Why should I re-join the NRA?


PDA






Usmc-1
April 25, 2011, 10:12 AM
I was a member for years and years , then after a while I just got tired of the constant barrage of letters recieved so I could send donations , I never really seen anything that they did, sure there was some national attention , but I never seen anything local and from my experience if theres nothing going on local there aint nothing going on national , my thing was this and I asked all the way up the chain "wheres the money going" I was never given more than pre printed advertisements which all asked for donations , after that I quit correspondence completely , it took about 6 months for them to quit sending me crap in the mail daily it was annoying!

Can someone in here change my mind? Dont give "script" either I read it to numerous people for years , I know it .

If you enjoyed reading about "Why should I re-join the NRA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
rellascout
April 25, 2011, 10:18 AM
You shouldn't. At least some of your money is going toward unsolicited DVDs being sent to members homes. If you keep it they bill you if not you have to package it back up in a mailer and send it back....

Sorry but this one was the straw that broke the camels back. I personally will not be renewing.

Double Vision
April 25, 2011, 10:20 AM
The NRA is the largest and most active organization defending 2nd Amendment rights.
The stronger they get, the stronger we get.
I've been a member since 1983 or so.
I throw out the NRA junk mail but I do contribute to the NRA-ILA through a United Way payroll deduction.

Sheepdog1968
April 25, 2011, 10:23 AM
You can request them to reduce the info they mail to you. I did and now I get significantly less mail from them. As to why, there are many organizations trying relentlessly to reduce our gun rights. Love them or hate them, the NRA is the major group protecting our rights. Bigger memberships give the NRA bigger clout. Can u imagine the clout the NRA would have if every gunowner joined?

HOOfan_1
April 25, 2011, 10:25 AM
United Way? Seriously? I thought United Way was more of the opposite of the NRA. It surely is in my area.

X-Rap
April 25, 2011, 10:25 AM
No don't renew, we got it. Just go along with the other 19 or 20 million gun owners that whine and complain and ride on the backs of 10% that are members.

Rshooter
April 25, 2011, 10:28 AM
Ten or twenty years ago I sent a letter to the NRA because of all of their garbage and doomsday calling. I was answered by a guy named Wayne LaPierre (sp?) who said that gun grabbers were out to outlaw guns. I dumped my NRA membership due to this script. Then came along Bill Clinton who did exactly what Wayne said was going to happen.

I am now a life member because I truly believe the script. The worst are the hypocrites like Barbra Boxer who believes only special people like her deserve the right to carry. If you have the inclination start researching the anti gunners websites, their lies and misinformation are outrageous. Do they want to disarm me, yes!

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 10:30 AM
I could tell you about things the NRA has done that have not set right with me, but I'm a Life Member anyway. At least they are in there swinging. They have clout on Capitol Hill. What other gun groups do?

I opted out of the junk mail--it's quick and easy to do. I also asked to be put on their do not call list, and the telephone solicitations ceased.

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 10:32 AM
I opted out of the junk mail--it's quick and easy to do.

I have opted out of 2 email lists and the junk mail list yet the crap keeps coming...

brickeyee
April 25, 2011, 10:33 AM
You shouldn't. At least some of your money is going toward unsolicited DVDs being sent to members homes. If you keep it they bill you if not you have to package it back up in a mailer and send it back....

Actually, no.

Unsolicited items are yours to do with as you please, and you are under no obligation to pay or return them.

The solicitations are almost always for the Institute of Legislative action, the ILA.
None of your dues money can be used for political purposes or the NRA would lose its tax exempt status.

The ILA is the political lobbying arm, required for tax purposes to be funded separately.

Otr you can join GOA and fly Gottlieb around the country to make stupid statements.

nalioth
April 25, 2011, 10:34 AM
At least some of your money is going toward unsolicited DVDs being sent to members homes. If you keep it they bill you if not you have to package it back up in a mailer and send it back.... You are not responsible for paying for unsolicited goods sent to you.

Consider it a "gift" from the NRA.

btg3
April 25, 2011, 10:35 AM
...the constant barrage of letters recieved so I could send donations...
I was warned of this before I joined and opted out of all promotional mail, email, and phone calls. My son is overseas and his membership is also at my home address.

For the two memberships there is practically no junk mail, spam, or calls from the NRA except for the reminder to renew my membership. My son is a life member.

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 10:40 AM
Don't know what to tell you, rellascout. It worked for me. I never signed up for the email lists and haven't gotten any email. I asked an NRA telly solicitor to put me on their do not call list. Presto, no more calls. I emailed the address below with my name and membership number and the junk mail mostly stopped.


Q: How can I reduce the amount of mail I receive from the NRA?

A: Simply email us at membership@nrahq.org or dial 800-NRA-3888 and request to be placed on the "Do Not Promote" list. This will significantly reduce the amount of mail you receive without affecting important mailings, magazine service, or your membership renewal.

Double Vision
April 25, 2011, 10:41 AM
United Way? Seriously? I thought United Way was more of the opposite of the NRA. It surely is in my area.

Where I work we get a booklet that lists national and local recipients for United Way. You can specify exactly where you want your money to go.

Surprisingly, there are a few firearms-related groups shown and they get my donations.
:D

Smokey Joe
April 25, 2011, 10:44 AM
USMC-1 (and BTW, thank you for your service!)--The junk mail is just part of the deal. You can opt out of most of it, as noted.

But who is it that the anti's make fun of?? Who is it that the anti's say has Congress in their pocket?? Who is the only group most anti's can name, and actively hate?? You guessed it!

And if the NRA is hated and reviled by the anti's, like no other organization, that's the group you & I want to have on our side!!

They gotta be doing a whole lot of something right!! So, send 'em your membership. Join 1 or 2 of the other pro 2A groups also. Then take a kid shooting, and make sure they have a good time--We need the upcoming generation as well.

That, or, when your gun rights get limited once more, you have no right to complain.

Vonderek
April 25, 2011, 10:52 AM
These kind of threads are usually rhetorical and a time-dump. Those who think the NRA is indispensible for preserving our 2A rights (I am in this group) can never convince those who are outraged by having to throw out the occasional piece of mail that the NRA is actually a beneficial organization. But I'll play along anyway. Here's a little of what they are doing in my state of Florida:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/outlook/fl-dlyons-outlook-facetoface-marionha20110424,0,2349024.story

Black Butte
April 25, 2011, 10:55 AM
I never really seen anything that they did :what:

How about the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions that literally saved your Second Amendment rights? Biggest gun cases in over 100 years (Cruikshank = 1875, Miller = 1894). Still, you might have missed it.

heavydluxe
April 25, 2011, 10:57 AM
You could not join the NRA and, instead, join another organization like the Second Amendment Foundation.

http://www.saf.org/

Truth be told, they seem to be doing some great legal work in protecting our rights.

That said, the NRA is the largest lobbying organization for firearms ownership. For all the cruft that has been added on over the years, it's without argument that the have the most clout politically and our position is only strengthened through increased membership. United we stand, and all that...

ArfinGreebly
April 25, 2011, 11:02 AM
Yes, rejoin.

Then contact them (there's an email address, or you can phone them) and tell them you don't want any mail.

They are the heavyweight on our side in the gun rights campaigns.

Also look into joining the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) as they have been exceptional performers in this area in the last few years.


I have not been entirely happy with the NRA. They have done some "politically expedient" things that I believe were very poorly judged. However, the membership has a voice there, and it became clear to them that their little faux pas had not gone unnoticed.

They're not perfect. They tend to pester us for more money. But they have the numbers, and when Congress begins thinking about "should we or shouldn't we" propose some flaky piece of legislation, they turn to the NRA lobbyist and say, "what does your membership think?" And, if the "membership" would hate it, but the Congress Critter thinks it might still fly, Mr. Critter will ask, "and how many members do you guys have again?"

Today, the NRA gets to say, "four million." If one tenth of the gun owners in this country (being 1/10 of, what, eighty million people?) belonged to the NRA, the lobby dude would be able to say, "eight million members, man." And, if we could get half of the gun owners to sign up, the critter would be hearing "yo, we gots us some forty million voters, what wuz it youse had in mind?"

Your pet 800-pound gorilla can be a little irksome when you're out for a walk and you want it to behave, but when the neighborhood thug's pit bull shows up, spoiling for a fight, you really want that gorilla by your side.


The NRA is your gorilla. Make sure you're a part owner.

MtnSpur
April 25, 2011, 11:06 AM
There are a few organizations that truly fight for our right to own our firarms, the NRA being one. If the Brady Campaign, Mayor Bloomberg, et al had their say you'd be armed with a stick and a prayer. I don't bother with the "spam" mail , etc but do believe we need a united organization with the clout to keep the naysayers at bay.

I belong to the NRA and the TSRA (Texas Y'all).

Safetychain
April 25, 2011, 11:06 AM
I was a long term member also until the unsolicited CDs started coming in. I'd already gotten pretty frustrated with bi-weekly phone calls coming in. The CDs were the straw that broke my back so I didn't renew, but that still didn't stop the calls; just reduced them.

I know that the NRA is great in its work in defending our 2nd Amendment rights and other things, but I don't agree with their money making efforts. I, like most, I would assume, just throw the CDs and other unsolicited thing in the trash unopened. Can this actually be bringing in more money that it costs? It seems a total waste of my contributions. The magazine was great and offered all the unsolicited stuff as being available if we wanted it. Don't cram it down my throat and make me feel guilty for not paying for it.

I, at the time, didn't realize that I could opt out of the majority of the mail. I would think that instead of sending the stuff to us without our permission, it would have kept more money/members as well as entice more to join if we were asked if we wanted our donations spent that way. If I were given the choice of opting out of the mailings on the membership form, I would likely go back to them.

And, X-Rap, we all "bitch and complain" whether we are members or not. And most are just complaining about a very annoying and and what we feel is poor business decision on how they appear to be wasting very hard earned donations that should be spent on the problems that we gun owners are facing in this country and not disenfranchising its own membership.

How about somebody/NRA run a poll and just see how many members they have driven away with the unsolicited mail/CD idea and, if we would come back is this practice were dropped. Then the NRA could then make a judgement on whether the practice were making or losing money. Personally I don't think they have a clue about how bad they are hurting their membership rolls.

bbuddtec
April 25, 2011, 11:16 AM
Maybe in Ok you feel you don't need representation at the moment, but I wish like hell NY would repeal the already repeatedly proven junk science, and outrageous hi cap ban among others... yes you can't buy anything, pistol, rifle etc. that holds more than 10 rounds in it's magazine. Period. I count on NRA/ILA to inform me when I need to act on important legislation, because the media certainly won't let me know that there's a vote yet again, to legislate microstamping and the like... they are actively bombarding at least my state with crap proposals just hoping the population is sleeping. I've written my letters, cast my votes, and wait to do more for my state to re-instate the 2nd Amendment. Of course, you are welcome, non-active shooters, to do nothing and ride our collective coattails. But I will have a right to complain.

jeeperjohn
April 25, 2011, 11:21 AM
I have been a life member for over 30 years. I get very little "junk" from the NRA. It costs money to send out all the mailers. If you don't want them opt out and they will not send them. If you don't want to be a member then don't complain when your gun rights are restricted. Right now I will personally guarantee you that if it were not for the NRA and their legislative work you probably would not even be able to own a pistol and rifle rights would be severely curtailed.

Vonderek
April 25, 2011, 11:22 AM
Your pet 800-pound gorilla can be a little irksome when you're out for a walk and you want it to behave, but when the neighborhood thug's pit bull shows up, spoiling for a fight, you really want that gorilla by your side.

This is great!!

Paladin7
April 25, 2011, 11:23 AM
I think you should renew your membership. The NRA has clout that is respected on the Hill.

I too have my share of problems with them, like the support they give to Democrats, which I'm not too happy about.

Also, second what folks are saying about "un-solicited gifts" - if you didn't order them, they are yours to keep. Once you do this one time, you will never get another sent to you...works like a charm.

About the UnitedWay, when you give them your contribution to a self directed charity, the charity does not get the money right away. UnitedWay banks it and makes money on the interest, then remits. Lord knows what they do with the interest they make across all the self-directed giving they receive, but I can tell you that its almost assuredly not good. They support a whole lot of organizations like Planned Parenthood and other Leftist organizations that may be helped by this scheme... It's worth looking into...

doubleh
April 25, 2011, 11:27 AM
The NRA is the 800# gorilla in the fight to keep our gun rights. There is no need for you to join. Just ride the coat tails of members like me as do the majority of gun owners. When an oppressive gun law is passed be sure to gripe and complain about it but don't join and add your voice and dollars to the fight.

The complaint about unsolicited mail is unwarranted. One simple phone call is all it takes to stop it. Is the DVD such a big deal? They tell you if you don't want it you can send it back in the provided mailer or just keep it as a gift.

mokin
April 25, 2011, 11:28 AM
I've been a long time member as well and have seen very little of what "they" (we) do directly. I have also lived in the rural west most of my life. Then, one day, while visiting a more politically contested population area I saw the NRA and opposing forces in action. I came to the conclusion that where I lived gun ownership was a foregone conclusion and nobody fought over it. Being exposed to the TV, radio, and billboard ads was a wake up for me. I was glad I was a member of the NRA. The dues really don't bother me. The tremendous amount of junk mail I received did. I got my name on the stop sending list and haven't had much more than renewal notices in ten years or so. I do contribute fairly regularly through the roundup program.

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 11:30 AM
An often overlooked fact is you don't have to be a member to do an NRA Round Up donation, or to send money to the ILA. ;)

Red Cent
April 25, 2011, 11:32 AM
SafetyChain, have you received a Midway (huge) catalog or their periodic small catalog?
Ever received a Brownell catalog?
Do you think they would "waste" profits on something that did not solicit enough sales to pay for the catalogs and more?

Member for a lonnnnngggg time. Shoulda bought a lifer. Too old now.

quatin
April 25, 2011, 11:36 AM
Here's a suggestion. Can you donate to the NRA without revealing name, phone number and addresses? I understand getting membership info, but what the NRA mails out is ridiculous. It's just as bad as getting into a spam list. I also do not support everything the NRA does. I wish there was a simple one time anonymous donation system setup, so I can give money when they're actively doing something for the 2nd amendment.

Carl N. Brown
April 25, 2011, 11:39 AM
NRA for a darn fime magazine American Rifleman or American Hunter worth the price of admission. NRA for legislative action. SAF for judicial action.

Unlike some e-mail chain letter alarms, the NRA does not alert me to bills that have no chance of ever getting out of committee.

Also I like the opportunity to vote for both Ted Nugent and Roy Innis for board of directors.

Besides, ever since I let my NRA membership lapse because (in part) I fell for Brady BS about death threats from Leroy Pyle,* I have made a point to find someway to renew my membership every year since.


--------------------------------------
* 13 Oct 1991 Leroy Pyle lost a law enforcement assistance postion at NRA because he spend a lot of his time campaigning on Second Amendment issues rather than on LE assistance. 18 Oct 1991 Sarah Brady sent out a letter: "One NRA board member, Leroy Pyle, is so crazed by my role in advocating handgun control he says about me 'somebody [should] slip into the house one night and slit her throat.'"

