tell me how bad the NRA is. I couldn't believe this. I walked away thinking what a shame it is that gun owners can work against our gun rights like this.

Without the NRA, only police, military, and criminals would have guns! Why is this so hard to understand?

I understand there are smaller gun rights groups, but they don't have nearly as much influence in Washington.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why so many anti-NRA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Zundfolge
September 23, 2010, 11:56 PM
The anti NRA attitude in parts of the shooting community is proof that the [anti-RKBA types] is real darn good at Divide and Conquer.

HOWARD J
September 24, 2010, 12:02 AM
It's election time boys---at least send them a dollar.
You may not like them but they have done a lot for us.................

russ69
September 24, 2010, 12:21 AM
Some people just don't like successful operations, they prefer anarchy and social misfits. To some people as soon as a company is successful, they will start the bashing. Mcdonald's serves crap, Walmart is evil, Exxon is the devil, etc. It's the thing liberals do. Success=corruption.
In the meantime America is voting with their dollars. The NRA is without a doubt the most effective pro gun organisation world wide.

Thanx, Russ

jnyork
September 24, 2010, 12:23 AM
The question has always puzzled me too. For instance, on these gun boards, if the title of the thread has "NRA" in it , regardless of the subject, it wont be but 3 or 4 replies before the bashers will come crawling out of the woodwork. :banghead:

Tommygunn
September 24, 2010, 12:24 AM
The NRA is a good organization, and the biggest most accomplished pro 2A organization out there. I am a member and I do send them $$.
My beef with them is they have been known to compromise too often.
They also seem to lack a will to try to repeal most of the 20,000 gun control laws we've accumulated. Some will say that they've been so busy trying to beat back the gun control laws that have been proposed over the last two decades you can't expect them to do everything ... and you do have to admit that is a good point.
They also didn't really play well in the Heller case, which frosted some pro rights people.
They aren't perfect. I am also a member of other pro 2A organizations, and they have their warts as well. There is no "perfect" pro-rights organization.
I suppose if one were to start one's own such organization, then it would be "perfect."
Until it built up enough members and they wanted their two cents to mean something ......

jimmyraythomason
September 24, 2010, 12:26 AM
if the title of the thread has "NRA" in it , regardless of the subject, it wont be but 3 or 4 replies before the bashers will come crawling out of the woodwork.
Yeah,it's baffling and disgusting at the same time. I keep saying I'm going to stop even looking at such threads but I guess the "train wreck" syndrome takes over and I do anyway(and ALWAYS regret it).

GunsBeerFreedom
September 24, 2010, 12:26 AM
The 'problem' with the NRA is, IMO, their eagerness to compromise. A necessity when dealing in politics, but it's not surprising some don't like it.

X-Rap
September 24, 2010, 12:27 AM
It seems there are two camps, one that says they are to soft and the other that says they are to hard. I guess on this matter I like it right in the middle.
There are many good 2A orgs but none have the clout of the NRA.

jimmyraythomason
September 24, 2010, 12:28 AM
The 'problem' with the NRA is, IMO, their eagerness to compromise. THAT is how things get done! I spent 8 years as an elected official in city government and know that you either compromise or you learn to take accept defeat graciously.

duns
September 24, 2010, 12:33 AM
I don't know much at all about the NRA (I'm an immigrant and a very recent gun owner and not very well up on current affairs) but some people tell me that the NRA are not just about the Second Amendment but also supporters of right wing policies in general. If that is true (and I am not saying it is), then I could easily see how that would alienate about half the country. Just a thought.

Tommygunn
September 24, 2010, 12:41 AM
THAT is how things get done! I spent 8 years as an elected official in city government and know that you either compromise or you learn to take accept defeat graciously.

That can be true, but it's a sword that cuts both ways. "Compromise" can also be a tactic used to erode rights. There is such a thing as a "slippery slope."
If you doubt that, look at the income tax. We passed it in 1913 claiming it was only a few %% tax on the richest. And now look at how the tax code controls our lives.
People plan their investments around it.
And it's induced a class-warfare mentality amongst the political class. Obama thinks it's "fair" to redistribute Joe the Plumber's earnings .... demos and repubs fight it out for votes, one side claiming it's fair to make the "rich" pay so they can bring home bacon to their middle/lowerclass constituents. In a consumer driven economy the 2% upper income earners are vilified and demonized for their "greed" if they -- or anyone -- suggests they should keep more of their earnings, yet these people constitute 49% of the consumer economy in our country. So we cut off the nose to spite the face; many people are quite willing to see the rich hurt while they work 60 hours a week in retail sales, without considering that without the consumer, they wouldn't have a job at all.
When I think of what the politicians have done to our freedoms and our "free enterprise" system I get sickened .... but I am also severely chagrinned at the cr@p that so many voters fall for ... lapping it up and wallowing in schadenfreude not realizing that it is not doing anything at all to HELP them ... and may even eventually decimate them.
Sometimes I think humanity is insane.
But ... I also am sure that there have also been many victories due to compromise as well.

MikePGS
September 24, 2010, 12:44 AM
If the NRA had their way, D.C. v Heller never would have happened. Sure it's understandable that you sometimes need to compromise but it shouldn't be to the degree that you don't even try to have the opportunity to compromise.

jimmyraythomason
September 24, 2010, 12:51 AM
There is such a thing as a "slippery slope."
True but "no compromise" gets you nothing more times than not. Obama only signed the bill allowing for carry in national parks as a compromise to get his credit card bill passed. The NRA could refuse to compromise IF it had enough members to back it up. By not joining because they compromise is a "catch 22". They wouldn't HAVE to compromise if they had enough members and they don't have enough members because they compromise too much.

General Geoff
September 24, 2010, 01:04 AM
I don't like the NRA because they compromise too much. They do not represent my political views. They are not working to repeal the 1968 GCA or the 1934 NFA.

The NRA is not particularly pro-gun; they are very pro-status quo.


By not joining because they compromise is a "catch 22".

From what I understand, the NRA was quite powerful back in 1968. Where were they when congress passed the GCA? Yeah. They had their chance. If the NRA changes their tune and starts trying to repeal the GCA or NFA, I'll gladly plunk down cash for membership.

Sky
September 24, 2010, 01:07 AM
I joined and support them.

JohnKSa
September 24, 2010, 01:33 AM
Not a complete list:
People don't understand how politics work.
People have unrealistic expectations.
People don't bother to research to see if what they're told is true.
People don't know what the NRA has done and is doing for them.
People join the NRA but don't really care about RKBA and get irritated that the NRA bothers them with mailings and phone calls that make them feel guilty.
The NRA does have some problems because it's not perfect and some can't live with those flaws.
Other less effective RKBA organizations have found that a good way to boost membership is to run down the NRA because many are ready to believe anything negative told them about the NRA because of the other items on this list.

hso
September 24, 2010, 01:40 AM
The NRA are GOP stooges.

Were

Considering the number of non-GOP candidates getting A ratings from them, they may have learned an important lesson about returning to the more inclusive organization they used to be. Leave all other politics out, focus on protecting and restoring gunowner rights by every means possible (especially the ones that work).

rfurtkamp
September 24, 2010, 01:47 AM
From what I understand, the NRA was quite powerful back in 1968. Where were they when congress passed the GCA?

Supporting GCA '68 as a protectionist measure for its industry partners.

The problem with NRA is it's still mired in the poor decisions of its past and fails to support things like NFA owners.

I applaud the things they do along the lines of youth education and range support but some of the 'compromises' politically have been toxic to say the least.

The Lone Haranguer
September 24, 2010, 01:54 AM
I don't know much at all about the NRA (I'm an immigrant and a very recent gun owner and not very well up on current affairs) but some people tell me that the NRA are not just about the Second Amendment but also supporters of right wing policies in general.
The NRA is only focused on gun rights. How do you explain their ratings and endorsements for people like John Dingell, Harry Reid, et al? These people are far from "right wing."

Another thing not yet mentioned that puts people off is deceptive marketing, e.g., sending letters ostensibly demanding payment for the free DVD they sent you, laying a guilt trip on you if you don't renew your membership.

RevNate
September 24, 2010, 01:59 AM
Because the NRA isn't about the 2nd Amendment. It is about selective applications of the 2nd Amendment.

Just one example- "keep" means possess and "bear" means carry. The right to possess and carry arms is not about concealed handgun permits. If it is a right, it by right should be free- and I haven't seen the NRA support Constitutional Carry yet.

This is just one example.

But with that said, see my sig line. I am proud to be a member because they do some good. The NRA is not my enemy. It's not my best friend, either- but definitely not my enemy.

MikePGS
September 24, 2010, 02:03 AM
Another thing not yet mentioned that puts people off is deceptive marketing, e.g., sending letters ostensibly demanding payment for the free DVD they sent you, laying a guilt trip on you if you don't renew your membership.
They sent me some DVD even though I wasn't a member (Guns and Ammo subscription someone bought for me). I sent it back, but for those of you unaware of laws regarding this sort of thing, if someone sends you something in the mail unsolicited you can keep it without having to pay for it. Of course your state laws could vary from this so you might want to do a little investigation for your own sake :D

PT1911
September 24, 2010, 02:06 AM
I will likely end up joining soon, but still disagree with their lack of a backbone... If you were in a justified shooting next week, but because of the laws in your area, you were brought under charges, even as a lifetime supporter of the NRA and even with the law in question being blatantly unconstitutional, do you think the NRA would be in your corner or would it be just another bite they measured as too big for them to take?

The NRA, has no real political power, I understand that, but what they do have is a voice, a voice of millions of members and deep pockets. My issue is they are too careful in what they choose.....

If all you ever do is give a man bites off your plate, eventually you will have no food left.

sig220mw
September 24, 2010, 02:36 AM
The NRA supports any candidate from any party that supports gun rights. If the 2 major parties both have pro gun candidates they usually go with the one who's record is better between the two or the one that they perceive to have more clout.

The GCA of 1968 was swept in because of 3 big name people getting killed in a relatively short time. John and Robert Kennedy and Martin L. King.

We as gun owners COULD have much more clout if we had about 20 million members in the NRA. Too many people just sit on the sideline and do nothing and then whine when our rights are compromised.

No organization is perfect but we can make it better if we give it our support.

It's a small price to pay when it comes to protecting the bill of rights.

garyhan
September 24, 2010, 03:21 AM
The idea that the NRA supports, or ever supported GCA '68, is totally erroneous. The NRA fought like hell against its passage, and had been fighting similar measures for years by 1968. The passage of GCA '68 demoralized the NRA for years. I saw it all happen. As for the NFA, the fact is such a tiny number of us delved into NFA items until very recently, that few even gave it a thought. This is changing. NRA magazines have recently featured articles on suppressors and other NFA items. There is absolutely no sense in trying to repeal these laws until a firm foundation is laid by decisions such as Heller and McDonald. A piece at a time is the only way we will win these battles.

gary
NRA endowment
NFA owner

MrLars
September 24, 2010, 03:43 AM
Didn't the NRA sponsor all those anti-Obama ads and cause a national panic that Obama was going to take away all our guns and ammo? Didn't that fear mongering, among other things, lead to a drastic increase in the price of ammunition and guns?

Hasn't Obama turned out to be, if not pro-gun, then at least neutral or indifferent on the subject? Didn't he sign a bill allowing loaded firearms in national parks?
I can't open a magazine now without some leaflet from the NRA telling how, without donating money to them, the Man is going to come take all my guns away.


Preying on people's fears, distorting the facts, and acting like you're the only organization standing between utopia and Armageddon is, among other reasons, why I think a large swath of people are pro-gun and anti-NRA.

NukemJim
September 24, 2010, 06:08 AM
I understand there are smaller gun rights groups, but they don't have nearly as much influence in Washington.

Isn't the Supreme Court in Washington?

Maybe you have heard about a couple of cases started by a small gun rights group, they were called HELLER and MCDONALD?

But I guess those cases were not influential :banghead:

NukemJim

jimmyraythomason
September 24, 2010, 08:30 AM
Hasn't Obama turned out to be, if not pro-gun, then at least neutral or indifferent on the subject? NO HE CERTAINLY HAS NOT!(Not shouting just emphasizing) He,his party and his supporters are demostratively anti-gun. It hasn't been the right time to push that particular agenda. Didn't he sign a bill allowing loaded firearms in national parks?
ONLY as a compromize to get what he REALLY wanted..his credit card bill.

merlinfire
September 24, 2010, 09:02 AM
The NRA isn't perfect, but its the most influential show in town.

As to this:


Quote:
Hasn't Obama turned out to be, if not pro-gun, then at least neutral or indifferent on the subject?
NO HE CERTAINLY HAS NOT!(Not shouting just emphasizing) He,his party and his supporters are demostratively anti-gun. It hasn't been the right time to push that particular agenda.
Quote:
Didn't he sign a bill allowing loaded firearms in national parks?
ONLY as a compromize to get what he REALLY wanted..his credit card bill.

I know, you folks just can't stand not being vindicated by some sort of anti-gun measure or bill by Obama to justify all the fear-buying of 2009. Well, I for one hope you never are. It's like people saying "He just being a capitalist to cover up that he's really a socialist!" Give it a rest, people.

Sam1911
September 24, 2010, 09:05 AM
Folks, remember that we don't do politics here -- hard as that line might be to toe in RKBA discussions -- and we most certainly do not do general conservative -vs. - liberal issues like foreign policy, war & peace, social class, wealth/poverty, etc.

---

Like everything else, "NRA-Bashing" is a nuanced thing.

Some folks REALLY don't like the NRA and have many reasons (both factual and mistaken) for why they'd rather hurt it than help. Hard to really change those folks' minds, but you can probably be more or less certain that they're at least voting in the right direction -- which is the bigger picture "win" anyway.

Other folks are simply "centrists/moderates" (which usually means new to RKBA issues in general) and have questions and concerns about some of the things they see and hear from the Association. Time and again we'll jump down someone's throat so far we come out the other end -- when a much more gentle and patient response would have been vastly more effective. Not every person who questions what is said and what (appears) to be done in the name of gun owners is a troll or a basher. Kicking them all in the teeth at the earliest chance probably doesn't further our goals.

