So we agree the NRA stinks?


PDA

swingset
January 28, 2003, 02:26 AM
Well, all of us seem to have our serious gripes with the organization and it's operations (unless I've read the last 10,000 posts about the NRA all wrong).

The funny thing is, and I find this each and every time someone posts a gripe, that there are always 4 or 5 Hank Hill types standing up and holding the NRA banner proclamating "Well, they are the only effective lobby" or "They are the only dogs in the fight", or even "The other groups are ineffective".

Does anyone see the irony in this???

If everyone seems to see the folly of the NRA and we all wish there were a better alternative, why don't we all switch? Isn't that the only way the NRA will get the message, or likewise a group like GOA will ever truly get the power it needs to fight for us?

Idealistic, I know, but if we stopped sticking up for them and clinging to a leaky dingy, I think more of us would migrate to a group who better echoes our values and opinions of RKBA. Just a thought.

Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.

If you enjoyed reading about "So we agree the NRA stinks?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jmbg29
January 28, 2003, 02:44 AM
Does anyone see the irony in this???You mean the irony of you having to be able to speak for "everybody" in order for your post to make any sense?

Yeah. :rolleyes:

MitchSchaft
January 28, 2003, 02:51 AM
why don't we all switch?

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm not a member of the NRA and never will be.

Jim March
January 28, 2003, 03:16 AM
Well I *am* a member, and will renew again.

The guys running the Fairfax operation are crafty political operators following a long-term plan, one I mostly support. Now granted, that sort of craftiness sometimes comes out in funky ways but overall, when directed against the grabbers it's highly effective.

Do they do *everything* right? No. They don't even do everything. So fine, some of us have to go out and get the other stuff done.

In California, the NRA runs the largest grassroots operation, plus has a number of highly effective people around that if you ain't hooked up with, you're not operating at max efficiency. Ed Worley is the best lobbyist in the state, possibly one of the best in the country.

Most of the "anti NRA types" don't have a gameplan, they've got an endless wail of complaint (usually involving the words "Vermont carry" which they'll never get, so they just run around throwing wrenches at anybody they call "compromisers").

It's about as meaningful as a newborn baby's first screech.

Wildalaska
January 28, 2003, 03:33 AM
Most of the "anti NRA types" don't have a gameplan, they've got an endless wail of complaint (usually involving the words "Vermont carry" which they'll never get, so they just run around throwing wrenches at anybody they call "compromisers").It's about as meaningful as a newborn baby's first screech.

ROTFLMAO...:D

Sounds like the same people who just quote the 2nd A endlessly without knowing anything about constitutional law...

WildnicelinejimAlaska

stellarpod
January 28, 2003, 07:21 AM
swingset states:

Well, all of us seem to have our serious gripes with the organization and it's operations (unless I've read the last 10,000 posts about the NRA all wrong).

Apparently, the latter. Don't pretend you speak on my behalf. I agree almost word for word with what Jim March stated. I frankly don't see any other organization out there that's poviding the breadth of current political status updates and mobilizing resistance that the NRA does.

But, the cause of errosion of our rights has more to do with individual apathy than the perceived misguided efforts of the NRA. Grow up folks! Sending your money to the NRA, GOA or whomever might be a good start, making you feel like you're "fighting the good fight". But, we could all take a lesson from the environmentalists playbook - "Think GLOBALLY, act LOCALLY".

I believe the NRA, albeit imperfect, is at least providing cover fire. But, if we don't get off our duffs and do more as indivuduals to swing public opinion it will all be for naught. To be honest, I know there's more I can do and I intend to challenge myself everyday to do more.

stellarpod

dakotasin
January 28, 2003, 08:10 AM
i'm a member, and i will renew again. and, i am mostly thrilled w/ the job the nra is doing.

why don't i switch? why would i?

Hawkman
January 28, 2003, 08:17 AM
I am no longer a member, nor will I ever be again. NRA is fighting a rear-guard battle, gradually ceding our gun rights. Someone please point out to me an area where they have made inroads that RESTORED a lost right or influenced a reversal of an anti-gun policy.

And don't talk to me about McClure-Volkmer - that has turned out to be a huge flop as more and more restrictions have followed. Not to mention the NFA situation that resulted.

All my money goes to GOA and JPFO.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!!!:fire:

Rant off.:p

PALongbow
January 28, 2003, 08:23 AM
Well darn.... let's just close the NRA and then we will have nothing to discuss here other than memories of our guns that we use to own.

Ron

mini14jac
January 28, 2003, 08:44 AM
So we agree the NRA stinks?

Nope.

We don't agree.

Just like our government, or the legal system, Medicare, etc.
They certainly have room for improvement.
Don't you? (I know I do.)

But to answer your question.....

Nope.

seeker_two
January 28, 2003, 08:58 AM
I'm an NRA member and will continue to be. For better or worse, they're the biggest of the 500lb. lobbying gorillas, and they're slowing the anti's progress. Do I agree w/ all NRA does? Absolutely not--but read on...

I also support JPFO & GOA--as an influence on NRA. Their policies are more along my line, but they don't have the muscle that NRA does. What they DO have is a visible alternative to the NRA that reminds them that they are not the only kid on the block. And I remind the NRA fundraisers that, if they screw gun owners, the contributions that I would send them will be sent to GOA or JPFO.

Money talks...:cool:

PAshooter
January 28, 2003, 09:02 AM
Do I agree 100% with everything the NRA does? Of course not.
Am I a member? You bet your ***.
Am I a "Hank Hill type."? Ummm... not sure what that is, but no.

I also don't agree 100% with everything the Republican party does... but I'm not about to become a registered Democrat.

What's up with people who have to see the world as black and white and nothing in between? Sure, it doesn't take much intellectual effort... about as much as breathing. But in the real world things aren't that simple.

So I'm a Republican, an NRA member, a GOA member, and I fight for what I think is right. If I waited around for an organization to come along with which I agreed 100% I'd have a long wait... or have to create a new organization with a membership of one. Probably wouldn't be very effective, though :p

Woodchuck
January 28, 2003, 09:04 AM
The NRA certainly is not perfect and will never satisfy all of the progun people out there. But it is the strongest progun organization and has a lot of political clout. Without the NRA, you would not be on this forum because you wouldn't have any guns to talk about. Quit whining and stand up for your rights. Many like to whine but when it comes down to it, they're too cheap to pitch in. They just go along for the free ride. You know who you are. Think about it the next time you lookat yourself in the mirror. Ask " Am I doing my fair share in protecting my gun rights or am I just going to whine because everything isn't just the way I want it". The yearly dues is not that much money. If every progunner belonged, it would be twice as strong.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 28, 2003, 09:19 AM
Someone please point out to me an area where they have made inroads that RESTORED a lost right or influenced a reversal of an anti-gun policy.

In 1990, how many states could you have carried a gun, openly or concealed, with the same ease that you can in 33 states today?

If it weren't for the NRA, the slim chance we have of even seeing the AW ban sunset in 2004 wouldn't even exist.

And don't talk to me about McClure-Volkmer - that has turned out to be a huge flop as more and more restrictions have followed. Not to mention the NFA situation that resulted.

Do you have any idea what McClure-Volkmer does? You should read it and think of what a Clinton presidency would have meant without it... for example, how about this screed from an anti site:

The McClure-Volkmer Act changed federal law in another significant way. Although the GCA requires those "engaged in the business" to obtain a federal firearms license, Congress originally did not provide a definition of that term. The McClure-Volkmer Act amended the GCA to define "engaged in the business" to specifically exclude persons who make "occasional sales, exchanges or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sell all or part of his personal collection of firearms." 18 U.S.C. § 922 (a)(21)(C).

We could all be selling firearms only through FFLs without that act. How is that for an infringement and then would you be crying about how the NRA ceded our rights?

The NRA is only 4 million people. That is not only a fraction of the voters - it is a fraction of the gun owners in this country. It amazes me that so many gun owners blame the NRA for not doing more when many of them can barely be bothered to send the NRA $35 a year - let alone actually write letters, walk door to door or get actively involved in the fight.

JohnBT
January 28, 2003, 09:25 AM
I think I'll upgrade to Life Member.

If you don't belong to the NRA you can't vote now can you?

Nothing wrong with belonging to a bunch of groups.

And, no, I don't play a cartoon character on tv or THR.

John...old enough to think and speak for myself TYVM.

Boats
January 28, 2003, 09:37 AM
Yeah the NRA is so awful that they are never repeatedly mentioned by name by gun control groups as the largest impediment to their "progress on common sense gun safety legislation" are they?:rolleyes:

All I ever see the Bradys and the VPC railing against is the GOO, or is it the GOC, er, the GOD, nah that's not it, the GOT? Point is they do not fear Larry Pratt and they do not raise money from their flock through invoking him or the GOA as their archenemy.

Maybe the NRA and the BCCWTMMMSTVPC&AGS or whatever the leftist twits are calling themselves these days are in a shadow play of a fight that neither of them wants to win. :scrutiny: What political action group have you ever seen that went all out as rapidly as possible and won their issue, and said, "okay let's hit the unemployment line?"

Politically Incorrect
January 28, 2003, 09:39 AM
I for one am disappointed with the stance of the NRA. Of course, the "you don't need an AK-47 to hunt with" crowd needs someone to protect their Winchesters and Remington 700s.

I struggle every March on whether or not to renew, but the NRA does support some things I support. Other issues, the NRA is lukewarm, neither hot nor cold. and I could just spit!

The NRA has its purpose, but gaining ground on the RKBA doesn't seem to be one of them. It's difficult to win arguements on logic rather than emotions like our Sarah Brady and Rosie use.

Russ
January 28, 2003, 09:40 AM
I don't and have a problem with NRA. I'm a Life Member. Sometimes I wish they could accomplish the impossible like getting a Republican majority in California but that's not really reasonable at this point.

Be that as it may, NRA made a valiant effort during the 2000 election cycle. They had informercials that stated the case pretty plainly and compellingly for those that watched. However, in a State where a large part of the population are not gun owners and are looking for govt. handouts, it's tough.

Maybe you should read another 10,000 posts. Go back to TFL and do a search.

Most of what I hear on this board talking about NRA are people moaning that the NRA doesn't do enough. Well I think they are making a good effort and have put my money where my mouth is. I'm tired of the moaning. I think LaPierre and those surrounding him have done a good job.

Put your money where you mouth is and let us know! My guess is you don't spend dime on any of it. Leave it to others. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Most shooters never join. The plaid shirted duck hunters, etc. They figure the anti's are just out for handguns or they think someone else will protect them. Wrong! Get involved. Alot of gunowners don't have a clue.

It's the same reason so many people don't vote in this country. They figure someone else championing their views will.

Art Eatman
January 28, 2003, 09:55 AM
I upgraded to Life Member in the NRA about 20 years ago; to Endowment a half-dozen years back. Perfect? Well, no, but it sure beats whining about the guns we used to be able to own.

And I have yet to see my NRA membership keep me from sending a few bucks to GOA or the Comm. to keep and arm bears. Or the JPFO...

Just because I agree with a lot of Neal Knox' views doesn't mean I think he'd be an effective lobbyist for me. When you're dealing with the largest collection of egomaniacs in the US, "bull in the china shop" tactics just don't work. And Neal and some others are about as subtle as a drunk redneck at a ladies' social.

What I see of the NRA, they're pretty doggoned good at dealing with the political realities of the times in which we live.

From about 1965 through 1995, all pro-gun groups and we have been fighting a rear-guard action against bad odds. Maybeso the times they are a-changin'; I dunno. I grant it appears that our enemies are getting more desperate, which is a sign they're in somewhat of a retreat. Now is no time to cut and run because one thinks an organization isn't hard-core enough.

As commented before, politics ain't a spectator sport. Not if you want things to go your way.

Art

rick_reno
January 28, 2003, 09:59 AM
Jim March posted "The guys running the Fairfax operation are crafty political operators following a long-term plan, one I mostly support."

