menacingsquirrel
Member
I'm a member of two clubs; one requires and the other recommends. One club costs $45 per year, the other $300. Guess which one required NRA...
I'm also a member of GOA.
I'm also a member of GOA.
Gun Clubs & NRA Membership
- Thread starter deadeyedog270
- Start date
- Status
It also helps them make sure the members are committed and not just a bunch of yahoos just looking for a place to shoot.
The NRA is far from perfect, but it's not too much of a stretch to say we're better off with it than without. As to anyone's own personal decision whether to support the NRA or not... just reflect on whether you are part of the solution or part of the problem.
rocky branch
Member
I am fortunate to have a small farm I retired to.
My range stats at my front porch.
I don't like a lot of organizations.
I don't agree with some NRA stuff.
I belong to the NRA.
A gun owner who doesn't is a fool.
My range stats at my front porch.
I don't like a lot of organizations.
I don't agree with some NRA stuff.
I belong to the NRA.
A gun owner who doesn't is a fool.
mljdeckard
Member
^^Not that tricky, is it?
Zundfolge
Member
Most of you folk opposed to joining the NRA for various political reasons are angry at the wrong wing of the organization.
Those of you that have political problems with the NRA (either because you think they're not strong enough 2A supporters or because you're pro gun Democrats and you think the NRA are GOP shills) you're real problem is with the NRA-ILA.
The NRA is a sporting/safety/education organization, its the ILA that does the political stuff.
Even if you don't think the NRA-ILA is pro gun enough or is too pro-Republican, there is still a TON of good done by the main NRA organization, from insuring ranges to organizing much of this country's competitive shooting to firearms education programs to CCW training and more.
The insurance the NRA provides to ranges is significantly cheaper for the range than going the private insurance route.
I guess this comes down to Reagan's 80% rule ... someone that agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend.
Those of you that have political problems with the NRA (either because you think they're not strong enough 2A supporters or because you're pro gun Democrats and you think the NRA are GOP shills) you're real problem is with the NRA-ILA.
The NRA is a sporting/safety/education organization, its the ILA that does the political stuff.
Even if you don't think the NRA-ILA is pro gun enough or is too pro-Republican, there is still a TON of good done by the main NRA organization, from insuring ranges to organizing much of this country's competitive shooting to firearms education programs to CCW training and more.
The insurance the NRA provides to ranges is significantly cheaper for the range than going the private insurance route.
I guess this comes down to Reagan's 80% rule ... someone that agrees with you 80% of the time is your friend.
Obama only signed the National Parks Carry because it was a Republican Rider on a Bill Obama was forced to sign. Don't give him credit.
Range Insurance: I would bet NRA sets the conditions to get a master policy, a lone club would usually be turned down or hit wth a sky high premium. I'd bet the insuror looks to the NRA or range design expertice.
Range Insurance: I would bet NRA sets the conditions to get a master policy, a lone club would usually be turned down or hit wth a sky high premium. I'd bet the insuror looks to the NRA or range design expertice.
wlewisiii
Member
Thankfully, no, the club I belong to doesn't. I will not ever give one penny willingly to the NRA.
William
William
mljdeckard
Member
No. You will continue to benefit from their efforts for free.
We have set up an informal gun club on our place mostly because the ranges in our area require NRA membership. As far as liability insurance goes we had no problem acquiring it at a very reasonable rate without the NRA’s help or interference. The people who use our facility unanimously are disenchanted with the NRA and most of them are former members. I myself was a member as a youth and withdrew when the paranoid radicals took over the origination. At one time they were dedicated to the use of firearms as a sport and now advocate that their members should own weapons that have been solely designed to kill another person. Having been shooting and hunting for over 60 years no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon and those who frequent our facility all agree with me. The only membership we require on our place is the human race
mljdeckard
Member
^^Keep that up, and you will get Zumboed like the other Fudds.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I know what you mean! I feel exactly the same way about AR-15s, M14s, M1 Garands, M1903s & '03A3s, M1 Carbines, Mausers, Enfields, etc. ...
Can I come shoot some of those killing machines with you?
-Sam
Last edited:
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
"Having been shooting and hunting for over 60 years..."
Well, okay, I won't call you a newbie, but I've been at it for longer than that.
I started in with my grandfather's .22 in 1940.
"...no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon..."
That's right in there with, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."
I don't recall anybody ever saying that any of the AK/SKS critters are target weapons. They're not, but neither is a Model 94 Winchester.
An AK or SKS shoots a 140-grain bullet at about 2,300 ft/sec. That's plenty good enough to kill a deer in a clean and ethical manner.
You're old enough to recall when any rifle which would shoot to or inside of two MOA was considered quite adequate for deer hunting. The AK/SKS rifles commonly do this.
