Finally joined NRA...

[Sam1911]

I asked what 2A rights he believe need protection.

See, that's kind of a hard question to swallow. Anyone who's been paying attention to politics for more than a day or two probably knows there is a seeming eternal fight between those who wish to see the current longstanding infringements on the right to bear arms removed and those who seek to abolish the second amendment and make private ownership of firearms illegal.

Anyone who's had their eyes open to the subject for long has seen every question of what citizens can and can't do with their guns, which ones they may own, where they may possess them, how they feed them, and literally every detail of ownership and use argued vehemently between those two opposing forces. Each question of law on the subject presents an opportunity for one side to try to limit and constrain a citizen's ability to lawfully possess or act, and for the other side (--OUR side--) to try to repeal restrictions and return to the state of freedom defined by the founders of this country.

Many of us who've studied the political history of this fight recognize that there is perpetual pressure toward elimination of the right, piece by piece as well as wholesale -- and that the only effective response has been a decades-long sustained effort to push back with everything we have.

This is working -- we've made amazing strides in the last 10 years or so which some of us believed we'd never see -- but it must be sustained. Our gains have been by slim margins (like the recent 5-4 SCOTUS decision) and are far, FAR from comprehensive and complete.

If you are a recent immigrant to the US or maybe just new to the world of citizen firearms ownership, though, I can see how you'd have never considered the question so closely before. Welcome to the fight!

 

[Ryanxia]

Everyone should join, it should be added in the healthcare bill

 

[Dnaltrop]

As a teetotaler, There are very few things in life that I enjoy that have any chance of being made unavailable by an act of law.

Firearms being one of my few real pleasures, and not having a direct line to the heads of state and those leaving their mark on our legal system... I'm happy to send the NRA a pittance as the strongest chance to keep our rights intact.

I'm working on the 10-year life member payment system.... $ 25 every 3 months, Don't Drink... Don't smoke... Have to send that savings somewhere

 

[jcwit]

Everyone should join, it should be added in the healthcare bill

Now there's a thought!

$ 25 every 3 months, Don't Drink... Don't smoke... Have to send that savings somewhere

Ha, Ha, believe me smoking and drinking would sure cost you more than $25.00 every 3 months.

Thanks for the support!

 

[Dnaltrop]

The rest of the savings get fed through the reloading press (multiplied savings there!!))... Take the wife out for dinner more than once every 3 months.

 

[youngda9]

Now there's a thought!



Ha, Ha, believe me smoking and drinking would sure cost you more than $25.00 every 3 months.

Thanks for the support!

Smoking alone would cost you $5 a day...that's about $150/month. You need to up your ante

 

[Mr.Blue]

00,

Instead of busting balls and playing games, tell us why you are against joining the NRA. What scare tactics do they employ? You are calling people out in a passive aggressive way, yet don't put your views out there. You are purposely vague.

Do you even like guns, or do you have some agenda?

Like any large organization, the NRA isn't perfect. Sure there may be corrupt officers in bed with politicians, much like any organization. Sure, it's a big money operation with some conflicts of interest. That said, the NRA fights the good fight and does more for our right to bear arms than anyone.

 

[Bojangles7]

I understand the need to protect our RKBA and am an NRA member myself, but I don't understand the mindset that worries about an all out ban of firearms coming anytime. Would you really turn over your weapons if something like that was enacted? I guess some people wouldn't be willing to fight that hard for their rights. I, for one, take Charlton Heston's famous quote quite literally.

 

[jcwit]

Problem is the oposing side has the bigger guns! Remember Waco and Ruby Ridge?

 

[Mr.Blue]

Not to mention the UN trying to erode US sovereignty. What better way than to take the populace's guns away. We can all be happy under one world government. It will be utopia.

 

[Sam1911]

I don't understand the mindset that worries about an all out ban of firearms coming anytime. Would you really turn over your weapons if something like that was enacted? I guess some people wouldn't be willing to fight that hard for their rights. I, for one, take Charlton Heston's famous quote quite literally.

Well...ok. That's fine and dandy, but aside from a few of us who really love the idea of going out in a [strike]blaze of glory[/strike] cloud of tear gas and then a squad car, most of us really don't ever want to see that day.

The best way to never face that "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in!" moment is to fight every new gun control bill tooth-and-nail and constantly work to push for the repeal of any and all infringements currently existing on the RKBA.

Winning another ban repeal, or the reopening of the NFA registry, or the repeal of GCA '68 or national CCW reciprocity, or whatever other good and positive step for 2nd A rights are not only good things on their own, but each represents another yard of ground, legally and in the public perception, which the antis would have to fight to take back before they'd be in any position to send the confiscation teams to your block.

 

[Ignition Override]

My wife and I just flew back from Amsterdam on Thurday. Except for police and military people, not many people in those countries even own a gun, other than the Swiss.

A friend here near Memphis is from Germany.
There, you note how many rounds you have and keep both the ammo and rifle at the range (maybe a few 'zu Hause'), if I remember what he recently told me.
A huge number of lands around the world won't even let you own a gun. In Germany, the classroom course required to study both the theory and practice of shooting requires a few months, and it is not free.

West Europe (and maybe east) has No NRA, or anything remotely similar, unless I'm mistaken. Let's follow their lead!

Numerous Euro/Brit organizantions spend some of their tax Euros and Pounds on destroying both surplus rifles and ammo in numerous countries.
And no-not just crates of AKs..... either they or the UN recently paid South Africa to require destruction of bolt-action Lee-Enfield rifles in gun shops. This was witnessed by the S.A. friend of an Aussie on "Gunboards". Most US citizens would tolerate that here. Why question the wisdom of our government? They might know what is best for us.

Some of that money reportedly comes from your tax dollars and those foreign organizations would love to pressure the US into doing so here.
I also ignored all of these issues until I finally woke up a few years ago, regretting having been detached and "above it all" for decades.

Maybe I'm totally wrong, all guns are evil, and we should dissolve the NRA, instead allowing the leftist Political Science and Law professors of University of Wisconsin, Madison and elsewhere, to lobby for our freedoms. But wait, we don't need to trouble them....we have one "leading" this country...sort of....

 

[possom813]

I renewed a few days ago, I lost a year somehow on my 2 year renewal and it expired in January, and they just let me know.

I renewed for 5 years at 100 bucks and got a nifty little knife too.

 

[Tim the student]

Stryker, congrats.

I support the NRA - and many other 2A organizations.

But...

I just had the DVD thing happen to me. (They send you an unsolicited DVD, then send you a "bill" to either pay for it, or send it back.) I think that is a chicken crap, POS thing to do. IMO, this is something that unscrupulous organizations do. I think I may join SAF next time around, and just send the NRA some hate mail. I can stand the junk mail, but this really irritates the heck out of me.

 

[00]

00,

Instead of busting balls and playing games, tell us why you are against joining the NRA. What scare tactics do they employ? You are calling people out in a passive aggressive way, yet don't put your views out there. You are purposely vague.

Do you even like guns, or do you have some agenda?

Like any large organization, the NRA isn't perfect. Sure there may be corrupt officers in bed with politicians, much like any organization. Sure, it's a big money operation with some conflicts of interest. That said, the NRA fights the good fight and does more for our right to bear arms than anyone.

Mr. Blue,

I believe firearms "enthusiasts" - NRA members and non-members (self included) share the same view on firearms...and that is to continue enjoying our firearms as we see fit (hunting, self-protection, hobby, etc.), but we do it in different manners. One of your way is being a member of an organization you believe is fighting for your firearms rights. And that's your choice. I choose not to join them because I do it by other means (purchasing firearms, firearms accessories, hunting items, etc.).

My reasons:

Who would be the biggest loser if 2A is overturned and firearms are outlaw in USA? In total $ value loss (multi-multi-multi-billion dollars), the firearms and related industries, taxes and job loss, it wouldn't be feasible in current economy. I believe the firearms industry-and related businesses have a lot more to lose than you and I. Sure $200M/year from membership fees helps the NRA, but I do not believe $35/person/year fee is what keeps the NRA going....meaning private donations from corporations do.

Every gun, ammo, hunting, accessories purchase I make supports the companies which in turn supports the NRA if they choose to donate. Remember, I never said I don't believe in the NRA, I choose not to spend another $35 of my money directly with them. I see no purpose.

