NineseveN
member
Okay, here we go again. In an effort to limit how often I have to post in a thread that I can assume will get out of hand fast, I’m going to try and just throw it all out there at once.
First, please understand this:
Look folks, if the NRA is actively campaigning for the issues you want them to, then you should send them your support. On the same token, let's not vilify those that choose not to support the NRA because they feel the NRA is not actively campaigning or effective in the areas or on the issues that are most important to them.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and while they do fight for a number of things that are positive for gun owners, they don't necessarily fight for the things that are most important to some firearms owners. There is absolutely no reason to part with your hard-earned cash if money is tight or could be better spent elsewhere (such as on local grass roots organizations that do support your interests).
There are a lot of firearms owners that don’t support the NRA for one reason or another, but when this conversation comes up, NRA members always attempt to vilify those that choose to support other groups instead of the NRA (read any of the last 4-5 threads on the NRA yes or no question for proof), and that’s just not cool. There are a lot of reasons to support the NRA, there are just as many not to, it all depends on the individual and what is important to them. Let’s let people be people and try not to insult others over who belongs or does not belong to what group. If we all cannot abide by this, then this thread will be locked fast and what good does that do us?
My opinion on the NRA:
As of late, the only admirable thing they have done that I can recall off-hand is bowing out of Ohio over the AWB. I give them a great deal of credit for that, and if it signals a move ahead in this direction from here on out, they can have my money so long as they keep moving that way.
I don’t think the NRA should go away, nor would I wish them to; I think they are an excellent advocacy group for shooting sports, hunting, firearms safety and training. There are many people that are in need of such a group, the NRA does a fine job, but that's where the fineness ends. They do help with the RKBA as well in some areas, and in some areas they hurt.
Now, understand that my baseline for judging anything related to the 2A is the position that:
Now, consider this, when was the last time the ACLU compromised on freedom of speech or civil rights?
Somehow, I don't see that coming from the ACLU or ANY advocate for freedom of speech. But replace the speech talk with firearms, and that's some of what our dues to the NRA have gotten us.
In considering the NRA on a local and state level, your mileage may vary. Some local NRA state groups are excellent from what I understand, some mediocre and some downright poor. So you might not have the exact same experiences I have had with the NRA because you may see a lot of action locally and the little action federally and be happy with that.
Now, as for the common misconception that the Anti’s are afraid of the NRA, they're not really; it's simple, plain old political hype. Make the biggest monster out of your enemy as you can and trumpet your own victories as HUGE battles being won, no matter how small or even fictitious they may be. Same thing the NRA does to a point, except the NRA doesn't fabricate statistics like the anti’s.
Look at it this way, the Anti’s lie or misrepresent the truth in everything they say when it comes to firearms, but then all of the sudden we’re supposed to believe that they’re giving an accurate assessment of their opponents, publicly? Sorry folks, not true. The NRA may be the 800lb gorilla, but it’s caged in a zoo, and the opposition knows that. The NRA makes compromises and political moves, and they can be counted on to do that. They wholly support “reasonable gun control” (unlike some of the other RKBA groups such as the JPFO or the GOA) and because of this stance, which I find in contradiction to the Second Amendment and the NRA’s marketing, the anti’s and politicians can count on them to play ball when it comes to gun control. They have a history of doing this.
The NRA is a political player and a lobbyist for politicians and agendas and gun makers first, THEN an advocate for our rights afterwards. They fully and publicly endorse candidates that want to ban semi-automatic firearms, want more restrictions on CCW and more regulations on what firearms and in what calibers the unwashed masses may own. They give some of these folks "A" ratings (ILA) and urge gun owners to support them, the anti-gun rights people. The NRA does want some form of conflict and threat of gun rights being stripped away just as much as they want some amount of gun control because without those things gun owners would have no use for them anymore in the arena of political lobbying (where the real money and power is).
It gets frustrating being on the other side, wanting to believe in the NRA, but seeing the reality of it all.
They posted “No CCW” signs in their convention in Philadelphia back in 1998, hardly a “pro-gun” thing to do.