Jim - since you seem to have inside info on what their gameplan is - could you enlighten us? From where I sit it looks like this; continually cut deals with the anti-gun forces that are better than what the anti-gunners want - but continue to erode our Rights away.

Maybe you can help me understand where is the line in the sand for these crafty people in Fairfax? Do they have one?

I've been a member almost all the time since about 1975; there were a couple of years in Calif. I got so PO'd with them I dropped out. I'm a member now, but will probably not sign up again. I volunteer at the local shooting city run shooting range here in Idaho, and I can assure you I'm not the only one thinking this way. I talk to a LOT of gun owners who are very upset with the direction the NRA has taken under LaPierre/Baker.

2nd Amendment
January 28, 2003, 10:09 AM
I'm a life member of NRA and will upgrade to Endowment when i get the time. They are the 300lb gorilla in this. Having said that one has to realize it's all business to the leadership of this organization. They don't want to "win" this fight because the fight is where the money is. It's a balancing act where they must stop enough legislation to not lose ground while letting enough get past to not tip the balance in their favor either.

At some point, though, it'll become necessary to put the brakes on and fight to win. The NRA will be there to do that, counting on making its' revenues elsewhere, as opposed to simply ceasing to exist due to complete defeat. The big question is, do we trust the leadership enough to know when they have milked the issue for all they can, or will they wait too long and seal their fate as well as ours?

Meanwhile I belong to GOA and JPFO, etc because they are out to win and if nothing else they force the NRA to move where it otherwise might not.

Detritus
January 28, 2003, 10:32 AM
i was a member for one year, and then i "voted with my feet/ money" . their politics make me cringe, behind "political doors" they are accepting a slow errosion of our rights, while on the public face they are spouting rhetoric that not only drive many perspective members away but makes gun owners look like a bunch of under evolved testosteroned up chest thumpers.

Monte Harrison
January 28, 2003, 10:38 AM
No. We all agree that we are dissappointed in the efforts of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.
The NRA is not "the gun lobby," only the NRA-ILA is.
Everytime we shoot an NRA-sanctioned match, read an NRA publication, take training from an NRA certified instructor, attend an NRA hunter safety class, get help from a police officer trained by NRA certified instructors, etc. etc. etc. I think we can all agree the NRA most certainly does NOT suck! No other organisation has come even close to doing half as much for the whole shooting world that the NRA has.
Now, stop bellyaching and send in your lousy $35 already.

Russ
January 28, 2003, 11:00 AM
Detritus,

You voted with your feet? Where did you end up? Do you support any organizations or is that left to the the poliically naieve?

This is not a fight we can win from the sidelines. Hope you went with GOA, JPFO or some other worthy lobbying group. Out there on your own, it's tough to get much accomplished other than the occaisional letter to a Congress Critter who likely has their mind made up and doesn't care.

Russ

RayK45
January 28, 2003, 11:19 AM
Lunacy! Total Lunacy!

Let’s boycott the NRA maybe something better will come along.

That’s 100%, grade A, #1, government inspected, Bull Sheet!

I can’t even begin to comprehend why someone would dream up crap like this!

The NRA due’s are nothing in today's economy, what is it you think your going to loose?

My dad used to say “the hole worlds going crazy“, you no what.......THE HOLE WORLD IS GOING CRAZY!

Are their people who sit around thinking of how they can convince other people from joining the NRA? You bet, be wear!

Caution: Accidental overdose of liberal or anti comments may cause excessive brain farts as well as vomiting, severe migraines, and the sheets. Keep out of reach of children. If you feel you may have been exposed to this brain washing , call someone “gunny” immediately!

Mike Irwin
January 28, 2003, 11:29 AM
Thanks, but I'll speak for myself.

No organization, especially one with close to 4 million members, is going to be able to please everyone all of the time.

If you're 100% happy as a clam with them, they're pissing someone else off who doesn't share your particular vision.

Being a gun owner means a LOT of different things to a lot of different people.

There are those who say "no restrictions on any guns at all."

There are those who say "I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle, but leave my bolt-action hunting rifle alone."

There are those who say "I'm only a hunter, I'd never use a gun to defend myself, so I have nothing to worry about."

Then there are those who say "I'm a trap and skeet shooter. As long as they don't touch my Perazzi, they can ban all the guns they want and I don't care."

Then, of course, there are the coheisve groups -- the hunters vs. the strict Second Amendmentists vs. the hard core legislatives vs. the high power rifle shooters, etc. ad nauseum.

I spent 3.5 years INSIDE the NRA as an employee. Am I 100% happy with them and everything they've done, and are doing?

Nope.

But do I have any illusions at all where gunowners would be in this country without the NRA?

Nope.

A long-term politician once told me that the BEST way to destroy any credibility you have with your FRIENDS in a legislative body is to adopt an absolutist stance. NRA is somewhat unique in that it's data has credibility not only with our Friends, but with those who are also apathetic toward us, and to a degree even with those who do not like us. I can't think of another organization, perhaps other than AARP, that has that kind of cross-Congressional clout.

I think everyone really needs to get used to a simple fact of life. The Supreme Court is NEVER going to take on the kind of sweeping "Second Amendment, absolut or conditional" case that we want. The Supremes don't have the guts.

My suggestion to you is one of two options.

Run for the NRA Board of Directors in an effort to change the inequities you see in the organization.

Or two, quit NRA and join one of the smaller, more directed lobbying groups that doesn't have NRA's war chest, its member number clout, or its access to politicians.

But, for God's sake, do SOMETHING.

Russ
January 28, 2003, 11:37 AM
I'm glad you chimed in Mike. Well said!

Wolfy
January 28, 2003, 11:47 AM
I agree with Mike an organization of 4 million members cannot please everybody all the time. I also do not agree with all their policies but they are out there doing battle for us. I am a Life Member and proud of it. Having said that I will get off my a@@ and help my gun club do more legislative action. The club I belong to is looking to join forces with other organizations and fight for our rights. I live in NJ so I basically have no rights.