In other words, you reallly oughta know better than to say silly stuff like you did.
Well, okay, I won't call you a newbie, but I've been at it for longer than that.
I started in with my grandfather's .22 in 1940."...no one will ever convince me that an AK47 is a hunting or target weapon..."
That's right in there with, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts."
I don't recall anybody ever saying that any of the AK/SKS critters are target weapons. They're not, but neither is a Model 94 Winchester.
An AK or SKS shoots a 140-grain bullet at about 2,300 ft/sec. That's plenty good enough to kill a deer in a clean and ethical manner.
You're old enough to recall when any rifle which would shoot to or inside of two MOA was considered quite adequate for deer hunting. The AK/SKS rifles commonly do this.
In other words, you reallly oughta know better than to say silly stuff like you did.
Hasn't the 30.30 been used to take more whitetail deer than any rifle?
Isn't the ballistics for the AK shooting a 7.62X39 just about the same? Seems so.
Probably practically the same since my wife took her first deer with an AR shooting 7.62X39.
Does the fact that SKSs are being used to take deer make them any less suitable for hunting because they were military weapons?
Perhaps if they were "sporterized" like the Enfields and Springfields that were used in WWI and WWII were they'd be more acceptable?
I, OTOH, don't hunt, but I shoot clays and the occasional 3-gun match. Does the fact that the Germans in WWI considered the use of the Model 97 a war crime and I use the modern equivalent for 3 gun mean that no one should have shotguns? If shotguns are ok somehow because the 3-gun matches are "target shooting" and shotguns are also used in hunting then since I see guys running AKs in the 3-gun matches (and whupping my backside) along with their acceptable "war crime" shotguns and people actually do use AKs like lever action brush guns are used to hunt white tail how is it that the AK isn't anything other than a killing machine?
It's a awfully difficult to logically defend a position that a firearm that functions just like so many others is somehow different in some intrinsic way from every other one that works like it.
Isn't the ballistics for the AK shooting a 7.62X39 just about the same? Seems so.
Probably practically the same since my wife took her first deer with an AR shooting 7.62X39.
Does the fact that SKSs are being used to take deer make them any less suitable for hunting because they were military weapons?
Perhaps if they were "sporterized" like the Enfields and Springfields that were used in WWI and WWII were they'd be more acceptable?
I, OTOH, don't hunt, but I shoot clays and the occasional 3-gun match. Does the fact that the Germans in WWI considered the use of the Model 97 a war crime and I use the modern equivalent for 3 gun mean that no one should have shotguns? If shotguns are ok somehow because the 3-gun matches are "target shooting" and shotguns are also used in hunting then since I see guys running AKs in the 3-gun matches (and whupping my backside) along with their acceptable "war crime" shotguns and people actually do use AKs like lever action brush guns are used to hunt white tail how is it that the AK isn't anything other than a killing machine?
It's a awfully difficult to logically defend a position that a firearm that functions just like so many others is somehow different in some intrinsic way from every other one that works like it.
Last edited:
jfh
Member.
WRM: I am really, really glad to see another psychologist showing up here--I'm only an edpsy type, but with some additional work at UST and UMnMSP in C Psych. Like you, I also did firearms education. Three years at a boys' camp in NW WI.
I had to be certified, of course; they accepted NRA certification. If I let my certification lapse, could I still instruct at your club? Would your liability insurance cover me? Does it include coverage for the MN carry permit instruction?
At any rate, respond here, or PM / e-mail me to tell me more, if you don't want to respond here. Depending on where your club is, I might want to come up and try some clay pigeon shooting.
Jim H.
I had to be certified, of course; they accepted NRA certification. If I let my certification lapse, could I still instruct at your club? Would your liability insurance cover me? Does it include coverage for the MN carry permit instruction?
At any rate, respond here, or PM / e-mail me to tell me more, if you don't want to respond here. Depending on where your club is, I might want to come up and try some clay pigeon shooting.
Jim H.
stickhauler
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 538
Sure, it's a dead issue, because Dear Leader Chairman Maobama said so in a radio interview. He also said his administration would be the "most transparent" in our history, and that any legislation would be posted on line for a minimum of 5 days before it was voted on too didn't he? How are those "promises" working out so far?
His own agenda was posted for all to see, prior to the election under the address www.change.org, turned into www.change.gov within minutes of the election. Check out his agenda:
http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/
under urban policy, crime and law enforcement sub heading:
Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.
Now, if you have any knowledge about the Tiahrt Amendment, you know their description of what the amendment does is a out-and-out lie, it restricts people like his buddy the Mayor of Chicago from having access to trace data. It allows access to the data to only law enforcement agencies.