Some folks who are dedicated, life-long members are labeled as "bashers" simply because they speak up when they see things they'd like the Association to do differently. That's pretty sad and divisive. We're an Association of members and if that Association is to speak for us, it needs to know what we want said. Working out and putting the final polish our thoughts and opinions, especially on a public forum such as this, is an important part of that process.

Rembrandt
September 24, 2010, 09:08 AM
For some the glass is always half empty.....never half full.

As the old electrician use to say, some people are wired negative....some are wired positive.

alsaqr
September 24, 2010, 09:13 AM
Yep, we have another bash the NRA thread. Lots of gunowners have bought into the insane rhetoric spewed out by the bunch at red states and other sites. Then we have all of those little gun rights wannabee organizations who stay in business by bashing the NRA.

i could care less that the pro-gun candidate is a fire breathing John Brown type preacher or lesbian Wiccan physician who gives abortions.

If it there were no NRA you could not legally own an air rifle anywhere in the USA.

alsaqr
September 24, 2010, 09:31 AM
The problem with NRA is it's still mired in the poor decisions of its past and fails to support things like NFA owners.

Supporting the repeal of the Hughes amendment and the NFA are lose, lose situations for the NRA. Neither is ever going to be repealed.

Sam1911
September 24, 2010, 09:34 AM
Supporting the repeal of the Hughes amendment and the NFA are lose, lose situations for the NRA. Neither is ever going to be repealed.

Yup, and hanguns will never be legal in D.C. ... ;) Broaden your mind, and help broaden the Association's mind as well!

(There is a time for everything. Some things can't be done until much social change has happened. But we're living in some amazing times right now. I simply won't say "never" any more.)

swinokur
September 24, 2010, 09:38 AM
If you don't want to receive mail from the NRA, you can go to their Web site and opt out. I did that and have not received a single piece of mail since.

I don't agree with everything the NRA does or has done, but I hate to think of what the status of RKBA would be right now without them. I'm thinking much worse

I sent a large donation to the Second Amendment Foundation when they filed suit in my home state of MD to get my rights to carry restored.

Do what your conscience tells you to do. I did,

bnhcomputing
September 24, 2010, 09:46 AM
I can't believe how many shooters are against the NRA. I do get annoyed by the mail they send me asking for money, but they have to because so many shooters refuse to participate in donating money to protect their rights. If all gun owners joined the NRA then they wouldn't have to ask for money so much. I suspect that we would have so many more gun freedoms if we all joined the NRA. Think of how powerful we would be in Washington. No politician could stand in our way.

One guy at a booth at a gun show in Atlanta got so offended when I told him I was an NRA member. He was trying to tell me how bad the NRA is. I couldn't believe this. I walked away thinking what a shame it is that gun owners can work against our gun rights like this.

Without the NRA, only police, military, and criminals would have guns! Why is this so hard to understand?

I understand there are smaller gun rights groups, but they don't have nearly as much influence in Washington.

Here is what I can tell you from my perspective: Read article here about Madison, WI (http://www.wisconsincarry.org). Listen to the 911 call. It is CLEAR the police were WAY OUT OF LINE! This has been almost a week since this happened. WHERE IS THE NRA? Silent.

Yes the NRA has done things in the past, but the NRA actually considered ENDORSING REID from Nevada!

The NRA is loosing gun owners because the are becoming more like the corrupt politicians and less like gun owners every day. When I see the NRA say, "We WILL stand against the police in Madison, WI and fight for your rights," then I will be a life member overnight. Until then my allegiance is with Wisconsin Carry, Inc. (http://www.wisconsincarry.org) as they ARE actually fighting for FREEDOM!

Any questions?

jimmyraythomason
September 24, 2010, 09:55 AM
WHERE IS THE NRA? Silent.
Have they been invited? Has the court asked for their opinion? The NRA does not jump into every fray no matter how rightous. They simply do not have the resourses or even the right to do so.The NRA is loosing gun owners because the are becoming more like the corrupt politicians and less like gun owners every day The membership rolls are actually growing not shrinking.

cavman
September 24, 2010, 10:09 AM
I recall in 1990, thinking I had heard that the NRA membership at that time was ~4 million.

I recall sometime this year hearing that the NRA membership is ~4 million.


Are either of these numbers correct for the year in question? For a county of ~270 million now in 2010, and with gun ownership "at an all time high", I would like to see the NRA membership approach at least 5%, which would be ~13 million.

That would probably not happen. Using my made up best guessed numbers that maybe 20% tops actually are gun owners, that would only be 54 million. So if 10% of them were NRA members that would put it at around 5 million.

The Sarge
September 24, 2010, 10:16 AM
Like any family....there will be disagreements.

cisco11
September 24, 2010, 10:26 AM
Democrat voting gun owners often do not belong to the NRA. Often democrat voting gun owners will have excuses for not joining or droping membership in the NRA.

If not for the NRA we would not have guns now.
Lifetime CONTRIBUTING NRA member!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cisco

kmcintosh78
September 24, 2010, 10:27 AM
I will also agree that they compromise too much. If I am sending money to an organization, I want them to be on the same page as my thoughts and views.

jimmyraythomason
September 24, 2010, 10:28 AM
Excuses are so easy to find when one goes looking for them.

NavyLCDR
September 24, 2010, 10:34 AM
If this majority of pro-gun people don't like the NRA, but we settle for it because it's all we got (except for the Second Amendment Foundation), then maybe this majority of pro-gun people might just be right?

The NRA does very little to fight for the individual's right to carry a handgun for self defense in public. That's my gripe with them. But, hey, it's right there in their name, right? National Rifle Association. So, at least they aren't lying about it. So, in reality, my complaints about the NRA are unfounded. They do look out for the rights of rifle owners. They are such a huge success because they are willing to compromise to obtain that "success."

TexasRifleman
September 24, 2010, 10:55 AM
The NRA does very little to fight for the individual's right to carry a handgun for self defense in public.

You might take note that the name of the organization is NATIONAL Rifle Association.

Concealed or open carry is generally a STATE issue.

While the NRA does get involved in state issues it's simply not resource effective to try to get into all 50 states and do a lot of the work. That's why it's important to have local and state organizations and the NRA supports many of those groups.

Your argument that it's because the word "rifle" is in the name is silly in my opinion. The Texas State RIFLE Association spends most of it's time going after concealed carry issues here in Texas. But it's a STATE organization focused on STATE level issues.

Rifle issues tend to be at the Federal level because of all the bans and attempted bans on certain types of rifles based solely on appearance. So far we have not seen that kind of thing around handguns.

People might be able to think of all kinds of reasons to dislike the NRA but using the fact that it has "rifle" in the title, or the junk mail excuse, seems to me to be trying too hard to find a reason.

rbernie
September 24, 2010, 10:57 AM
I will also agree that they compromise too much. If I am sending money to an organization, I want them to be on the same page as my thoughts and views.Cant fix that from the outside nearly as easily as from the inside.

X-Rap
September 24, 2010, 11:11 AM
Just on this page they are called fear mongers and compromisers. No matter what the wording of their title is they are the premier national 2A organization and over the years they have given and taken punches from presidents, rouge agencies, members of congress, TV personalities and media. I'm happy to send what I can and when they are on a Sunday news show or debating some anti I don't see compromise.

evan price
September 24, 2010, 11:14 AM
I am a member, let me say that first.

Despite the problems they are still the big dog on campus.

I'd like to speak to the "compromise being necessary" crowd.

The antis come at it with "No guns"
We gun owners come at it with "No gun regulations"

Compromise means we lose rights.

The 2A is pretty simple. RKBA shall not be infringed. No compromise.

The antis keep chipping away and asking for more, more, more.

When we compromise we lose taht much more of our rights.

There must be a line in the sand which is absolute, and that line needs to be somewhere further back than where it is now. We're pushing it back with Heller and McDonald and 48 states with some sort of CCW law but we need to keep pushing.

We need to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act. We need to repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act. We need to repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act. We need to get a leash and collar on the BATFE. We need to remove the myriad restrictions so many local governments throw up. We need to make CCW and Open Carry totally legal without special licensing or permits in 50 states. We need to stop schemes like the Illinois FOID and the Michigan "Safety inspection" registration and the California "Approved by CA DOJ" nonsense.

The NRA seems to me to want to primarily focus on the struggle for protecting the 2A, rather than the 2A itself. Without the conflict there is no need for the NRA and donations.

MikeNice
September 24, 2010, 11:30 AM
One of the reasons for me is because they are willing to support people that really do not care about RKBA and laud them as champions of our fight.



In California, the NRA awarded Assemblyman Rod Wright its “Defender of Freedom” Award.... This is the same Rod Wright who authored a bill to increase licensing fees from $3 to up to $100. Never mind the absurdity of bilking peaceable citizens of hundreds of dollars for making a constitutionally protected purchase.... The NRA’s “Defender of Freedom” in 2001 voted against gun owners 62 percent of the time, according to Gun Owners of California.


Plus their ability for compromise is astounding. To make sure that cities in NC could not sue gun makers they helped hand the anti-gun lobby many of their pet legislations.


According to the GRNC, the NRA sold North Carolinians out because “despite giving Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight (D-Dare, GRNC *) an ‘A’ and an endorsement, he has held their gun litigation bills hostage in the Senate. So they made a deal to include all of the gun show bill which GRNC has defeated for the last 3 years – a bill drafted by lobbyists for NC's Handgun Control affiliate, North Carolinians ‘Against Gun Violence.’ Translated, that means the NRA just got into bed with NCGV!”


The list of things that the NRA has supported that hurts gun owners is lengthy. This includes supporting making "gun crimes" federal crimes and taking them out of the hands of states. It also includes making any crime where a gun is present more more severely punished. Effectively assault with a gun in your pocket would be the same as actually assaulting the person with the gun.

I have heard and more than a little bi about what the NRA does wrong. However, I haven't heard anybody offering a better solution. Most of the other organizations I have run across are so libertarian about gun control that it borders on ridiculous.

Sometimes it seems that the NRA is the only safe middle ground. They are certainly a better choice than organizations that want to do away with restrictions against violent criminals and juveniles.

I get upset with the NRA a lot of the time. At least three or four (maybe even five or six) times a year I contemplate leaving the NRA. However, nobody has shown a better alternative.

merlinfire
September 24, 2010, 11:47 AM
bnhcomputing, I followed your link to read about what happened in Wisconsin, and that really stinks. I think there's a lot of cops out there that need to realize that they are not the Law Incarnate, but rather the enforcers of the law. Knowing and respecting the law should be their job....but apparently not all do that job well.

alsaqr
September 24, 2010, 01:11 PM
We need to repeal the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owners Protection Act. We need to repeal the 1968 Gun Control Act. We need to repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act.

Yep, those wonderful gun loving hacks who ran the white house and congress for years could have done some of that stuff. However, they got wrapped around the axle with feel good stuff and did nothing for our Second Amendment rights.

Rshooter
September 24, 2010, 01:21 PM
Funny how people forget the AWB so soon. Without the NRA the AWB would have never been repealed. Read Obama's website, if he is not anti gun I'll eat my hat.

Disparage the NRA and rationalize it any way you want but the day the NRA goes away our gun rights go with it.

NavyLCDR
September 24, 2010, 01:25 PM
Most of the other organizations I have run across are so libertarian about gun control that it borders on ridiculous.

James Madison once wrote, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I don't particularly think there is much wrong with being libertarian.

esquare
September 24, 2010, 01:25 PM
The NRA does many things well, and some things not so well. It's training and awareness branches are excellent. It's legislative arm has had ups and downs, but more ups recently. I think it hurts itself badly when coming out in support of 'compromise' legislation. However, I think they have learned that their base is not into that so much any more and wants more results.

It's an organization like any other - the base changes and then it takes a while for the message to get to the NRA that the base wants something else. All in all, I'd rather have them than not. However, I think we need to support multiple state and national organizations - that's the only way to keep the lobbying efforts in check and really focused on what the base wants.

esquare
September 24, 2010, 01:29 PM
Most of the other organizations I have run across are so libertarian about gun control that it borders on ridiculous.

Well, it's hard to be truly for pro-gun rights and not be 'libertarian' about it. They share pretty much the same underlying philosophy of freedom. Your observation of the NRA is exactly why many people think the NRA has been hypocritical in the past.

Patriotme
September 24, 2010, 01:38 PM
Why are so many anti NRA?
It's an easy answer. Many gun owners want a free ride. They want their gun rights but they are too cheap to donate a few dollars to help the cause or they won't give up the $35 for a membership. It's sad but a lot of people are parasites.
There are other gun owners that are Liberals or Democrats. For some reason they believe that they must support the Left and cannot waiver on any issue. As the Democratic Party has been historically anti gun (even though there are many pro gun Dems) these gun owners refuse to support an organization that largely promotes Conservatives. These gun owners cannot think for themselves and must toe the party line. I work with many gun owners that fall into this catagory. They don't realize that they can disagree with certain parts of their party's platform.
The NRA is constantly demonized in the media. Most of the media is Leftwing so the coverage is far from fair. If the only news you get on an organization is bad then you are very unlikely to join or even have a positive opinion of that group. I'll give you an example. The MSM constantly talks about the NRA supporting terrorists being able to buy guns even if they're on a terrorist watch list. On the surface this sounds horrible and crazy. When you dig a little deeper you learn that there are over 1 million people on this list, no laws have been broken by these people, it's almost impossible to get off of it and Americans should not lose rights because of a secret government list. I can go on and on about the media's poor reporting.
I get two NRA magazines and make a point of passing them on. Most gun owners never hear about the new laws being constantly proposed. They have no idea what "Ammunition Accountability" is or what ballistic fingerprinting is. Even if they are too cheap to sign up for the NRA they still vote and a little knowledge helps the cause. I also leave these magazines everywhere from gyms to doctor's offices.