And yes, like other firearms enthusiasts, I have more than my "reasonable" share of firearms and I enjoy them as much as the next guy at the range.

My agenda? Stop NRA members from belittling firearms-enthusiast non-members because I/we choose not to join. You have your reasons (and I respect them), and I have mine.

I answered your question(s), please answer my question to you, "What 2A rights do you believe are at risk?"

A reminder about the initial purpose of this thread, the OP joined the NRA because his local range requires it. I did't agree that spending $35 in an organization just to have the privilege of joining a range is the right thing for a range. Whereas the range should have provided a discount to NRA members, and leaving the choice to the individual to join and not close off range membership to all gun-enthusiasts. Now the topic has veer towards NRA members vs. non-members. HMMM.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Stryker, congrats.

I support the NRA - and many other 2A organizations.

But...

I just had the DVD thing happen to me. (They send you an unsolicited DVD, then send you a "bill" to either pay for it, or send it back.) I think that is a chicken crap, POS thing to do. IMO, this is something that unscrupulous organizations do. I think I may join SAF next time around, and just send the NRA some hate mail. I can stand the junk mail, but this really irritates the heck out of me.

They sent me a DVD also. I watched it, packaged it back up after deciding it wasn't worth burning a copy, and sent it back.

Next time some unsolicited junk gets sent my way, I'm keeping it and diputing the bill when it comes in just on principle.

 

[00]

Many of us who've studied the political history of this fight recognize that there is perpetual pressure toward elimination of the right, piece by piece as well as wholesale -- and that the only effective response has been a decades-long sustained effort to push back with everything we have.

Sam,
Thank you for your perspective. Please specify which 2A rights have been eroded to the point that you feel the need to push back with everything you have?

I've owned firearms for a while now and I've done everything I need to do with it (hunt, target shooting, self-protection) with full satisfaction. I'm curious as to your thoughts.

 

[itchy1]

I was in the same boat as many here up until about 3 years ago. I too was put off by the NRA's overly dramatic fear marketing and rhetoric. I viewed the NRA as being too extreme. I felt that there must be something wrong if they can only atrract about 5% of all gun owners to join the ranks. One day at work I had a little time to kill on my lunch break and did some web surfing. The company I work for typically blocks any site that might have anything at all to do with firearms. This site for one is blocked. I was really jonesin' for some gun talk so in a desperate attempt I entered the NRA url and was shocked to see that it was not blocked. I began navigating around and was really impressed with a lot of what I was reading. A bigger picture began to develop. I began to see that the NRA is an organization that is genuinely passionate about firearms. The original purpose of the NRA was to promote marksmanship not political action. That original purpose is still alive and well--it just gets overshadowed by the need to protect the rights of ownership. This shift in focus is a sign of the times that we live in. The radical left and the mainstream media have been successful at demonizing guns. There is so much money being spent by the various anti-groups that the NRA has to focus most of its resources at waging a counter-fight. Its not just about the right to own guns, its about debunking all the negative dogma that these anti groups conjure up to persuade the average non-gun owning American that guns are inherently evil by nature. If these anti-gun groups can be successful in swaying the popular beleif, they can get their minions elected and impose their will. In addition to that, no other organization does as much to promote the safe and effective use of firearms as the NRA. They have even had a long and healthy relationship with the Boy Scouts of America.
The NRA is by no means perfect but it is still the most viable and legitimate champion that guns owners have. It's influence can change elections and empowers those who are passionate about firearms to enjoy their various pursuits. The annoyances that come with NRA membership are trivial compared to the benefits that it brings.

 

[Sky]

We can talk/type until we are blue in the face. We each (still) have freedom of choice in somethings without reprisal so there really should be no hard feelings on either side of the coin.

Some see the benefit of large numbers standing firm on their perceived rights while others are content to let others fight the fight. Has been that way since time began.

Most of us do not want to be out all times of the night and day chasing bad guys so we pay for police departments that hopefully will do a proper job. We pay for untold agencies tasked to do what is perceived as important things in the government with our tax dollars.

NRA is one of the only subscriber funded entities that I have noticed which really gets under the skin of all the various Nanny state organizations; they even file law suits occasionally. For that alone it is worth $25 or $35 a year to me. But like I said it is a personal choice. I pay them to fight my fight and hopefully they will do at least $35 worth of work for me.