For those who dislike the NRA, what 2nd amendment group do you belong to? None I'd wager, and there lies the problem. Those of us who have spent our hard earned money, and worked to assure your 2nd amendment rights are getting pretty tired of carrying you deadbeats who expect to enjoy your rights, but fail to even lift a finger to help. Those unwilling to defend their rights in my opinion don't deserve them.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I hunt only occasionally. My primary interests in firearms is based in the realm of competitive and defensive shooting.
Despite this, I have never failed to speak up in defense of the rights of hunters, be it in the context of gun control or animal rights.
Yet time and again, I encounter people from that side of the aisle who are more than willing to throw the rest of us under the bus.
WCW, I'm glad you aren't an NRA member. Those of us who shoot and compete with the sorts of guns you find so offensive don't need your help.
While you may disparage shooters like me, rest assured, I'll be out defending your right to own hunting rifles, over and under shotguns, and to hunt wild game.
Despite this, I have never failed to speak up in defense of the rights of hunters, be it in the context of gun control or animal rights.
Yet time and again, I encounter people from that side of the aisle who are more than willing to throw the rest of us under the bus.
WCW, I'm glad you aren't an NRA member. Those of us who shoot and compete with the sorts of guns you find so offensive don't need your help.
While you may disparage shooters like me, rest assured, I'll be out defending your right to own hunting rifles, over and under shotguns, and to hunt wild game.
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Back around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a lot of unrest in the Baltic states. I recall ABC-TV footage of the sequestration of deadly weapons which could be used against the authorities.
These deadly weapons included Olympic target rifles, those .22 rimfire single-shots; and rather nice-looking over/under shotguns.
Government does not distinguish between an AK and a Purdey. Government sees no difference between a hunter and a survivalist militiaman. Senator Feinstein is among the forefront of those publicly stating this sort of view, as she spoke at length against any civilian ownership of firearms. No gun clubs allowed in her world!
What's ironic in this thread is the hostility against the NRA for its alleged extremism. Yet, if you follow the commentaries of the other four major national pro-gun groups, the NRA policies and actions are often regarded as wimpish.
These deadly weapons included Olympic target rifles, those .22 rimfire single-shots; and rather nice-looking over/under shotguns.
Government does not distinguish between an AK and a Purdey. Government sees no difference between a hunter and a survivalist militiaman. Senator Feinstein is among the forefront of those publicly stating this sort of view, as she spoke at length against any civilian ownership of firearms. No gun clubs allowed in her world!
What's ironic in this thread is the hostility against the NRA for its alleged extremism. Yet, if you follow the commentaries of the other four major national pro-gun groups, the NRA policies and actions are often regarded as wimpish.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
WCW said:
You are free to believe that of course. It's not an uncommon feeling among gun owners unfortunately.
As long as you do not advocate me not being able to own one we're all good.
The argument that "some guns are designed to kill" however is just silly and that's where you show yourself as full of BS.
If gun A shoots a projectile at 2500fps that will kill a deer and
Gun B shoots a projectile at 2500fps that will kill a human being
If I enjoy shooting holes in paper with Gun A and
I enjoy shooting holes in paper with Gun B
Can I not switch Gun A for Gun B and achieve the same results? Of course I can.
What you mean to say is that some guns have MORE design features for combat than hunting.
But, you know that of course you just chose to be disingenuous in your post for dramatic effect.
Humans choose what guns are used for, not the guns. You are saying that some inanimate object has the innate ability to make humans kill.
You are full of it.
SwampWolf
Member
I first became a proud member of the National Rifle Association when I was a teenager in the late fifties. I kept my annual membership up until shortly after I was married, with two youngsters to feed and clothe and still in college, I was able to scrape up the $25.00 quarterly payments to pay off what, at the time, seemed like a lot of money ($100.00) for a life membership. As time went on, I began to hear objections from fellow shooters as to why they balked at joining the NRA, some of which include:
(1) The NRA is too "extreme" in their defense of the right to keep and bear arms (rtkba). Or they're not extreme enough.
The NRA does not exist or act in a political vacuum. Whether you like it or not, sometimes compromise is the only way to get a share of what you might want-or, alternatively, by standing inflexibly to your principle (even a good one), means you get nothing. Has the NRA always been right in the various positions they've taken over the years? Of course not. No organization (or individual) is perfect and no organization can ever hope to address the needs of every member. But,imo, one thing is absolutely certain: you would not be able to own a gun in America today, Second Amendment or no, if it wasn't for the NRA.
(2) The NRA sends me too much junk mail.
Toss it in the trashcan like you do every other uninvited piece of mail-but never seem to complain about.