The actual quote, it turns out was somewhat different:

"Mrs. Brady is a director of Handgun Control Inc. and wife of former Reagan press secretary James Brady, who was critically wounded in the asssasination attempt on his boss: That ugly cackler. She pulls her husband around like a pulltoy on a string. My friends and I say that if that ever happened to one of us and our wife did that, somebody would slip into the house one night and slit her throat." quoted in: Osha Gray Davidson, Under Fire: The NRA and the Battle for Gun Control (Henry Holt & Company 1993)

Pyle may not have been a perfect spokesman, but he did not actually threaten to slit Sarah Brady's throat.

Smokey Joe
April 25, 2011, 11:45 AM
Hey, Red Cent--The NRA has a special deal on Life Memberships for those over I think 65. They know they won't have that member forever so you get a break. I am far from rich myself, and when I became eligible for the elderly Life Memb. I signed up. They even let you pay for it in installments if you want.

Don't know about everybody, but being a Life Member feels special to me. I'm glad I did it.

Never too old! Never!

btg3
April 25, 2011, 11:51 AM
jeeperjohn: I have been a life member for over 30 years. ...Right now I will personally guarantee you that if it were not for the NRA and their legislative work you probably would not even be able to own a pistol and rifle rights would be severely curtailed.
I dare say most of those like jeeperjohn, who have a long-term perspective on the matter, favor supporting the NRA. In another 30 years, it would be a shame to say "I wish I had".

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 11:58 AM
jeeperjohn: I have been a life member for over 30 years. ...Right now I will personally guarantee you that if it were not for the NRA and their legislative work you probably would not even be able to own a pistol and rifle rights would be severely curtailed.


And that is the fear playbook they have been running for the last 30 years. Even with all the gains we have made they continue to paint a picture as if we are on the edge of the cliff. The reality is that we are not even close.

CraigC
April 25, 2011, 12:04 PM
Just do it. I guess I have very little patience for folks who whine about the NRA. They're our best option for preserving our rights. I get junk mail all the time from companies I don't care a thing about. If I have to throw away a few things from the NRA every month, it's a small price to pay for freedom.


At least some of your money is going toward unsolicited DVDs being sent to members homes. If you keep it they bill you if not you have to package it back up in a mailer and send it back....
And you are not responsible for paying for unsolicited DVD's. So don't.

sonick808
April 25, 2011, 12:08 PM
because they have the most powerful lobbyists in DC for our gun rights. That is the #1 reason that I can think of. No money, no lobbyists. No lobbyists, no political pull. Please join and stay joined :)

would you be willing to accept spam and junk mail if it meant keeping your gun rights ? Me too. That's trivial stuff that can be worked on and voted on within. As for the larger fight, that is FAR more important than some spam or dvd's!!!

Edit: well put Red Cent. If they didn't get a certain ROI on their mailings, they wouldn't do it. I can't even FATHOM that anyone would NOT join, knowing they singlehandedly have the DC clout that keeps us above water. Come on now!

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 12:09 PM
I did not plan on it but it is wasting money on so many levels. I know what the DVD cost. I owned a company that manufactured DVDs. The real cost is the abuse of the bulk mail system. The more crap organizations like the NRA send into the system at a reduced rate the more consumers and businesses have to pay.

jjjjeremy
April 25, 2011, 12:11 PM
I'd just send my membership money to the NRA-ILA. I see it doing more work there than subsidizing shooting instruction and magazine subscriptions.

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 12:14 PM
Edit: well put Red Cent. If they didn't get a certain ROI on their mailings, they wouldn't do it. I can't even FATHOM that anyone would NOT join, knowing they singlehandedly have the DC clout that keeps us above water. Come on now!

Believe it or not some people who enjoy owning, shooting and even carrying guns are not one issue voters. They do not see everything through the lense of a single issue. This might or might not put themselves at odds with the people and things the NRA supports in their persuit of our gun rights.

It amazes me constantly how myopic a view so many THR members take on politics. I personally do not let one issue dominate my choices. YMMV

sonick808
April 25, 2011, 12:14 PM
rellascout: all it takes is ONE bill to put half of what you cherish on the brink. It may not be high on your voting priorities, but please don't try and tamp down or counter the need.

CraigC
April 25, 2011, 12:16 PM
Just do it. I guess I have very little patience for folks who whine about the NRA. They're our best option for preserving our rights. I get junk mail all the time from companies I don't care a thing about. If I have to throw away a few things from the NRA every month, it's a small price to pay for freedom.


At least some of your money is going toward unsolicited DVDs being sent to members homes. If you keep it they bill you if not you have to package it back up in a mailer and send it back....
And you are not responsible for paying for unsolicited DVD's. So don't.

Water-Man
April 25, 2011, 12:16 PM
Craig...I could care less about your lack of patience. If you want to support them that's your decision. My decision is not to. Period.

Lou McGopher
April 25, 2011, 12:17 PM
There is no need for you to join. Just ride the coat tails of members like me as do the majority of gun owners.Please. Sending money to the NRA isn't the only way to stand up for the RKBA. For instance, you can donate to the SAF or the more hardline GOA. Heller was sponsored by a lawyer from the Cato Institute, and it was the SAF who sponsored McDonald. The NRA initially declined to assist Dick Heller and George Lyon (another plaintiff in the Heller case), and even jeopardized Heller's chances for success with some of their actions.

The best way to defend RKBA isn't through political channels, but to make it clear that you mean it when you say, "from my cold, dead hands."

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 12:18 PM
And that is the fear playbook they have been running for the last 30 years. Even with all the gains we have made they continue to paint a picture as if we are on the edge of the cliff. The reality is that we are not even close.

To what, precisely, do you attribute those gains? If to a broad cultural shift in understanding, the NRA serves at the least as spokesmen and vanguard. I suppose I am trying to understand how you are using the words "we" and "they," above. I have added emphasis to draw attention to what I mean.

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 12:19 PM
rellascout: all it takes is ONE bill to put half of what you cherish on the brink. It may not be high on your voting priorities, but please don't try and tamp down or counter the need.

Sorry I am not motivated by fear. The Brady bunch and the NRA run the same playbook appealing to different ends of the spectrum but in the end all they are both doing is pedaling fear. They are two sides of the same coin. I do not vote using a myopic lense. I refuse to let a single issue cloud my reason and judgement. YMMV

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 12:21 PM
To what, precisely, do you attribute those gains? If to a broad cultural shift in understanding, the NRA serves at the least as spokesmen and vanguard. I suppose I am trying to understand how you are using the words "we" and "they," above. I have added emphasis to draw attention to what I mean.


WE= the citizens of the United States of America

THEY= the leadership and marketing machine of the NRA.

sonick808
April 25, 2011, 12:23 PM
Not scared, and myopic is not the same as focused. I CHOOSE to focus on this particular issue. As for most of the remaining issues, as your sig says, meet the new leader, same as the old. As for gun rights, NRA has the biggest stick in DC. Fund it.

Big_E
April 25, 2011, 12:29 PM
I don't get that much mail from them. I wish they would do a little more publicly rather than just lobbying in D.C. Apparently, they have commercials and stuff but I have only seen them as youtube vids. They might have political commercials on stuff like Outdoors Channel, but they are just preaching to the choir there.

If my membership fees help get some representation in Washington then I'm all for it, but I still wish they would do more on a local level.

The only donations I give them is through Midway USA.

69Rebel
April 25, 2011, 12:30 PM
I just wish NRA would do something about repealing 922r and the Hughes amendment. I'd become a life member and give $$ to ILA.

I'm already a member of GOA and JPFO.

Hunt480
April 25, 2011, 12:42 PM
If you like guns/shooting/hunting it all ties together...I can't understand why a gun owner would'nt want to join the NRA. It was taught as a kid that one day I would join the NRA. I can remember my ole man talking about the antigun nuts in the late 1960's and antigun doctrine is alot worse here in 2011. It seemed like it was a lot easier to dismiss the antigunners as the nuts back then becuase the networks and the press was'nt near as anti as they are now. You really can't afford to not join the way I see it...

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 12:46 PM
WE= the citizens of the United States of America

THEY= the leadership and marketing machine of the NRA.

Thank you for the clarification. One of the ways we citizens get things done is by supporting advocacy and lobbying concerns--like them. Like it or not, that's one way stuff gets done.

I'm not a single issue voter, but they are certainly a single issue organization. For other issues, I must turn elsewhere. It is certainly true that the politicians who can be persuaded to our side on gun issues have baggage in other areas. I can think of no solution, since it applies also to any other issue I can think of.

As noted earlier, I do not agree with everything the NRA does, and one of the things they could do much better is member contact and recruitment--just look at how many long term supporters prefer not to get all of that crap in the mail.

Wil Terry
April 25, 2011, 12:49 PM
NO DO NOT !!! We old timers have been paying for you worthless scalawags for decades now so it does not matter any more and neither do you. IN my case I have been doing so since 1958 and have had the unmitigated pleasure of seeing a lot of those cheapskates cash in their chips. As per usual in all things there are the doers and those who are.... too cheap even to carry their own weight and wated it all handed to 'em as a freebie. <deleted> And so it goes....

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 12:58 PM
Thank you for the clarification. One of the ways we citizens get things done is by supporting advocacy and lobbying concerns--like them. Like it or not, that's one way stuff gets done.

I'm not a single issue voter, but they are certainly a single issue organization. For other issues, I must turn elsewhere. It is certainly true that the politicians who can be persuaded to our side on gun issues have baggage in other areas. I can think of no solution, since it applies also to any other issue I can think of.

As noted earlier, I do not agree with everything the NRA does, and one of the things they could do much better is member contact and recruitment--just look at how many long term supporters prefer not to get all of that crap in the mail.

I hear you. I am glad to hear from other who do not let a single issue dominate who and what they support. For me when I look at the people who take the money from the NRA I do not like what I see. I have common ground with them on this single issue but on too many other issues which are important to me I am at odds with them. So when I support my gun rights through the NRA I am undermining others which are equally important to me. No organization is perfect but too often the NRA creates too many conflicts for me.

PS I agree there can be a fine line between focused and myopic.... LOL

Art Eatman
April 25, 2011, 01:30 PM
Funny-odd: On another website, a member there was seriously exercised against the NRA because it included teaching, shooting and hunting. He wanted it to focus exclusively on 2A issues.

Mike Irwin, a moderator at TFL, once worked in the NRA Hq. He stated that the net return on mailouts is very positive. When you need money and you find a method which works, isn't it logical to keep on keeping on?

It is Congresscritters who say that the NRA is second only to AARP for lobbying power. The political parties give credit to the NRA efforts for the Democrats' loss of the House of Representatives in 1994. That also held for the sunset provision of the assault-weapon law.

For those who say it is silly for the NRA to "sell fear", I can only comment that the new appointee to head BATFE has a lengthy track record as being anti-gun. Attorney General Holder is not our friend. Harry Reid still bosses the Senate, and the President has a track record as being anti-gun. We have the EPA continually getting involved with lead in bullets as pollutants, and the USF&WS regularly reducing access to public lands hunting.

If not fear, I suggest that one be at least a trifle nervous.

69Rebel
April 25, 2011, 01:36 PM
^^^Good point.

Shanghai McCoy
April 25, 2011, 01:51 PM
I am a certified Pistol Instructor through the NRA and because of that was able to get certified as a CCH Instructor here in Kansas. The NRA is more than just the political lobby for the 2nd Amendment. Through Friends of NRA groups like the 4H shooting sports are able to get grants that allow us to teach kids and promote the shooting sports in our state.
I'm an annual member and now too danged old for a Life Membership...

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 02:00 PM
@rellascout It's appalling to me how many Democrats get NRA "A" ratings. ;)

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHNV_enUS400US400&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=nra+a+rating+democrats

SwampWolf
April 25, 2011, 02:06 PM
Craig...I could care less about your lack of patience. If you want to support them that's your decision. My decision is not to. Period.

This is the very kind of attitude that give anti-Second Amendment people great hope that their purpose will prevail in the end. I love how so-called progun people never whine about all the junk mail they receive from hundreds of different sources and yet, when the NRA asks for contributions, you'd think it was the end of the world from all their wailing and gnashing of teeth. All organizations need money to accomplish their goals. That's why they're always asking for it. Should the NRA be any different? Where, if not from members, do you suppose they could fund our mission?

Yeah, I'm with Craig and the others who are getting pretty darn weary of carrying the water for people who do nothing in return but sit back and snipe from the sidelines. "Scalawags", Wil Terry called them. I'm much less charitable; I find them to be a contemptible bunch of free-loading bums. Oh, wait, I think that's what scalawags are! :barf:

Hope to see some of my fellow NRA members next week-end at the Convention in Pittsburgh. :)

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 02:09 PM
@rellascout It's appalling to me how many Democrats get NRA "A" ratings.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1...ting+democrats

Why would you assume my issue is with Democrats? LOL

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 02:23 PM
@rellascout. I didn't say who is appalling to you. ;) :) I am endeavoring to point out that, as a single issue organization, the NRA gets the strange bedfellows politics are famous for. Some are appalled at the bedfellows on the right, some with the ones on the left.

As a national org that tries to represent the interests of all gun owners, the NRA need not and should not alienate half the political spectrum. I think it quite even handed in its endorsements. It endorses fewer Dems because fewer have stances and records positive to the NRA's interests--of course.

wgp
April 25, 2011, 02:25 PM
I remain a year-to-year member of the NRA, not a lifetime, because I want them to continue focused on the issues and not take my membership for granted. I don't like the volume of mail but I can live with it.

I don't see anybody else with what appears to be the political clout of the NRA. I am not a single-issue voter; but, in my opinion how a politician stands re guns says a lot about their views on personal freedoms in general.

My brother-in-law once told me he didn't see any reason to join the NRA. I looked at his collection: a Mini-14 with folding stock and big magazines, a snubbie .38, a high-capacity SIG .40 and an 870 with extended magazine. I just shook my head.

America has, to me, become a place where too often people who don't like something, don't want you to do it either. I don't like politics, but there are political issues that I think I have a stake in and this is one, and for me the NRA appears to have the best record at representing my views on this issue.

Frank Ettin
April 25, 2011, 02:36 PM
Yes, by all means renew/maintain NRA membership. Some things to think about --

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

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

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

[4] At the end of the day, politicians are swayed by how many voters (and potential voters and contributors) line up on each side of the question. They are influenced by political and economic power.

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

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

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

I'm a Benefactor Member of the NRA and an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Insider the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Shotgun.