General Geoff
September 24, 2010, 01:38 PM
Most of the other organizations I have run across are so libertarian about gun control that it borders on ridiculous.

Too much liberty is way better than too little.

It's an easy answer. Many gun owners want a free ride. They want their gun rights but they are too cheap to donate a few dollars to help the cause or they won't give up the $35 for a membership. It's sad but a lot of people are parasites.

I resent this insinuation that non-NRA members are freeloaders. I call and write my representatives, both state and federal, on a regular basis to make my wishes known. I have even traveled to my state capitol in order to talk with my representatives face to face on various RKBA issues and bills. One need not pay money to an organization to make a difference, if one is willing to take some time and do their own legwork.

KBintheSLC
September 24, 2010, 01:47 PM
There are several gun lobbying/legislative groups to which I donate money, but none of them has been as prominent and active as the NRA. Whether you like them or not is irrelevant... every American gun owner owes the NRA a major debt of gratitude. If it was not for the tireless efforts of this organization, our gun rights would be long gone by now.

JustinL
September 24, 2010, 02:08 PM
Do I agree with everything they do? Nope. Don't like the constant bombardment of letters asking for money either.

However...

Without the NRA there would be no gun ownership in this country. Period.

That is why I am a member.

As for the haters who lament how the NRA has done nothing about the NFA or Hughes Amendment I have some advice: Rome wasn't built in a day. Just twenty years ago widespread concealed carry would have been considered extreme. Now it is commonplace. If we continue on the current track of incremental reform we are more likely to get to where you want to go than if the NRA and its supporters started demanding NFA reform today.

I would love to be able to buy a new machine gun, but recognize that these matters are not just legislative in nature but cultural as well. It takes time to change and we should take solace in knowing that we have the initiative and are getting stronger every day - thanks in large part to the NRA.

Uniquedot
September 24, 2010, 02:28 PM
Hasn't Obama turned out to be, if not pro-gun, then at least neutral or indifferent on the subject?

http://nagr.org/M1garand.aspx?pid=WEB

If people would pay attention to what this puppet has turned out to be rather than wasting time surfing porn on the www... :) these types of questions wouldn't need answering!

gunzee
September 24, 2010, 02:43 PM
It's too bad that all gunowners don't cough up the dime a day needed to be in the NRA. Without them, we'd probably have lost our handguns way back in 1934, and certainly so in 1968. With all 70 million of us INSISTING that the NRA do whatever it takes, we'd be rid of the antigun politicians, real quick.

MikeNice
September 24, 2010, 02:44 PM
I am all for freedom when it comes to the second ammendment. What I mean by too libertarian is pretty simple to me.

When an organization says we should lift restrictons against violent felons, that is too much in my opinion. I am all for the ability of people to own firearms. If you have shown that you have a violent nature, I question your mental ability to maturely handle firearm ownership. I can not support an organization that would advocate removing restrictions against violent felons.

I also refuse to support organizations that call for restrictions against minors to be lifted. I mean, honestly, does anybody think 10 year olds should be buying hanguns?

I think it is a load of crap that I can not go to an eatery that serves alcohol with a CCH. I think it is also foolish that I can't carry in state parks, at parades, at a funeral, or any educational facility. (That literally means that any gun range teaching classes should not have guns on the premises while classes proceed.) I also think it is ridiculous that I can not carry a CCH in to any event that charges admission and requires a ticket to enter.

These are the types of things that local RKBA organizations should be focusing on. There are more issues to work on than those. Nobody adresses those issues though. Just like noody has brought suit against New Orleans and the government for confisccating legal guns. Instead it seems the organizations are either trying to protect the corporations or fighting for insane issues.

I do have to say I appreciate Grass Roots North Carolina joining the lawsuit against the state of NC's "state of emergency" gun ban.

Okay I explained what I meant. Now I'm rambling. I'll quit.

gunzee
September 24, 2010, 02:48 PM
You have committed felonies, and so has your mother. Most likely you were unaware of it. Felony convictions of the sort handed out today would have been ludicrous in the eyes of the Founding Fathers. Many consider a dope beef to be "violent", for instance, when Tom Jefferson would have shot anyone trying to tell him that he couldn't grow hemp.

Sam1911
September 24, 2010, 03:10 PM
When an organization says we should lift restrictons against violent felons, ... I can not support an organization that would advocate removing restrictions against violent felons. ... I also refuse to support organizations that call for restrictions against minors to be lifted. I mean, honestly, does anybody think 10 year olds should be buying hanguns?

Hmmm... do you know of some organizations that advocate removing the prohibitions against convicted violent felons? Or of any that advocate allowing children to purchase handguns? I'm not arguing for or against either case, but sometimes we overstate the case to make our objections more palatable. A few examples would be helpful -- and rememember, we're talking about the NRA primarily in this thread.

I think it is a load of crap that I can not go to an eatery that serves alcohol with a CCH. I think it is also foolish that I can't carry in state parks, at parades, at a funeral, or any educational facility. (That literally means that any gun range teaching classes should not have guns on the premises while classes proceed.) I also think it is ridiculous that I can not carry a CCH in to any event that charges admission and requires a ticket to enter. Absolutely. NC is pretty backwards on that stuff. Strange place.

These are the types of things that local RKBA organizations should be focusing on. There are more issues to work on than those. nobody adresses those issues though. Really? Nobody is addressing these issues? That's a shame on your state organizations, then. NRA can help with some of those cases, but having a local group get the ball rolling and carry the fight to their local representatives will go a lot further than a national organization stepping in to try to batter down state laws if the citizens of that state don't seem to be invested in those issues.

Just like noody has brought suit against New Orleans and the government for confisccating legal guns. Ok. So this statement is completely wrong.

"After a three-year legal battle over the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms, the City of New Orleans has agreed to settle a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)...."

http://www.gunreports.com/news/handguns/NRA_New_Orleans_Katrina_SAF_Second_Amendment_Foundation_856-1.html

Instead it seems the organizations are either trying to protect the corporations or fighting for insane issues.Who is? NRA? What?

I do have to say I appreciate Grass Roots North Carolina joining the lawsuit against the state of NC's "state of emergency" gun ban.Good! Great! Now they should tackle the rest of NC's strange ideas. When the get their ducks in a row, they should talk to SAF and NRA about some help from the "big guns."

NoAlibi
September 24, 2010, 04:08 PM
First: I'm a BENEFACTOR member of the NRA.

Second: I buy 4 NRA memberships every year for people I know who have never been members.

BUT: I owm a class III firearms and for you that don't know this - class III firearms are the most regulated and most well "behaved" firearms in the USA. By well behaved I mean that since the inception of the NFA there has been, AFAIK, only one crime committed with this type of registered firearm.

The NRA threw me and my fellow class III owner's and future owners under the bus to gain some concessions - I.E. COMPROMISE. If you haven't figured it out yet, this is how the anti-gun crowd works - they win by continually chipping away at out rights until there are none left.

SO WHY DO I CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NRA? Because they are the strongest and loudest voice that gun owners have. When politicians and anti-groups attack us they demonize the NRA - I've never heard them attack or mention any of the other pro-gun groups.

Yeah, they also irritate me by incessantly asking for ME for money, but I know why. NRA members carry the other 95% of gun owners who don't support them and they have no choice to ask for more money so they can continue OUR work.

Can you imagine the clout gun owners would have if we all thought enough of our guns to spend $35 a year ($25 for the first year for new members) as CHEAP insurance to protect your right to own them. If you don’t want to look like a deer staring into headlights when they come for your guns them you better do something NOW! It's easier to keep what you already have than trying to get it back...Doc

searcher451
September 24, 2010, 04:33 PM
I'm a member and a supporter. I also got this notice a couple of days ago from a local guy who is a big-time Second Amendment supporter, a longtime NRA member, a concealed weapons permit trainer, and a fellow who works hard in the trenches every day for gun owners in my state ... an indication, perhaps, that the NRA isn't perfect:

OFF ALERT 09.22.10
OPPOSE DISCLOSE!

The clock is ticking on the current Senate’s ability to ram its big government agenda down our throats, and now Harry Reid is trying one last time to silence groups like OFF while giving a free pass to the NRA with whom he cut a deal. (Reid had received almost $10,000.00 from NRA in the last two elections.)

The “Disclose Act” is scheduled for a vote tomorrow and it’s designed to protect the establishment while ending the ability of grass roots groups to engage in political speech

Reid has scheduled a cloture vote on S. 3628, the DISCLOSE Act (which should be known as “the Establishment Protection Act”), for this Thursday.

Please contact Senator Jeff Merkley at (202) 224-3753 and Senator Ron Wyden at (202) 224-5244 right away and demand they OPPOSE DISCLOSE on every vote – including cloture.

This terrible and certainly unconstitutional legislation was tacitly approved by the NRA when they were given a “carve out” from it by Reid. The Democrats KNOW it’s unconstitutional and KNOW it will be overturned, but not in time for the upcoming elections, and that is their plan.

This bill will infringe on our members’ privacy and limit our ability to mobilize grassroots activists while exempting the NRA.

The big government supporters are scrambling to act before many of them lose their seats in November. They are trying to gag any organization that opposes them by lying to you about what this bill does. It’s not about “big corporations” it’s about groups like OFF, Gun Owners of America and activist organization across the country.

Wyden and Merkley are among the most anti-liberty Senators in the country. But they still need to know where you stand.

Please contact Senator Jeff Merkley at (202) 224-3753 and Senator Ron Wyden at (202) 224-5244 right away and demand they OPPOSE DISCLOSE on every vote – including cloture.

VinnAY
September 24, 2010, 04:39 PM
The NRA is/has become like any other political organization with it members or constituents...they've gone to a platform of telling you what's good for you and pushing their personal thoughts and beliefs downward.
I swear to god if I ever could hear a politician come out and say "I won't vote for X because my constituents tell me that they don't support it", I'll fall out of my chair.
In the end they all get in those positions to push their personal agenda and tell YOU what's good for YOU instead of listening. I'm fed up with hearing "this is good for YOU" from all those <deleted -- Sam>
The NRA has become no better than the politicians that they're in bed with.

Sam1911
September 24, 2010, 06:41 PM
they've gone to a platform of telling you what's good for you and pushing their personal thoughts and beliefs downward.

I don't, exactly, disagree with this. However, this is a distinctly two-edged sword.

On the one hand we want the organization to listen to us. On the other hand, we look to the organization (and others) to LEAD and EDUCATE.

Examples: 20 years ago, many, MANY gun-owners didn't care and probably had never really even thought about, concealed carry law reforms. Many factors have contributed to the explosion of that issue in importance, but a lot of the "grass roots" support of it can be traced to the NRA placing "Armed Citizen" stories and articles on CCW gear and legislation in the mail boxes of 4-5 million hunters and target shooters every month -- over and over until enough folks had normalized the idea of personal defense that the broader cultural swing could support good legislation.

20 years ago, an "Assault Rifle" was looked upon as a dangerous weapon with marginal legitimate uses by a large segment of the gun-owning population. Again, many things have contributed to the vast sea change in public opinion, but, again, we can thank the NRA for helping perhaps more than any other single element to open the minds of our fellow shooters and usher in the age of the "homeland defense rifle". Every time they feature some 15 year old girl shooting CMP with an AR-15, or an article on hunting with modern autoloaders, they're hammering into the collective consciousness of several million stuck-in-the-mud old fogies that these things are RIGHT and acceptable -- we're all part of the same scene -- and they should vote to support their fellow shooters.

Now, the NRA has not been anywhere near the cutting edge of those issues, nor many others, but it is a mighty tool for building consensus and educating the membership to the benefit of all.

So, yes, on the one hand we all want the NRA to listen to us -- our personal opinion -- and stop compromising, oppose this or that legislation, endorse our favorite candidate or whatever else. But we cannot be so blind as not to acknowledge that the Association also acts as a massive prod to advance the understanding about and drum up support for some of "our" more advanced issues among the large majority of the semi-educated and marginally-engaged joe average gun owners.

And remember, while you're sending letters (or complaining on internet forums) to the effect that the NRA aught to push for the repeal of the NFA'34, a significant number of fellows named Earl are telling Wayne and Chris to lay off this "extremist, bullet-hose assault-rifle, pistol-packing GUN NUT agenda" and get back to the "real" issues like skeet shooting and deer hunting.

It's just not a simple problem.

CoRoMo
September 24, 2010, 06:51 PM
I hate my truck. A lot of the time, it ends up doing something I don't want it to do. It doesn't run the way I wish it would. It fails when I wish it wouldn't.

But I rely on it everyday to do what it is supposed to do. More often than not, it does that just perfectly. There's no sense in putting my money into a different truck because the next one will not really be much different than this one. This one is tested anyway, and I've come to know it. No truck is perfect, so I'll just keep standing with this one because it is doing alright by me.

Member for life.

MikeNice
September 24, 2010, 09:23 PM
Hmmm... do you know of some organizations that advocate removing the prohibitions against convicted violent felons? Or of any that advocate allowing children to purchase handguns?

I have been approached outside of a gun show in Newbern, NC and handed a pamphlet that listed those exact things. This was the late nineties and I don't remember the exact name.

More recently I have heard a lot of people saying any law is an infringment. That would mean the laws that put those restrictions in place are infringements.

Nicki Fellenzer, the news links director (and feature writer) for RighttoKeepandBearArms.com, has wrote in her piece How The NRA Bargains Away Our Rights,


..the NRA supports unconstitutional gun laws..


Some of the laws she lists are laws that call for back ground checks and restrictions on convicted violent criminals.

To me that means she, as well as the organizations she represents, believe that those laws are infringements.

I'll leave that particular discussion for another thread.



Really? Nobody is addressing these issues? That's a shame on your state organizations, then. NRA can help with some of those cases, but having a local group get the ball rolling and carry the fight to their local representatives will go a lot further than a national organization stepping in to try to batter down state laws if the citizens of that state don't seem to be invested in those issues.

When a bill was brought before the state legislature to allow CCH permitees to take their guns to places that sell alcohol for consumption on premises, no organization I know of stood to fight for it. When the anti's came out screaming about blood int he streets, silence from RKBA groups. When editorals ran saying permitees wanted to get drunk and play with guns, more silence.

Thank you for correcting me on the Katrina issue. I was unaware of that particular court case. I appologize for spreading false information.


Who is? NRA? What?


I believe the NRA sold out North Carolina gun owners to protect the interest of the corporations that give them millions in grants and advertising dollars. They rolled over on legislation they had fought for a long time. Plus they endorsed the canidate that wrote it. I understand how bad a rash of suits against the industry could have been. However, I do not feel like giving in to extortion or black mail solves the overall problem.


Good! Great! Now they should tackle the rest of NC's strange ideas. When the get their ducks in a row, they should talk to SAF and NRA about some help from the "big guns."

When I get over this stomach virus I plan on writing to find out their position on my concerns. Then I am going to see what can be done to adress those "strange ideas."

Ian Sean
September 24, 2010, 09:41 PM
Life member here for almost 20 years.

Looking back, a person has to look at things realistically. True.....the NRA has ticked me off (and many others) quite a bit over the years, BUT....they are NOT the same organization they were when I joined, and are getting "with it" so to speak.

There used to be quite a FUDD mentality running things, this has finally changed:), and being such a large organization it moves slowly sometimes to address new issues that crop up. They represent and have finally recognized the "black rifle" or "mil-surp" crowd as a powerful part of the NRA.

All politics are local....who wouldn't love to see the NRA dump their entire war chest of money into your state to stop some new gun law? But there are 50 states they have to work with.

All I can say, join up, vote in NRA elections, give what you can even if it is only a buck or two, contact your NRA people and be active. These actions are what keeps the NRA doing the right things. The membership has a responsibility to change the organization AND keeping it up to date on the changing tactics of the enemies moves.

Any organization is only as good as its members.

WNTFW
September 24, 2010, 10:01 PM
I don't see any organization that has the comprehensive platform that the NRA has. I even know 1 anti-NRA guy that went to the Whittington Center to train. Some much for loyalty and convictions.

NRA was the only game in town when they "Compromised" as many put it. I also hear they "Threw us under the bus". Of course reading here on THR I also heard the NRA had the rug pulled out from under them.

Life & the NRA aren't perfect.

Somebody show me a better alternative to support. In the meantime I support the NRA. I shoot at competitions and ranges they help make possible.

If you have a state organization do you support it?

stickhauler
September 24, 2010, 10:32 PM
When a bill was brought before the state legislature to allow CCH permitees to take their guns to places that sell alcohol for consumption on premises, no organization I know of stood to fight for it. When the anti's came out screaming about blood int he streets, silence from RKBA groups. When editorals ran saying permitees wanted to get drunk and play with guns, more silence.

Then you are clearly not following the discussion. NRA News has covered every state that has offered concealed carry into establishments that sell alcohol for the past several years. I've heard many interviews with advocates for the laws on their program over the past few years. They're aired on both satellite radio networks, and you can listen (actually view) the nightly shows on line.

whalerman
September 24, 2010, 10:45 PM
The NRA is the most prepared, coherent, and effective leadership agency fighting for our gun rights. Its a rather childish argument to stay on the sidelines and withhold support because they ask for money, or because they have compromised on occasion. The NRA is us. If we want to change the emphasis of the organization, then get involved and change it. But there is no excuse for gun owners who value their rights to make excuses and fail to stick together. Money and numbers talk. If you feel the incremental losses we've seen these past decades are acceptable, then by all means, come up with continued excuses to not join with NRA. Others will carry your water in this fight, and I'm sure Mr Obama will let you know what firearms will be acceptable for you to use on your hunting trips and for your self defense needs.

Hatterasguy
September 24, 2010, 11:06 PM
Whether or not you agree 100% with the NRA they are the largest organization out their and they fight everyday for our rights. Every gun owner should be a member and those more well off should donate at least a bit.

Frankly any gun owner who opposes the NRA is playing right into the hands of the anti's.

I am a proud card carrying member of the NRA and I do send them a few bucks here and their. I don't agree with a lot of what they do, but at the end of the day they are fighting for something I hold dear and that's worth my support.

evan price
September 24, 2010, 11:28 PM
The NRA & the 1994 Clinton ban:

Sure, the NRA got us the ten year expiration, and for that, thanks.

BUT, that situation should NEVER have happened in the first place where we wind up begging to have our rights suspended for only ten years!

And may I add, those were ten long, crummy years, culminating with the Hilary Hole in fine S&W revolvers in 2002!

Without "so-called" AWB we never would have ever had the phrase "PRE-BAN" enter our lexicon.

And in the end as we all know it was nothing more than an "evil looking features" ban.

At least HR1022 did not progress. I'm frankly amazed that the Socialist-In-Chief and the Majority Witch haven't got to ramming it through yet- but that may be on the list for the lame-duck congress after Nov. 2010 elections, re-introduce HR1022 and cram it up our hienies... and that would be game-over.

PRM
September 24, 2010, 11:34 PM
Life Member ~ Nuff Said

JohnKSa
September 24, 2010, 11:41 PM
But, hey, it's right there in their name, right? National Rifle Association. So, at least they aren't lying about it. So, in reality, my complaints about the NRA are unfounded. They do look out for the rights of rifle owners. They are such a huge success because they are willing to compromise to obtain that "success." Not this crap again.

The NRA was named in the late 1800s. Well over 100 years ago. When it was started it WAS centered on rifle marksmanship. Things have changed in the last 140 years but they have kept the same name. Not because they are still focused mainly on rifles or long guns but because everyone knows them by that name.

The NRA has been looking out for the rights of handgun and long gun owners for many decades now and it would definitely be accurate to say that the majority of their recent efforts and successes have been more focused on handguns than long guns.

JTHunter
September 25, 2010, 12:24 AM
It seems that one of the main problems people have with the NRA is that they seem to have a selective nature in what fights they try. There has also been some accusations about how they seem to try and grab the spotlight in cases where they weren't the primary legal team (McDonald vs. Chicago and the 2nd Amend. Found.) without providing substantiation in their publications.
Or maybe it is their unending requests for funds.

fireside44
September 25, 2010, 01:16 AM
The NRA will be there to capitulate to every major piece of anti gun legislation that stands a chance at getting passed. Eventually their compromises will bite us all in the backside in a way not seen since 1968.

If I wanted McGunrights, I'd send my money to the NRA. The 2nd speaks pretty clearly on the subject and it seems only anti gunners and NRA members are willing to see it differently than those versed in the Constitution.

lloveless
September 25, 2010, 02:00 AM
Fireside44,
You are sooo vague. Which side of the fence are you on? I hope you send your money to one or more of the many gun rights organizations. Other wise your rant is worthless.
ll

GBExpat
September 25, 2010, 08:38 AM
Whether or not you agree 100% with the NRA they are the largest organization out their and they fight everyday for our rights. ...

<nodding>

I just wish they would stop (seemingly) spending all of the money that I have sent them by mailing pounds of crap to me in an effort to get more money, y'know?

They have become almost as bad as AOL in the mid-'90s with those diskettes & CDs.

Perhaps if they offered an option that for an additional, say, $10 a year, you would be left off of their solicitation mailing list ... hmmm ...

Sam1911
September 25, 2010, 10:04 AM
Perhaps if they offered an option that for an additional, say, $10 a year, you would be left off of their solicitation mailing list ... hmmm ...

GOOD GRIEF! :banghead: How many times does it have to be said? You don't have to pay more, crawl, beg, plead, or sacrifice a goat. Just call, send an email, or even a letter and they'll remove you from their mailing list. You're still supporting the Association, still getting your magazine, but no more "junk" mail.

If anyone read stickies (ever ... once) I'd say this must become a sticky.

Opt Out
We also use your membership information to send you notices in the mail or by email about special member benefits, discounts, and offers. If you do not wish to receive these mailings, you can: (1) opt-out of email lists immediately by following the instructions at the bottom of the email, (2) email us using our Contact Us page, (3) call us at 1-800-672-3888, (4) write to us at National Rifle Association of America, 11250 Waples Mill Road; Fairfax, VA 22030.

From their privacy page right here: http://www.nra.org/privacy.aspx

GBExpat
September 25, 2010, 10:45 AM
How many times does it have to be said?

Only once for me ...

Thank you for for the info!

==============

Using a form-generated email from their Contact Us link I have just requested that they take me off of their mailing list.

Sam1911
September 25, 2010, 11:25 AM
Only once for me ...

Thank you for for the info!

:) Glad to spread the good word!

MikeNice
September 25, 2010, 11:28 AM
Then you are clearly not following the discussion. NRA News has covered every state that has offered concealed carry into establishments that sell alcohol for the past several years. I've heard many interviews with advocates for the laws on their program over the past few years. They're aired on both satellite radio networks, and you can listen (actually view) the nightly shows on line.

Satellite radio has such a small audience that it basicly is pointless. I have recieved three free month long previews in the last year. Their audience really is miniscule.

According to Journalism.org's state of the media 2008

Car radio audiences still favor the AM/FM dial (93%), but growing numbers are also using MP3 players (19%) and satellite radio (4%) while they drive

Do you really think that if the editor of a paper writes a commentary slamming the proposed law people are running to the NRA website to check their stance? No they are not. If you are being kicked in the teeth on a local level you have to have people countering the arguments in the same places.

Preaching to the choir on NRA's website does very little to really help.

Sky
September 25, 2010, 11:37 AM
We as gun owners and 2d amendment believers need all the help we can get.

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

Archie
September 25, 2010, 12:47 PM
First off, I am an NRA Life Member. I support the NRA in various functions including monetary support and have a license plate bracket and cuff links I wear regularly.

However; They do things to which I object.

When I complained in writing regarding the multitude of mailers I got, they ignored me. I got the feeling if I wasn't sending money, they weren't reading anything. Probably weren't reading what I said if I did send money.

After two or three phone calls, one young man told me he could take me off the mailing list and in fact did. But it wasn't the first time I objected. Perhaps they've gotten better about things lately.

The biggest problems I have with the NRA is their inability to look at the big picture. For instance, the NRA has supported Senator Harry Reid (Rabid Leftist Democrat) of Nevada in the past because Sen Reid supported a shooting range in Nevada. In supporting Sen Reid, the NRA completely missed the fact that a Democrat controlled Congress is the most dangerous to gun ownership. The NRA also missed the fact that Sen Reid as part of the Leftist Democrat party is a major threat to the U. S. as a whole.

Also, has anyone noticed the NRA's stance on the "Disclose Act"? The Disclose Act, currently in Congress, would require any sort of 'lobbyist' group to list membership roles to the government and general public. This would include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizen's Committee to Keep and Bear Arms, the National Rifle Association, any State wide pro-gun group, any local pro-gun group and for that matter, any group of regular citizens who deal with political issues and legislation. So, churches, the Masonic Lodge, the Knights of Columbus - litterally any group who write letters to Congress in favor or opposition to any pending legislation would be forced to publish member roles.

The NRA opposed this law, UNTIL, the Democrat party offered the NRA an exemption. The NRA is now 'neutral' on the law. That's a bad bit of perspective.

I was also personally offended some years ago when I wrote a letter to the NRA directors, requesting a particular stand on a certain bit of legislation. I got responses, most polite and informing me of facts I did not have prior to my input. However, several simply ignored me, and one scolded me for questioning his superior knowledge and intellect. I've since forgotten (or supressed) his name, but I would probably recognize it; I found his tone and wording to be particularly offensive and arrogant.

So - while I am not anti NRA, I have some gripes with the way they do things. All in all, I still support the NRA.

For the record, I also contribute money to the CCRKBA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation, the California Rifle and Pistol Assn, and will shortly be joining one or more local groups in Nebraska (I just moved here).

In closing, I understand why some folks are disenchanted with the NRA. There are reasons to be so. However, in full, I think the folks who write off the NRA are not aware of the fuller picture either.

Sebastian the Ibis
September 25, 2010, 02:53 PM
The NRA is great for keeping politicians in line. Without them the RTKBA would have died a death of a thousand cuts years ago. Politicians know that any votes to control bayo lugs or barrel shrouds will cost them votes - especially in semi-rural swing states like PA. I think everyone agrees with this.

There are two types of problems people have with the NRA - (1). The NRAs positions are not 100% aligned with that individuals. It's politics, I doubt that anyone's personal political beliefs are 100% aligned with the Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians or whatever political party they consider themselves a member. This is a silly reason to not support an organization. (2). The second reason is that the NRA can be very heavy handed with other RTKBA groups. A great law review article could be written about the NRA's beefs with Alan Gura and their active attempts to hijack and derail Heller and McDonald. I personally believe this is a flaw of with the NRA, they should be coordinating with other like minded groups - not stabbing them in the back. The only way they are going to change is if the membership complains about it.

Nevertheless, the NRA's supervision of politicians is absolutely fundamental to the RTKBA and that alone is why every gun owner should support the NRA, even if it is with reservations.

flbadger
September 25, 2010, 03:22 PM
-
I don't get into or even know or understand the politiks of NRA -
all I know is they are the most effective and capable organization
protecing our gun rights. I support NRA Totally and completely ! !

JohnBT
September 25, 2010, 03:27 PM
"The 2nd speaks pretty clearly on the subject and it seems only anti gunners and NRA members are willing to see it differently than those versed in the Constitution."

BS.

oldbanjo
September 25, 2010, 04:24 PM
I support the NRA, I'm not a follower, so I vote for who I think is right for this Country. Anyone that fights for gun right's I support. I will never vote for anyone from Alaska or for anyone that supports them.

jcwit
September 25, 2010, 05:00 PM
I will never vote for anyone from Alaska or for anyone that supports them.

Why?

ConstitutionCowboy
September 25, 2010, 05:08 PM
Without the NRA, only police, military, and criminals would have guns! Why is this so hard to understand?