(3) The NRA is always asking me for money.
Well, duh, how do you think the war to preserve the right of gun ownership is being waged? It's no different than any other cause. Revenue is needed to engage and prevail in the battle. The NRA will always need more money. That's just how it is. And, by the way, just because you became a life member or even a member in a higher tier of the organization, does not relieve you from an obligation to continue contributing money from time to time along the way. Sorry, like I said, that's just how it is.
If every gun owner were a member of the NRA, this fight to preserve the Second Amendment would be a whole lot easier. And, for those posters who voiced disdain for the NRA, I'll say this: many of us are getting pretty darned tired of carrying the water for some of you. Joining the NRA? That's the very least you should do.
(1) The NRA is too "extreme" in their defense of the right to keep and bear arms (rtkba). Or they're not extreme enough.
The NRA does not exist or act in a political vacuum. Whether you like it or not, sometimes compromise is the only way to get a share of what you might want-or, alternatively, by standing inflexibly to your principle (even a good one), means you get nothing. Has the NRA always been right in the various positions they've taken over the years? Of course not. No organization (or individual) is perfect and no organization can ever hope to address the needs of every member. But,imo, one thing is absolutely certain: you would not be able to own a gun in America today, Second Amendment or no, if it wasn't for the NRA.
(2) The NRA sends me too much junk mail.
Toss it in the trashcan like you do every other uninvited piece of mail-but never seem to complain about.
(3) The NRA is always asking me for money.
Well, duh, how do you think the war to preserve the right of gun ownership is being waged? It's no different than any other cause. Revenue is needed to engage and prevail in the battle. The NRA will always need more money. That's just how it is. And, by the way, just because you became a life member or even a member in a higher tier of the organization, does not relieve you from an obligation to continue contributing money from time to time along the way. Sorry, like I said, that's just how it is.
If every gun owner were a member of the NRA, this fight to preserve the Second Amendment would be a whole lot easier. And, for those posters who voiced disdain for the NRA, I'll say this: many of us are getting pretty darned tired of carrying the water for some of you. Joining the NRA? That's the very least you should do.
Zundfolge
Member
Well considering the purpose of the Second Amendment is not sport shooting and hunting but is instead to leave the tools of revolution in the hands of the people I fail to see where you and your buddies are helping even your own cause.
Keep in mind that in US vs. Miller, the reason the ban on Miller's sawed off shotgun was upheld was because it had no "military use" ... using that logic, outlawing hunting and sport shooting along with your hunting and target guns is MORE constitutional than banning my "evil" black rifles.
But don't worry, I and the other "paranoid radicals" in the NRA will be here defending your right to kill helpless forests creatures and poke holes in paper whether you approve or not.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Mine is a target weapon; I shoot USPSA matches with it. If I ever take up hunting, it will probably become a hunting weapon. It's basically an autoloading .30-30 that uses detachable magazines.
Would you consider a Ruger Mini Thirty to be a legitimate hunting weapon?
http://www.ruger.com/products/miniThirty/models.html
Out of curiosity, I wonder how you feel about the most popular civilian target rifle in the United States?
Camp Perry style (iron sights only)
F-class benchrest (300-1200 yards, IIRC)
IPSC competition
Hunting (that one's a .308 Winchester)
Do you think those should be banned, too? Or excluded from shooting ranges?
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
I find it telling that WCW hasn't seen fit to respond to this thread since his last post.
wlewisiii
Member
Banned? No. Laughed at for being ugly black rifles? He*l yes.
William
William
gordy
Member
How did we go from the nra memberships to deer rifles?
My club does not require you to be a member of the nra. I don't think that should be a issue. I am on the board so I could change that if I wanted to.
How many of the nra members here are members of the aarp?
They are giving MUCH money to anti gun things.
I just started getting all the crap from the aarp and did some research and was dumdfoundid as to how much money they give to things that I don't like.
Yes you can say that the nra gives and takes on the gun issue. You can say that no one wins then. But when I told them (nra) that I was layed off, they just told me to rejoin when I could afford it. That is cool I think.
But anyway if you are a member of the nra and aarp you are supporting both side. and that is not good.
My club does not require you to be a member of the nra. I don't think that should be a issue. I am on the board so I could change that if I wanted to.
How many of the nra members here are members of the aarp?
They are giving MUCH money to anti gun things.
I just started getting all the crap from the aarp and did some research and was dumdfoundid as to how much money they give to things that I don't like.
Yes you can say that the nra gives and takes on the gun issue. You can say that no one wins then. But when I told them (nra) that I was layed off, they just told me to rejoin when I could afford it. That is cool I think.
But anyway if you are a member of the nra and aarp you are supporting both side. and that is not good.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked