I must admit I have not read every post in this thread but it is obvious to me that the OPs name is partially correct "mole". If truth be known he is antigun and 2A. opponent. Just trying to stir the pot. If not for the NRA the 2A would be GONE. I think gun ownership to the Mole is the same as our friends, Pelosi, Feingold, Bloomberg, etc. Who would protect our gun rights if not for the NRA.There is power in numbers and without our membership dollars and financial support the NRA would be powerless. Sure the NRA does things that seem off base at the time but usually at some point their stance is proven to be the correct one. Bloomy has even attempted to pull stings in VA, thank goodness Bob McDonald and the NRA sent him back to his gun controlled, "crime free" NYC, and now the BILLIONIER is going to take on the NRA. I would like to know if Mole man is uncomfortable with these tactics? When someone cannot answer a simple question, then I must question their integrity. He has repeated not rising to the bait several times, I have a feeling he does not support BASS either.
Pro-gun ownership but not pro-NRA?
- Thread starter cluttonfred
- Start date
- Status
TexasBill
Member
I said I didn't agree with everything the AARP does. I do like the discounts, though, and agree with them on other issue. Fond as I am of firearms, they aren't the only issue in my life.
The Democratic Party isn't totally for gun control for the simple reason not all Democrats are for gun control. You can thank a bunch of pro-gun Democrats in the House of Representatives for telling Nancy Pelosi that the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban was a dead issue. And you won't find a single Democrat co-sponsoring Bobby Rush's HR45, the Blair Holt Bill.
Roughly 30 percent of Democrats own guns. Since more Democrats are found in larger cities, like Chicago and New York, where there are strict gun control laws and support for them, the proportion of gun-owning Democrats nationwide is lower than it is for Republicans.
If you would love to see a liberal who likes guns, come on down. Texas has lots of liberals and Democrats who own and enjoy guns (I will admit there are a not whole lot of California-style far-left liberals in Texas). Me, I'd like to find a conservative who realizes that not all Republicans and not all conservatives are pro-gun. T'ain't so!
Understand that I am not only pro-gun, I also support the unlicensed open-carry movement in Texas (and everywhere else). I do draw the line at high explosives and tactical nukes, but I would love to own a full-auto firearm and think the ban on being able to buy new ones should be lifted. I also think silencers should be unrestricted as they are in some other countries that have stricter gun laws.
When I vote, I have checked the candidates for their views on various issues and vote pro-gun when I can, regardless of party affiliation. Sometimes I can't have both, as in the case of Barack Obama, but I always try to vote for the person I consider to be best for the job. In the last election, that included some conservative Republicans who did have Democratic opponents.
In the end, it is important for all gun owners to work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights. If you cast someone out because their other politics don't align with yours or because of what Rush Limbaugh said, you aren't doing any of us any favors. In fact, you're helping the other side divide and conquer. If you look around, you would be amazed at the splinter groups who are pro-gun but feel funny about the NRA. There's even a national group of gay gun-owners. Imagine the impact if all of these groups could ally on the one issue they have in common. Better yet, imagine the impact in Washington when legislators are confronted with the fact that gun owners represent a broad spectrum of society. Heck, even the media might notice!
In my opinion, the National Rifle Association is the best organization to rally around. That's why I am a member and plan to continue to be a member.
Hardshell, sure does. You're basically saying to pick a "winner" by voting with my $. Put it in terms of campaign contributions. Who should I have sent money to if I wanted to make sure the $ went to the person who would win the election? (the winner being analogous to the organization "with any meaningful influence in DC") Same thing. I'm voting with my $ and not sending it to the NRA.
lobo9er
Member
I really don't see a reason to be anti NRA
HardShell
Member
Not at all, but nice try (I guess).
I didn't say "pick a winner" at all -- if anything, my implication was that giving to any of the other national (I specifically exclude local groups, as they have a different scope/purpose and some are quite good at what they do) RKBA organizations instead of the NRA is counterproductive to the cause. (Specifically because none of the others have the clout to accomplish anything at that level.)
If you want an election analogy that actually fits with my prior posts instead of a strawman argument, try this: Giving to another nat'l RKBA group instead of the NRA could be compared to voting 3rd-party in that same Presidential race you reference above -- it's your right, it might make you feel good, but it doesn't help the cause one bit. (Because a 3rd-party candidate hasn't a chance in a Presidential election at this moment in history, and hasn't for some time... only time will tell if that opportunity ever presents itself again for a 3rd-partier to be anything more than a spoiler in that race.
)mgregg85
Member
The NRA isn't perfect but its the best we've got, and I believe it is still the most powerful lobbying group. I know they've gone way beyond their original purpose but that doesn't bother me, we need a strong national organization to promote shooting sports and rabidly defend all gun rights.