M-Cameron
April 25, 2011, 03:04 PM
a lot of people give the NRA crap because they arent "radical" enough...or dont "get enough done"


apparently these people dont realize that the NRA has a very fine line to walk.....


they simply cannot go into court and say " THESE GUN LAWS ARE AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION AND WE WANT THEM ALL TO BE GONE BY TOMORROW MORNING!!!!!"..........they would be laughed out and no one would listen to them.....they would loose all credibility and any political foothold they have......


to many politicians, its not the RIGHT to bear arms.....its the ABILITY to own arms........and thats the way it needs to be treated......( im not saying its right or thats the way it should be, but thats the way it is...and that is something we need to deal with)

the NRA realizes that they have to bargain, they have to compromise, they have to deal.........because they realize that being flexible and having some rights, is much better than remaining rigid and having none.

because taking 2 steps forward is 1 step back......gets you a whole lot farther in the long run than an occasional step forward with many steps back.

mrbro
April 25, 2011, 03:17 PM
I'm sorry if this sounds like script, but I believe the NRA is responsible for us still being able to enjoy recreational shooting in the US. Without them, we would have lost our handguns years ago. Without them nothing would have a removable magazine. Without them the Camp Perry matches would have disappeared years ago, CMP Garands would not exist, all rifle ammo would be frangible so as not to penetrate a kevlar vest, and a lot of the current generation of soldiers would have had no marksmanship training other than the few hours the Army gave them before deployment. I'm not even sure that we would be able to hunt with anything but a bow or black powder if it were not for the NRA. You would have given all up all this because to get less junk mail?

I've got a solution for you, become a Life member and send them just 1 more check, then toss out any mail you get from them for the rest of your life. I converted to Life membership 20 years ago and just bought a Life membership for each of my sons.

22-rimfire
April 25, 2011, 03:20 PM
Party has nothing to do with NRA's rating system. It is specifically based on surveys or a voting record on a limited set of things that center around the 2nd Amendment and shooting sports in general.

Support the NRA, there is nothing better out there.

AlexanderA
April 25, 2011, 03:40 PM
All pro-gun-rights people should be members of the NRA. There's strength in numbers.

That said, the NRA, like many other advocacy groups, is a money-making machine for its management. (Probably the worst offender is the AARP.) The anti-gunners, like the Brady Campaign, do exactly the same thing. Scare tactics are the prime money-raising tool.

Become a Life Member of the NRA and vote in the Directors elections if you don't like the NRA fundraising tactics.

Toforo
April 25, 2011, 03:45 PM
I was warned of this before I joined and opted out of all promotional mail, email, and phone calls. My son is overseas and his membership is also at my home address.

For the two memberships there is practically no junk mail, spam, or calls from the NRA except for the reminder to renew my membership. My son is a life member.
YUP - it's THAT darned easy.

It was JUST as easy last week when this forum-topic came up and I BET it'll be JUST as easy to "opt out" of mail/email/solicitations NEXT week when this comes up!

I get my month magazine (American Rifleman) and ILA/EMAIL alerts that affect MY AREA only.

Call today or go to their website and change your account settings.

It's THAT easy!

Or.......... simply don't read the entire forum, ignore everyone who say it's simply "THAT easy" and we'll see'ya again next week!

Kendal Black
April 25, 2011, 03:45 PM
So, Usmc-1, are you convinced yet?

withdrawn34
April 25, 2011, 03:47 PM
Sure, keep whining about a few pieces of mail and don't contribute to the largest pro-gun advocacy group in the country. While the NRA-ILA is the legislative lobbying arm of the NRA, the regular NRA still has a lot to do with education and related things that are very important in the 2A struggle.

Just opt-out. I get very little physical mail from the NRA. I get the occasionally "NRA Store" e-mails. Not a big deal. Otherwise, I get relevant NRA-ILA e-mails telling me what is going on IN MY AREA. It is not a request for donations.

I really don't understand some people.

rellascout
April 25, 2011, 03:49 PM
YUP - it's THAT darned easy.

It was JUST as easy last week when this forum-topic came up and I BET it'll be JUST as easy to "opt out" of mail/email/solicitations NEXT week when this comes up!

I get my month magazine (American Rifleman) and ILA/EMAIL alerts that affect MY AREA only.

Call today or go to their website and change your account settings.

It's THAT easy!

Or.......... simply don't read the entire forum, ignore everyone who say it's simply "THAT easy" and we'll see'ya again next week!

Please explain to me why I keep getting all the crap sent to me. I have opted out of the email lists, the phone list etc... but still get called from time to time and still get mailings.

Water-Man
April 25, 2011, 03:51 PM
Art...You mean THAT Harry Reid who the NRA supported?

Toforo
April 25, 2011, 03:51 PM
Hey, Red Cent--The NRA has a special deal on Life Memberships for those over I think 65. They know they won't have that member forever so you get a break. I am far from rich myself, and when I became eligible for the elderly Life Memb. I signed up. They even let you pay for it in installments if you want.

Don't know about everybody, but being a Life Member feels special to me. I'm glad I did it.

Never too old! Never!
They offer the SAME deal - "Distinguished Life Membership" - to disabled vets that they offer to retirees - $300.00 for a "Distinguished Life Membership"

M-Cameron
April 25, 2011, 03:52 PM
Please explain to me why I keep getting all the crap sent to me. I have opted out of the email lists, the phone list etc... but still get called from time to time and still get mailings.

how are we supposed to know....if you really want an answer...call the NRA for yourself and find out.

crracer_712
April 25, 2011, 04:00 PM
Not sure, but I get my monthly magazine online, its the way I preferred. I also get email notifications of laws pertaining to my state. No phone calls and no junk mail.

In fact when I joined, after a couple of months, I had to call them and ask where my membership card was, never got it. They sent out another and had it in a couple of weeks.

dho3
April 25, 2011, 04:01 PM
This is simple. There is only one organization lobbying for our right to own and use guns lawfully and that is the NRA. They are doing a fine job of that, no doubt. Does everyone like everything they do? No. But, if we want as a group to continue this freedom we must unite for the good of our freedoms and forget about what we do not like about the NRA and focus and what we do like and want. Too many people do ride the coat tails of those members of which I am one. I get the junk mail, do not think anything of it and throw it out with the trash. I believe I will e-mail them and tell them to save the money for more important purposes. I would suggest to anyone who is not a member to join and sign a friend up and give the membership to him or her as a gift, I think I will.

Nushif
April 25, 2011, 04:06 PM
About the UnitedWay, [...] UnitedWay banks it and makes money on the interest, then remits. Lord knows what they do with the interest they make across all the self-directed giving they receive, but I can tell you that its almost assuredly not good. They support a whole lot of organizations like Planned Parenthood and other Leftist organizations that may be helped by this scheme... It's worth looking into...

I too have my share of problems with them, like the support they give to Democrats, which I'm not too happy about.

^^
This makes me not want to join the NRA. Not because they necessarily agree with this as a whole, but because they have failed to establish an atmosphere where I could even remotely imagine walking into a convention without being ostracized.
Do they actively support stuff like this? No. Do they have a long standing tradition of "letting it slip." ... Yes!

Believe it or not some people who enjoy owning, shooting and even carrying guns are not one issue voters. They do not see everything through the lense of a single issue. This might or might not put themselves at odds with the people and things the NRA supports in their persuit of our gun rights.

This, probably summarizes it best. And rhetoric like the following sure isn't helping.

NO DO NOT !!! We old timers have been paying for you worthless scalawags for decades now so it does not matter any more and neither do you. IN my case I have been doing so since 1958 and have had the unmitigated pleasure of seeing a lot of those cheapskates cash in their chips. As per usual in all things there are the doers and those who are a waste of oxygen, too cheap even to carry their own weight and wated it all handed to 'em as a freebie. <deleted> And so it goes....

blue_ridge
April 25, 2011, 04:50 PM
I am 41 and became a lifetime member a few years ago. You don'nt need to agree with every single issue to justify being a member of an organization. Nor should it tarnish the fact that the work the NRA does is extremely important and necessary.

I was in Canada on business back when they were losing many of their individual rights to own firearms. Several Canadians made the point to tell me they lost those rights largely BECAUSE they DON'T have an NRA in Canada.

The government has your money and has the ability to legislate ridiculous laws daily. Most of us work reguklar jobs and don't have the time to read numerous 1000 page bills and decipher the legalese in them. It takes a large and powerful group (like the NRA) to monitor all the new bills being discussed AND get the word out to the people about these new bills. You can nitpick away at the NRA if you want, but it is not possible for them to be a "one size fits all" organization. What is possible for the NRA, however, is to be a serious watchdog over our Constitutional rights.

btg3
April 25, 2011, 04:58 PM
Where I work we get a booklet that lists national and local recipients for United Way. You can specify exactly where you want your money to go.


I've always suspected that the percentage of designated dollars is small enough, that they can deduct an equal amount of un-designated dollars from a recipient and thus rebalance the money such that designated giving has zero impact on the end game.

Further, your gift is reduced by the UW adminstrative cost (over 10% when I last checked) as opposed to giving directly to your chosen recipient.

Pyzon
April 25, 2011, 06:28 PM
The only way I could stop the incessant junk mail and phone calls was to let my membership lapse, then when I got the first call to see why I told the very polite solicitor that I wished to no longer have my dues support the constant begging. The solicitor asked if i would renew if they stopped the harassment entirely, to which I replied heck yes. That's been maybe 5 years ago and my request so far has been honored.

ccw_steve
April 25, 2011, 06:39 PM
My problem with the NRA is not the junk mail (although it does get ridiculous), I simply feel like they support gun rights for all of the wrong reasons. For example, if the federal government wanted to pass a law stating that every state has to respect gun rights, the NRA would most definitely support it. The problem is that the federal gov't has no right to pass such a law. The gov't doesn't give us our rights, we have our rights because we are human. The NRA's main goal is to use the gov't to "give" us rights; they don't understand that we have rights REGARDLESS of what the gov't says or does. Organizations like the NRA support guns in general, without thought to liberty or tyranny.

Unfortunately, I am required to have an NRA membership by the only local gun range in town. I would much rather give my money to a group dedicated to liberty in general than an organization that flaunts the second amendment.

blue_ridge
April 25, 2011, 06:46 PM
Steve, no idea how the NRA is using the govt to give us gun rights. Please provide examples.

Most of what I see is the NRA attempting to stop the constant onslaught of anti-gun legislation to restrict, regulate and tax all kinds of guns and ammo.

M-Cameron
April 25, 2011, 06:50 PM
My problem with the NRA is not the junk mail (although it does get ridiculous), I simply feel like they support gun rights for all of the wrong reasons. For example, if the federal government wanted to pass a law stating that every state has to respect gun rights, the NRA would most definitely support it. The problem is that the federal gov't has no right to pass such a law. The gov't doesn't give us our rights, we have our rights because we are human. The NRA's main goal is to use the gov't to "give" us rights; they don't understand that we have rights REGARDLESS of what the gov't says or does. Organizations like the NRA support guns in general, without thought to liberty or tyranny.

Unfortunately, I am required to have an NRA membership by the only local gun range in town. I would much rather give my money to a group dedicated to liberty in general than an organization that flaunts the second amendment.


you need to look at the current situation.........

the FACT is.......gun rights are not viewed as rights........and with the exception of a few states....most likely will not be treated as rights.....you need to take what you can get when you can get it.......that is simply the world we live in.....the "all or nothing" approach is not going to get you anywhere.

now im all for 'sticking to your guns'............but if by some elf magic, the federal govt said "we are going to make it mandatory for all states to honor the 2A and do away with any gun laws"..........you'd be a damn fool not to agree because in some odd philosophical semantics it is actually an infringement on your rights.

bearmgc
April 25, 2011, 06:57 PM
Sorry, I can't think of a single reason why the OP should re-join the NRA. All the reasons stated above. I let my membership expire 2 years ago, and joined another organization.

ccw_steve
April 25, 2011, 07:09 PM
M-Cameron: 'Philosophical semantics' is what determines right and wrong, whether it be through religion or scientific thought. I definitely have a problem just throwing away the principles I live by because it's the lesser of two evils.

Blue_ridge: The fact that the NRA uses the government (which eventually leads to people in uniform using force) is enough in my mind to show that they are trying to 'force' gun rights. If the NRA lobbies for the gov't to pass a law, then the gov't will use force (i.e. police, military) to enforce that law. I have a huge moral issue with that. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

for more on what I'm talking about.

I'm all for gun rights, heck I carry daily. But using political means (usually under table) to 'secure' our rights leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

PapaG
April 25, 2011, 07:10 PM
Stan here, life, endowment, patron and benefactor member, certified shotgun instructor. I, too, get tired of the solicitation. I make semiannual donations, not inconsiderable but not extravagant, because I still think they are our best defense against government anti-gun tyrrany.
When I get calls for more money between my gift periods I politely say, "You got your donation in June, another one is coming in December," and hang up.
As far as the "gifts" go, if I get something in the mail I didn't order, I keep it and throw away any and all requests for payment or return. It is mine by law.

M-Cameron
April 25, 2011, 07:19 PM
M-Cameron: 'Philosophical semantics' is what determines right and wrong, whether it be through religion or scientific thought. I definitely have a problem just throwing away the principles I live by because it's the lesser of two evils.
so im assuming youve never voted before.........





the thing is.....the 2A says " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED"


that doesnt mean there cant be laws about guns.......it just means those laws can infringe on ownership........

.....so if the Govt wanted to pass laws to encourage gun ownership.......they are able to without violating the 2A.

Grey_Mana
April 25, 2011, 07:26 PM
NRA life member, SAF life member. Will send them more cash when I can.

They are in thethe vanguard of fighting for your rights. The other side doesn't just want all your guns, they want all your knives too. They want you to go to jail for years for defending yourself, while violent criminals spend an afternoon in jails. They want you enslaved.

Go read about England for a while ( http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/ ) and decide how much you don't care.

Go read about the gang member who just shot 7 small kids at the National Zoo (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/25/teenager-stabbed-national-zoo-during-easter-celebr/ ). The other side thinks that is acceptable collateral damage, but you should be locked up for carrying a defensive tool in DC.

ccw_steve
April 25, 2011, 07:28 PM
M-Cameron: Actually, I haven't voted in quite awhile. Again, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and just because the majority vote for something doesn't give it any moral credence at all.

I agree with you about the 2A. The problem is that just because a majority 'votes' on something, it doesn't make it morally right. In fact, voting just lends credibility to the gov't because they claim 'Oh, you people voted on that, so stop whining.'

Honestly, I feel like the world is in such bad shape right now because people make moral compromises. I am doing my best not to. I think the best way BY FAR to help with RKBA is word of mouth. After all, if public opinion turned against guns, they would be gone in an instant.

FROGO207
April 25, 2011, 07:46 PM
I feel you should renew your membership. If you want to stop the stuff coming you can opt out--I did and have not received even ONE thing/call/email since. I am a life member an do not get any renewal notice either. I do get the Rifleman magazine because I do want it.

The NRA has done a LOT of good even though I personally also do disagree with their methods/results sometimes. We need to band together and the NRA is the biggest thing going. If any one here has a better organization to belong to as far as RKBA and firearms advancement please let the rest of us in on the best kept secret around.

Arflin Greebly has it spelled out well in post #19 IMHO. Strength in numbers is hard to argue with especially when you are passionate about a worth while cause. The choice is ultimately yours. Just don't come to hide behind me when they legislate all your rights away.:scrutiny:

azmjs
April 25, 2011, 07:47 PM
If you support the gun hobby or gun rights, it is incumbent upon you to join and support the NRA. It is the preeminent pro-gun lobby. No other organization comes close.

