Join the NRA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
2,710
Location
Oklahio
And write senator Carl Levin (D)-Michigan.

As we reported last week, legislation to require a federal license to possess any detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, or any handgun, has been introduced in Congress. Bills to re-impose the federal "assault weapon" and "large" magazine ban, or to impose a much broader ban, have been introduced in Congress since 2003, and will likely be introduced in the current Congress soon.

Already, the deliberate deceptions we heard from anti-gunners previously are resurfacing. Anti-gun Sen. Carl Levin, (D-Mich.), said Thursday on the floor of the Senate that "assault weapons" are "capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute"


Did we mention that our opponents are deliberately deceptive?

Many fully-automatic firearms can fire 10 rounds in a second, which theoretically would work out to 600 rounds per minute, but they cannot be reloaded fast enough to achieve anything near that rate in reality. But we are not talking about fully-automatic firearms—we're talking about semi-automatics, and the difference between them need not be explained here.


Anti-gun lawmakers swore up and down that once the "assault weapon" ban expired, the murder rate would go through the roof. Well, the ban expired in 2004 and since then, the murder rate has gone down to a 43-year low.

The anti-gunners think they can revive this bogus issue, and maybe they can; they will no doubt try. But Congress required a study of the 1994 ban, and the study concluded, "the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a small fraction of gun murders." Violent crime was going down before the ban, and it has continued to go down after the ban. If the issue is looked at objectively, it should be over, done with, water under the bridge. The ban should never have been imposed in the first place, let alone be imposed again or ever expanded.

And certainly guns should not be banned on the basis of nonsense like Sen. Levin's speech, and other deliberate deception perpetuated by gun ban groups.



A pistol grip is designed to allow a rifle to be fired "from the hip." But the 90 million pistols owned by the American people all have pistol grips, and they aren't designed to be fired "from the hip." Besides that, the fact that a rifle has a shoulder stock and sights mounted on the barrel proves that it is designed to be fired from the shoulder.

Magazines designed to hold more than 10 rounds are not useful for self-defense. If they really believe that, let them propose to prohibit the military and police from having pistol magazines that hold 12, 15, and 17 rounds.

These guns are "high-powered." Next time an anti-gunner calls a gun "high-powered," ask him to name one gun that is low-powered. They even call .22 rimfires "high-powered," when they want to brand a .22 as a so-called "assault weapon."
NRA members who own AR-15s and other so-called "assault weapons," you are not alone. There are nearly two million AR-15s in our country, the same number of M1s, the same number of M1 Carbines, and many more Mini-14s, semi-automatic shotguns, pump-action shotguns, and all the other guns the anti-gunner want to call "assault weapon." Countless millions of American own handguns that use magazines of over 10 rounds.

Our challenge is to coalesce these Americans into a political force that will make anti-gun lawmakers' heads swim. When they repeat gun ban groups' deliberate deceptions, we must tell the truth; not some of the time, but all of the time! But we cannot wait for them to act, and then only respond in defense. We must be out front. When we carry our message, we must do so confident in the knowledge that we are doing so in a manner that respects our fellow citizens, and their right to disagree--a way of doing business that is alien to our opponents--and that our arguments are based in logic and fact, not deceit
 
I am signing my children up for NRA membership. That is four more members.
 
I believe the NRA has failed us on more than one front. Just my opinion.

I would suggest joining the JPFO or GOA & THEN ALSO start your own, local, INDEPENDENT gun rights group to put pressure on LOCAL officials.

Go local.
 
You're correct McKevrox but minds are too closed for that line of thinking. I instead choose to advocate that people give to NRA's ila because the ila can legally influence legislation (the whole point of this thread) whereas giving money to the general NRA fund by giving memberships to your dog, goes for things like salaries and the light bill.
 
"Go local."

Which is another way of saying "Be ineffective nationally."

People piss and moan about the "failures" of the NRA all the time. The fact is that the NRA is the 800 pound gorilla, universally despised by all gun-grabbers.

Now is NOT the time for gun owners to create their own little factions rather than join the NRA. We have a gun-hating president, and a Democratic congress.

Tim
 
No, "going local", which most people fail to do, is THE BEST way to enact change seeing that most of the egregious gun control measures happen on a LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL. Now, I understand the problems on the federal level with the BATF and Clinton AWB and whatnot, but one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in is because people obsess over what goes on in Washington DC while turning their back on what their city halls are doing.

Now, you put failures in quotes...