What is GOA? I would like to investigate and possibly join.

rick_reno
January 28, 2003, 11:58 AM
GOA = Gun Owners of America

http://www.gunowners.org/

Mastrogiacomo
January 28, 2003, 12:05 PM
I've never been a member of the NRA, and as long as it doesn't interfere with my shooting range choices, I don't intend to. I don't need to see my money spend on promotional videos and magazines. Moreoever, I haven't seen the NRA helping out MA, NY, and NJ. They seem to only care about the southern half of the country so why bother? They don't make any difference where I live to make it worth my while to part with my money. :neener:

Mark Benningfield
January 28, 2003, 12:09 PM
Hello All.

I think we have to remember that the NRA-ILA is a POLITICAL beastie. On any political issue, you have those at either end of the spectrum who aren't going to budge because, like us, they have arrived at their position through reasoned, thoughtful contemplation, or like them, who haven't. :D But, the trick to politics is to sway the ones in the middle. To reach them, you have to be somewhat in the middle. That's the sticking point. People of principle detest compromise. Whenever the ancient Greeks found a man of solid principles, they would force him into public office at the point of a sword. Because they knew that he would never approach that "roiling snakepit" voluntarily, and because they knew (or at least hoped) that he would place his principles above personal gain. So, while I too long for more forceful and decisive action, I have to remember that politics does not work that way, stinking necessary evil that it is. I do realize, though, that I could never accomplish much in the active arena of political compromise. As much as it galls, we have to admit that we need those who can.

Wolfy
January 28, 2003, 12:15 PM
Rick thanks for the link I will be sending them money just have to decide if I want a yearly or Life Membership.

hksw
January 28, 2003, 12:23 PM
What Mike said.

To indirectly quote Abraham Lincoln, 'You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot please all the people all the time.'

444
January 28, 2003, 12:27 PM
No, I don't, but the democrats agree with you. In fact former President Clinton credited the NRA by name as the cause of the democratic parties stunning defeat at the polls in the last presidential election. After the last general election many democrats stated on national TV that one of the biggest things that hurt them was their stance on guns.
As was mentioned, when you see, or hear anything from anti-gun organizations about their enemy, the organization they mention is the NRA. Think about that for a minute. Just stop and think, it won't hurt. If that is the organization our enemies fear, what does that say ?

In the future, do not, under any circumstances presume to speak for me. I can make up my own mind about my own viewpoints.

chieftain
January 28, 2003, 12:31 PM
The NRA is the oldest and largest Civil Rights group in America.

There are several effective groups.

No one group will solve the problem or change what has already happened.

Now we can make the anti gun groups very happy and destroy the NRA or we can kick their ***'s.

I prefer to win, which in this case is to protect and strengthen the Bill of Rights 2nd Amendement.

Is the NRA perfect. nope, but it is a democratic organization. If you become a life or higher member you can effect what happens. Many guys will complain about the cost of membership. About the cost of One gun.

Make up your minds fight or whine, I support the other pro gun groups with money and issues.

Don't like the NRA, change it. It will not happen over night, but if you mean what you say, just do it!

If you want to get rid of Wayne, join and vote him out! It will not be easy or quick, but can and will happen if in fact you and the folks who agree with you want to and are the majority.

It's like in govenment. In a democracy the people get the government they want and deserve. Vote! Educate! Persuade! and then Vote and get the folks who agree with you to the poles.

Fred

AmericanFreeBird
January 28, 2003, 12:43 PM
I think the NRA has some serious attitude problems. Like "if it wasn't our idea, we're not supportin' it". Putting that aside, they touch the largest group of gun owners with information that allows them to mount personal efforts in email, phone, and letters.

Just because you're a member of the NRA, GOA, or JPFO doesn't excuse you from pulling out the pen and writing your Reps and Sens. (State and Federal) to make sure they know your stand on the issues. There is no substitute for personal activism.

Some things the NRA does I don't like. I do enjoy the magazine "America's 1st Freedom". The GOA or JPFO represent me more fully on the 2A and I do send them some $$$$'s as well.

The biggest beef I have with the NRA is when they take opposite sides (legally) on 2A issues from GOA or JPFO. They should just shut up if they have nothing good to say but hey, it's a free country.

I don't think they stink, they're just a shooting sports organization force into political lobbying to protect their interests.
:scrutiny:

Jim March
January 28, 2003, 01:33 PM
Rick_Reno asked a good question:

-------------
Jim March posted "The guys running the Fairfax operation are crafty political operators following a long-term plan, one I mostly support."

Jim - since you seem to have inside info on what their gameplan is - could you enlighten us? From where I sit it looks like this; continually cut deals with the anti-gun forces that are better than what the anti-gunners want - but continue to erode our Rights away.

Maybe you can help me understand where is the line in the sand for these crafty people in Fairfax? Do they have one?
-------------

OK, let's take it point by point.

At the state level:

Get shall-issue CCW in, as "offensive priority one". There's a good reason for that - once a lot of people are legally strapped and there's no "wave of violence" as inevitably predicted beforehand, the level of "gun control agitation" on ALL issues drops dramatically. Widespread packin' with no downsides is the best "proof" we have to both voters and politicians that we're in the right.

An example of how that helps: Michigan went shall-issue in 2000, from being very discriminatory with CCW permits. One of the key politicians fighting the reform was the state attorney general, lady name of Granholm. After a year of shall-issue went by and newspaper reports started talking about the lack of negatives (see also my archive of such, at
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/ccweffects.html ), Granholm not only stopped agitating for ANY gun control, in 2002 she ran for Governor and picked a strong pro-gun Lt. Governor running mate! That's less than two years after being the NUMBER ONE anti-gun politician in the state!

As another example, Dubya signed shall-issue CCW in Texas in '96, signed a nice package of CCW improvements in '98 plus signed a ban on suing gun makers. And then during the Prez race, he out-polled Gore on the gun issue! Gore lost in almost every shall-issue state, including his HOME state, because it was just too obvious that his demonization of gun owners was just crap.

Other state actions: elect the good guys, and worst case play defense against grabber bills in the hellholes like Calif/NJ/NY/MA/etc.

Federal level: the court gameplan is to take it slow and steady, with *several* cases going to the USSC over a period of years. A frequently cited example is how during the 1930s and 1940s, the Jehovah's Witnesses took eight separate cases to the USSC, covering free speech, legality of their faith, saluting the flag in schools, ability to knock on doors without prior permission or permits, military service (lack thereof), etc. (Weird they may be, but because of them you can go knock on people's doors and talk politics to whoever will willingly listen; political speech and religious speech are "equally highly protected".)

The "gunnie equivelent" will be to first take a clear "individual right" case up, with no "state incorporation issues" and no "criminal-appearing defendant" if possible. Which is why they'd rather push the Cato/NRA joint case in DC to the USSC before a mixed-up critter like Silveira in the relentlessly grabber 9th Circuit. To do this, they needed justices they could trust, and Dubya's record on judge picks in Texas was very good. So putting Dubya in office was a clear win and to get there, they had to stay moderate-looking! That meant having Charleton Heston wave a Flintlock instead of an Armalite. They knew it was working when Bush out-polled Gore on guns early in the race, so they stuck with what was working.

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

All that said, sure, there's gaps. There always will be. Myself and a bunch of others realize that, so we go off and do our own things and as long as we don't badmouth the NRA, not only are we not slowed down, we get access to internal NRA people, information and resources.

If you're in the SF Bay Area, esp. the south bay/San Jose area, the following may be of interest. I didn't write this, it's the EMail broadcast by the NRA Member's Council leadership there. Note the guest speaker:

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

MC of Silicon Valley: Meeting Reminder

IN THIS ISSUE:

* NRA MC of Silicon Valley Officers Election Meeting: Thursday
night, January 30

The next meeting of the NRA Members Council of Silicon Valley is Thursday night, January 30, at 7:00 PM at Harry's Hofbrau in San Jose, on Saratoga Ave near Highway 280. Please sign-in at the front desk so that we can keep your membership current.

Scheduled guest speaker for this meeting is Jim March, covering California Concealed Weapons permits issuance processes and their abuses.

Optional no-host dinner begins at 6PM; the meeting begins promptly at 7:00PM.

The meeting location is:
Harry's Hofbrau (rear meeting room, end of the hallway past the register)
390 Saratoga Avenue
San Jose, CA

Directions:
From freeway 280, take Saratoga Avenue northbound. Pass one light (Kiely) and turn into the driveway after the Chevron station.

Parking:
Parking is limited by the restaurant and tends to fill up. Some street parking is available on Saratoga Ave. and Kiely Ave. Also, the North end of the lot (toward Stevens Creek Blvd) by the bank building, the area in front of the long-closed Squeezer's Burger restaurant, and the Radio Shack Outlet areas tend to have parking available at that hour.

Good "parking citizenship" can help us stay at Harry's.

If you plan to have dinner there, please arrive early... there's generally little seating available at tables by the time the meeting starts.

Note: Harry's Hofbrau no longer requires us to save meal receipts, but we still encourage our members to have meals there as a "thank you" for the use of their large meeting room.

Alan will also have recent editions of the California Constitution books (with the US Constitution and other related documents) available for $5 each.

NOTE FOR NRA MEMBERS: Please sign-in at all meetings so that you can maintain your "voting member in good standing" status. If you know in advance that you must miss a meeting, notify Alan so he can record you as "excused" for that meeting. Members who miss three or more consecutive meetings (excluding "excused" absences with advance notice) lose "good standing" status (which generally affects only your voting rights in the Council). All NRA members will be given a copy of the bylaws upon initial sign-in and upon request.

NON-MEMBERS and GUESTS are welcome at all Public Outreach meetings; these monthly meetings are always open to the public. For Members Council private business (such as annual elections), the President may adjourn to an Executive Member Session whose attendance will be limited to NRA Members in Good Standing; if this occurs, the meeting will revert to a Public Outreach meeting once any such Member-specific business is completed.

The Members Council of Silicon Valley does not currently charge membership dues; instead, we rely on donations and our meeting prize drawings to pay expenses. Donations of cash and of merchandise suitable for our drawings are always welcome. For a free ticket to the monthly meeting drawing, send a plain written request to the P.O. Box listed above with your full name and address. One ticket request per envelope. Ticket will be held for you on a "will call" basis at the meeting. Such requests must be received at least two weeks prior to that meeting date.

TO ALL: Please periodically verify your contact information with Alan at the entrance desk and NOTIFY HIM of ANY changes as soon as possible; this is particularly important for automated phone call recipients. You can email updates to Alan at mcsv@myrealbox.com at any time.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR THE NRA MEMBERS' COUNCIL OF SILICON VALLEY
------------------------------------------------------------------

NRA Members Council of Silicon Valley
P.O. Box 640756
San Jose, CA 95164-0756
http://www.siliconvalleymc.org

Contact database changes/adds/deletes: email mcsv@myrealbox.com

24-hour message and info line: (408) 235-9175

Members' Council Women's Page: http://www.siliconvalleymc.org/women

NRA national WWW: http://www.nra.org

Current California Legislation information and legislator contact tools:
http://nramemberscouncils.com/legs.shtml

List of gun clubs in California: http://caoutdoors.com/Gun_Clubs.htm

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

This is an unofficial publication on behalf of the NRA Members Council of Silicon Valley by Alan Denney, who assumes all responsibility for its content. Statements here represent only the opinion of the author or editor. Candidates or officeholders mentioned herein are not necessarily endorsed by NRA unless so indicated.

Thank you for your participation in and support of the Members Council.
--
Johann Opitz <johannp@earthlink.net> RKBA!

makdaddy03
January 28, 2003, 01:37 PM
NRA Member 4 Life. Brother!

jmbg29
January 28, 2003, 01:53 PM
Just because you're a member of the NRA, GOA, or JPFO doesn't excuse you from pulling out the pen and writing your Reps and Sens. (State and Federal) to make sure they know your stand on the issues. There is no substitute for personal activism. (emphasis added)Bingo!

How many of the "mavericks" here teach firearms safety?

If so, what method/system do you use?

How often do you teach, and how many students did you have last year?

How many ran for/hold political office, local or otherwise?

How many attend public meetings in their area where firearms use/rights are at issue?

How many do contact their elected representatives on a regular basis?

G.O.A. and J.F.P.O. are very worthy organizations, their work is no less important than N.R.A.'s, but ask 100 people what those acronyms stand for (even at a range) and maybe 4-5 out of a hundred will know either G.O.A. or J.F.P.O. Maybe 2 will know all three. Just one of those tough little facts of life. Kind of like the "Macs are better than PCs" thing. What market share does Mac have 2%? Somebody call a Whaaaaambulance.

If you disagree with where N.R.A. is headed, run for the board. Shy of that, help someone with a winner's attitude run.

Or take your ball and run home. Whatever. :rolleyes:

2nd Amendment
January 28, 2003, 02:02 PM
OK, so let's pick a couple or twelve people from this board and vote them in to NRA office next time. I've honestly never looked at the number of votes necessary to get someone elected but surely between membership here and those we have contact with otherwise we could get the job done?

Hey, I'll volunteer. :evil:

schild
January 28, 2003, 02:12 PM
I'll support anyone that supports my rights. I'd spend the money again to become a life member. I think most gun owners that are against pro-gun groups are just to cheap to join.

Silver Bullet
January 28, 2003, 02:28 PM
why don't we all switch?
As several others have already mentioned, no need to switch: you can join the other groups in addition to the NRA. Cover all the bases! I really doubt if there are many folks here who cannot afford to belong to more than one group if they want to. If you can afford a computer, you can afford the other memberships. They cost, what, about the same as one ink-jet cartridge ?

larryw
January 28, 2003, 03:09 PM
No we don't agree. AT ALL!!

This mentality sounds like the spoiled child who wants everything his way and is unwilling to face the way the REAL world works, through comprimise and negotiation.

THINK about it, without the NRA, who do you think would be FORCING the gun grabbers to back off on their agenda? It would go the way of the gun grabbers only. So they meet in the middle on some things. Guess what; that means it keeps moving our way. Slowly, surely, but our way.

And since when wa membership in NRA exclusive of GOA or any other orgainzation? If you don't belong to ALL of them, you're not pulling your weight.

So fine, take your $35 and spend it elsewhere. Might I suggest you give it directly to HCI, because that's really what you're advocating. :fire:

cuchulainn
January 28, 2003, 05:00 PM
When Brady Campaign says it wants just ABC and doesn't push for a total ban of gun ownership, RKBAers suspect that its just a trick -- that it'll get what it can now and come back later for more.

When the NRA says it wants just XYZ and doesn't push for totally unfettered gun ownership, some RKBAers take it at face value and get angry.

Ever stop to think that the NRA might be playing the same game of bread-slices that the Brady folks are, but in the opposite direction?

Cosmoline
January 28, 2003, 06:11 PM
Any doubts I have about the NRA are destroyed every time I visit a left-wing board. They would LOVE to see gun owners go elsewhere. The NRA is the most hated and feared lobbying group in the nation. Let's keep it that way!

waterdog
January 28, 2003, 07:55 PM
They get all the lawyers off the payroll, and I will join.

The NRA is a money sponge, and are not taking advantage of the current situation, by promoting firearms training for citizens.

For days after 9/11, gun sales were off the scale.
They should have put flyers in every gun store, and retail outlets that sell firearms, and offered free firearms training.

Yeah they are a big lobby, but wining and dining, scumbag politicians, is inherently redundant, in my opinion.

waterdog

ReadyontheRight
January 28, 2003, 08:11 PM
NRA, GOA, JPFO, CMP, writing letters to your representatives, supporting pro-2nd Amendment candidates, calling anti-RKBA politicians/media on their hypocracy, volunteering for pro-RKBA efforts, sharing info in THR, encouraging new shooters, teaching children to shoot....

We need it all.

If you don't like the direction the NRA's going, get enough folks on your side and change course, don't sink the ship.

Woodchuck
January 28, 2003, 08:20 PM
Mastrogiacomo
Senior Member

Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Boston
Posts: 160
I've never been a member of the NRA, and as long as it doesn't interfere with my shooting range choices, I don't intend to. I don't need to see my money spend on promotional videos and magazines. Moreoever, I haven't seen the NRA helping out MA, NY, and NJ. They seem to only care about the southern half of the country so why bother? They don't make any difference where I live to make it worth my while to part with my money.

---------------------
Anybody ever wonder why gun rights are like they are in Mass?Just read the above. Don't worry Mastrogiacomo, some of us pro 2A people will carry your dead weight!

Woodchuck
January 28, 2003, 08:29 PM
waterdog
Member

Registered: Dec 2002
Location: AZ
Posts: 63
They get all the lawyers off the payroll, and I will join.

The NRA is a money sponge, and are not taking advantage of the current situation, by promoting firearms training for citizens.

For days after 9/11, gun sales were off the scale.
They should have put flyers in every gun store, and retail outlets that sell firearms, and offered free firearms training.

Yeah they are a big lobby, but wining and dining, scumbag politicians, is inherently redundant, in my opinion.


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

No offence Waterdog, but that's the way the world works . Without the lawyers, they would have no teeth. These are the people that fight for your rights, whether you like them or not.

Jim March
January 28, 2003, 08:37 PM
Quoting Waterdog:

"They get all the lawyers off the payroll, and I will join."

That's just nuts. Sorry, but they need MORE lawyers. Boatloads of lawyers, running pro-gun lawsuits in every state, every Circuit!

I've been to the NRA's law office in California, they're just swamped.

LiquidTension
January 28, 2003, 08:48 PM
...but I'm glad they're there. I was forced to join one of the larger pro-liberty groups (NRA, GOA, JPFO) so I could become a member of the local rifle club. I do not like much of what the NRA does, but without them we'd have been SOL a looooooong time ago. I agree with GOA much more than NRA, so GOA gets my money. The NRA will not get any of my money if I can help it, but I do not mind other people contributing to them. As much as I disagree with lots of their policies and such, they do fill a necessary role - kinda like some other 3 letter organizations (FBI, etc. - but NOT DEA, who only exist to justify their existence). So I guess the answer to the question that started the thread is...yes and no :confused:

- LT

444
January 28, 2003, 08:49 PM
"For days after 9/11, gun sales were off the scale.
They should have put flyers in every gun store, and retail outlets that sell firearms, and offered free firearms training. "

So days after 9/11 where were YOU ?
As the bumper sticker says, I am the NRA. The NRA isn't just some building in a suberb of DC, it is people at the local level. You think when a local firearms training class takes place, that some guy from NRA headquarters jumps on a plane at Dulles and comes to Arizona ? Not usually. No, the people teaching a class like that would be the guys you see at the range when you are shooting. They are the guys you see at the gun store when you are shopping. It is the guys you see in the mountains when you are out hunting. I would like to say it is guys just like you, but as you already said, it certainly isn't you. The guys teaching those courses are guys that don't whine, but instead spend their own time and thier own money to become NRA certified instructors.

PDshooter
January 28, 2003, 09:01 PM
Life member since 1991
If 25% of all gun owner were members of the NRA!! There would never be a "New Gun law":)

Silver Bullet
January 28, 2003, 09:57 PM
The NRA isn't just some building in a suberb of DC, it is people at the local level.
Exactly right, and this is the most important point in all of this discussion. I read recently that certain unAmerican multi-millionaires have donated millions and millions of dollars to various unAmerican anti-firearms groups, perhaps exceeding the NRA's funds (I don't know about the total amount), but the anti-firearms groups still are much less effective than the NRA because of the NRA's grassroots strength: thousands or hundreds of thousands of NRA members who give their own time to get the vote out, recruit new shooters, provide gun safety classes, etc., or otherwise helping our cause with their non-monetary contributions in addition to paying annual dues. The anti-gun groups, with all their money, don't have enough money to hire enough stooges to do their dirty work, and they don't have enough members to get the work done for free.

This makes me very proud, because it means the NRA is one of the very few lobby organizations (although they're much more than that) that actually represents the American people. They're not a group of ex-politicians taking money from the Chinese to gain concessions for foreign countries; they're not one of the greenie groups who, while having thousands of well-intentioned members, actually have a small group of twerps running the show who have an unAmerican agenda; they're not a major organization of our nation's teachers who, while having thousands of well-intentioned members, actually is controlled by a small group of socialists who hand-pick all the organization's candidates for office.

Just as "I am the NRA", the NRA is the USA.

Mike Irwin
January 28, 2003, 10:25 PM
"They get all the lawyers off the payroll, and I will join..."

So, just a blanket "lawyers are bad" statement?

Care to ELABORATE why you believe lawyers are bad when they work for NRA?

Here's a nasty fact for you.

The majority of the members of Congress are attorneys. They have attorneys on their staffs.

Why?

Because attorneys are trained in the legal process, which is largely the legislative process.

In order to fight that process effectively, you NEED attorneys. People who understand how to effectively lobby Congressmen and women using points of law.

NRA also has staff attorneys who work for the Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund.

In some cases NRA has provided legal representation to people who have unjustly been caught up in the system, or who are being railroaded.

NRA attorneys also file Curia Amica (sp?), or Friend of the Court briefs, in support of legal actions being taken on behalf of, or in defense of, gun owners.

In order to do that, and do that effectively, you need to be an attorney who understands the law, understands precedent, and who can craft an argument that uses both.

Another nasty fact about NRA attorneys...

If it wasn't for the support of NRA attorneys supporting state congressmen friendly to gun owners, states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania would not have "shall issue" CCW laws on the books. We'd still be at the mercy of anti-gun sheriffs, police chiefs, etc., who believe that no one should carry a concealed weapon, at least unless you're a crony or supporter of the sheriff.

I'm not certain where this apparently pathological hatred of attorneys comes from, but hopefully you'll get some understanding for how wrong it is.

Whom would you rather have supporting and advocating for your firearms rights? An attorney, or a fat white redneck with no basis in legal knowledge such as myself?

Standing Wolf
January 28, 2003, 11:25 PM
I've been an N.R.A. member since 1976. I plan to remain one until I die. No, it's not perfect, but that's why I'm also a G.O.A. and C.S.S.A. member.

andy
January 29, 2003, 12:10 AM
Swingset, you make it sound like an "either or" type situation. If someone is not completely satisfied with the NRA what is to stop them from also being active in another organization? I'm sometimes dissapointed with the NRA but I don't plan on quitting. In spite of all of their faults they do have some clout and that is what we need. I am checking out some other gun rights orgs and will probably join one of them in addition to the NRA. Lets fight the antis not each other.

swingset
January 29, 2003, 01:26 AM
I don't mean it's an either or system.

No one got the point of my post (no surprise, no one ever gets me).

I'm tired of hearing about how annoyed people are with the NRA, yet still support them with their wallets. Then, when people point to a group like the GOA and ridicule it as ineffective, I'm just left to wonder what would happen if the people who were dissatisfied with the NRA would put their support in the group that better represents their interest. With financial muscle, maybe the GOA would be a better watchdog for our rights. Maybe not but we'll never know because we're afraid to support anyone but the 300lb gorilla. That's all I was getting at.

Personally, I think the NRA is misguided on many levels, but I do appreciate that they're out there at least making an effort. But, my personal politics collide with some of the NRA's concessions (I'm not a hunter or sportsman, thank you), I despise their money-grubbing solicitations and I also think they play into the anti's hands, becoming a bad characture of themselves.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 29, 2003, 09:42 AM
I'm tired of hearing about how annoyed people are with the NRA, yet still support them with their wallets. Then, when people point to a group like the GOA and ridicule it as ineffective, I'm just left to wonder what would happen if the people who were dissatisfied with the NRA would put their support in the group that better represents their interest.

Well, most likely scenario - you would have two RKBA groups that were smaller and less effective and both would be more compromising than before since the hardcore of GOA would be diluted by the new NRA members who weren't quite as hardcore and the NRA would be abandoned to those who wanted to compromise.

To put this another way, to vote in NRA elections, you need to support the NRA with your wallet - fair enough right?

Now if you don't have the votes to change the policy of an organization with 4 million members (a lot of whom can't vote), then exactly how do you propose to protect the RKBA in a society of 280 million?