Don't make the mistake of believing that just because things could be better, that they couldn't instead be much worse.

People aren't used to thinking that way, but please try to bear in mind the scores of gun restrictions that you are not burdened by thanks directly to our friends in the NRA.

Patriotme
April 25, 2011, 08:15 PM
Join or don't join. You are a free man and an adult. I suspect that you already know what you want to do.
I don't know what the "Script" is but I'll give you my opinion on the matter.
The NRA is not all perfect and I don't agree with everything they do. They do however fight for our rights and every member that they have is one more tiny bit of leverage they can use when lobbying politicians.
There are a lot of enemies of the 2nd Amendment out there. They are well funded and well organized. They have their pet politicians and researchers that produce loads of "Junk Science." The anti gunners have most of the media behind them and let's face it...our children are being educated by anti gun teachers and professors.
You can pick your friends but you can't expect them to be perfect. The NRA is the best friend that we gun owners have. They are not perfect. As a matter of fact I agree with you. I wish they would stop sending me so much junk mail. When I look at Biden, Schumer, Clinton, Boxer, Obama, Pelosi, Kerry, etc, etc, etc. I am however glad to the NRA on my side.
Do you believe that we would still be enjoying the 2nd Amendment rights that we currently have if the NRA was gone?
I don't.
Ask yourself if helping the NRA serves your interests and this nation. Ask yourself if they are so large of an annoyance that it's not worth sending them a $35 check.
$35 and monthly junk mail means more to some than to others. I don't find it that big of a deal and I get junk mail for my entire household since all of us are members (paid for by me). I like my 2nd Amendment rights and will keep my membership(s) up to date until they do more than simply annoy me with mailings.

Frank Ettin
April 25, 2011, 09:26 PM
...I simply feel like they support gun rights for all of the wrong reasons. ... they don't understand that we have rights REGARDLESS of what the gov't says or does. Organizations like the NRA support guns in general, without thought to liberty or tyranny... Welcome to life in the real world.

The NRA is a political organization. We live in a political world. What happens in the political arena will affect what we do and how we live. Ideological purity doesn't get things done.

...I'm all for gun rights, heck I carry daily. But using political means (usually under table) to 'secure' our rights leaves a bad taste in my mouth...So you fail to recognize that not using proper political strategies could result in laws that make your exercise of what you see as your rights a criminal offense. I guess from your perspective you still have the right. But to me, if exercising that right will land you in jail, it ain't much of a right.

In the real world we have deal with pragmatic reality. Ideological purity exists only in alternate universes.

Sav .250
April 26, 2011, 07:37 AM
You must live in a cave somewhere if the NRA is the "only" organization asking your for money.

Re-join. Don`t join. That is your call.....


This subject has been beat to death. Why not write the NRA and tell them
you no longer need their services and your going to finance what they do all by yourself. Good luck on that journey...........

ming
April 26, 2011, 07:56 AM
We always hear the anti-gun zealots complaining about the NRA and its influence. That's reason enough to renew in my opinion.

Ben86
April 26, 2011, 07:59 AM
I don't agree with everything the NRA does, like endorse Harry Reid, but the fact is they are the most powerful 2nd A organization up in Washington and have one many noteworthy battles for us.

If you don't like them then join the Second Amendment Foundation, or another useful group in order to promote 2nd A rights somehow.

Vonderek
April 26, 2011, 08:47 AM
I don't agree with everything the NRA does, like endorse Harry Reid

The NRA worked with Harry Reid in developing a range in Nevada but did not endorse him.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/nra-we-wont-endorse-harry-reid

CraigC
April 26, 2011, 08:58 AM
Folks sure are petty about the silliest things. Even as we march into oblivion.

Tom Held
April 26, 2011, 09:01 AM
I don't work for the NRA but I have a lot of friends there. I know that the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action is fighting over 100 anti-gun, anti-shooting bills in state legislatures (including 4 in my state of Maryland) right now. The Education Division supports over 60,000 certified instructors, many of whom teach hunter safety and shooting sports courses at no cost. They estimate that over 500,000 people took courses last year to meet state certifications. The new website for kids out of the publications department is really nice and gets thousands of hits every day (www.nrainsights.org).

I'm a life member and a Ring of Freedom member, my three sons are life members, and eventually my 8 grandkids will be life members. And I will be attending the NRA Annual Meeting this week in Pittsburgh.

If you're a recreational shooter, competitive shooter, or hunter you need to support the only organization that is allowing us to participate in these activities. Just my opinion. Tom

Ben86
April 26, 2011, 12:44 PM
The NRA worked with Harry Reid in developing a range in Nevada but did not endorse him.


They may not have endorsed him officially, but they sure propped him up.

In my neck of the woods they officially endorsed Gene Taylor, over his more pro 2nd A opponent Steven Palazzo, who won anyway. In your face NRA.

It just seems to me that they will endorse the wrong candidates, especially incumbents, just because they show signs of being pro 2nd A, even if they are wrong on everything else.

They still do a lot of good and I support them anyway.

Frank Ettin
April 26, 2011, 01:29 PM
...It just seems to me that they will endorse the wrong candidates, especially incumbents, just because they show signs of being pro 2nd A, even if they are wrong on everything else...[1] Yes, the NRA is only about the RKBA. If you don't like an NRA endorsed candidate because of his stand on non-2nd Amendment issues, that's your decision.

[2] An incumbent with a good 2nd Amendment record is pretty much always going to have more potential to be helpful to our RKBA interests than a "new kid on the block." The incumbent will have seniority, know the ropes and have a better shot at important committee assignments.

sig220mw
April 26, 2011, 01:44 PM
I've been a life member since about 1984 or 85 not sure. Sure I get lots of mail from them but only one DVD which I watched and then threw away.

I try to send them a check every 2 or 3 months to the ILA.

Like someone else said, they only have 1 issue so if a member of congress is and has been consistently pro gun they will get NRA support no matter what the party or other political positions.

They are not perfect for sure but effective in protecting our 2nd amendment.

We should all try to get one more person to join to give the NRA more strength.

Broken Anvil
April 26, 2011, 01:53 PM
If that little bit of junk mail bothers you just wait till you reach 50 years old and the AARP gets you in their sights. And once they take your gun rights away you'll have to re-up in the Marine Corp to go shooting. Where's my checkbook, I think I'll tell them "Thank You, keep it up".

M-Cameron
April 26, 2011, 02:22 PM
It just seems to me that they will endorse the wrong candidates, especially incumbents, just because they show signs of being pro 2nd A, even if they are wrong on everything else.

Wrong according to who?.........

just because someone doesnt share your political beliefs doesnt make them 'wrong'..........

i dont know if you realized......its not the National REPUBLICAN Association........its the National RIFLE Association........

so long as you support the 2A......they couldnt care less which political party you associate with.

Ben86
April 26, 2011, 02:54 PM
i dont know if you realized......its not the National REPUBLICAN Association........its the National RIFLE Association........

I'm not talking about party affiliation. I'm talking about them supporting candidates that have views that are bad for other aspects of the country. So as long as they support the 2nd amendment everything else be damned? It's going to be hard to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights when the economy tanks. I'm starting to get on a political rant so I'm going to stop. I just think they need to avoid dealing with the devil so to speak just to uphold the 2nd amendment.

dogrunner
April 26, 2011, 03:01 PM
Man, if you seriously ask such a question, then I most sincerely feel sorry for you.

You obviously haven't paid any attention the variety of issues on both the National and local stages wherein singularly the NRA's muscle carried the day!

And NO, I don't always agree with them or their policy approaches either.........I agree relative to the mailings, but you can stop that with a phone call......didn't know that did you?

What you have gotta realize is that the big boy on the block relative to gun rights IS the NRA..........GOA and the others are truly wannabe's, they fund raise, but when you look at positive and productive legislation it mostly starts and ends with the NRA.............BECAUSE they have both the membership and funding to carry thru............Again, I SURE don't think they're always right, but less that organization you'd best believe we would be in at least the condition that the British Commonwealth Nations are.............for damned sure the 2nd would be merely a shadow of what it now is!

Believe what you want and will, neither I nor anyone else can change your mind, only you can do that, and then ONLY if you keep it open and explore ALL the facts!

azmjs
April 26, 2011, 03:31 PM
I'm not talking about party affiliation. I'm talking about them supporting candidates that have views that are bad for other aspects of the country. So as long as they support the 2nd amendment everything else be damned? It's going to be hard to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights when the economy tanks. I'm starting to get on a political rant so I'm going to stop. I just think they need to avoid dealing with the devil so to speak just to uphold the 2nd amendment.


The NRA is a one-issue organization.

If you get into the mindset where you start to believe people and organizations must not merely be on your side, but must also be Orthodox across the board, then you'll end up doing a lot more harm than good.

Belief in total political orthodoxy is Soviet/Communist style thinking, and is always bad no matter what the particular ideology.

The NRA has a duty to support all politicians who are friendly to guns. If they let themselves get conned into being a more broadly political operation, they'd end up losing their influence. When it comes to gun rights, there's no such thing as dealing with the devil. Either a given politician is friendly to guns, and we deal with him, or else he isn't and we don't.

There is only one possible way to secure gun rights in America, and that is to convince and cajole the American left. The reason that we're living today in the Golden Age of gun rights is that many liberal and moderate Americans have changed their minds about guns over the past couple decades.

Remember, just because something isn't perfect, doesn't mean it isn't any good, and even the very best (such as the NRA) will never be perfect.

If you want to support other freedoms, give money to the ACLU too. I am a member and donor of both outstanding organizations.

Usmc-1
April 26, 2011, 06:09 PM
Dont get me wrong I am not a complainer , I want to know what they have done , I want to know what the NRA has done locally , just telling me through advertisements and brochures doesnt cut it ,would you buy a Time Share because of the brochures?, and that if I dont join they take away my rights later Ill be sorry , doesnt cut the mustard , Ive been on the right side for years , I have been pro gun and have marched to ensure my word was known , unfortunately , the NRA has gotten so big (800lb gorilla) sometimes an organization that gets that big needs a "come to Jesus meeting" I truelly believe the NRA needs that right now .

Do we need a voice sure we do , but Im betting the president of the NRA makes more than Obama in salary and the salries of the executives is high like a large corporation , well a large corporation does it for profit and I dont have a problem with that , this is a non profit organization is it not?

jjjjeremy
April 26, 2011, 06:16 PM
this is a non profit organization is it not?

The NRA is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which means that it can lobby and participate in elections as long as the main purpose of the organization is not campaigning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c)(4)#501.28c.29.284.29

M-Cameron
April 26, 2011, 06:20 PM
I'm not talking about party affiliation. I'm talking about them supporting candidates that have views that are bad for other aspects of the country. So as long as they support the 2nd amendment everything else be damned? It's going to be hard to enjoy your 2nd amendment rights when the economy tanks. I'm starting to get on a political rant so I'm going to stop. I just think they need to avoid dealing with the devil so to speak just to uphold the 2nd amendment.

yes.....you think they are bad based on your political views.........no one plans on their views being bad for the country.....just because you disagree with it doesnt mean its bad for the country......


and as stated before....they are a one issue organization......they deal with guns, they focus on guns, thats what makes them good at what they do.

Usmc-1
April 26, 2011, 06:22 PM
Just to clarify my original point , I am looking for evidence as to what the NRA does , specifically ,local , I am all for the NRA, dont get your panties in a bunch , I will probably re-join , I just want to know what has been done , theres like 50,000 firearms laws , what has the NRA done to alleviate this monstrosity ! Im hearing a whole lot of "they are a great organization" , well the Peoples Temple told them that story too, I didnt fall for it!

Yes I cant stand the likes of Boxer, Pelosi,Fienstien and whole line of other politicians who are worthless (mainly **********s cesspool of idiots , I wonder what Govenor Moonbeam thinks?)

I know the answers people , but Im curious if anyone in here really knows?

M-Cameron
April 26, 2011, 06:28 PM
Dont get me wrong I am not a complainer , I want to know what they have done , I want to know what the NRA has done locally , just telling me through advertisements and brochures doesnt cut it ,would you buy a Time Share because of the brochures?, and that if I dont join they take away my rights later Ill be sorry , doesnt cut the mustard , Ive been on the right side for years , I have been pro gun and have marched to ensure my word was known , unfortunately , the NRA has gotten so big (800lb gorilla) sometimes an organization that gets that big needs a "come to Jesus meeting" I truelly believe the NRA needs that right now .

Do we need a voice sure we do , but Im betting the president of the NRA makes more than Obama in salary and the salries of the executives is high like a large corporation , well a large corporation does it for profit and I dont have a problem with that , this is a non profit organization is it not?

you want to know what the NRA has done.......open your gun Cabinet....if you see a gun in there, thank the NRA

heres a short list of their political activity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Political_activity

http://www.nradefensefund.org/current-litigations.aspx

they also support pro 2A political candidates.......

however, they are a NATIONAL organization......so they deal with NATIONAL issues.........to expect the NRA to run around to each state battling gun laws would be impossible and would be waste of their time.

now im not exactly sure what a "come home to jesus" meeting is..........and i really dont care.......the bigger the NRA the better.


and what difference does it make what the president of the NRA makes........he could live in a multimillion dollar home driving 7 porches for all i care.......so long as they continue to fight for my rights.

azmjs
April 26, 2011, 06:29 PM
If you try to make gun rights a right-wing issue, you paradoxically end up doing harm to right-wing causes.

This is because America is based on compromise, going all the way back to the constitutional convention and even before that.

If gun rights are tied to right-wing politics, then gun rights will only advance in exchange for a compromise somewhere else on the right.

The key, if you want to have your right-wing cake and eat your gun rights too, is to make gun issues less partisan.

I don't believe in today's rather wretched political climate that the right could be trusted to make the compromises that would be necessary to buy off the left on guns, and for that reason I believe tying guns to the broader right-wing agenda is bad for guns.

azmjs
April 26, 2011, 06:30 PM
you want to know what the NRA has done.......open your gun Cabinet....if you see a gun in there, thank the NRA

heres a short list of their political activity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...tical_activity

now im not exactly sure what a "come home to jesus" meeting is..........and i really dont care.......the bigger the NRA the better.


and what difference does it make what the president of the NRA makes........he could live in a multimillion dollar home driving 7 porches for all i care.......so long as they continue to fight for my rights.


Yup. If you're having a crisis of faith about the NRA, pause for a moment and think about the 500 gun restrictions you aren't restricted by because the NRA stopped them from ever being put into law in the first place.

Black Butte
April 26, 2011, 06:36 PM
The fact that Paul Helmke, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Rebecca Peters, Michael Bloomberg, Carolyn McCarthy, and George Soros all loath the NRA is reason enough to join.

Ignition Override
April 26, 2011, 07:28 PM
What X-Rap said on page one surprised me.
Are a majority or large fraction of legal gun owners Not members?

Guns only began to interest me a few years ago (my early 50's), but after I discovered the vast network of lies and omissions propagated throughout most of the media, it is to my regret and embarassment that I was "blind" for so many years.