They nailed us in Pennsylvania with Act 17 in 1997, specifically in section 302 – which was primarily authored by the NRA folks and HCI which gave law enforcement officers the power to decide that an individual needs to be forced into a mental health hospital for up to 120 hours and then gave them the right to permanently seize all firearms and gun rights from the person afterwards, with no due process whatsoever.
Some of that you would not understand if you were not from Pennsylvania and were not there to see those tow things with your own eyes and hear it from the figure-mouths of the NRA right then and there.
Linkie = http://www.acslpa.org/n-liang.htm
Also, see this:
And despite popular Internet fantasy and NRA marketing myth, the NRA was not solely or even largely responsible for the AWB sunset. It expired because the Democrats lost their controlling majority based largely on that VERY ban, and when the Republicans came into power, they knew that it was a loser issue for them if they didn't steer it towards expiration. The sunset was the collective work or more than one RKBA group and the political climate/conditions that existed at the time. The NRA played their part in it, as well as they played their part in the sunset clause being included initially anyway; though that NEVER would have had the support if the fence sitters could not have been wooed in with the talk of “temporary” and “study” so if not for the sunset clause, the AWB might not have ever seen the light of day anyway.
This year, the ATF announced on July 13th that they are going to reinterpret a 38-year old piece of regulation, which amounts to banning the importation of barrels and receivers (such as barrels for FAL rifles) and the NRA made little to no comment about it. When I called and asked about this (in August mind you, more than a month after the announcement), all 6 people I talked to at the NRA had no idea what I was talking about. When some folks from another forum got them information on the letter and sent e-mails/letters, the NRA said they don't agree with it. But we were all still waiting to see them do something about it. I suspected that if they were in the pockets of gun manufacturers as I had figured they were, they would do nothing. Banning imports is good for domestic manufacturers in the long run. Well, the NRA did nothing. No more imported barrels for these rifles and the directive includes the words “barrels, frames and receivers” which because the ATF went through with this unchecked, they can reinterpret any time they like until something is done about it. This ban went through on December 31st, last year.
And then S.397. While I agree that the criticisms and fears about this might be a little paranoid, people said the same thing about the "Sporting purposes" language of old, and look what it got us? Everything banned or regulated in some way, at the discretion of the ATF. So I don’t count this one against the NRA necessarily, but it is useful food for thought nonetheless.
With the New Orleans gun grabs, it took the NRA three days to even say anything, 3 days after the GOA and JPFO made public statements (the GOA/JPFO issued statements on the 9th in the AM, the NRA issued theirs on the 12th).
They have no hard line on the Second Amendment and the NFA (sporting and even semi-auto rifles do not fully encompass the idea behind the Second Amendment). This is understandable given their position and the image they are trying to put forward as the reasonable lobbyist group, but it simply is not what many of us are looking for in a RKBA advocate group.
The NRA has influence, no doubt, and they are very good in many areas, just not in the areas that happen to be most important to both myself and large number of others. I support other groups that are more in line with my values.
I was a long time NRA member before I let my dues lapse about a year ago. I wrote, I called, I asked in-person and I never got the answers I was looking for. Funding them in hoping that they will change is simply not a viable solution for me. If they serve you well, more power to you. Fund away. When they shift their focus in some areas, then I will once again support them.
Otherwise, it's like staying with your wife because she's a good woman, except she doesn't exactly share your values and never seems to be there when you need her most. I'm not that kind of gun owner.
So to answer the “NRA: Yes or No” question, it is entirely up to the individual. If you agree with their actions, intent, results and philosophies, you should not hesitate to join. If you do not, you should find a similar group to support. If you are serious about your rights as a gun owner, supporting at least one organization (GOA, JPFO, NRA etc...) is a big part of what you should be doing, but it is only part. Write your elected officials and representatives. I do this regularly, even when I am not foaming at the mouth over a hot issue. It does help. I am on a regular contact basis with at least one of the major officials in my area, and on semi-regular contact with the others. This helps out more than you can imagine as well.
As always, YMMV. I meant no offense or insult to any NRA or non-NRA member by criticizing the organization, I just call things as I see them, same as you do.
First, please understand this:
Look folks, if the NRA is actively campaigning for the issues you want them to, then you should send them your support. On the same token, let's not vilify those that choose not to support the NRA because they feel the NRA is not actively campaigning or effective in the areas or on the issues that are most important to them.
The NRA leaves a lot to be desired, and while they do fight for a number of things that are positive for gun owners, they don't necessarily fight for the things that are most important to some firearms owners. There is absolutely no reason to part with your hard-earned cash if money is tight or could be better spent elsewhere (such as on local grass roots organizations that do support your interests).
There are a lot of firearms owners that don’t support the NRA for one reason or another, but when this conversation comes up, NRA members always attempt to vilify those that choose to support other groups instead of the NRA (read any of the last 4-5 threads on the NRA yes or no question for proof), and that’s just not cool. There are a lot of reasons to support the NRA, there are just as many not to, it all depends on the individual and what is important to them. Let’s let people be people and try not to insult others over who belongs or does not belong to what group. If we all cannot abide by this, then this thread will be locked fast and what good does that do us?
My opinion on the NRA:
As of late, the only admirable thing they have done that I can recall off-hand is bowing out of Ohio over the AWB. I give them a great deal of credit for that, and if it signals a move ahead in this direction from here on out, they can have my money so long as they keep moving that way.
I don’t think the NRA should go away, nor would I wish them to; I think they are an excellent advocacy group for shooting sports, hunting, firearms safety and training. There are many people that are in need of such a group, the NRA does a fine job, but that's where the fineness ends. They do help with the RKBA as well in some areas, and in some areas they hurt.
Now, understand that my baseline for judging anything related to the 2A is the position that:
The NRA supports “reasonable gun control”, so thusly, I give them a failing grade in truly supporting the Second Amendment. This is my opinion and thus this is my call to make.
Now, consider this, when was the last time the ACLU compromised on freedom of speech or civil rights?
Somehow, I don't see that coming from the ACLU or ANY advocate for freedom of speech. But replace the speech talk with firearms, and that's some of what our dues to the NRA have gotten us.
In considering the NRA on a local and state level, your mileage may vary. Some local NRA state groups are excellent from what I understand, some mediocre and some downright poor. So you might not have the exact same experiences I have had with the NRA because you may see a lot of action locally and the little action federally and be happy with that.
Now, as for the common misconception that the Anti’s are afraid of the NRA, they're not really; it's simple, plain old political hype. Make the biggest monster out of your enemy as you can and trumpet your own victories as HUGE battles being won, no matter how small or even fictitious they may be. Same thing the NRA does to a point, except the NRA doesn't fabricate statistics like the anti’s.
Look at it this way, the Anti’s lie or misrepresent the truth in everything they say when it comes to firearms, but then all of the sudden we’re supposed to believe that they’re giving an accurate assessment of their opponents, publicly? Sorry folks, not true. The NRA may be the 800lb gorilla, but it’s caged in a zoo, and the opposition knows that. The NRA makes compromises and political moves, and they can be counted on to do that. They wholly support “reasonable gun control” (unlike some of the other RKBA groups such as the JPFO or the GOA) and because of this stance, which I find in contradiction to the Second Amendment and the NRA’s marketing, the anti’s and politicians can count on them to play ball when it comes to gun control. They have a history of doing this.
The NRA is a political player and a lobbyist for politicians and agendas and gun makers first, THEN an advocate for our rights afterwards. They fully and publicly endorse candidates that want to ban semi-automatic firearms, want more restrictions on CCW and more regulations on what firearms and in what calibers the unwashed masses may own. They give some of these folks "A" ratings (ILA) and urge gun owners to support them, the anti-gun rights people. The NRA does want some form of conflict and threat of gun rights being stripped away just as much as they want some amount of gun control because without those things gun owners would have no use for them anymore in the arena of political lobbying (where the real money and power is).
It gets frustrating being on the other side, wanting to believe in the NRA, but seeing the reality of it all.
They posted “No CCW” signs in their convention in Philadelphia back in 1998, hardly a “pro-gun” thing to do.
They nailed us in Pennsylvania with Act 17 in 1997, specifically in section 302 – which was primarily authored by the NRA folks and HCI which gave law enforcement officers the power to decide that an individual needs to be forced into a mental health hospital for up to 120 hours and then gave them the right to permanently seize all firearms and gun rights from the person afterwards, with no due process whatsoever.
Some of that you would not understand if you were not from Pennsylvania and were not there to see those tow things with your own eyes and hear it from the figure-mouths of the NRA right then and there.
Linkie = http://www.acslpa.org/n-liang.htm
Also, see this:
Linkie = http://freestateproject.org/news/media_archive/0036.php
And despite popular Internet fantasy and NRA marketing myth, the NRA was not solely or even largely responsible for the AWB sunset. It expired because the Democrats lost their controlling majority based largely on that VERY ban, and when the Republicans came into power, they knew that it was a loser issue for them if they didn't steer it towards expiration. The sunset was the collective work or more than one RKBA group and the political climate/conditions that existed at the time. The NRA played their part in it, as well as they played their part in the sunset clause being included initially anyway; though that NEVER would have had the support if the fence sitters could not have been wooed in with the talk of “temporary” and “study” so if not for the sunset clause, the AWB might not have ever seen the light of day anyway.
This year, the ATF announced on July 13th that they are going to reinterpret a 38-year old piece of regulation, which amounts to banning the importation of barrels and receivers (such as barrels for FAL rifles) and the NRA made little to no comment about it. When I called and asked about this (in August mind you, more than a month after the announcement), all 6 people I talked to at the NRA had no idea what I was talking about. When some folks from another forum got them information on the letter and sent e-mails/letters, the NRA said they don't agree with it. But we were all still waiting to see them do something about it. I suspected that if they were in the pockets of gun manufacturers as I had figured they were, they would do nothing. Banning imports is good for domestic manufacturers in the long run. Well, the NRA did nothing. No more imported barrels for these rifles and the directive includes the words “barrels, frames and receivers” which because the ATF went through with this unchecked, they can reinterpret any time they like until something is done about it. This ban went through on December 31st, last year.
And then S.397. While I agree that the criticisms and fears about this might be a little paranoid, people said the same thing about the "Sporting purposes" language of old, and look what it got us? Everything banned or regulated in some way, at the discretion of the ATF. So I don’t count this one against the NRA necessarily, but it is useful food for thought nonetheless.
With the New Orleans gun grabs, it took the NRA three days to even say anything, 3 days after the GOA and JPFO made public statements (the GOA/JPFO issued statements on the 9th in the AM, the NRA issued theirs on the 12th).
They have no hard line on the Second Amendment and the NFA (sporting and even semi-auto rifles do not fully encompass the idea behind the Second Amendment). This is understandable given their position and the image they are trying to put forward as the reasonable lobbyist group, but it simply is not what many of us are looking for in a RKBA advocate group.
The NRA has influence, no doubt, and they are very good in many areas, just not in the areas that happen to be most important to both myself and large number of others. I support other groups that are more in line with my values.
I was a long time NRA member before I let my dues lapse about a year ago. I wrote, I called, I asked in-person and I never got the answers I was looking for. Funding them in hoping that they will change is simply not a viable solution for me. If they serve you well, more power to you. Fund away. When they shift their focus in some areas, then I will once again support them.
Otherwise, it's like staying with your wife because she's a good woman, except she doesn't exactly share your values and never seems to be there when you need her most. I'm not that kind of gun owner.
So to answer the “NRA: Yes or No” question, it is entirely up to the individual. If you agree with their actions, intent, results and philosophies, you should not hesitate to join. If you do not, you should find a similar group to support. If you are serious about your rights as a gun owner, supporting at least one organization (GOA, JPFO, NRA etc...) is a big part of what you should be doing, but it is only part. Write your elected officials and representatives. I do this regularly, even when I am not foaming at the mouth over a hot issue. It does help. I am on a regular contact basis with at least one of the major officials in my area, and on semi-regular contact with the others. This helps out more than you can imagine as well.
As always, YMMV. I meant no offense or insult to any NRA or non-NRA member by criticizing the organization, I just call things as I see them, same as you do.
Last edited:
IMO it isn't you should join up and help the cause.