If you want to support GOA instead of NRA, good on ya - at least you are doing SOMETHING and are in the top 10% of gunowners just for that. But let's not have any illusions that GOA can only get stronger by seeing NRA diminish or vice versa.

Bottom Gun
January 29, 2003, 03:45 PM
I've been an NRA member since 1968.

Do I agree with everything they do? Heck no.

Am I going to turn my back on them because I don't totally agree with all their actions? Heck no!

There are, however, two things which irritate me:

One is the cheapskate gun owner who decides he doesn't like something the NRA is doing so he jumps on that excuse to save the cost of a membership and takes a frre ride at the expense of other gun owners.

The second is the NRA member who whines and snivels about NRA policies, actions, or inactions but doesn't bother to vote for a new board of directors in the NRA elections.

Where would we be without the NRA? Probably not in a very good situation.
Is the NRA effective? Ask Bill Klinton or AlGore.

F4GIB
January 29, 2003, 04:06 PM
Want change, go vote!

Only 7-10% of voting members actually vote (it's suspected that a hugh percentage of "life" members are, in fact, deceased).

70% of those who do vote, cast their ballots for the Board endorsed candidates, i.e. "the winning team".

Since the Seattle meeting at which Heston beat Neal Knox by 2 votes for the Presidency, no one can get nominated who doesn't pass a 100% loyalty to LaPierre test.

The members could change this by voting against every incumbent Director (even such "names" as Jeff Cooper, Steve Hornaday, the actors and musicians who never show up, the politicians who are in LaPierre's pocket, and the competative shooters who don't care about "dirty" politics) until things change. You could change it by finding members who don't vote and getting them to vote. Help them fill in their ballots. :-)

NRA needs members who pay attention to it's activities, vote intelligently, and stay the course. Deserting the ship, however satisfying, doesn't help.

PATH
January 29, 2003, 04:12 PM
I support the NRA and I will continue to support them. I will be working on the local dinner and I am involved heavily in the local politics.

Why does NRA keep sending me those requests for money? They work and that is how the NRA raises a great deal of its funds. The MMM and Brady camps send out fund raising material bad mouthing the NRA.

You need to understand the politics of our enemy. They want to chip away bit by bit at our rights. We need to protect them. We need lawyers and politically savvy people to do that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "We shall all hang together or we most assuredly will hang seperately."

Do I agree with everything the NRA does.? NO! But I sure as hell don't agree with the Brady crowd and the MMM mealy mouths! I will not bad mouth any 2nd Amendment supporters. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

I'll be damned if I am going to side with Brady, the MMM mealy mouths, and the evil Schumerites, in bad mouthing the NRA.

You may hate them, but remember, so do the above mentioned gun grabbers.

Please don't give aid and comfort to our enemies!

2nd Amendment
January 29, 2003, 04:31 PM
Quit bad mouthing the militia by attaching MMM to it! ICK! :what:

PATH
January 29, 2003, 04:38 PM
I apologize for besmirching the word "militia". Mea culpas all around!:uhoh:

I will edit the offending post!

suvdrvr
January 30, 2003, 12:37 AM
I wouldn't belong to an organization that would have me as a member!:D Actually , I've been a member for many years, the NRA makes the liberals go ballistic. What other organization is there that the hollywood left and the main stream media attack at every oportunity. They must be doing something right!

swingset
January 30, 2003, 04:41 AM
[QUOTE]The members could change this by voting against every incumbent Director (even such "names" as Jeff Cooper, Steve Hornaday, the actors and musicians who never show up, the politicians who are in LaPierre's pocket, and the competative shooters who don't care about "dirty" politics) until things change. You could change it by finding members who don't vote and getting them to vote. Help them fill in their ballots. :-)[/QUOTE

Jeesh, this perfectly illustrates how messed up the NRA's power structure is. It's, dare I say, a bit too political. (I think you're right, by the way and I did vote when I was a member).

I dunno guys, I'm just a simple guy. I just want to put my money into a cause and people who put their personal agendas aside for a greater good. I don't like lining LaPierre or any other "Name's" pocket.

Guess that's old fashioned.

Jmurman
January 30, 2003, 05:36 AM
I am however joining other groups, and keeping my membership in NRA.

I dont agree with all of their decisions, but they are whats out there.

JerryN
January 30, 2003, 12:23 PM
I don't agree with everything the United States of America does, but I sure as hell ain't giving up my membership! :what:

When I want to change something in the US of A, I go vote. Or I write a letter or make a phone call. Thats how these things work.

I belong to the NRA and will continue to do so regardless of anti-NRA whining. I also belong to the GOA and the Second Amendment Foundation. All of us should belong to every pro-gun group we can afford to belong to.

Crimper-D
January 30, 2003, 06:02 PM
Turn Google Browser to: "Good Morning Gun Lobby!" = read article, form your own opinions - Whine or not. - Your Choice

I sure as hell ain't supporting Neil Knox anymore by subscribing to Shotgun News.:fire:

JerryN
January 30, 2003, 07:19 PM
Google... google.. Yeah, I've heard of them. They are that anti-gun internet company that I NEVER use because of their anti-second amdendment stance.

Huh. Funny seeing their name on a pro-gun site like this.

Bartholomew Roberts
January 31, 2003, 10:15 AM
Google... google.. Yeah, I've heard of them. They are that anti-gun internet company that I NEVER use because of their anti-second amdendment stance.

Google doesn't accept paid advertisements for guns. Some might argue as to whether that makes them anti-second amendment. If you are going to boycott Google based on its ad policies, I hope you will be consistent and apply your policy towards local newspapers, magazines, radio and TV that have similar policies.

JerryN
January 31, 2003, 11:00 AM
If you are going to boycott Google based on its ad
policies, I hope you will be consistent and apply your policy towards local newspapers,
magazines, radio and TV that have similar policies.

As a matter of fact, I do indeed make a concerted effort to be very consistant in this approach. Its just smart business to support pro-gun organizations and punish anti-gun organizations from a financial standpoint.

If you enjoyed reading about "So we agree the NRA stinks?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!