When you say "be ineffective nationally", do you mean that the NRA has actually been truly effective nationally? Are you a member? Are you familiar with the origins and early actions of the group?

NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the following provisions, among others:

• prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
• justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like common criminals
• a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't tend to wait to attack
• required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and every buyer
• required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and serial number of the firearm
• mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
• banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks

The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on page 45 below.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

What would you say is the greatest accomplishment of the NRA?

Do you honestly feel that everyone throwing all of their money and effort into one national organization that constantly compromises on the 2nd amendment is a good idea?

Sometimes I think people think the NRA is more sacred than the 2nd amendment...
 
"Do you honestly feel that everyone throwing all of their money and effort into one national organization that constantly compromises on the 2nd amendment is a good idea?"

You're new here, so presuming you haven't been lurking for a year or two, you probably don't realize that your arguments have been heard here many, many times.

If you actually think that we would, in this day and age, be able to own and shoot firearms in this country without the NRA, then I guess nothing I can say will change your mind. But don't worry. I, and all the other NRA members will continue to carry the ball for you. We put our money where our mouths are.

Tim
 
It isn't too far fetched to think that an anti could come in here and push the idea that the NRA doesn't help is it?
 
Ill join another organization just as soon as they do as much for the 2nd as the NRA. Ive been a member for 2 years and am trying to get funds for a lifetime membership. They do a darn good job, better than having 500 little hunting clubs would.
 
Okay, if we can't be social, even on a Saturday night, then IBTL. Otherwise, welcome to the High Road McKevrox. And yes, going local is a good and bad manuever. It is good because I get to meet and greet other gun owners who share a similar sentiment about the 2A issues facing us today. It is bad because, let's use my deer lease as an example, if me and my deer camp buddies tried to voice our opinions and thoughts on Capitol Hill, well, let's just say, we would not receive an audience. The LCCHC has no voice. Perhaps we get to hunt some timberland, but as far as the WH and the House of Representatives or Senate is concerned, we do not exist. The NRA does.

And that is why I am a member of the organization!
 
Been an NRA Life Member for just over a year.

It is our best defense against the "Leftist" and the "new regime".

Time to jump in folks!
 
"Do you honestly feel that everyone throwing all of their money and effort into one national organization that constantly compromises on the 2nd amendment is a good idea?"

You're new here, so presuming you haven't been lurking for a year or two, you probably don't realize that your arguments have been heard here many, many times.

If you actually think that we would, in this day and age, be able to own and shoot firearms in this country without the NRA, then I guess nothing I can say will change your mind. But don't worry. I, and all the other NRA members will continue to carry the ball for you. We put our money where our mouths are.

Tim
Hum. See, you have now proven my point. Questioning a group whose very first actions were to ENACT gun control is heresy it seems. I'll say it again, I think many people believe the NRA is more sacred than the actual amendment. Right, "you're new here" means "you don't know what you are talking about and I do". Just say it. You don't have to hide how you really feel.

And just because you have heard something more than once doesn't mean it doesn't need to continue to be said. The NRA's founder was PRO GUN CONTROL & they continue to compromise on the 2nd amendment time and time again.

And now we have 10s of thousands of people who don't want to believe they have sent loads of money to a group that has ultimately failed us.

Throwing money at the NRA and believing that that will magically solve the problem is akin to the insane world socialist liberals who believe that throwing wealth at government will bring about world peace.

It is a fantasy...and trumpeting that you are in any way "carrying the ball for me" is laughable. You don't know anything about me. Much, on the other hand, is known about the NRA. Tell me, what did you and the rest of your NRA brethren think when NRA management supported;

*1934 National Firearms Act;
*The 1968 Gun Control
*H.R. 2640

Do you support H.R. 2640?

"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968

"We think it's reasonable to support the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. ... We think it's reasonable to expect full enforcement of federal firearms laws by the federal government. ... That's why we support Project Exile -- the fierce prosecution of federal gun laws...we think it's reasonable because it works. ... We only support what works and our list is proud."

—NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre
Congressional Testimony, May 27, 1999
Hearing Before 106th Congress
House of Representatives
Committee On The Judiciary
Subcommittee On Crime
First Session

And once again:

NRA President Frederick's testimony began by explaining that he had "been giving this subject of firearms regulations study and consideration over a period of 15 years" and that "the suggestions resulting from that study of mine...have resulted in the adoption in many States of regulatory provisions suggested by us." He later described his active role in helping pass D.C.'s then-recent, ultra-stringent gun controls. Having helped enact gun control legislation was a matter of pride for NRA's president -- as you shall see below. The D.C. gun controls of which he candidly boasted included the following provisions, among others:

• prohibited carrying a concealed pistol without a license -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers
• justification for getting licensed to carry a firearm if "applicant has good reason to fear injury to his person or property" -- and the license application process included a mugshot, treating lawful gun owners like common criminals
• a two-day waiting period to purchase a handgun -- with an exemption, of course, for law enforcement officers -- even though violent stalkers don't tend to wait to attack
• required thorough record-keeping by gun dealers, of all transactions and every buyer
• required that the seller deliver all of a buyer's personal information to the police within hours of the transaction, including the make, model and serial number of the firearm
• mandated that gun dealers be licensed at the discretion of the police
• banned altering firearms' serial numbers or other identifying marks

The copy of the text of that law, which the NRA had helped enact, begins on page 45 below.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/NRA/NFA.asp

And the person who suggested that I am anti gun and simply came here to "get people against the NRA"?

That is simply hilarious.
 
Okay, if we can't be social, even on a Saturday night, then IBTL. Otherwise, welcome to the High Road McKevrox. And yes, going local is a good and bad manuever. It is good because I get to meet and greet other gun owners who share a similar sentiment about the 2A issues facing us today. It is bad because, let's use my deer lease as an example, if me and my deer camp buddies tried to voice our opinions and thoughts on Capitol Hill, well, let's just say, we would not receive an audience. The LCCHC has no voice. Perhaps we get to hunt some timberland, but as far as the WH and the House of Representatives or Senate is concerned, we do not exist. The NRA does.

And that is why I am a member of the organization!
Thank you for being cordial. I am not saying the NRA hasn't done SOME good and doesn't have the potential to do even more. I know many members and have supported some of their efforts in the past. But I simply cannot STAND how they have been turned into a sacred cow that reflects the current overall political paradigm. That is to say, people go and vote for "their guy", whether it be Barack OClinton or George McCain, and then shut down. They think that simply showing up and casting a ballot is going to accomplish everything...
 
Do BOTH!!!

I've sat back and read the discusion on this thread and completely understand the legitimate arguments on both sides. Seems to me that if someone is truely trying to make a political difference and have a positive affect on 2nd ammendment laws they certainly understand the laws are written and enforced on all of us both at the local and national level. So why throw all your eggs into one basket.

If you live in a gun-owner, gun-rights oppressed area, then yes, do all you can at the local level. However, do not ignore the push down from the top that's getting ready to happen. That fight can only be fought by an 800 pound gorilla...the NRA, GOA, and others.
 
This thread has motivated me to "do both". I have joined the Gun Owners of America and signed up my children as members of the NRA. I have been a NRA life member since 1970 or 1972 (can't remember). While I do not agree with all the NRA has done and failed to do during all of those years, on balance they have been better than nothing.
I am also joining GeorgiaCarry.org to do the local aspect of activism.
 
I am also joining GeorgiaCarry.org to do the local aspect of activism.
Awesome. Keep in mind, I don't mean to come off like I want people to ignore what happens on a federal level. I just believe that if people got more involved on a local level, it could very well make the fight at the federal level much easier. We are pushing the local govt here in Nashville to lift the ban on carrying in restaurants and it looks like it is going to pass when it comes up for the vote.
 
Ask anyone who has been a member of a motorcycle rights organization (MRO) and they will tell you that working on BOTH levels is best.

The local org can get things done on the state level, get some recognition, and develope a working relationship with the state politicians.

On the national level, a large national org with millions of members can get the attention of Congress and the pres.

And welcome to the THR, McKevrox!
 
You all realize the NRA cannot do a single thing politically or legally to effect legislation?
Now the NRA-ILA can.
They are 2 very different things and the money cannot flow between them.

Just know what you're spending money on.

AFS
 
You all realize the NRA cannot do a single thing politically or legally to effect legislation?
Now the NRA-ILA can.
They are 2 very different things and the money cannot flow between them.

Just know what you're spending money on.

AFS
The NRA-ILA is merely the lobbying arm of the NRA and they are indeed in part funded by them. I would say calling them "very different" is a stretch, IMHO...

"The Institute receives some funding from NRA member dues...The fund-raising that sustains NRA’s legislative activities is conducted by ILA. "

http://www.nraila.org/About/PoliticalVictoryFund/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top