Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Prometheus said:I feel horrible about my previous donations and years of membership to the nra. At this poitn I'd sooner give money to the brady bunch. Atleast they are up front about their adgenda!
Prometheus, I spent most of post #111 in this thread explaining the ways your statements were disingenuous. But just in case you missed it:
The nra has been against machine guns and fought to get the limits and bans on them now.
The NRA helped fund the first ever challenge to 922(o) (and lost - see post #132)
link or just do a google search and turn up dozens of quotes by virtually every nra president and board of director
On the contrary, I see a few quotes taken out of context from over 70 years ago. However, when I look at more recent quotes I see guys like Nugent (an NRA board of director) advocating for machineguns.
As to heller, the nra also fought to keep that out of the USSC.
The NRA fought to consolidate Heller/Parker so that they could include other grounds for the law to be dismissed instead of a straight Second Amendment challenge. One reason they did this is because the NRA knew firsthand from challenging 922(o) that there was a great deal at risk here.
However, Heller's own lawyer, Robert Levy has commented that the NRA had valid concerns and that since then the NRA has been a tremendous source of help to their case. Strange no one who decides to criticize the NRA ever mentions that point when they bring up Heller...
It's all about money to the nra. They are nothing more than a giant self serving money pit.
Your posts are chock full of questionable reasoning; but this one takes the cake. The NRA is limited by its charter to promoting the shooting sports and safety. The money you pay to the NRA for an annual membership doesn't even go to lobbying, PACs, litigation or challenging gun control. It goes to programs like Eddie Eagle, Range Safety, Boy Scout shooting programs, Building new ranges, etc.
At $120 million annually ($30 x 4 million members), the NRA rakes in far more money from these programs than they do from the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF (the lobbying and PAC arms). If tomorrow, it was legal to carry a loaded machinegun down mainstreet, the NRA would be just as necessary as they were from 1873-1934 when there was no federal gun control at all.
Even if you STILL believed that the NRA needed the spare change generated by gun control to keep its money in order to justify its existence, you would have to be a fool to think that Heller would change that. Has the NAACP folded its doors since Brown v. Board of Education? Are they starving for funds? How about NARAL or NOW? Did they fold up and go home after Roe v. Wade or Casey v. Planned Parenthood? Every one of those organizations receives more money today than they did at the height of their particular battles. Given that Heller is just the first step in a long line of litigation, anyone who thinks the need for the NRA will shrivel up and die after an individual rights ruling is a bloody fool.