To begin with, it isn't true. If the NRA hadn't been formed, some other group would have. In fact, the NRA isn't the only group out there!

Don't sell the American people short, either. We've been known to step up to the plate from time to time when needed.

If the NRA is getting bashed, look to those in the NRA leadership who are calling the shots.

It's election time boys---at least send them a dollar.
You may not like them but they have done a lot for us.................

THEY'VE done for US? You've got to remember who they WORK for and get PAID by!

The 'problem' with the NRA is, IMO, their eagerness to compromise. A necessity when dealing in politics, but it's not surprising some don't like it.

If it were just politics, yeah, fine. THIS IS ABOUT OUR RIGHTS! There is not compromising when it comes to inalienable rights.

THAT is how things get done! I spent 8 years as an elected official in city government and know that you either compromise or you learn to take accept defeat graciously.

When it comes to our rights, you NEVER accept defeat. You fight harder.

From what I understand, the NRA was quite powerful back in 1968. Where were they when congress passed the GCA? Yeah. They had their chance. If the NRA changes their tune and starts trying to repeal the GCA or NFA, I'll gladly plunk down cash for membership.

Right on, General! I'm a member using my membership trying to fix it from within. But try as I might, the NRA will never draw the loot they need to be truly successful until they do take on the big tasks. If the Board of Directors were to actually take that "single issue" they tout as their focus, money would flow in faster than they could count it, let alone spend it! I fear, however, with the crew we have at the top of the NRA right now, we'll never see it happen.

Tom Gresham is right. It's time for the members of the NRA to replace the leadership. A majority of those there now have either gone soft, lost their way, or have corrupted themselves. I can see no other apparent reason for the failures, ineptitude, cold feet and pretense of the Board.

Woody

Shadow 7D
September 25, 2010, 05:30 PM
Because they are a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

And some people don't like guns mixed in their politics (our left leaning people) and many others don't like politics mixed with their guns. Not saying they don't have a place, but much like prostitutes, they may be useful but not everybody is going to like it.

fireside44
September 25, 2010, 05:31 PM
BS.

Mighty strong argument.

I stand by my statement.

Sam1911
September 25, 2010, 05:51 PM
Mighty strong argument.

I stand by my statement.

Actually it was a false statement. You said:

...it seems only anti gunners and NRA members are willing to see it differently than those versed in the Constitution

That's wrong at least two different ways. First of all, many people who aren't necessarily "anti-gunners" don't read the 2nd Amendment literally. Maybe that MAKES them anti-gunners, in your opinion, but I'm not talking about motivated, active HCI, Brady Bunch, IANSA types. Just average folks who follow the "interpretation" and/or "living document" version of Constitutional thought.

Second, to say that NRA members are willing to accept a less-than-Constitutional reading of the 2nd, ... well that's just absurd. I'm an NRA member and -- like many members who've spoken up in this thread -- I believe in a STRONGER, more literal, LESS ABRIDGED version of the 2nd Amendment than what the Association is currently able to fight to support. Sure, I've met the (very) occasional NRA member who might seek compromise, but I've met a LOT more "gun owners" who weren't NRA members, never did squat to promote rights, and didn't care about the Constitution.

So it's just a bizarre and divisive thing to say. I don't think "BS" is too strong a statement.

MinnMooney
September 25, 2010, 06:00 PM
from O.P :
[For instance, on these gun boards, if the title of the thread has "NRA" in it , regardless of the subject, it wont be but 3 or 4 replies before the bashers will come crawling out of the woodwork.

Took longer than you expected but there it was in all of it's glory :

post #15 (General Geoff) :
don't like the NRA because they compromise too much. They do not represent my political views. They are not working to repeal the 1968 GCA or the 1934 NFA.

The NRA is not particularly pro-gun; they are very pro-status quo.

I may not agree 100% with the NRA but they, more than any other organization, protects our 2nd amendment rights.... & THAT's why I'm a member and support them.

fireside44
September 25, 2010, 06:01 PM
First of all, many people who aren't necessarily "anti-gunners" don't read the 2nd Amendment literally. Maybe that MAKES them anti-gunners, in your opinion, but I'm not talking about motivated, active HCI, Brady Bunch, IANSA types.

Yes, in my opinion that makes them anti gunners. Perhaps not active anti gunners, but misled enough to believe in "common sense" gun regulations or support those who craft that legislation.

I'm an NRA member and -- like many members who've spoken up in this thread -- I believe in a STRONGER, more literal, LESS ABRIDGED version of the 2nd Amendment than what the Association is currently able to fight to support.

Sure, you personally might believe in a more literal 2nd amendment, but your dollars go towards an outfit that hasn't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading.

Anyone who can sit there and look me in the face and say that the 68 GCA had some positive aspects or aspects he/she can agree with is an anti gunner in my book.

A quick show of hands as to who agrees felons shouldn't have firearms will prove my point. I recall a very heated thread on just that not so long ago.

Plenty here believe preventing felons from owning weapons is a good idea. They are anti gun rights and they don't even know it, yet somehow assume they are pro-Constitution and pro gun because they tossed the NRA a bone? I don't think so.

BlkHawk73
September 25, 2010, 06:13 PM
A week after joining they start the barrage of "give us money, give us money" mail on a weekly basis. Then the phone solicitations started. Then they built their huge fancy headquarters. Put that membership money towards more worthwhile causes and I'd reconsider. I know others feel the same.

MikeNice
September 25, 2010, 06:44 PM
Plenty here believe preventing felons from owning weapons is a good idea. They are anti gun rights and they don't even know it, yet somehow assume they are pro-Constitution and pro gun because they tossed the NRA a bone? I don't think so.


Do you think it should be fine to run in to a crowded theatre and yell fire? How about screaming bomb instead?

Old krow
September 25, 2010, 07:37 PM
The NRA, for better or for worse is still the NRA. IMO it's still a worthy organization. They fight a political battle against politicians. The NRA is a force to reckoned with, but if you don't like them, at least support somebody. I do not want to be a politician or fight in a political arena so I'll just pay them. I did not say that I didn't intend to fight for my freedoms, just that I would rather not do it in that arena. It's a battle that started before the NRA and will continue until it is won by the opposing side because we (gun owner's) cannot win it. The most that we can do is keep what our Founding Father's gave us. Even if we regain some ground we will not have anything more than we started with. We're guaranteed to CONSTANTLY fight for the Second Amendment as long as it exists.

What the NRA cannot do, is to improve the way that the non-gun owner see the gun owning population. They can fight our political battles all day, but they can't fight a battle of popular opinion or culture. If we make the NRA the Maginot Line that's exactly what they will be. It is however OUR freedom to fight for and to expect the NRA to win it all for us is a losing tactic. Not to say that we don't have some actively involved members.

On average I would say that most everyone here is involved otherwise we wouldn't be here. I certainly don't mean to suggest that we're resting on our laurels, but there's always that guy out there that shoots down Google transmissions lines that makes the rest of us look bad. Even on my own range we have guys that come out and shoot up the range signs when nobody else is out there.

I personally believe this is a flaw of with the NRA, they should be coordinating with other like minded groups - not stabbing them in the back. The only way they are going to change is if the membership complains about it.

I agree. They aren't much different than any other politician, speak up!

Sam1911
September 25, 2010, 07:47 PM
but your dollars go towards an outfit that hasn't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading.

Really? :scrutiny: Haven't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading?

Considering how far we've come since 1968 ... heck, how far we've come since 1994! ... in so many facets of the RKBA fight, I'd say a strong swing towards a literal 2nd A reading is heavily underway. If you honestly think the NRA has had no role in that, you're welcomed to your opinion, but it is absurd.

Yes, there are some other RKBA organizations on the national scene. Very few of them really accomplish diddly squat in the grand scheme, but they're there. The NRA has been there all along, fighting, pushing, winning, and sometimes losing, but always being the big dog in the fight -- is that not "pursuing an agenda?"

And now we're far better off re: RKBA than most of us believed we'd ever live to see. Is the NRA not to thank for that? The shooting public -- and society in general -- view guns and gun ownership in a vastly different light than they did just a couple of decades back. Has not the NRA played an important role -- no, THE important role -- in driving that social change?

The organization isn't perfect and hasn't always been perfect, and what it was able to do 40 years ago when GCA '68 was hatched is far from where it is today. Hopefully in 2050 we'll be saying similar things about Heller and McDonald. (Which NRA has strongly contributed to, though not owned outright.)

As open minded as I am to some criticisms, some of these are just outrageous and nearly slanderous.

Double Naught Spy
September 25, 2010, 09:03 PM
The NRA may be a worthy organization and they certainly do good things and some of the things they did best while I was a member was to hound me for more money by mail and phone, starting with wanting me to renew my membership within weeks of joining for 5 years.

I was supposed to get a baseball cap for joining. It never came. Over the years I did receive stickers, 2 silver bullets made of plastic, 3 VHS copies of "Tales of the Gun" and a couple of NRA medallions. I didn't want any of that garbage, though I did want my baseball cap. Being short on hair, caps are important to me. It never came. Letter after letter from Charleton Heston came telling me how important my contribution was to the NRA. And then more came.

More than once I contacted the NRA about soliciting me for more money and membership. I explained that I joined for as long as I could afford and that I would not be sending them more money or renewing my membership years in advance. That did not stop the mailings and phone calls.

Turns out, whomever I contacted could not actually take my name off of any lists directly because their mailings and such were handled by 3rd party vendors and so my name would be submitted for removal, only it never seemed to get removed.

I did appreciate their emergency newsletters and pending legislation about which I needed to contact my congressmen immediately. These mailings often came several weeks after the news was made public and discussed extensively on places like THR and on a few occasions came after the votes had already been cast. Timeliness was not the NRA's strong attribute.

I know I know. I have heard it all before. Putting up with such shennanigans is a small price to pay for freedom. Wait a minute. Why am I paying to have some company hassle me when I have asked them not to hassle me? I wanted to be supportive, but instead they seemed to be wasting my money on sending me "gifts" I never wanted. To be quite honest, I don't know how cost effective it was for me to join. I know they get special mail rates and all, but figured they were spending about 1/3 or more of my membership money to solicit more money from me and to try to get me to renew a membership that was years from expiring.

I understand that the NRA is better now about not hassling people who ask not to be hassled. I want to believe it it true, but their refusal to make it happen when I wanted them to is enough to keep me from giving them my name contact information again.

Three years after my five year membership ended, during another dinnertime phone call, I painfully broke the news to the nice man on the phone that I had died. I explained that I had died three months prior and that I was my son and was currently in the process of cleaning out belongings from the house as part of settling the estate. Being dead seemed to work and the mailings have mostly stopped and the phone calls have stopped. I still get one or two mailings a year, to me or current resident. They know I am dead, but want an excuse to mail to this address in hopes of drumming up business.

I support other pro gun groups who are more responsive to my wishes.

jcwit
September 25, 2010, 09:09 PM
All that over a baseball cap and mailings one can easily throw away.

Oh well, I guess we all have our priorities.

Sam1911
September 26, 2010, 12:39 AM
but your dollars go towards an outfit that hasn't pursued an agenda of a more literal 2nd amendment reading.

One more shot at this one:

My dollars have gone to an organization that has used political tactics (i.e.: compromise) to, successfully, demonstrably, move us closer to the goal.

My dollars COULD have gone to "no compromise" organizations who DON'T use political tactics (i.e.: compromise) and we'd still be sitting at the starting line.

Rights considered "inalienable" (for some people, to one degree or another) at the end of the 18th century were lost over the course of the next 175 years while society changed dramatically generation after generation. For reasons far too numerous to mention here, by the 1960s we were in a pretty sorry state. Gun rights were all but lost and seemed destined to evaporate for ever -- as they in fact have almost every where else in the world.

"Standing our ground" and shouting "NO Compromise!" in 1968 would have been about as effective as a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse. Slowly, and pretty steadily since then we've nibbled back our rights little bit by little bit.

FOPA in '86 was a huge win ... with one nasty compromise (that the NRA DIDN'T invent, by the way).

Concealed carry laws in many states were introduced. Most of them sucked a bit, at first. Compromises, you know? But most have been greatly improved. ("May Issue" becomes "Shall Issue." Restrictions fall away as folks become more used to the idea of armed citizens NOT killing anyone. Some states have even stripped almost any restrictions from the carrying of weapons. How's that for a "literal reading" of the 2nd?)

The AWB sunset ... whose fault was that? Heller? McDonald? Did these things happen in spite of NRA's "compromising" ways? (Yes, I know the controversy surrounding the NRA's thoughts on timing and risks with Heller ... and the oral argument complaint. Those are strategy issues above my pay grade.)

The easy road is to die on the battlefield yelling "No Compromise." It doesn't require planning, long-term thinking, patience, perseverance, or decades of hard work.

harmon rabb
September 26, 2010, 10:12 AM
Regardless if you agree with everything the NRA does, if you're a gun owner, and like having the 2A, you absolutely need to be a NRA member. They do more for your 2A rights than any other organization, and have more influence than any other organization.

fireside44
September 26, 2010, 11:36 AM
My dollars COULD have gone to "no compromise" organizations who DON'T use political tactics (i.e.: compromise) and we'd still be sitting at the starting line.

Speculation.

"Standing our ground" and shouting "NO Compromise!" in 1968 would have been about as effective as a write-in vote for Mickey Mouse. Slowly, and pretty steadily since then we've nibbled back our rights little bit by little bit.

Nibbled back our rights? You mean like NICS checks, additions to the 1968 GCA, "licensing" for carry of weapons, tighter leashes for FFL's, machine gun manufacturing bans, stricter regulations on importing rifles and kits and the like?

Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968.

jcwit
September 26, 2010, 11:50 AM
Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968.

Sure, thats why Indiana now has a lifetime permit available.

Just one example!

Quote:
My dollars COULD have gone to "no compromise" organizations who DON'T use political tactics (i.e.: compromise) and we'd still be sitting at the starting line.