Call a T.V. repair man or plumber and see what that amount will get you.

If there are those who can not see the power in numbers then; move along these droids are not the ones you are looking for.

 

[Sam1911]

First off, 00, read post 61 again. That will give you some perspective on the larger picture.

As to WHICH rights? There is really only one: "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms... Laws that interfere with that right in any way are infringements.

There are some parts of the country where infringments against that basic right are greater than others. "Assault weapon" bans and restrictions, magazine capacity limits, "evil" parts disallowed, very restricted or nonexistant rights to carry a defensive weapon, registrations and restrictions on firearms owners, certain kinds of ammunition illegal or restricted, and so forth. Assuredly you don't require an exact run-down of which infringements exist in which states? Every one of those represents an infringment on the ability of a citizen to own and "bear" (meaning carry and use) arms in the way he or she sees fit.

Federally, we have had an absurd piece of legislation (the National Firearms Act) on the books for almost 80 years which is so badly written and poorly thought-out that it makes felons out of folks who would own weapons which are functionally identical to other weapons, or which have some feature so irrelevant as to be unworthy of notice (e.g: vertcal foregrips on handguns, smoothbore handguns) -- and which, with the closing of the registry in '86, denies to the citizen the ability to own weapons similar to those used by the military, which completed defies the original objective of the Second Amendment.

Since 1968, we've suffered under a draconian and IMHO unconstitutional law (GCA '68) which restricts how citizens may aquire or dispose of lawfully owned firearms.

The "sporting purposes" rules, sections 922(r) and 925(d)(3) are gross infringements on which firearms a citizen may own, and again directly confound the intent of the Amendment.

I could keep going, but there are somewhere beteen 20,000 and 80,000 gun laws on the books in the US...I don't have the space or the time to list them for you.

 

[basicblur]

(They send you an unsolicited DVD, then send you a "bill" to either pay for it, or send it back.) I think that is a chicken crap, POS thing to do. IMO, this is something that unscrupulous organizations do.

Next time some unsolicited junk gets sent my way, I'm keeping it and diputing the bill when it comes in just on principle.

Not that it makes a lot of difference?, but stuff like the DVDs is probably not coming from the NRA-it's coming from someone they sold your name to.

I also got an unsolicted DVD from 'em many years ago (History's Top Ten Guns)-would have just stuck it back in the box with return to sender on it, but there was no outside markings to let me know what it was, and after ripping it open I sure wasn't going to send it back on my dime. The law sez you don't have to pay for any unsolicted items sent to you, so just relax and enjoy your new free DVD!

When I got bills for the DVD, they went straight to the trash-when they finally called, I told him I knew what the law was on unsolicted items sent through the mail, but he was welcome to send me more unsolicted freebies - after that, he ended the conversation PDQ.
You can bet after that, you won't be getting any more (free) DVDs in the mail!

As others have stated, there are ways to get off their mailing list etc.

Receipt of Unsolicited Merchandise

 

[Sky]

+1 Sam1911

 

[mortablunt]

Really? I believe they had a ban on violence at Virginia Tech too...how'd that work out?

I think you've been on campus a bit too long...GroupThink has set in. Try standing up and thinking for yourself, and then do what is right.

I've only been on for about 24 days and I've decided that I cannot stand their ideology so I have joined the NRA anyway.

@ Ignition Override: The Czech Republic has a Constitutional RKBA. It put that up there once it seceded from the USSR because shooting is a big sport over there and with the Soviets in charge, they could not own arms. They also have a great carry law: anyone can carry any non gun weapon, open or hidden so long as they are 18 or older. You need a license to buy a gun, but assuming you meet all the easy requirements, it's rather close to shall issue. If you get the E-class license, you can put in for a shall issue carry permit and then you can carry almost anywhere open or concealed. You can carry into bars and you can even carry into schools. There are no gun free zones.

 

[blue_ridge]

Examples of nations going from a condition where every free man is allowed to own guns to almost no free man is allowed to own guns has already happened.

Take England for example. Up until the 1900's all English subjects had mostly been allowed to own any firearm at any time. Crime was at an all time low.