The reality became even more crystal clear watching the superb testimony by Suzanne Gratia-Hupp on Youtube, opposite Sneator Chuckie Schumer etc.
Have all of you ladies/gentlemen watched it? She was with her parents at the Luby's in Killeen, TX when the madmen drove into it, but her gun was required to remain in the car.

Her compliance with the law helped to cost her parents their lives.

Frank Ettin
April 26, 2011, 07:36 PM
Im betting the president of the NRA makes more than Obama in salary...You can't compare them. In addition to his salary, POTUS gets some pretty neat housing, domestic and personal staff, an office budget, some very neat transportation benefits, personal security and a dandy retirement package.

Im betting the president of the NRA makes more than ...the salries of the executives is high like a large corporation , well a large corporation does it for profit and I dont have a problem with that , this is a non profit organization is it not?... Are the people who work for the NRA not entitled to salaries consistent with what they could earn elsewhere in jobs requiring similar skills, training, education and experience -- and having similar responsibilities? Choosing to work full time for the RKBA should not require that one take a vow of poverty. The NRA is not a monastic order.

Any organization, like the NRA, has to be able to offer salaries to top level executives that are competitive with those being offered by other organizations of a similar size. And the NRA can't offer stock options or stock grants like those generally offered, in addition to cash salary, by publicly traded companies as part of executive compensation packages.

BTW, the NRA is a corporation. It was incorporated in the State of New York in, I believe, 1871. It was organized as a non-profit corporation -- that means a corporation without capital stock (not a corporation planning on going broke).

8654Maine
April 26, 2011, 07:40 PM
NRA holds great classes: what better form of gun control is there?

NRA has one of the best magazines.

I bring all the extra mags in to work to balance out the various idiotic glossies.

Seeing the wide eyes as they spy the cover of the American Rifleman while perusing the magazine rack looking for "Glamour" or "Oprah"...priceless.

FROGO207
April 26, 2011, 07:52 PM
USMC-1 Do you belong to a local gun range? I am almost 100% sure the NRA underwrites their insurance as most other carriers will not attempt to cover such establishments. That alone should be cause enough to support them. Supporting the local 4H and the firearm safety certification programs they provide are also solid reasons IMHO. If you want to see an impact in your area more than that just get involved and make it happen yourself. A challenge?:D We all need one on occasion to keep our wits sharp IMHO. I have no illusions what the NRA is all about. As I have stated previously if you know another organization that represents us collectively any better than the NRA please let me in on the secret. Any organization that the antis fear so much is doing a respectable job as far as I am concerned.:cool:

Stevie-Ray
April 26, 2011, 07:59 PM
I'm with Craig and the others who are getting pretty darn weary of carrying the water for people who do nothing in return but sit back and snipe from the sidelines. "Scalawags", Wil Terry called them. I'm much less charitable; I find them to be a contemptible bunch of free-loading bums.I feel the same. Nice that some have already spoken my mind.;)

And I haven't even taken myself off the mailing list, though at retirement my contributions aren't what they used to be.

The fact that Paul Helmke, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Rebecca Peters, Michael Bloomberg, Carolyn McCarthy, and George Soros all loath the NRA is reason enough to join.Now this would make quite a nice billboard.

Carl N. Brown
April 26, 2011, 08:07 PM
It is Congresscritters who say that the NRA is second only to AARP for lobbying power.

The Library Journal once crowed that congresscritters--uh, congressional staff--rated the American Library Association as Number One in the accuracy of data supplied to congressional staff on issues concerning pending legislation. The editorial noted with some surprise that the NRA was rated Number Two. (The NRA quoted the Library Journal on this issue.)

Carl N. Brown
April 26, 2011, 08:18 PM
If you want to support other freedoms, give money to the ACLU too. I am a member and donor of both outstanding organizations.

NRA and ACLU co-signed letters in protest of Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Joint Letter From a Coalition of Diverse Organizations to President William J. Clinton, January 10, 1994, from: Ira Glasser, American Civil Liberties Union; John Snyder, Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Eric Sterling, The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation; Arnold S. Trebach, Drug Policy Foundation; David Kopel, Independence Institute; James Grew, International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement; John Henry Hingson III, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Mary Broderick, National Legal Aid and Defender Association; James J. Baker, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Affairs; Alan Gottlieb, Second Amendment Foundation.

Joint Letter From a Coalition of Diverse Organizations to Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, and John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member, of the House Committee on the Judiciary, October 24, 1995, from: Ira Glasser, American Civil Liberties Union; Laura W. Murphy, American Civil Liberties Union; Malcolm Wallop, Frontiers of Freedom; Tanya K. Metaksa, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action; Gerald H. Goldstein, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; William B. Moffitt, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; David B. Kopel, Independence Institute; John M. Snyder, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America; Eric E. Sterling, The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
Nancy Ross, Ross and Green; Joseph P. Tartaro, Second Amendment Foundation; James X. Dempsey, Center for National Security Studies; Mark Gissiner, International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement; Ronald E. Hampton, National Black Police Association; Conrad Martin, Fund for Constitutional Government; David C. Condliffe, The Drug Policy Foundation.

Vonderek
April 26, 2011, 08:23 PM
I want to know what the NRA has done locally

I provided a link very early on about several bills that the NRA has crafted here in the state of Florida. If you did not read it then Sir, with all due respect I am wondering if you are just stirring the pot.

As I also mentioned early on, these NRA threads are pretty much a waste of time (and yes I know..."if it's a waste of time, why are you reading and posting?" Because I can't help myself. :) ) The lines have been drawn and no one is going to change anyone else's mind. For example, I corrected another member early on on his facts and instead of acknowledging his error he dug his heels in deeper.

Gordon_Freeman
April 26, 2011, 09:50 PM
If you decide not to renew your NRA membership, sell all of your guns and move to New York or California. Or you might want to consider moving to another country where they have lost the right to own firearms.

69Rebel
April 26, 2011, 09:54 PM
Alright. I'm convinced. Just joined up.

I've come to believe that if NRA had about 10 million plus members, we could probably get rid of GCA '68 and a whole lot of other onerous gun laws.

1stmarine
April 26, 2011, 11:34 PM
YES! Thats the right thing.
I Am going to renew mine too that I forgot to do the other day. They need help not just to defend the 2nd amendment but the 1st and the others. Firearms liberties is just one small problem of everything else is going on but we have to keep supporting them and other grassroots organizations. Talk to your senators too, not just firearms but other things.
Cheers.

golden
April 27, 2011, 12:00 AM
There is no reason to join the NRA. You can just trust President OBAMA and V.P. BIDEN when they say they "ONLY WANT COMMON SENSE GUN REGISTRATION".

OPPS, I mean COMMON SENSE GUN CONFISCATION".

No, I meant COMMOS SENSE GUN LAWS!




NOT ME!

Jim

Black Butte
April 27, 2011, 02:19 AM
If you want to support other freedoms, give money to the ACLU too. I am a member and donor of both outstanding organizations. :what:

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the ACLU's position is that individuals should NOT be allowed to own firearms.

Read about their anti-gun stance for yourself on their website:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

blackhawk556
April 27, 2011, 02:38 AM
This was work of Alan Gura and SAF mostly.
:what:



How about the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions that literally saved your Second Amendment rights? Biggest gun cases in over 100 years (Cruikshank = 1875, Miller = 1894). Still, you might have missed it.


Sent from my SGH-i917 using Board Express

Usmc-1
April 27, 2011, 09:54 AM
I thank the forefathers for my ":Right to keep and bear arms " not the NRA ,get it right , the NRA is a tool , I agree that the NRA is helpful , but I find it ironic that no one in here can give a reason other than its good , or they help all gun owners ,etc,etc ,

If I said I was looking at buying a specific gun , I would hear all the pro's and cons's of buying that particular gun , why is it so hard to give me "facts " on pro's and cons" about the NRA , just because they are fighting anf lobbying for gun rights doesnt convince and shouldnt convince anyone in here , trying to justify why you gave them your money by saying they are doing an outstanding job protecting our freedoms is the speel they send to you in there brochures ,

Sell me the NRA the way you sold me buying my Ruger Redhawk! It was very intense and people told me the facts as they seen them, real life , not some brochure that Ruger sends out , facts!

If I want to hear gobblty gook I listen to Obama and the rest of the idiots (running this country for now) ! Dont talk to me like a politician , I am a citizen , maybve thats the problem with the NRA ,there so busy greasing the politicians they've forgot how to talk to the people!

Ben86
April 27, 2011, 11:40 AM
yes.....you think they are bad based on your political views.........no one plans on their views being bad for the country.....just because you disagree with it doesnt mean its bad for the country......

There are some things, even though not gun related, that the NRA should avoid supporting directly or indirectly.

The NRA is a one-issue organization.

And you seem like a one-issue voter, so I don't expect you to understand my point.

Kendal Black
April 27, 2011, 11:41 AM
Surely someone or other has mentioned the NRA rates politicians on the gun issue, so you don't have to do all the homework that entails, supports range development and operation, sponsors local safety courses, puts on a fantastic lobbying effort, monitors pending legislation and sometimes manages to take a hand in drafting it...

Neverwinter
April 27, 2011, 12:42 PM
:what:

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the ACLU's position is that individuals should NOT be allowed to own firearms.

Read about their anti-gun stance for yourself on their website:

http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but their stance is irrelevant since they have not been actively involved in the restriction of gun rights. They have only gotten involved in gun cases where other rights were violated. For those who are not single issue rights supporters, the ACLU is a great organization.

Sent from a van down by the river

69Rebel
April 27, 2011, 12:47 PM
Lets' not divide and conquer ourselves.

Black Butte
April 27, 2011, 04:08 PM
... I find it ironic that no one in here can give a reason ...

I'm sure the many people here who have given legitimate reasons find it equally ironic that you have chosen to ignore them.

8654Maine
April 27, 2011, 04:20 PM
^^^^this.

Various reasons have been given.

None of which satisfy you.

I respectfully submit that you do your own research and decide for yourself.

Semper Fi.

Black Butte
April 27, 2011, 04:33 PM
the ACLU is a great organization.

Nope, an organization that openly advocates against any of our constitutionally protected freedoms cannot be great. Nor can they be a true civil liberties organization. The ACLU has also chosen to be a partisan organization, devoted to promoting liberal candidates such as Obama. Those who have taken the time to do their homework understand the difference and give instead to more worthwhile organizations.

Black Butte
April 27, 2011, 04:40 PM
their stance is irrelevant since they have not been actively involved in the restriction of gun rights.

This statement is also preposterous. The ACLU is a large, powerful, and influential organization. When they publicly adopt and promote on their website a position that runs contrary to our Bill of Rights, it matters.

splithoof
April 27, 2011, 05:01 PM
Ask folks from Australia and England. I remember watching news coverage as grown men stood there crying as they turned over their firearms to be destroyed. Now they want them back. Too bad; they were paid $, and that is that. Now what do they have left?

sonick808
April 27, 2011, 05:12 PM
that news coverage is blood curdling. Lines stretched as far as the eye can see, turning in their guns. One of the most chilling things you will ever see. The air about the whole thing was just sadness and complete domination/oppression.

M-Cameron
April 27, 2011, 05:14 PM
And you seem like a one-issue voter, so I don't expect you to understand my point.

based on what?......the fact that im an NRA member..........im sorry pal......your dead wrong....

the thing is, your expecting the NRA to get involved in non-gun issues.....they shouldnt.

thats like going into a book store and being disappointed they dont sell fried chicken.....while it would be nice if you happened to be hungry for chicken.........the entire book store would smell all the time and no one would go there.



There are some things, even though not gun related, that the NRA should avoid supporting directly or indirectly.

says who.....you?

you need to quit looking for reasons to justify you not belonging to the NRA and just accept the fact that you dont want to join for X reason.

but saying they dont get involved in other issues isnt a valid reason.

sonick808
April 27, 2011, 05:16 PM
this video may actually give you a gag reflex or other physical rejection

Footage and misc. stories regarding Britain gun turn-in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwScdiPjdOM


notice, the video starts by pointing out that the laws were passed due to two recent shootings, which were quicky parlayed into legislation leading to the outright bans. THAT is why we have the NRA. To PREVENT this video from happening here.

ETA: All of the brits cite APATHY and DISUNITY as the reason it was allowed to occur. Hmmm

ETA: Closing quip, message to Americans: "For god's sake, get behind the biggest organization, make it as BIG as you can. JOIN THE NRA"

splithoof
April 27, 2011, 05:25 PM
They turned in their private property because they were like a bunch of easy sheep. Years & years of politicians along with a willing media telling them "It's for the better, who needs to own such a gun, and what use is there for that? The police will protect you". Everything said over there is being said here, now.
I have watched this play out in California, and look what has happened. Every year the state legislature comes up with more restrictive stuff. Who stops them? The NRA. Sure, we also have the CRPA, but they are small compared to NRA.
You might not like everything about them, but no other group is helping us more.

Go ahead. Find another excuse not to join. Guys like me bail out so many of you we are used to it. Just don't ask me to cry for you when it's your turn to stand in that line.

Ben86
April 27, 2011, 05:39 PM
says who.....you?

you need to quit looking for reasons to justify you not belonging to the NRA and just accept the fact that you dont want to join for X reason.

but saying they dont get involved in other issues isnt a valid reason.

I am a member of the NRA and persuade others to join as well. My only point is that sometimes they make the wrong political bedfellows just because they are supposedly pro second amendment, ignoring other aspects of the politician that fly in the face of the rest of our constitution.

ArfinGreebly
April 27, 2011, 05:45 PM
You know, I've managed to restrain myself from posting a lengthy discussion of this subject, written in terms of vectors.

It's long-winded and rather abstract, but it does cover the single-mindedness of the NRA.

If the thread drags on for much longer, though, I'm liable to post it.

Pray enlightenment strikes before that.

:D

Seattleimport
April 27, 2011, 06:14 PM
Nope, an organization that openly advocates against any of our constitutionally protected freedoms cannot be great. Nor can they be a true civil liberties organization. The ACLU has also chosen to be a partisan organization, devoted to promoting liberal candidates such as Obama. Those who have taken the time to do their homework understand the difference and give instead to more worthwhile organizations.

Er... this is from the ACLU's own site, linked above:

"We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."

I mean this respectfully, but: take your own advice. Do homework. The ACLU does not advocate *against* "constitutionally protected freedoms." They advocate *for* constitutionally protected freedoms. That's the entire point of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Seriously. Their missions statement is "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country." Their slogan is "Because Freedom Can't Protect Itself".

I strongly suspect that if the acronym ACLU didn't have so much baggage from FOX News smears, a large number of folks on this board would be very much into the organization. Take away that baggage, and ACLU literature reads a heck of a lot like Tea Party and similar literature. To wit: both groups are all about strong adherence to and support of the Constitution of the United States of America. And I'm for that. After all, the 2nd is only one small part of the Constitution (and its 26 other amendments).

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. The proof is that the amendment has been debated and interpreted by for generations. Debated by historians and constitutional scholars, not just passionate enthusiasts.

As for Obama: my wife studied law under him when he was a teacher at the University of Chicago. He's a lawyer, and an expert on constitutional law. She heard, in class, Obama declare that the 2nd amendment grants the right of gun ownership to American citizens.

Now, does that allow citizens to mount chainguns in their SUVs? To own rocket launchers? To own machine guns? To own high-capacity military rifles? To own bolt action rifles? To own high-capacity pistols? To own revolvers? To own muskets? That's a sliding scale, and like it or not, it's open for debate.

My problem with the NRA is that any mention of regulation--even reasonable regulation, like "citizens can't own tanks", brings up a knee-jerk hysteria of slippery slope, police state, etc. etc. And the organization promotes single-issue voting: they'll endorse a candidate that's easy on guns, but awful on trade, health, business, the environment, and so on.

I'd much prefer to support a gun organization that supports and defends private ownership of firearms, but that also recognizes the reality that America has a disproportionate problem with gun violence (compared to other Western countries). I'd prefer an organization that seeks to engage with lawmakers to remedy that issue while promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

SwampWolf
April 27, 2011, 06:30 PM
Sell me the NRA the way you sold me buying my Ruger Redhawk!

Here's how I see it, Usmc-1: You asked, "Can someone here change my mind (regarding not renewing your membership in the NRA)"? More than a few well-intentioned NRA members in this thread (I count myself among them) have went to a lot of effort to persuade you, a fellow gun owner, to "re-up" with the NRA. You apparently need more coaxing and "evidence" to get you to do the right thing. I, for one, am done with it. If you don't see the need, fine, go your own way and continue to let some of us toil in the trenches while other anti-NRA gun owners go their merry way. Do your own research (which entails a lot more than querying some THR members for their input) and make your decision based on that.
If you're asking for "proof" of the NRA's effectiveness in curbing anti-gun laws, then you probably will never be satisfied with what anybody says or thinks, because the proof is in the pudding (that is, you can still own a gun in America), not in spiels, rhetoric or "scripts". All I can say is that politicians fear and respect the NRA and the bigger we become, the more effective we can be. Is the NRA perfect? Does it address every members' needs and wants? Of course not, what organization is or does? Can the NRA be better? Of course it can-but you have to be at the table before you can eat.
I'll leave you with this strong opinion: Without the National Rifle Association's on-going efforts in the fight to continue to preserve the right to keep and bear arms in America, no American today would have that right. And, if that's true, what better reason is there to continue your membership in this grand institution? If you need further convincing, you'll have to get it from some other source. No further cajoling or coaxing from this member.

69Rebel
April 27, 2011, 06:32 PM
Footage and misc. stories regarding Britain gun turn-in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwScdiPjdOM

I don't know how anybody can watch that and not join the NRA. If not NRA, the GOA, SAF or the like.

M-Cameron
April 27, 2011, 06:36 PM
My problem with the NRA is that any mention of regulation--even reasonable regulation, like "citizens can't own tanks", brings up a knee-jerk hysteria of slippery slope, police state, etc. etc. And the organization promotes single-issue voting: they'll endorse a candidate that's easy on guns, but awful on trade, health, business, the environment, and so on.

I'd much prefer to support a gun organization that supports and defends private ownership of firearms, but that also recognizes the reality that America has a disproportionate problem with gun violence (compared to other Western countries). I'd prefer an organization that seeks to engage with lawmakers to remedy that issue while promoting safe, responsible gun ownership.

a few things.....


actually citizens can own tanks. there are hundreds if not thousands in private collections.....but thats beside the point.

firstly, the thing is, how far do you take "reasonable"? ........it IS a slippery slope.

do i believe people need anti-aircraft guns.....no........should there be a law to prevent their ownership.......also no........can they be used for bad things, sure they can........but so can a toaster if one were so inclined.

She heard, in class, Obama declare that the 2nd amendment grants the right of gun ownership to American citizens.

Obama is wrong.....the 2A doesnt mention guns anywhere.....it says "arms"........the definition of an arm "is a tool used with the aim of causing damage or harm (either physical or mental) to living beings"

that covers everything from rocks to rockets.........time bombs to tanks.

secondly, the thing is, they are a GUN organization, i dont see why people are so distraught they dont focus on other issues, if you want someone to support your view on health care, join a health care organization, if you want someone to support your view on the budget, join a budget organization.....


and finally, we may have more gun violence compared to other countries.......that is because we have more guns.......im also willing to bet we have a higher rate of traffic accidents than Ethiopia also........the number we need to look at is the rate of overall violence, and it has been proven time and again that gun ownership leads to less crime.

Hunt480
April 27, 2011, 06:45 PM
NO DO NOT !!! We old timers have been paying for you worthless scalawags for decades now so it does not matter any more and neither do you. IN my case I have been doing so since 1958 and have had the unmitigated pleasure of seeing a lot of those cheapskates cash in their chips. As per usual in all things there are the doers and those who are.... too cheap even to carry their own weight and wated it all handed to 'em as a freebie. <deleted> And so it goes....

Sounds like my ole man speaking from the grave if he could...

Black Butte
April 27, 2011, 06:59 PM
We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

Sorry, but the ACLU did take a position. I have shown you how the ACLU in its own words and on its own website states that they believe American citizens should not have the right to own firearms.

Simply stating that being against the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights "does not raise a civil liberties issue" does not make it so. By analogy, it would be rather convenient for a killer to escape prosecution simply by stating that murder does not raise a criminal issue. The ACLU can whine all they want about the Second Amendment not being a "civil liberty." The fact is that the freedom to own firearms is guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights by our founding fathers, and the ACLU stands against it.

That the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms is an immutable truth. With all due respect, it is you, not I, that needs to "do your homework."

Ignition Override
April 27, 2011, 07:34 PM
I know of two guys who don't see any need for semi-auto "AK-47 clones" to be legal.

One of them has the TN CCW, carries a concealed .45. For what it is worth, he is from Nashville, flew
(West Coast: NAS Moffat) Navy P-3s in the 70s, but sees no reason for every country boy to have a gun.

The other guy is a coworker, lives near Dallas and is a duck hunter. I won't mention their political party, because apparently millions of gun owners in both major parties benefit from those who decided to Take Action:), instead of reaping the harvest from others' membership dues.

It is doubtful that those two guys give any dues to the NRA, but they both probably benefit from its lobbyists, which cost huge heaps of cash.
If there is a perfect, flawless gun lobby with serious influence in Congress, I'll switch over.

Maybe none of us actually need to belong to the NRA.... Let's be clones of the Aussies and British citizens, and like the German sports shooters, we document how many rds. of ammo we have, and keep it locked up at the shooting clubs (the gun class takes several weeks, and is pricey). A single .223 bolt-action rifle holding a max. of three rds. should suffice.

Instead of Taking Action:), we just keep our money, and allow Pelosi, Feinstein, Chuckie Schumer, etc the Senate/White House to tell us what we should own, and which guns to turn in.
I almost forget...Attorney General Eric Holder will also do a fine job telling us what we need.

Stevie-Ray
April 27, 2011, 08:01 PM
As for Obama: my wife studied law under him when he was a teacher at the University of Chicago. He's a lawyer, and an expert on constitutional law. She heard, in class, Obama declare that the 2nd amendment grants the right of gun ownership to American citizens.Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

Rights are not granted by the government. That's a dangerous assumption.

gym
April 27, 2011, 08:05 PM
I also donate to my local sherriff

Ben86
April 27, 2011, 08:20 PM
"We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue."


I read that as meaning they do not consider the owning of guns to be a valid civil liberty worth protecting and that they would not be distraught if gun bans are put into effect. While that's not exactly anti-gun, it makes them more of a selective civil liberties union instead of one that protects the entire Bill of Rights.

oneounceload
April 27, 2011, 08:26 PM
Why should I re-join the NRA?

If you really have to ask, perhaps you shouldn't.....................

1stmarine
April 27, 2011, 08:40 PM
Join the NRA and every other association that fights for any constitutional rights.
It is not about the guns only but government control at all levels. Schumer should know better and ask the people of Israel the consequences of disarming the law abidding population and then come back and stop all the non-sense he is doing with all the other anti-constitution politicians.

blue_ridge
April 27, 2011, 08:48 PM
CCW_Steve: The fact that the NRA uses the government (which eventually leads to people in uniform using force) is enough in my mind to show that they are trying to 'force' gun rights. If the NRA lobbies for the gov't to pass a law, then the gov't will use force (i.e. police, military) to enforce that law. I have a huge moral issue with that.

Maybe I'm missing your point. It sounds like you intend to just go stick your head in the sand.

You live in a country which is governed. Yeah, it might be nice if we went back to loin cloths and roamed the country side freely, but we have evolved. (albeit corruptly in some ways) Our society has rules and laws which are governed by elected officials.

So, yes, if you break a law, murder someone, steal something, traffic illegal guns/drugs etc. you will go to trial and then jail by force. So are you opposed to sending people to prison for murder too?

The NRA is fighting against allowing this "forceful government" from gaining even more power than they already have. By removing private ownership of guns from the equation, the government would easily be able to use "force" for just about any reason it wanted to. I think support of the NRA is in everyone's best interest.

Bigseven
April 27, 2011, 09:27 PM
I would like to say that I am a former member and would be a lifer if I could afford it. I am like many that I have heard on here in stating that the NRA is not all good but it is the front line driving force that allows us to enjoy our 2A rights.

I owe no explanation as to what political party I belong to and no one has the right to tell me or anyone else what we should believe. I would also like to say that I am a registered Democrat. Now that does not mean I always vote for a Democrat (I vote for the guy that I feel will do the most good), what that means is that my way of thinking leans more to the central left side of the political spectrum. I love hunting, and shooting. I also feel that people have more rights then some people want to allow them. My family is of democratic roots that stems from the more honorable Dems such as FDR and JFK (who was a life member of NRA).

Back to the subject at hand. I say if you enjoy your 2A rights then yes join and put up with the garbage they send you or plan on handing over your guns and your children's rights to bear arms as well.

My kids love shooting. My daughter had a bad experience with a 40 SW (the recoil of the gun caused the gun to hit her in the fore head causing a gash which is now scarred; She was taught to hold the gun correctly and instead tried pulling the gun closer to her body to shoot) this did not sway her from shooting any longer in fact with dried blood on her face she was back out there shooting within 20 minutes.

This year she is being mentored by myself, she will have an opportunity to kill her first deer at the age of 10. My son is only 4 and badly wants to hunt. He enjoys the hunting games on the computer. I instill in my children the difference between right and wrong. Our right to bear arms is just that, our right. The NRA makes it possible for my children to enjoy hunting and shooting.

So yeah I feel the NRA isn't all good but they do good for gun owners. They are our first line of defense in this modern day.

Believe what you will but when I can I will be rejoining.

Neverwinter
April 27, 2011, 09:53 PM
Sorry, but the ACLU did take a position. I have shown you how the ACLU in its own words and on its own website states that they believe American citizens should not have the right to own firearms.

Simply stating that being against the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights "does not raise a civil liberties issue" does not make it so. By analogy, it would be rather convenient for a killer to escape prosecution simply by stating that murder does not raise a criminal issue. The ACLU can whine all they want about the Second Amendment not being a "civil liberty." The fact is that the freedom to own firearms is guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights by our founding fathers, and the ACLU stands against it.

That the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms is an immutable truth. With all due respect, it is you, not I, that needs to "do your homework."
In their valiant fight against the 2nd amendment, the ACLU's greatest achievement is a post on their website and press releases. Their statements are just words and have not diminished our 2nd amendment rights.

The ACLU has not gotten involved in activity which would have a substantive effect on the 2nd amendment. If you have contrary evidence of assistance in court cases or drafting of legislation, post it. We're waiting.

Black Butte
April 27, 2011, 10:05 PM
In their valiant fight against the 2nd amendment

Stop trying to deflect and sensationalize, it doesn't earn you any points. I have accurately put forth that the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms and provided supporting evidence confirming the same. You, on the other hand, have been quite unable to counter my assertion or contribute anything constructive. If you have nothing to say, it's best to say nothing.

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 12:32 AM
There are some basic principles at work here.

First, organization trumps ability (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OrganizationTrumpsAbility). I have been witness in my life to dozens of people of surpassing ability who have nonetheless been steamrollered by better organization.

Organization doesn't have to be "excellent" or some other choice of superlative. Organization only has to make it possible for drones to act as force multipliers for people of "adequate" ability. Against an outfit capable of bringing to bear the efforts of hundreds (or thousands) of people, working three shifts, doing nothing more than continually submitting new briefs and bills, releasing yet another press piece, drafting even more distortions of the truth, a small band of determined patriots can get their butts handed to them as a matter of routine.

To push back the tide of lies and relentless subterfuge against the freedoms of gun ownership requires an equally relentless persistence undistracted by an unrelated daily grind, and that in turn requires funding and logistics and at least a minimal organization of effective research, wordcraft, and a finely tuned grasp of the vectors at work. If your opponent can put more hands on the oars, you had better have a superior hull and sails or they will simply overwhelm you with main force.

The NRA, SAF, and other organizations have some of the brightest and most effective minds that can be brought to bear, but to keep them in the rigging and at the rudder and manning the volleys vital to our success means keeping them well stocked with victuals and grog. And that takes funding. And, if there is to be any meaningful focus, undistracted by empty larders, empty tummies, and empty gas tanks, then that funding has to come from people who willingly spend the shillings to keep the campaign afloat.

The "vectors at work" that I mention above are a relatively small, selected set of directional forces that affect the outcomes -- the ultimate vector sums -- of all the efforts of all the players (see here for context (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LifeVectors)). The vectors discussion of this topic -- why you can't make your efforts into some kind of portmanteau of issues -- is a separate writeup. With any luck, I won't have to post it.

Neverwinter
April 28, 2011, 12:35 AM
Stop trying to deflect and sensationalize, it doesn't earn you any points. I have accurately put forth that the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms and provided supporting evidence confirming the same. You, on the other hand, have been quite unable to counter my assertion or contribute anything constructive. If you have nothing to say, it's best to say nothing.Your assertion is that the ACLU is harmful to the 2nd amendment. The summation of your argument is that having an opinion on the 2nd amendment is sufficient to harm our liberties. "Sorry, but the ACLU did take a position. I have shown you how the ACLU in its own words and on its own website states that they believe American citizens should not have the right to own firearms." That argument is laughable on it's face.
You have not provided sufficient evidence for advocacy by the ACLU against RKBA. Two posts by others which point this out have been ignored or deflected. You still have a chance to cite the legislative and judicial history which illustrates the harm that the ACLU have attempted against the 2nd amendment.

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 12:59 AM
Stop trying to deflect and sensationalize, it doesn't earn you any points. I have accurately put forth that the ACLU opposes the civilian ownership of firearms and provided supporting evidence confirming the same. You, on the other hand, have been quite unable to counter my assertion or contribute anything constructive. If you have nothing to say, it's best to say nothing.

Your assertion is that the ACLU is harmful to the 2nd amendment. The summation of your argument is that having an opinion on the 2nd amendment is sufficient to harm our liberties. "Sorry, but the ACLU did take a position. I have shown you how the ACLU in its own words and on its own website states that they believe American citizens should not have the right to own firearms." That argument is laughable on it's face.

You have not provided sufficient evidence for advocacy by the ACLU against RKBA. Two posts by others which point this out have been ignored or deflected. You still have a chance to cite the legislative and judicial history which illustrates the harm that the ACLU have attempted against the 2nd amendment.

For a moment, let us overlook the character of the ACLU's founding, and examine only what its presumed purpose is.

The ACLU is supposed to be that organization that protects the little guy from big bad government oppression.

When big bad government interferes with free speech, the ACLU is all over it. Why? Because free speech is a Constitutional guarantee. When big bad government steps over the line with a 4th Amendment search & seizure breach, the ACLU wades in. Why? Freedom from unwarranted search & seizure is a Constitutional guarantee.

The ACLU is (supposedly) all about protecting the rights -- especially those enumerated in the BoR -- of those who would otherwise suffer infringement of those rights at the hands of big bad gov.

When the ACLU stands idly by while encroachment after abridgment of the Second Amendment transpires before their noses, they encourage and embolden those who seek to nullify gun rights.

In the same way that a cop who stands by with his hands in his pockets while a couple of good ole boys beat another guy to a pulp because he talks with a lisp (I didn't see no crime) is, in fact, providing encouragement and tacit approval for the beat down, so too is the ACLU providing its tacit endorsement of attacks on the 2nd Amendment when it stands there with its hands in its pockets, saying, "I don't see no rights violation."

If you're the 800-pound rights-defending gorilla, and you stand there whistling and shuffling your feet at a clear infringement of rights, because you "don't see it as a rights issue," you have given green light to people who would otherwise stop short and say, "no, we ain't doin' that, the ACLU would be all over us, and we just can't afford that."

Part of their function is to act as a deterrent, simply by wearing a mean look when people think out loud about abridging someone's rights.

When they make it clear that they have no inclination to deter anyone, they are aiding and abetting.

If the Transit Authority takes no action, it is of no consequence: transit =/= civil liberties. If the school board takes no action, again, so what? Education =/= civil liberties. When the ACLU takes no action, it's tantamount to endorsement. Civil liberties is their beat.

Gun ownership is a civil liberty.

Yet the "civil liberties" gorilla says, "I didn't see no crime."

(Then again, a closer examination of their founding charter will explain much of this apparent inconsistency. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion, as it's a political thing.)

Ignition Override
April 28, 2011, 01:23 AM
ArfinGreebly:

That is a superb presentation, and the more subtle arguements are more difficult for people to grasp.

We are used to clear, short sound-bytes with no subtleties. Americans are a very impatient people, and want to see visible actions now, in clear black and white.

Pardon my ignorance, but is the SAF the Second Amend. F.?
Maybe it's the one which has the detailed statistics on the relationships between gun ownership and crime trends in various countries.
Despite my age, I never knew about Any of this until a few years ago. Maybe most Americans never will, and hasn't moist of the mass media groomed people to be skeptical of anything that the NRA says?

Black Butte
April 28, 2011, 01:24 AM
Your assertion is that the ACLU is harmful to the 2nd amendment. The summation of your argument is that having an opinion on the 2nd amendment is sufficient to harm our liberties.

Nope, I never made this assertion. Your straw man argument has failed. Reread my original post, or in the alternative, have someone explain it to you. What I said is that the ACLU has taken the position that individual American citizens do not have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms. The summation of my argument is that people who cherish their Second Amendment freedoms might want to reevaluate donating to an organization that does not believe in that particular freedom. Clear now?

You have not provided sufficient evidence for advocacy by the ACLU against RKBA.

Sorry, I never used the word "advocacy." Aren't you just super-clever for trying to win an argument by making up assertions I never made? Again, reread my post above. My statement is factual and accurate, that the ACLU has taken the position that individual American citizens do not have a constitutionally protected right to own firearms. This position is clearly documented on the ACLU's own website, by none other than the ACLU for anyone who can read. No matter how much you complain, this immutable truth will not change.

Black Butte
April 28, 2011, 01:36 AM
ArfinGreebly makes a well-reasoned and compelling argument. I suggest that the ACLU even goes beyond remaining silent while others try to transgress our Second Amendment right. The ACLU openly declares on their website that they do not believe the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own a firearm. With this statement, the ACLU is actually encouraging others to challenge our freedom. A shameful position to take for a so-called "civil liberties organization."

azmjs
April 28, 2011, 04:05 AM
Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

Rights are not granted by the government. That's a dangerous assumption.

A more accurate statement is that it is a nitpicking semantic distraction.

Unless the point of his lecture was that the constitution grants rights, which is to say, unless he meant to assert that position, then your reaction is in fact an entirely unreasonable overreaction, and a straw-man attack.

azmjs
April 28, 2011, 04:13 AM
The ACLU is the nation's preeminent defender of the rights of the individual against government overreach.

An easily dismissed criticism of the ACLU is that they don't do anything to defend gun ownership.

The simplest explanation is that the ACLU practices a form of triage, which is a process of determining how to use limited resources to do the most good.

In the real world, the NRA is a potent and very effective pro-gun-rights organization which is well funded and supported. The ACLU would be wasting its limited resources if it expended them to do work already done by the NRA.

On the other hand, no organization is in the position to take up the slack of the ACLU's work on the rest of our hallowed freedoms.

The ACLU would be doing a disservice to every American, and every American who will come after us, if it willingly squandered its limited resources to mollify hurt feelings and accomplish nothing.

Every adult is capable of understanding that in order to use his own resources effectively to defend his freedoms, he must donate to more than one organization.

Withholding support from the ACLU undermines American liberty, in the same way that withholding support from the NRA undermines gun rights. We all have a duty, as free men and women, to do what we can to support and defend our own freedom. It is a high expectation, but who says that free men and women should be held to a low standard?


Part of wisdom is the understanding that someone who does a very good job- a better job than anyone else, and a great deal of good for a lot of people, should not be punished because he wasn't *perfect*.

No one is perfect.

A wise man, a pragmatic man, and a good man eventually understands that he can not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Usmc-1
April 28, 2011, 09:58 AM
@ArfinGreebly, thank you for giving an excellent reason why the executors of the NRA need to be paid and in order to keep the talent , I love that , thats one point , too bad nobody else can give a reason , just the "research yourself " watch the video and you'll see why" First off watching the video doesnt prove anything , the Sheep that turned in there weapons would have been the same sheep here (including NRA members) !

How many of you life members will gladly stand in line and turn in your weapons after the NRA loses its battle with the government? You dont know your breaking the law, if you dont turn them in!

After 20 years in law enforcement , I can tell you right now I will be the first person who WONT stand in line and turn over my weapons (to the DHS censors reading this) write down my IP immediatley , Oh thats right Im already on that list ,US Marine ,Law Enforcement ,Gun nut!

I dont need the NRA , but the NRA NEEDS ME and they got me ! yes I did research the NRA on my own ,its sad that I couldnt go to gun enthusiasts for simple info and all I get was inuendo andd scripts like credit card companies on the phone! But thats all right , I know the real deal !

Also sense you got me rolling I was a Republican for years because of the conservatism , but they are the same as the other party, useless , Im independent now , Ive seen everything that both thinks you shouldnt know or you wouldnt understand ,like young women who have abortions , the reliegeous nuts of the republicans dont believe in abortion (hmmm,wonder why there so many welfare rejects in this country) !

The ACLU keeps popping up on this discussion , Im sorry but they have nothing to do with gun rights , at the very least they are agaisnt you and I !

Do you believe for one minute the ACLU WOULD REPRESENT THE NRA?


end of discussion with the aclu!

rellascout
April 28, 2011, 12:26 PM
Gun ownership is a civil liberty.

That might be your and my opinion but is is far from a universal opinion. There are many legal scholars who make reasonable arguements against the 2nd as a civil liberty and a even greater number who argue even if you grant that it is a liberty reasonable restriction applies.

Not everyone agrees on what a "civil liberty" is. I believe along with my civil liberty of freedom of religion I also have a civil liberty which entitles me freedom from religion but many would disagree with me on that one.

For example: Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

The statement above holds no truth value for me. I cannot have something given to me by a fictious being. Its all a matter of prospective.

If you want to support the NRA have at it. If you don't that is fine to. The beauty of this country is we get to make these types of choices. What I do take issue with those who think that choosing not to support the NRA makes you a lesser gun owner and try to prove that with insults, fear tactics and threats.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 28, 2011, 02:00 PM
I love that , thats one point , too bad nobody else can give a reason , just the "research yourself "

This may come as a shock to you; but discussions of whether NRA membership is a good investment are neither unusual or uncommon on gunboards - and since this one has been around since 2002, there are literally hundreds of those discussions with very many detailed responses both for and against.

Accordingly, many members are probably not interested in having the discussion yet one more time. If you are truly interested in reasons to join the NRA, then the "Search" function would likely give you hours of reading. Asking members to retype well-reasoned arguments they have already made in the past simply because you don't want to search for them is wasteful of their time.

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 02:11 PM
Gun ownership is a civil liberty.

That might be your and my opinion but is is far from a universal opinion.
And so we are in agreement.

There are many legal scholars who make reasonable arguments against the 2nd as a civil liberty and a even greater number who argue even if you grant that it is a liberty reasonable restriction applies.
And they are wrong. And, being wrong, it matters not how many of them there are. Wrong with the "knobs turned to eleven" is simply a very loud version of wrong.

"Reasonable" is simply a structured attack on the truth. Reasonableness is the business of observing the truth and, deciding one would prefer it were not so, constructing plausible explanations why it's not.

Not everyone agrees on what a "civil liberty" is.
Universal agreement is not required. Tyrants believe that liberties and rights are "conferred." The country's founders disagreed. In constituting the nation they made a point of declaring that rights exist before kings and rights do not need their permission. Liberty is a derivative of those rights.

I believe along with my civil liberty of freedom of religion I also have a civil liberty which entitles me freedom from religion but many would disagree with me on that one.
You are free not to have a religion. You are not free to deprive others of theirs simply because you find them objectionable.

For example: Then Obama was completely wrong, as usual. The Second Amendment does not "grant" anything. That right is God-given. The Second Amendment merely points this out and says that right won't be infringed.

The statement above holds no truth value for me. I cannot have something given to me by a fictitious being. Its all a matter of prospective.
A) You find no truth in the statement "The Second Amendment does not 'grant' anything?" Or is it only that you object to its being "God-given?"
B) It would seem that you do, in fact, have a religion. Atheism is not the absence of religion, it's just the religious (and unprovable) belief that there is no God/god/gods. No problem. You observe your beliefs in your way. Go in peace. I have my own convictions, born of my own studies, experience, and understanding. I don't discuss them here because they are explicitly off topic.

If you want to support the NRA have at it. If you don't that is fine to. The beauty of this country is we get to make these types of choices. What I do take issue with those who think that choosing not to support the NRA makes you a lesser gun owner and try to prove that with insults, fear tactics and threats.
Yes, I agree, insults have no place here. If you choose not to belong to the NRA, that -- as with everything else in life -- is your choice. I cannot agree that this is a wise choice, but nonetheless you are free to make it.

Fear tactics? A decision of any importance requires as complete a dataset as can be obtained. If the data contains indications that a certain condition will result from inaction, that needs to be known, else the decision will be faulty. There's no real need to be afraid of the possible outcome in order to decide that action is required.

There are powerful men working to negate our gun rights, and they have a variety of organizations which they either fund directly or arrange such funding. They are pleased when we squabble. They are pleased when we turn away from the NRA. Remember, these are men who care not a whit about "original intent" or about the propriety of the Constitution. These are men who want power and control, and for whom the ends justify the means. And they are at considerable pains to be "reasonable" about their positions.

Fear it or don't fear it, but ignore it at your peril.

rellascout
April 28, 2011, 02:15 PM
And they are wrong. And, being wrong, it matters not how many of them there are. Wrong with the "knobs turned to eleven" is simply a very loud version of wrong.

"Reasonable" is simply a structured attack on the truth. Reasonableness is the business of observing the truth and, deciding one would prefer it were not so, constructing plausible explanations why it's not.


Right and wrong is based soley on what you can demonstrate, prove & convince a judge or panel of judges of in a court of law when it comes to the this topic. You declaring I am right and they are wrong holds no water with me even though I agree with you. Your arguement here is circular and once you undermine your concept of "truth" the rest crumbles. It would still be illogical based on its structure. Your statements make for a wonderful sound bite but does not hold up. IMHO

Universal agreement is not required. Tyrants believe that liberties and rights are "conferred." The country's founders disagreed. In constituting the nation they made a point of declaring that rights exist before kings and rights do not need their permission. Liberty is a derivative of those rights.


Revisionist history.... Those rights only applied to some not all. The courts and the point of a gun had to grant those rights to a large group of people.

A) You find no truth in the statement "The Second Amendment does not 'grant' anything?" Or is it only that you object to its being "God-given?"
B) It would seem that you do, in fact, have a religion. Atheism is not the absence of religion, it's just the religious (and unprovable) belief that there is no God/god/gods. No problem. You observe your beliefs in your way. Go in peace. I have my own convictions, born of my own studies, experience, and understanding. I don't discuss them here because they are explicitly off topic.

Rights are not God given. You are also wrong in stating I have a religion. That is what most religous people attempt to do to atheist. They attempt to level the field. Religion is based on doctrine atheism has none but this is not the time or the place to correct you.

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 02:22 PM
I'm confused.

You believe that the only reason we have rights is because the government says so?

That rights do not pre-exist?

That there is no such thing as "natural" rights?

Have I misunderstood your position?

rellascout
April 28, 2011, 02:43 PM
I'm confused.

You believe that the only reason we have rights is because the government says so?

That rights do not pre-exist?

That there is no such thing as "natural" rights?

Have I misunderstood your position?

Rights as we know it are a human construct. The maker or designer of that construct does not have to be a govt.

rellascout
April 28, 2011, 02:44 PM
Fear it or don't fear it, but ignore it at your peril.


Perfect example of fear peddling.

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 03:29 PM
Perfect example of fear peddling.

Assuming that the paragraph before that is a falsehood, then yes.

If I post a yellow sign on a winding cliff-side road showing a car driving over the edge of the precipice, am I peddling fear? Or am I warning of a potential -- a possibility -- knowing the physics of cars, guard rails, and gravity?

If I put that sign where I know it can't happen, I'm peddling fear. If they sign warns of a very real possibility, then it's information the driver needs.

If the driver, secure in the knowledge that there is no hazard, chooses to ridicule and sign and curse the agency that placed it, then so be it. If his response is, "they're just trying to scare us," then I'm afraid -- short of actually having it happen -- there's little I can do to convince him.

In that case, he's on his own.

Regardless, the cliff abides.

rellascout
April 28, 2011, 03:37 PM
There are powerful men working to negate our gun rights, and they have a variety of organizations which they either fund directly or arrange such funding. They are pleased when we squabble. They are pleased when we turn away from the NRA. Remember, these are men who care not a whit about "original intent" or about the propriety of the Constitution. These are men who want power and control, and for whom the ends justify the means. And they are at considerable pains to be "reasonable" about their positions.


Lets look at the paragraph... not a single syllogism. There is no conclusion following from a premise. What you do have is a vague statement about the boogiemen who do not interpert the Constitution the same way you do. You then claim, again don't prove, they are working towards a power grab which they will uses to what..... take our guns.

Sorry not a single hard fact. Not a single data point. Not a single logical conclusion can be drawn from your inference. Break it down it is a nice little oratory but it has no substance. If you are appealing to my mind trying to convience me you are right I would think logic, syllogism, conculsions which follow from their premises are required. You have done none of that. At your best you have attempted to argue from anology. The foundation of it is nothing but fear. So what else should I call it. Sophism? Is that a better term than fear peddling?

Sometimes when we within the shooting community have these dicussions we need to step back outside the bubble that is THR. We need to understand the huge assumptions we make when preaching to the choir. We need to remove the rhetoric. I agree with the OP very little said in this 8+ page thread that constiutes a logically domonstratable arguement for why we need to reup with the NRA.

In all seriousness I believe that we need to protect our gun rights. That there is legislation that is chipping away at our rights as I type I am just not convinced that this is still the central mission of the NRA. They are a marketing and money making machine first and foremost. A protector of our rights is secondary. That is my opinion, and I am not trying to prove that I am correct, and you are entitled to have a different one which clearly most of you do. If I was attempting to convience you to believe as I do I would present my thoughts in a completely different way.

mrbladedude
April 28, 2011, 04:27 PM
You shouldn't. At least some of your money is going toward unsolicited DVDs being sent to members homes. If you keep it they bill you if not you have to package it back up in a mailer and send it back....

Sorry but this one was the straw that broke the camels back. I personally will not be renewing.
I just got a DVD in the mail and a coin. They want me to send $12.95 or send back the DVD. I might send the $12.95 but what will happen if I dont send anything and just throw away or keep the stuff?

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 04:35 PM
There are powerful men working to negate our gun rights, and they have a variety of organizations which they either fund directly or arrange such funding. They are pleased when we squabble. They are pleased when we turn away from the NRA. Remember, these are men who care not a whit about "original intent" or about the propriety of the Constitution. These are men who want power and control, and for whom the ends justify the means. And they are at considerable pains to be "reasonable" about their positions.

Lets look at the paragraph... not a single syllogism. There is no conclusion following from a premise. What you do have is a vague statement about the bogeymen who do not interpret the Constitution the same way you do. You then claim, again don't prove, they are working towards a power grab which they will uses to what..... take our guns.

Sorry not a single hard fact. Not a single data point. Not a single logical conclusion can be drawn from your inference.

There was no attempted "proof" nor any "inference."

If your own research has not led you to this understanding, then I do not propose to do your research for you.

It is my good fortune to be married to a researcher. She routinely makes my hair a lighter shade of gray with the stuff she digs up. Okay, maybe "good" fortune is pushing it a bit. :)

However, you nonetheless state:
That there is legislation that is chipping away at our rights as I type
while disbelieving that there is anyone (or collection of anyones) of any consequence that have made it their mission to deprive us of those rights.

What, the legislation writes itself? The legislation is just someone's benign erroneous attempt at crime control? Where, I wonder, does all the regulation and legislation come from then, which we have spent so much time and treasure fighting?

If your belief is that the NRA just makes it all up to frighten the populace into funding its junkets, then far be it from me to attempt to persuade you otherwise.

I must have simply imagined that gun ownership and gun rights have been all but indoctrinated out of our culture, and that ever-increasing waves of hysterical, self-indulgent, entitlement-minded gen-whatever "adults" have entered the voter rolls over the last four decades, and that any of this might not have been accidental.

Believe what you like.

I will not make a project of persuading you to believe otherwise.

Usmc-1
April 28, 2011, 07:44 PM
asking members to retype well-reasoned arguments they have already made in the past simply because you don't want to search for them is wasteful of their time.
__________________

@Bartholomew Roberts

Im sure glad the National Rifle Association doesnt believe in your methods of getting membership , there would be no reason to have an NRA , specifically it would be dead ! If you are a member and dont want to give reasons why someone should join the NRA, you either dont have the answers or dont care ,both of those answers are dangerous! Im sorry but the NRA should welcome discussions as to why someone would want to be a member , the pro's and cons' it should be written in the contract for all members "that as a member it is your duty and obligation, to answer all questions about the NRA to non members , if you truley dont know the answers , seek guidance from an NRA counselor"
There should be an NRA 800 number , on your membership card , welcome all non members ,please!

At any rate , I think discussions about the pro's and con's of worthy charitable organizations should be voiced every couple months , it needs to be in everyones minds , not just members but non members as well , because many of those non members will become members , keep the debate alive!

SEMPER FIDELIS!
Usmc-1

rellascout
April 28, 2011, 07:47 PM
I just got a DVD in the mail and a coin. They want me to send $12.95 or send back the DVD. I might send the $12.95 but what will happen if I dont send anything and just throw away or keep the stuff?

Throw it in the trash but before you do make sure you write down the opt out number. It is a separate number, that is only available 9-5, than the main number where you opt out of all the other crap.

This is why I still got it even though I have opted out of all other mailings. Proof positive of the multi layered mailing lists of the NRA. So everyone who stated that you make one call and stop all mailing is DEAD WRONG!

Frank Ettin
April 28, 2011, 08:26 PM
There are powerful men working to negate our gun rights, and they have a variety of organizations which they either fund directly or arrange such funding. They are pleased when we squabble. They are pleased when we turn away from the NRA. Remember, these are men who care not a whit about "original intent" or about the propriety of the Constitution. These are men who want power and control, and for whom the ends justify the means. And they are at considerable pains to be "reasonable" about their positions.
Lets look at the paragraph... not a single syllogism. There is no conclusion following from a premise. What you do have is a vague statement about the boogiemen who do not interpert the Constitution the same way you do. You then claim, again don't prove, they are working towards a power grab which they will uses to what..... take our guns...What's this business about "no syllogism." AG wasn't, as far as I can see, proposing a logical proposition. He was reporting current events.

Haven't you been following the machinations of the likes of Charles Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, et al? Aren't these powerful people who are working to further public policy in derogation of gun rights?

...If you are a member and dont want to give reasons why someone should join the NRA, you either dont have the answers or dont care...Actually, in this thread I've seen any number of reasons advanced for joining the NRA, and a number of members have explained why they are and remain members.

Lord Teapot
April 28, 2011, 09:42 PM
i'd avoid joining up. spend that money on another gun!
@ above post, NRA donates primarily to right wing political groups, that is not up for debate, but it makes sense because right wing groups/candidates are usually the ones who are gun friendly.

Tomcat47
April 28, 2011, 10:00 PM
Yes!

1) Rejoin....
2) Opt out...no call list....whatever!
(There Junk Mail is about 1/4 of what local grocery stores throw at me every month!)
3) Throw junk in trash, Burn it, Share it with friends and family.
4) Open New Magazine!
5) Read About Guns and Hunting and Kick Back In Recliner and Relax in your efforts Supporting Your 2A Rights. (Tomcat opening his new issue now....:) )

Neverwinter
April 28, 2011, 11:25 PM
If you're the 800-pound rights-defending gorilla, and you stand there whistling and shuffling your feet at a clear infringement of rights, because you "don't see it as a rights issue," you have given green light to people who would otherwise stop short and say, "no, we ain't doin' that, the ACLU would be all over us, and we just can't afford that."The criticism is that the ACLU has voiced a position against civilian ownership of firearms. At least try to get the premise right, otherwise your "proof" is meaningless.
Several people in this thread have the misunderstanding that the ACLU's stance on the 2nd amendment is somehow harmful and disqualifies them from being a civil rights organization.

The idea of inaction being aiding and abetting is pernicious. It would be the inverse of the Good Samaritan laws, whereby all who do not take action to assist become accomplices to the harm caused by another person. Another fault is the assertion that the ACLU is the yardstick from which the full measure of civil liberties is determined. That is the purview of the US Supreme Court. The ACLU defends a selected subset of civil liberties, and it does it well. If the ACLU gorilla is five colors, do you deny its status as a multi-color gorilla because it doesn't have all the colors? If it communicates to you that it doesn't think blue is a color and wouldn't support you in a fight to protect blue as a color, does the status of blue as a color become endangered or weakened?

I prefer to have more than one 800 pound gorilla, so I donate to the ACLU and NRA. So far they haven't interfered with each other.

<off-topic and personal remarks removed>

@above post, NRA donates primarily to right wing political groups, that is not up for debate, but it makes sense because right wing groups/candidates are usually the ones who are gun friendly. There is nothing wrong with the support of candidates which are favorable to the civil liberties which they are trying to protect, regardless of their partisanship. The NRA does this because there are Democrats supportive of the 2nd amendment. The ACLU should be doing the same, but it should not be demanded of them to support Republicans a la affirmative action. If the Republican candidates in a region do not support the civil liberties that the ACLU supports, those candidates should not get endorsed.

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 11:41 PM
In your opinion, one should support the NRA?

Do I grasp that correctly?

ArfinGreebly
April 28, 2011, 11:55 PM
The idea of inaction being aiding and abetting is pernicious.

Well, taken out of context, I might be inclined to agree.

The context, however, is that defense of civil liberties is precisely the self-selected mission of the ACLU.

In that context, the highly visible absence of support for the Second Amendment is in effect an invitation to attack it.

More than that, they publicly proclaim (paraphrased) that "we don't believe in" the Second Amendment.

Nudge nudge, wink wink, as the Brits would say.

This isn't a random "good Samaritan" thing. This is an organization with a self-declared purpose of protecting the civil liberties of the individual, carefully executing a "carve-out" in it's coverage.

Pernicious? If I were advocating that everyone had a duty to intervene, and that the inaction of anyone was aiding and abetting, perhaps. That isn't the case.

This is a "super hero" defender-of-the-weak, whose mission statement has fine print that excludes the unworthy. Truth! Justice! And (80% of) the American way! (Void where prohibited or inconvenient.)

I will not dispute that they do some good.

But I will stop short of giving them a pass on this.

toivo
April 29, 2011, 12:06 AM
I don't understand why some people who have opted out still get a bunch of stuff. There must be some slackers in the mail-list department. I opted out, and I hardly get anything: just my membership info, the American Rifleman magazine, and a few pieces of mail -- like two or three -- around election time.

My pet peeve with the NRA is that they do too much fear-mongering. I'm not saying there is no cause for concern, but I just don't like the all the hyperventilating and hysteria. However, they are the most effective gun rights organization there is or has ever been. I think the gun rights picture in this country would be a lot bleaker without the NRA.

That said, I just don't like Wayne LaPierre. What can I say. :uhoh:

azmjs
April 29, 2011, 12:50 AM
The idea that rights are god-given is a dangerous and poisonous one.

All that is required to deprive someone of his "god given" rights is for there to be no god, or no state religion.

Neverwinter
April 29, 2011, 02:02 AM
In your opinion, one should support the NRA?

Do I grasp that correctly?


My answer is yes.

<off-topic and personal remarks removed>

ArfinGreebly
April 29, 2011, 02:03 AM
So, lads, have we reached the end of civil discussion for this thread?

Some of the remarks are getting kinda personal, and I'm seeing a tendency to wander off into religious assertions.

Debate the principle, attack the argument.

If we're gonna roll in the mud, perhaps we should close this.

Your call.

Ignition Override
April 29, 2011, 02:08 AM
We all benefit from the NRA.

I've read a little about the early medieval cathedral schools, and their studies of the trivium and quadrivium subjects.
Not really remembering how to define syllogism, rhetoric or dialectic (or caring),
some of us will simply choose to continue memberships in the NRA, until a better organization is created.

coloradokevin
April 29, 2011, 05:43 AM
No don't renew, we got it. Just go along with the other 19 or 20 million gun owners that whine and complain and ride on the backs of 10% that are members.

With all due respect to yourself and any other STRONG supporters of the NRA, I really hate to see that attitude, and I see it all too often on gun forums these days.

Since when is the NRA the only organization that defends gun rights?

Since when do I need to join an organization to support my right to keep and bear arms?

Since when is it automatically assumed that the largest organization is the one that best defends our rights, or that it is the organization that best fits my political ideology?

What if these hypothetical non-members spend their time 'whining and complaining' to their elected officials about these important issues, or make an effort to become involved with campaigning on the part of politicians that believe in gun rights?

What if these non-members are spending their time trying to educate the uninformed, and/or introduce new shooters to these sports? Are those people really just "riding on [your] back"?

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the NRA, and I have no specific gripe with the organization itself. But, no gun owner owes the NRA a membership, and no gun owner should have to feel like they aren't doing their part simply because they didn't join the NRA.

azmjs
April 29, 2011, 05:50 AM
It's the only organization that does any good defending gun rights.

The NRA has worked long and hard to amass the power that it has.

Consider that you want to buy a new gun. You can give X amount of dollars to Sig Sauer or H&K or Glock and get one of their expertly produced, proven, high quality, reliable, gold standard pistols, or else you can give the same amount of money to some guy with a CNC machine shop.

One way, you know you'll be getting your money's worth. The other, you probably won't get much good out of it.

Now sure, it's nice to try and support a start up, but lets say you've only got so much money, and you need a gun you know you can rely on, because you can only afford one.

If you can support the NRA and also support some boutique or novelty gun organization, great, go for it.

If you've got to choose though, the choice is the NRA.


--- ETA

In a way, you do owe the NRA your support. They've supported you for a long time. The climate of gun laws that you have the good luck and pleasure of living in is largely due to the work of the NRA.

It's hard to remember, when you're bummed out that things aren't the way you want them, but things could be much much worse.

Next time you ponder what you owe the NRA, try to remember the hundreds of restrictions and laws which you *aren't* subjected to because of the NRA's work. Gratitude, at the very least... but you can do more. :)

Tim the student
April 29, 2011, 09:45 AM
Any chance you folks arguing about the ACLU could make your own thread about that?

Why join the NRA? Because it is arguably the best organization that is fighting for your gun rights. If you don't want to join them, join one of the other organizations. If you don't want to do that, then please write well articulated letters to every single one of your elected officials.

Bartholomew Roberts
April 29, 2011, 10:00 AM
Im sure glad the National Rifle Association doesnt believe in your methods of getting membership , there would be no reason to have an NRA , specifically it would be dead ! If you are a member and dont want to give reasons why someone should join the NRA, you either dont have the answers or dont care ,both of those answers are dangerous!

On the contrary, I've answered this question dozens of times, as a search would have shown you. Frankly, I am of the opinion that most of the people who start this discussion just want to talk and have about zero interest in learning anything. And let's face it, if you are too lazy to use the "Search" function on an Internet gun forum and can't understand why the NRA is a good thing for gun owners, I'd just as soon not have you as a member.

sonick808
April 29, 2011, 11:45 AM
please stop

ArfinGreebly
April 29, 2011, 02:16 PM
please stop
. . . Is My Command.

Note, however, that I will be going back through the thread do do a little "housekeeping," wherein I will be removing personal slurs and grossly off-topic remarks.

Clearly the thread has lost focus, and I must claim part of that from my own participation.

Who knows? Maybe after some of the noise is removed . . . nah, it's been more than 7 pages; I'm amazed it's survived this long.

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