Speculation.


Show us a link where "no compromise" actually has worked. Then give us the percentages of working "no compromise" versus "compromise".

WNTFW
September 26, 2010, 12:27 PM
From the last line of post #103 by Double Naught Spy:
"I support other pro gun groups who are more responsive to my wishes."

Could you share with us the names of the groups.

Weevil
September 26, 2010, 02:26 PM
Well this thread has shown me that the "no-compromisers" are idiots that don't have a clue as to how national politics actually work.


How in the world are you going to be "no compromise" when the other side has more votes than you do?

"No compromise" is a great thing if you hold all the cards and can dictate whats done.

However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.


Bullying tactics and throwing tantrums don't work in politics, it requires working with others and building coalitions with other groups and special interests and that quite often requires the dreaded "compromises" that are needed to get their help and suppport.


The NRA is not God they can't get whatever they want with the wave of a hand.


Grow up already and get a clue as to how things work in the arena of politics.


Throwing yourself on the floor and stomping your feet and holding your breath until you turn blue when you don't get what you want doesn't work in Congress.

Or perhaps the "no-compromisers" think we should just take our ball home and not play anymore, yeah that'll really save the RKBA.


Being an idealist looks great on paper and is great for pumping up the old ego but being a part of the NRA is what will give us the clout to stop "compromising"!


Stop being a crybaby and thinking up BS excuses for not joining us, then maybe someday the NRA can wave it's hand and strike down those unconstitutional laws.


It'll never happen as long as we remain just a bunch of squabbling, bickering, ego-maniacs who piss and moan because an organization of 4 million members doesn't do things exactly the way you want them to.

JohnBT
September 26, 2010, 06:04 PM
"Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968."

1968?

Have you forgotten about 1934 and NFA?

How about the 1865 black codes? Do you blame the NRA?

How about state laws. Maryland passed their first gun law in 1715. Sure, blame that one on the NRA too.

www.secondamendment.net/2amd8.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa092699.htm

fireside44
September 26, 2010, 06:29 PM
However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.

If you are "attempting to hang on to whatever you can" then you don't compromise, as it's compromise that brought you to that state.

Well this thread has shown me that the "no-compromisers" are idiots

Wow, heck of an argument. I'm converted.

Grow up already and get a clue as to how things work in the arena of politics.


I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights. And no, I won't settle on an organization who consistently plays politics and makes detrimental compromises that negatively effect gun owners. Maybe you are more easily charmed and swindled by the "NRA is all we got" propaganda, I'm not.

Being an idealist looks great on paper and is great for pumping up the old ego but being a part of the NRA is what will give us the clout to stop "compromising"!

They've had 40 years to stop compromising. Hasn't happened yet.

Stop being a crybaby and thinking up BS excuses for not joining us, then maybe someday the NRA can wave it's hand and strike down those unconstitutional laws.

Yeah, someday.:rolleyes:

JohnKSa
September 26, 2010, 06:32 PM
Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968. Not.

This list is incomplete.

Gun rights expansion since 1968


1986 FOPA
In 1974 4 states had shall-issue concealed carry. Now 37 states have shall issue.
At least one state has gone from shall issue to no permit required.
Heller
McDonald
Carry in National parks is now legal

jcwit
September 26, 2010, 08:39 PM
Quote:
However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.

If you are "attempting to hang on to whatever you can" then you don't compromise, as it's compromise that brought you to that state.


Quote:
Well this thread has shown me that the "no-compromisers" are idiots

Wow, heck of an argument. I'm converted.


Quote:
Grow up already and get a clue as to how things work in the arena of politics.

I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights. And no, I won't settle on an organization who consistently plays politics and makes detrimental compromises that negatively effect gun owners. Maybe you are more easily charmed and swindled by the "NRA is all we got" propaganda, I'm not.


Quote:
Being an idealist looks great on paper and is great for pumping up the old ego but being a part of the NRA is what will give us the clout to stop "compromising"!

They've had 40 years to stop compromising. Hasn't happened yet.


Quote:
Stop being a crybaby and thinking up BS excuses for not joining us, then maybe someday the NRA can wave it's hand and strike down those unconstitutional laws.

Yeah, someday.

I guess this proves the fact that some people just don't get it, and probably never will from lack of foresightness.

Anyway they save a cool $35.00 bucks a year. Gosh thats a little over a WHOLE tank of gas.

COMPNOR
September 26, 2010, 08:54 PM
I'd say the attitudes displayed in this thread is why many are "Anti-NRA". The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality isn't very attractive.

jcwit
September 26, 2010, 09:19 PM
I'd say the attitudes displayed in this thread is why many are "Anti-NRA". The whole "you're either with us or against us" mentality isn't very attractive.


Yes, but then to divide us is to conquer us also. United we stand strong.

ohsevenflhx
September 26, 2010, 10:36 PM
I am a NRA member that will lets the membership run out. I enjoy firearms, but not the GOP. I also got my "free" DVD in the mail this summer, and was genuinely pleased and excited to watch it. I thought, how cool that they sent me a DVD to watch. THEN I read the fine print about paying for it if I keep it and more would be sent. WHAT? I didnt realize that joining the NRA piggybacked me to a "pick out one cassette free, buy 12 in the next twelve months" club. Nope, that one mailer ended NRA for me.

jimmyraythomason
September 26, 2010, 10:38 PM
Nope, that one mailer ended NRA for me. Easy to see just how deeply your commitment runs.

Sam1911
September 26, 2010, 10:59 PM
Speculation.O.k. I suppose. It has to be speculative as the "No Compromise" organizations haven't managed to develop the membership numbers to fill your average fast-food joint, let alone impress federal representatives -- nor have any really managed to gain any attention nor credit for doing ... well anything really except put out press releases sniping at the big dogs. So my claim that my support would have been wasted has to be speculative. Maybe if I'd sent them more money they'd have miraculously developed the ability to make the gun grabbers cry for their mommies. Too bad it didn't happen.

Sorry, but gun rights have steadily declined since 1968.

Utter, unmitigated, hogwash.

As others have shown, you're ignoring pretty much everything that's been gained in the last two decades -- and that's really disingenuous of you.

As an example, you bemoan the expansion of "'licensing' for carry of weapons." This is just obtuse. Prior to the expansion of CCW licensing in the last 20 years (pushed ever forward with the help of the NRA, among others) it was generally ILLEGAL to carry a concealed defensive weapon in a great majority of states.

Do we want "constitutional carry" laws such as VT, AK, and AZ have adopted? SURE. Are the "shall-issue" permit systems the NRA (and others) have compromised to get LIGHT YEARS better than the way things were before? INCONTESTABLY.

tighter leashes for FFL'sIn 1968 the FFL system came down hard on gun dealers and owners. Since that time we have seen some serious reforms demanded of the BATFE.

Yes, the FOPA '86 had a nastly little tumor stuck into it by the detestable Mr. Hughes, but it also did some FABULOUS things -- including freeing our FFLs from some of the death grip the ATF held on them. Compromises, compromises.

How in the world are you going to be "no compromise" when the other side has more votes than you do?
"No compromise" is a great thing if you hold all the cards and can dictate whats done.
However it's sheer suicide for your cause when you are in the minority fighting to hang on to whatever you can.
There is MUCH wisdom in this statement. When your opponents have you surrounded, outnumbered, and dead in the water (as they really did back then), refusing to enter into negotiations simply leaves you bypassed and ignored.

"I WON'T give an INCH."
"Well, you see, we're taking a mile -- nothing you can do about it. We just wanted to know if you had a preference about which three yards we left for you. If you won't talk to us, fine, we'll just take it all."

They've had 40 years to stop compromising. Hasn't happened yet.
They've had 40 years to move slowly, steadily closer to the big goals. A lot of those goals have been reached. Many are still on the horizon. It's politics. You don't get to decide you've just had enough and demand all the marbles. You fight for every inch -- working to change society's opinions while you're battling for the votes you need. One issue, one vote, one bad law knocked down (compromised away) at a time.

I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights.Fortunately for you -- and for "US" -- guys like Wayne and Chris are there in Washington and you AREN'T! ;)

fireside44
September 27, 2010, 01:55 AM
It has to be speculative as the "No Compromise" organizations haven't managed to develop the membership numbers to fill your average fast-food joint

That is a derisive criticism of those no compromise organizations whose movements are gaining more steam. For example, when I hit this page the "public service announcement" is for "Oregon Firearms Federation-Oregon's no compromise gun lobby".

The NRA has dissension even within it's own ranks (pretty clear from this thread) and so dissatisfaction with the "cut our losses" strategy is growing.

You can choose to downplay the validity of the no compromise movement, but it's clear at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand. I think that also applies to politics in general these days.

As others have shown, you're ignoring pretty much everything that's been gained in the last two decades -- and that's really disingenuous of you.

The severe decline of FFL holders and the end of kitchen table dealers over the last twenty years or so would tell a different tale. A driver's license equating to a privilege to carry a gun doesn't offset other factors you choose to downplay.

In 1968 the FFL system came down hard on gun dealers and owners. Since that time we have seen some serious reforms demanded of the BATFE.

Yeah, demand away.

stickhauler
September 27, 2010, 02:53 AM
It has to be speculative as the "No Compromise" organizations haven't managed to develop the membership numbers to fill your average fast-food joint.

That is a derisive criticism of those no compromise organizations whose movements are gaining more steam.

And how's that working out for you? I'll offer a challenge to you. Try going into the office of a legislator and telling them you represent one of these wonderful no compromise organizations and see if you get past the receptionist. Then try another legislators office and say you represent the NRA, and actually get face time with the legislator.

The net effect the national "no compromise" groups are adding to preserving our RKBA is, in my opinion, playing straight into the anti-gun movement's hands. They flat hate the NRA, because they have learned it is effective in stopping their agenda. They're loving all the NRA haters bashing the NRA, as they know full well the no compromise group ain't getting past the door guard.

They also know dividing the RKBA movement plays into their hands in spades. They've seen it for years, pitting hunters against sport shooters, to the point many hunters actually do agree with what Carter said, that there is no possible reason to own an evil black rifle. They've hunted for years with bolt action rifles, and they worked perfectly for their purpose. Ever hear the phrase "divide and conquer?" That's what your ideal group is doing, whether you choose to see it or not.

Myself, the groups that use the recruiting strategy of bashing one group to gain members for their group will never see a dime from me. See, I followed one of the groups effort to use the imprisonment of a gun owner for letting a guy borrow a rifle to go to the range that fired multiple shots for one trigger pull. They claimed the rifle was totally legal, and had malfunctioned. The fact is, this guy built this rifle with a selector switch that moved to a third position, and when placed in that position, did fire full auto. He tried to argue basically a loophole in the law in his defense, not that the rifle was legal as built. He lost on that argument, and is now serving time in a Federal facility. Yet this "no compromise" group failed to let their members know this fact, they insisted they were raising money to support his family as he had been jailed wrongly. A simple reading of the filings in the case debunked their claim.

fireside44
September 27, 2010, 08:30 AM
Try going into the office of a legislator and telling them you represent one of these wonderful no compromise organizations and see if you get past the receptionist. Then try another legislators office and say you represent the NRA, and actually get face time with the legislator.

GOA lawyers spoke on behalf of gun owners during Kagan confirmations. Where was the NRA? Now what about that receptionist? Deny away chief, times are changing.

The net effect the national "no compromise" groups are adding to preserving our RKBA is, in my opinion, playing straight into the anti-gun movement's hands. They flat hate the NRA, because they have learned it is effective in stopping their agenda.

In your opinion. On the one hand you say "they can't get past the receptionist" then you follow with "they play right into the hands of the anti gunner". Which is it? Either they effect change in a positive or negative manner, or they effect nothing. You seem to be suggesting both.

Ever hear the phrase "divide and conquer?" That's what your ideal group is doing, whether you choose to see it or not.

And now you claim divide and conquer? Wait, I thought other gun rights organizations didn't have much in the line of membership and no keys to the halls of power? Now they are dividing and conquering? Get your story straight.

Myself, the groups that use the recruiting strategy of bashing one group to gain members for their group will never see a dime from me.

You mean kind of like NRA members are doing to other gun rights organizations here?

A simple reading of the filings in the case debunked their claim.

Yes, we all know how honorable and legitimate the ATF is when it comes to prosecuting gun owners.

Sam1911
September 27, 2010, 08:37 AM
That is a derisive criticism of those no compromise organizations whose movements are gaining more steam. O.k. So they're gaining -- a little -- steam, NOW. Where were they in 1968, 1986, 1994, etc. What good did they do? It's easy to criticize the NRA for decades of hard and productive work when the organizations you'd rather support were non-existent, or were, and largely still are, wholly ineffective.

Yes, now that the goals seem MUCH closer, there's growing talk about strict Constitutionalist interpretations and "No Compromise." And how did we get so much closer to those goals? As a sailor would say, we've tacked into the wind -- trading a little to get something better, parleying a bad position into a better one. When you work up a bill with a whole lot of positive, and your enemies toss in some negative element, sometimes you throw out the whole thing and start again (S-1805). Sometimes you proceed and make the best of the gains you did win (FOPA '86).

The NRA has dissension even within it's own ranks (pretty clear from this thread) and so dissatisfaction with the "cut our losses" strategy is growing.Sure. The goals appear a lot closer. Some folks are waking up and saying, "Why don't we just take back all of our rights?" Not comprehending that that process has been going on for decades.

And there is ALWAYS dissention in the ranks of such a huge organization. Remember, there are a lot of Ducks Unlimited type members (not to paint anyone with a broad brush) who write letters COMPLAINING that the NRA is too strident about military style weapons and handgun carry laws, and arguing that we should accept "reasonable" restrictions to keep guns out of "the wrong hands."

The severe decline of FFL holders and the end of kitchen table dealers over the last twenty years or so would tell a different tale.
Yup. The BATFE still needs reforms, and some of their rules should be revised or done-away with. But if you look at what the ATF did to dealers before FOPA'86, things have been a lot better since then.

See S.941 in committe at the moment, I believe.

A driver's license equating to a privilege to carry a gun doesn't offset other factors you choose to downplay. Oh. I see. So being guaranteed the legal ability to carry a weapon in 37 states -- instead of it being completely ILLEGAL in 33 of those states -- is a pretty insignificant change? Yeah. Sure.

I'd like to be able to carry a desfensive side arm at all times, anywhere in the country that I wish to go -- simply because I'm a citizen of this country. It offends me greatly that I can't.
Failing that, I'd like for the license issued to me by my home state be accepted (as my driver's license is) anywhere else in the country I'd like to travel. Again, it is absurd that this isn't so.
As it is, I hold licenses from two states which, combined, allow me to carry in well over half of this country. Perfect? No. A HUGE step up from what would have been legal in the 1980s? You'd better believe it!

It could be better. It WILL be better ... eventually. Standing on a tree stump hollering that you WON'T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS, hasn't moved us and won't move us another inch. You've got to have strategy, got to have understanding of the system. Got to be smart and savvy enough to work in the system to make real, lasting changes. Fortunately, we employ some who really are.

Sam1911
September 27, 2010, 08:55 AM
You can choose to downplay the validity of the no compromise movement, but it's clear at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand.How, exactly do you draw a "line in the sand" in a political struggle over rights? Explain to me what this means in literal, exact terms?

1) A popular refereundum vote? On what, exactly -- abolition of gun laws other than the 2nd Amendment? How is that going to happen? Do you think "we" will win? Even the most "No Compromise" of gun rights groups would run in terror from that vote making it to the ballot because we all know that 90% of society is not at all ready to abandon all controls on guns. We'd be kicked firmly in the rear. Overreaching that far and losing that badly would be a black mark it would take the movement decades to recover from.

2) Some kind of grass-roots campaign to vote out anyone who doesn't tattoo the 2nd Amendment onto their forehead? Is that our "line in the sand?" "Vote for gun rights or we'll vote you OUT!" Um...yeah. We already can't vote out the Schumers, Boxers, Pelosis, and their friends who've troubled us for so long as it is. How do you think we'll vote out them and all the middle-of-the-roaders, too?

3) Or are you just saying that all the gun rights organizations should "man up" and refuse to deal with, talk to, or offer any support to any politician who doesn't vote the most universal hard-line RKBA agenda? So stop meeting with them to explainin our position and refute the claims of HCI and IANSA? Stop the endless strategizing and back-scratching required to negotiate to get one more needed vote on a pro-gun bill?

Seriously, what is this vauted "LINE IN THE SAND" so many talk about? Where is it? WHAT is it? And what happens when the other side gleefully steps right over it and says, "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

For all the bluster and bluff of the political "show," politics doesn't work by demands and empty threats.

Most times these "L.I.T.S." calls seem like so much Mad Max fantasy where we'll just grab our guns and DARE those so-and-sos to come take our rights away. Frustration with the slow, halting, and costly way the world really works tempts us towards the most escapist delusions.

JohnBT
September 27, 2010, 09:36 AM
"I don't want to play politics, I just want my Constitutional gun rights."

Call the Easter Bunny or Santa and read them your list of wishes that you don't want to work for.

So you must not belong to any pro-gun organization, because they ALL play politics. Read any good GOA broadcast e-mails recently? It's all politics. If you think differently you're fooling yourself.

You can hold your breath until you turn blue, but it takes work to get things done at both the national and the state levels.

John

fireside44
September 27, 2010, 09:43 AM
O.k. So they're gaining -- a little -- steam, NOW. Where were they in 1968, 1986, 1994, etc. What good did they do? It's easy to criticize the NRA for decades of hard and productive work when the organizations you'd rather support were non-existent, or were, and largely still are, wholly ineffective.

Wait, now you admit "they are gaining a little steam" but then go on to say they are "wholly ineffective"? More gun owners the better. More gun rights organizations the better. More members the better. More constitutional reading the better. I don't know how you manage to view this as bad.

Yes, now that the goals seem MUCH closer, there's growing talk about strict Constitutionalist interpretations and "No Compromise."

Some of us have always been of that viewpoint or came to to the conclusion after we read the 2nd. I'd say we are the fastest growing minority among gun owners. The profile of groups less willing to compromise, such as GOA and Jews for preservation of firearms ownership, is rising whether you think it's a good thing or not.

And there is ALWAYS dissention in the ranks of such a huge organization.

That's the great thing about the no compromise movement, there is very little dissension if any coming from within.

Yup. The BATFE still needs reforms, and some of their rules should be revised or done-away with. But if you look at what the ATF did to dealers before FOPA'86, things have been a lot better since then.

No disagreement on reforming or disbanding the ATF. As for it being better for dealers nowadays than before 86, I would disagree. Same if not worse. If it was easier now to sell guns and deal with the ATF there would be more FFL holders. The fact is there are far fewer FFLs now than in 1985-1986.

Standing on a tree stump hollering that you WON'T GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS, hasn't moved us and won't move us another inch.

Whether you like it or not, the no compromise movement will play an important part of the future of the gun rights movement. If we don't have a group defending a literal 2nd amendment reading we have lost our footing as gun owners and wind up with a bunch of ducks unlimited black rifle haters dividing and conquering from within.

How, exactly do you draw a "line in the sand" in a political struggle over rights? Explain to me what this means in literal, exact terms?

Ask a Canadian who didn't register his weapons in accordance with current Canadian law.

Seriously, what is this vauted "LINE IN THE SAND" so many talk about?

Something the British, the Australians, law abiding Canadians, and most every country that once had some form of gun "rights" didn't bother to lay out. They were more worried about compromising just to hang on to what they had. Look where it got them.

And what happens when the other side gleefully steps right over it and says, "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

The same thing that happens when they step over the NRA and say "now what'cha gonna do about it?"

Do you think the NRA is impervious to that kind of thing simply because they are more willing to compromise? It's pretty clear our friends in Washington and at the UN won't mind your compromises because if they have their way, there won't be anything to compromise anyhow. I must say I feel the same way as they do. No compromise.

Sam1911
September 27, 2010, 10:41 AM
Wait, now you admit "they are gaining a little steam" but then go on to say they are "wholly ineffective"? More gun owners the better. More gun rights organizations the better. More members the better. More constitutional reading the better. I don't know how you manage to view this as bad.
I don't view it as bad, at all! I view the bitter complaining about what the NRA has done over the decades as bad. Very bad.

More gun owners is awesome! More gun rights groups is terrific! These same groups harpooning the NRA as destructive element of compromise is just despicable.

Some of us have always been of that viewpoint or came to to the conclusion after we read the 2nd. Yes. In fact a great MANY of us! Me and the leadership of the NRA included! That's what is so wrong-headed about these attacks from other gun-groups! They're claiming that those who've accomplished something in the last four decades must not be "true beleivers" simply because they knew how to, and did, work with the political system to make slow changes in the right direction -- instead of crying on the sidelines as society ignored them.

The profile of groups less willing to compromise, such as GOA and Jews for preservation of firearms ownership, is rising whether you think it's a good thing or not.I believe it's a GREAT thing. In fact, I even think it's positive to have them out there on the flank pushing the NRA away from "centrist" viewpoints. Like I said before, the NRA also gets a lot of pressure from within to NOT be so hard-line. Glad to have those groups out there showing the NRA how much support there really is for a strong Constutionalist RKBA movement.

But the picking and whining about what awful things the NRA has done are just stupid and decitful. Cheap ways to improve their own image by denigrating the success of the more successful organization.

That's the great thing about the no compromise movement, there is very little dissension if any coming from within.Yup. That's the great thing about them. As I said, their contribution can be valuable -- mostly as a prod to keep the big dog moving in the right direction.

Whether you like it or not
Let's stop with this right now. I LOVE it when ANYONE promotes or improves our RKBA. That's not the same as having some understanding of the role politics plays in how those improvements really happen.

the no compromise movement will play an important part of the future of the gun rights movement. If we don't have a group defending a literal 2nd amendment reading we have lost our footing as gun owners and wind up with a bunch of ducks unlimited black rifle haters dividing and conquering from within.Oh, agreed. (See my last few paragraphs.) But that's not the same thing as saying that these groups could have, are, or will ever be able to "draw a line in the sand" and dictate terms to the law-making bodies in this nation!

It's also a long way from saying that the NRA has capitulated and compromised our rights away and we'd have been in great shape if just had yelled "No Compromise" while shaking our fists!

Ask a Canadian who didn't register his weapons in accordance with current Canadian law.Oh. THAT's your "line in the sand?" Oh yaay. Yes, we've tried a bit of that here with folks not registering their MGs and SBSs. They get the great choice of never using their guns 'cause they've got to keep them hidden away -- or enjoying 10 years and $250,000 in fines for NFA violations. Or folks illegally carrying defensive handguns when their local laws don't permit it. That's not really "drawing a line in the sand." That's surruptitiously (though righteously, IMHO) breaking the law and praying never to get caught. That doesn't count as activism.

There really haven't been the massive round-ups and registrations here that could have spurred a mass civil-disobedience movement.

So, again, what "L.I.T.S." are you saying we should draw? Not registering our guns? Yeah...I couldn't if I WANTED to! So what, then?

Seriously, what is this vauted "LINE IN THE SAND" so many talk about?

Something the British, the Australians, law abiding Canadians, and most every country that once had some form of gun "rights" didn't bother to lay out. They were more worried about compromising just to hang on to what they had. Look where it got them. Oh. So if they'd have REFUSED to compromise then they could have kept their guns? Go tell them that. Go tell them how "willing" they were to "compromise" on having their guns confiscated and distroyed. Their responses will likely be unpleasant. I'd wear a cup if I were you... :what:

And what happens when the other side gleefully steps right over it and says, "now what'cha gonna do about it?"
The same thing that happens when they step over the NRA and say "now what'cha gonna do about it?" But they usually DON'T. They usually talk things out and come up with compromises -- compromises that mean they don't get everything they wanted, either. (Like a ban on assault weapons that has a sunset clause, for instance, and just dies with a whimper in 2004?)

Do you think the NRA is impervious to that kind of thing simply because they are more willing to compromise?
Well, it has been working pretty well of late! We live in the best RKBA environment that has existed in my life time. Something is working. The "anti's" seem to think it's all the NRA's fault. Somehow I believe them.

fireside44
September 27, 2010, 12:00 PM
I view the bitter complaining about what the NRA has done over the decades as bad. Very bad.

Most people who are gun owners and not NRA members will still agree with this. But the thread was a question about why so many are anti NRA, and so you are bound to get some repeated complaints.

Like I said before, the NRA also gets a lot of pressure from within to NOT be so hard-line. Glad to have those groups out there showing the NRA how much support there really is for a strong Constutionalist RKBA movement.

Indeed. I think more groups is better than a single one in some ways because it keeps the other groups more honest.

That's not really "drawing a line in the sand." That's surruptitiously (though righteously, IMHO) breaking the law and praying never to get caught. That doesn't count as activism.

If one or two people do it, it's a crime, if a million or two do it, it's activism.

So, again, what "L.I.T.S." are you saying we should draw?

Conceding any more losses of gun rights.

Oh. So if they'd have REFUSED to compromise then they could have kept their guns?

If you refuse to turn in your guns you will still keep your guns, yes, unless authorities or criminals steal them from you.

Go tell them how "willing" they were to "compromise" on having their guns confiscated and distroyed. Their responses will likely be unpleasant.

Willing enough to hand them all over. I'm sure there are a more than a few hardy souls who hid their stash hoping for better times. I would choose to cast them in a more positive light than those who voluntarily cooperated with unjust laws. To turn them over was to enable the law in that regards.

There really haven't been the massive round-ups and registrations here that could have spurred a mass civil-disobedience movement.

I suspect the potential for chaos resulting from such a law prevents them from playing their version of "no compromise" when it comes to gun control. I feel that the no compromise mindset that runs through much of US gun culture has much to do with that. Even Heston had his cold dead hands speech.

We live in the best RKBA environment that has existed in my life time.

True. But in my grandfather's lifetime I could mail order a select fire weapon to my doorstep and purchase sticks of dynamite at the hardware store. We have a long way to go my friend.:)

daorhgih
September 27, 2010, 12:32 PM
"A well regulated population being necessary to the security of the liberty of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, pot-plants, recreational drug manufacturing facilities, and personally-owned abortion-paraphernalia shall not be infringed." BTW, I was Tea Party when it meant dressing as Indians in war-paint, and boarding the Kings ships in Boston harbor. When it comes right down to it, we should not need any group of $2000-suits pleading our case. IF -- I repeat IF -- we had all been doing our homework, and passing each test, there would not be any need for NRA-like organizations to front and fend for us. Maybe every State would have its own Org., and have regular meetings of all 50. We KNOW we have the numbers, sans any alphabet organization. But we got lazy and took 2A for granted. When it comes to defending the 2A, by force when necessary, our mantra should be, "I am Spartacus." And live, or die, or kill to defend The Constitution, as our forebears did. D.A.O.

Sam1911
September 27, 2010, 12:40 PM
We have a long way to go my friend.
Well we have no argument there! Hopefully some combination of savvy political animals and lots of strong (no-compromise!) support behind them will make it happen.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 27, 2010, 03:37 PM
There is always the Second Amendment, too, don't forget. It says something about not infringing upon the right. So, tell me: When does it make anyone who simply wishes to abide the supreme law of the land into a demean-able and defile-able person for taking a no compromise stand? Me thinks the righteous defamation belongs on the purveyors of compromise. ANY compromise allowing infringements of any degree upon the right to keep and bear arms is a loss for the people and a win for the anti-gun-rights cabal. So, let us no longer call "striking a deal" with the anti-gun-rights crowd a compromise. IT'S AN INFRINGEMENT. IT'S A LOSS FOR WE THE PEOPLE AND A WIN FOR THE INFRINGERS. IT'S A THROAT-SLITTING STROKE ACROSS THE CONSTITUTION.