In 1903, The Pistols Act of 1903 outlawed pistol sales to minors and felons and dictated that sales be made only to buyers with a gun license. It seemed a reasonable restriction and encountered little opposition. It was important, however, because it established that government could set the terms of legal gun ownership.

1914 England passed Defense of the Realm Regulations requiring a license to buy any pistol, rifle or ammo. It was only passed because of World War I as a way to protect the women and children left behind while the men were at war. It was supposed to be a temporary law for war time only. (and thus the trip down the slippery slope began) In 1918 WW1 ended and the law was not repealed, as previously promised.

In 1920, afraid of the threat of immigrants and laborers owning firearms, England passed another gun control law requiring anyone who wished to own a pistol or rifle must provide a very good reason in order to get a license.

In 1934 a law was passed making it illegal to own short barreled shotguns and full-auto weapons.

In 1936 England began requiring citizens to prove they could "store" the firearms properly before they were issued a license. Again, this seems reasonable on the surface but leads to more restrictions and control by authorities.

In 1940, Hitler took France. England needed to defend its home land. But citizens didn't have many firearms. They actually put ads in the United States (like American Rifleman magazine) asking Americans to come to their aid and send guns to the English. The NRA sent 7,000 guns to England. Winston Churchill proclaimed the tens of thousands of firearms donated and sold from America to England were of the utmost importance to the defense of England.

YET, when English soldiers were returning home at the end of WW2, government tried to make sure soldiers did not bring guns home with them. Troop ships were searched for any souvenir weapons and confiscated them. The guns donated by Americans were found and destroyed.

Immediately after WW2, in 1946, England changed policy to say that personal self-defense was no longer a valid reason to obtain a firearms license.

in 1953, a law passed requiring citizens to prove that any weapon they carried was not intended to be an offensive weapon. This included pocket knives.

In 1959 England passed a ban on switch blade knives.

In 1967 Britain's Criminal Justice Act was passed. Among many other things, it required citizens to have a license to own a shotgun. It required the applicant to apply with local police, show they had no criminal background, no intention to threaten public safety. Police could also visit the applicants home for further inspection. Despite all this, about 98% of applicants were granted licenses.

In 1988, semi-auto rifles, pump action rifles and pump action shotguns were completely banned. Up to this point shotguns had not been licensed nearly as strictly as rifles and handguns. But starting in 1988, any shotgun that could hold more than two shells would now require a rifle license to own.

In 1996 all handguns larger than 22 caliber were completely banned. A year later, in 1997, 22 handguns were banned too.

Since all handguns had been required to be registered with the government since 1920, citizens had no choice but to turn them all in to the authorities.

Today, in order to own a rifle or shotgun in England, I believe they must hold no more than 2 rounds. you have to apply with local police and show you are in good standing. Then you have to show the police your gun storage meets their requirements with a police home inspection. Then you have to show you are a member of an approved gun club. This is the only place you can fire the weapon anyway. Every time you fire the weapon at the club, it is logged and recorded. If you do not shoot regularly enough to please the authorities that you are an active club member, your license is revoked.

All the way down this slippery slope, the British government has lied, deceived and broken promises to its people. Each time they enacted further restrictions, they laid the foundation for future restrictions. All along, the media sensationalized crimes and gun use to sway public perception and promote fear. Sound familiar? We have the exact same thing going on here in the USA. There are only two real differences between us and the English. We have a Constitution, with the 2nd amendment protecting our rights. And we have the NRA which vigilantly works to diffuse media sensationalism and politicians groping for more power.

I highly recommend the book below.

Reference material - Guns and violence: the English experience
By Joyce Lee Malcolm

 

[Sky]

All the way down this slippery slope, the British government has lied, deceived and broken promises to its people. Each time they enacted further restrictions, they laid the foundation for future restrictions. All along, the media sensationalized crimes and gun use to sway public perception and promote fear. Sound familiar? We have the exact same thing going on here in the USA. There are only two real differences between us and the English. We have a Constitution, with the 2nd amendment protecting our rights. And we have the NRA which vigilantly works to diffuse media sensationalism and politicians groping for more power.

Or take the power from the populace.

Life spans and memories are so short some can not realize they are like frogs is a pan of water and the heat is slowly being turned up.