The NRA, for all its bluster - some of it grossly, falsely ascribed to itself - has never taken a no compromise stand. It claims it has a single issue platform, but that platform is nothing close to being flat. It appears to me to be more of a job security plan than a full blown take-no-prisoners battle to get government off our RKBA.

I'm doing my best to discover how each board member votes so that the compromisers and those willing to sacrifice some portion of the exercise of our RKBA in the name of comity and "good will" can be exposed, removed and replaced by us at election time with true supporters of our RKBA. It is the stated goal of the NRA to protect our RKBA and it is up to us to hold their feet to the fire. We need to assure that those feet belong to supporters of the RKBA.

Woody

daorhgih
September 27, 2010, 06:21 PM
IMHO: Audit the NRA for the past 5 years. Apply penalties where needed. Cut dues in half (refund Life Members their proper due), and cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms, and then open the election of all offices to terms of two years; Wayne LaP. to NEVER hold office or acquire any benefits again. New elections to be held in 2011, and bi-annually thereafter. Absolutely restrict NRA from endorsing or not endorsing any political office. We do not need to be told for whom we should vote. Opinions please?

jimmyraythomason
September 27, 2010, 06:35 PM
Here's a new thought:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMHO: Audit the NRA for the past 5 years. Apply penalties where needed. Cut dues in half (refund Life Members their proper due), and cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms, and then open the election of all offices to terms of two years; Wayne LaP. to NEVER hold office or acquire any benefits again. New elections to be held in 2011, and bi-annually thereafter. Absolutely restrict NRA from endorsing or not endorsing any political office. We do not need to be told for whom we should vote. Opinions please?
What I think of that ain't fit to print!

Old krow
September 27, 2010, 07:22 PM
IMHO: Audit the NRA for the past 5 years. Apply penalties where needed. Cut dues in half (refund Life Members their proper due), and cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms, and then open the election of all offices to terms of two years; Wayne LaP.

How about, leave the dues where there at? I have no problems paying at all if they serve their intended purpose. Leave the salaries alone, because they need competitive lawyers that are on par with the ones opposing us. Fine, audit them. Ensure that our money is doing what we want. And to save money, quit sending me stuff in the mail, use that money to fight for our cause? I'll even buy my own hat! Next, NRA members voice their opinions to the NRA. They would not exist without us and they know it.

Essentially they're just doing homework for us and endorsing the candidates that would suit this agenda the best, if you would call it an agenda. Personally I don't care one way or the other, but I am glad that someone is doing their homework.

I'll again say this, mostly because I believe it. The NRA should NOT be our Maginot Line. They serve their purpose, to keep the politicians at bay. There are other groups out there that are worthy of our support as well. WE as gun owner's and supporters of T2A have a responsibility as well.

IF -- I repeat IF -- we had all been doing our homework, and passing each test, there would not be any need for NRA-like organizations to front and fend for us.

I agree 100%, but that is not the case. That is not the battle we face. We have multiple opponents and we have a line in the sand, it's The Bill of Rights. W

Would we even be having these conversations if +50% of the registered voters owned firearms?

jcwit
September 27, 2010, 07:27 PM
I wish people were this passionate when it came to national elections and voting.

jcwit
September 27, 2010, 07:34 PM
It's my understanding all the fund raising mailings we get from the "NRA" cost them nothing. All the cost is funded by the companies doing the mailings and the NRA gets a portion of the money raised.

Whether this is a fact or not I do not know but it sure makes sense.

jcwit
September 27, 2010, 07:41 PM
cut by half ALL salaries of the top 100 in NRA leadership, for the next one year of their terms

Yup, thats a sure way to get and keep quality people and leadership. Where did you study management at?

Old krow
September 27, 2010, 07:46 PM
It's my understanding all the fund raising mailings we get from the "NRA" cost them nothing. All the cost is funded by the companies doing the mailings and the NRA gets a portion of the money raised.

That could be the case, I couldn't tell you for sure. But, I do think that they should spend less time trying to convince me the Second Amendment is under attack and maybe a little more elsewhere is all. No matter who is eating the costs it still cost somebody something. Maybe expand their TV and radio commercial to raise public awareness?

Maybe take a portion of that money that could be saved to hold more local functions? It really is more of a grass roots issue. Maybe they (we) could hold a "take gun grabber to the range day" or something.

Snakum
September 27, 2010, 08:07 PM
My issues with the NRA are ...

* the large salaries paid to upper management staff and overall admin expenses that could be put to to better use
* the truckloads of mail I get, spending money that could be put to to better use
* sending me stuff I never ordered (and never received) then sending me nasty-grams about paying for it, thus spending money that could be put to to better use
* allowing The American Rifleman to be used as one large gun manufacturers ad campaign with no honest reviews of equipment (the NRA should be above that crap)

But all in all, they are the folks who are in the best position to defend our rights as gun owners. They know Washington. They can get things done. If any other organization came close to accomplishing what the NRA has I'd change. But no one has, so far. So I'll send them money every year even if I don't like how they do business nowadays. Every gun owner should send them money. We might not like everything about how they do business, but they're the best thing going and should be supported.

jcwit
September 27, 2010, 08:08 PM
No matter who is eating the costs it still cost somebody something.

Well at least someone is providing more jobs in the printing industry, thats a good thing. I could elaborate more on this but then it gets political.

leVieux
September 27, 2010, 08:55 PM
Let me try to answer this. I am a long time NRA & TSRA Life member, NRA-ILA donor, FoNRA committeeman, etc.

After the Neal Knox mutiny, Wayne LaPierre took absolute control of the NRA by changing the bylaws, rigging a ponderously large board of directors, and controlling the nominating committee.

Wayne has had absolute power for a couple decades now and has become a dilettante
"rock star" of civil rights in his own mind. There is no longer any "democracy" in the NRA. It is all about Wayne.

The ILA needs to stay out of LOCAL elections. James J. Baker is a LaPierre marionette.

Wayne needs to go. He has been poisoned by the DC "Beltway" power atmosphere, just like the politicians. Wayne recently had the ILA send out a notice about how the NRA had to support Reid, without naming him. This started a torrent of member and donation defections to the GOA. Then, Wayne & Baker reversed on Reid.

Therefore, lots of folks like me will not send them any more money,

The NRA needs an airing-out and a big dose of transparency. LaPierre has got to go.
We still donate and support our "side", just not through NRA. The problem is Wayne, not the NRA itself. The only way to get rid of Wayne now is to starve him out.

So, it is not the NRA that we are against; it is the dictatorship of Wayne LaPierre.

leVieux

radar721
September 27, 2010, 09:16 PM
With or without the NRA no one is going to take away my guns. Did an organization like the NRA exist before the american revolution? NO! The colonists weapons were not taken away. The reason why is they were willing to take a stand and fight and die for what they believed and not let some organization "protect their rights". If our representatives would vote their constituency then we would not be discussing this. Lobbyists no matter who pays them are a slap in the face of the American voters. I should have more influence with my congressman than any person not in their district. Thus the foundation of a republic. I say if your elected officials do not vote as you wish then vote them out. It is high time that we take a stand and defend the constitution from foreign and domestic enemies. I took an oath many years ago. I meant it then and I mean it now. I have been a member of the NRA but not now due to my opinion on all lobbyists.

jcwit
September 27, 2010, 09:29 PM
With or without the NRA no one is going to take away my guns.

This begining statement will not hold water. Hasn't worked in any country yet where bans were imposed. The opposing side has much greater firepower.

I Pray it never ever comes to this.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 27, 2010, 09:43 PM
It's my understanding all the fund raising mailings we get from the "NRA" cost them nothing. All the cost is funded by the companies doing the mailings and the NRA gets a portion of the money raised.

If this is true, refuse to send in any "donations" in response to these mailings. Take what you would normally send in and send it directly to the NRA. That way, you're not supporting a letter writing boiler room, and the NRA will receive 100% of what you send in.

If this is the case - with an outside interest doing the mailings - it might be interesting to find out who they are and who has an interest in that mailing business. It might uncover a plethora of dirt and explain much of the goofy goings-on.

There is always an air of urgency and doom and gloom in those mailings and a curious lack of action on the part of the Board's agenda to address those doom and gloom issues. It would seem to me if all the goings-on were above board and made some sense there would be little question and much less doubt about the actions of the Board. There has been too many nonsensical actions of late, and it has tripped too many members' BS alarms for this stuff to be ignored. You have to ask yourself: Why all of a sudden?

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
September 27, 2010, 10:07 PM
This begining statement will not hold water. Hasn't worked in any country yet where bans were imposed. The opposing side has much greater firepower.

And what makes you think that a .223 or a 7.62 round will kill an enemy of the people any less dead than a 20mm round or an RPG fired upon us by that better armed government would kill any one of us? What makes you think we in this country have no more will to be free than those oppressed people in those other countries who surrendered their arms? As for myself, I'd rather die defending my freedom than to live in tyranny. Lately, the NRA hasn't done much to comfort me.

If the NRA truly cared, it would have been defending our rights from day one and we'd be just as well armed as any soldier or sailor in our armed forces. It appears we've relied upon people who do not have our best interests at heart. That said, I am aware there are people on that board who understand the gravity of the situation, but majority rules and it's clear where the majority on that board refuses to go.

Woody


Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

jcwit
September 27, 2010, 10:23 PM
And what makes you think that a .223 or a 7.62 round will kill an enemy of the people any less dead than a 20mm round or an RPG fired upon us by that better armed government would kill any one of us? What makes you think we in this country have no more will to be free than those oppressed people in those other countries who surrendered their arms? As for myself, I'd rather die defending my freedom than to live in tyranny. Lately, the NRA hasn't done much to comfort me.


What makes me feel that way? Its very simple, one word History. Another thing you may wish to consider is your family and their well being. This is similar to the old argument, is better to be dead than red, or better to be red than dead?

Both are a looser.

Now then back to the topic at hand, personnally I'll support the NRA, if for no other reason they ARE the Alpha Wolf in the pack.

whalerman
September 27, 2010, 10:45 PM
I've heard about this LaPierre/Knox war within the NRA. As a Life Member, how can I know the inner workings of the organization? I read everything I can get my hands on, from material put out by the NRA as well as private blogs such as this. There are no easy answers to the question as to how to proceed and who to support.

But the NRA is not any one person's property. Mr LaPierre doesn't own it, just as Mr Heston did not. It's all of ours. The real question is why, when there are tens of millions of gun owners and citizens who respect individual rights, are there so few members of the NRA! It's time we started talking to our fellow shooters and asked them this question. We can change an NRA that doesn't fight the way we want it to, but we have to get on board. It's like bitchin' about The Great One and not voting! Not a good argument. I don't shoot with people who don't belong to the NRA. I'm not nasty about it, but I don't do it. If a guy wants to buy a gun from me and he's not NRA, I tell him no. Pisses people off but I don't care. I don't hunt with non NRA folks either. I won't buy firearms from a dealer who isn't one of us. I view it as a brotherhood and sisterhood and a duty. That's just me. That's the way I see it. You better vote and you better join the NRA. Or I don't want to hear from you.

Old krow
September 27, 2010, 11:47 PM
Did an organization like the NRA exist before the american revolution? NO!

I agree with much of what you said about voting the politicians out, but that statement isn't necessarily true. The Sons of Liberty was a group of political activists (lobbyists at first), what we now call "Patriots" were also a very diverse group of activists. The common theme was that they united under one banner. When the war was over they split back into their political camps. However, during the campaign for freedom they did stand up to Britain for rights (the same way lobbyists do now sans the violence) and they weren't the largest percentage of people either... just the most determined.

How in the world are we going to change a nation, or preserve one if we can't even change (or preserve) one little organization that not only accepts us, but depends on us for its survival??

By my calculations there are close to 75 million gun owners in the US (going off the 1 in 4 Americans own a gun and 300 million Americans) yet 4 million belong to the NRA. That's a tad over 5%

JohnKSa
September 28, 2010, 02:35 AM
Conceding any more losses of gun rights.Let's say that tomorrow there were a bill in Congress that had a real chance of being passed.

This bill would limit magazine capacities of full-auto machineguns to no more than 50 rounds any time the machinegun is equipped with a silencer. (Currently there is no such restriction so this would be a loss of a gun right.)

In return this bill would allow complete freedom to purchase and own all other types of firearms with absolutely no legal restrictions. It would cause the total elimination of the "F" in ATF and would abolish all laws that apply or pertain to FFL holders in any way.

Support for the first measure of the bill is unanimous in Congress. There is absolutely no way to eliminate that provision from the law. To get the second provision you must accept the first one. You would have to concede a gun right that previously existed. You would have to compromise.

Your line in the sand says that such a law would be unacceptable because it will result in losing a previously existing gun right. And that even though the net effect on gun rights is extremely positive, any RKBA organization that supports it would be in the wrong.

Is that really where you would draw your line in the sand? No concessions at all regardless of what might be gained by those concessions?

General Tso
September 28, 2010, 03:19 AM
Please lock and close this thread. You say "we don't do politics". When I posted my reason for not supporting the NRA, you deleted it. How can we comment on this when the NRA IS a political organization?

Sam1911
September 28, 2010, 08:25 AM
Please lock and close this thread. You say "we don't do politics". When I posted my reason for not supporting the NRA, you deleted it. How can we comment on this when the NRA IS a political organization?

If the political affiliations of the NRA are your reason for not being a member or not supporting the organization you may say so in those terms.

Don't make a grand statement of what those exact positions are (immegration, abortion, taxes, or whatever else) -- that's irrelevant to us here at THR.org.
Don't draw us off on a tangent about "liberal this" and "conservative that" vis-a-vis issues that aren't directly gun related. And we won't allow others to attempt to draw you out about those issues, either.

If your answer to the original question is, "I won't support the NRA because of other issues endorsed by the candidates they support" then that is acceptable to say and clearly states your reason without getting into distracting specifics. Say so and move on.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why so many anti-NRA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!