The NRA might seem extreme but in my experience they only seem that way to folks who think the second amendment was made to protect their right to shoot a deer once a year and don't give a damn about any other use for guns.
The NRA might seem extreme but in my experience they only seem that way to folks who think the second amendment was made to protect their right to shoot a deer once a year and don't give a damn about any other use for guns.
hillmillenia
Member
I too am the NRA. A yearly member since 1980 something...I just renewed and opted for my AR to be in email format. I'm doing what I can to save them money. Now if only they would STOP mailing me all the calls for donations! I give when I can. I see the mailings as a waste of money...sorta playing to the choir. I give subscriptions as gifts to friends, work, etc.
All of that aside, they fill an important niche and we would be in sorry shape without them.
All of that aside, they fill an important niche and we would be in sorry shape without them.NRA - no longer
I grew up as a member of the NRA and for along time supported their efforts. But then the Neal Knox crowd started. They were more interested in turning the NRA into an arm of political conservatism than in the things the NRA was originally founded for. And when they started getting elected to NRA offices, I turned in my membership.
In my opinion, the NRA has gone off the deep end of politics & I will not be joining them.
I grew up as a member of the NRA and for along time supported their efforts. But then the Neal Knox crowd started. They were more interested in turning the NRA into an arm of political conservatism than in the things the NRA was originally founded for. And when they started getting elected to NRA offices, I turned in my membership.
In my opinion, the NRA has gone off the deep end of politics & I will not be joining them.
Unfortunate you feel that way. We need all the help we can get. You may not agree with everything NRA does, but without NRA you would not have the rights you have now. You should reconsider, and rejoin us during this especially tough time.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
tramp116 said:
Can you be very specific about this? We could all use the history lesson, I'm sure. There have been lots of people who spoke in generalities, but perhaps you could actually advance the debate by presenting a few instances of what they said or did that caused you to feel so alienated?
I know he (Neal Knox) was instrumental in the passage of the '86 FOPA, but, as we've covered here, that did a lot of good things. And one bad thing. I can't imagine he was in favor of the Hughs Amendment. If you feel he compromised too much, please explain in greater detaill.
Also, Knox was voted out of the line to become NRA President in favor of Charlton Heston, in 1997, and he passed away in 2005. Do you feel that his "crowd" still controls things? How does the late Mr. Knox's work affect your decision to be a member of the NRA today, almost 5 years after he died?
This is part of NRA history I don't know on a very detailed level. Please lay out the facts for us. It would really help the discussion to progress.
Thanks!
-Sam
Last edited:
Noted in Tramp116's profile:
Do it now. I'm as serious as a heart attack...
Tramp116; please explain exactly where the 2nd amendment refers to "hunting".
Do it now. I'm as serious as a heart attack...
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, I hadn't researched Tramp's stated values, nor his ... unusual ... views on self-defense. At the risk of being intemperate, perhaps Samuel Adams' eloquent quote is in order:
-Sam
-Sam
Deanimator
Member
Not going to happen. AHSA doesn't do explanations.
AStone
Member
I'm not currently a member of the NRA.
My reason? Too much junk mail.
The straw that broke the camel's back for me was some DVD that they sent me telling me that I had a trial period after which they'd bill me for it. I sent it back immediately, telling them that I didn't order it and wasn't interested in it. I got a bill anyway. I sent them another letter telling them I wouldn't pay the bill because I'd returned the DVD, and to cancel my subscription.
Any organization that aggressive with their products will not keep my support, regardless of what they do.
I'll take my chances with Mr. Obama's alleged intentions of taking my guns away.
My reason? Too much junk mail.
The straw that broke the camel's back for me was some DVD that they sent me telling me that I had a trial period after which they'd bill me for it. I sent it back immediately, telling them that I didn't order it and wasn't interested in it. I got a bill anyway. I sent them another letter telling them I wouldn't pay the bill because I'd returned the DVD, and to cancel my subscription.
Any organization that aggressive with their products will not keep my support, regardless of what they do.
I'll take my chances with Mr. Obama's alleged intentions of taking my guns away.
Owlnmole, you remind me of my younger brother. I didn't want to become a member of an organization he belonged to, but was already a member of the NRA. HE decided he didn't like the NRA, but was a gunowner and enjoyed shooting. One day we were listening to the radio about how the private entities runing the different parks wanted more money and control of the parks. I told him the parks system shouldn't have allowed private entities run the parks. They were not doing a good job and we should write a letter to the parks dept about it. Out of the blue, and somewhat sarcasticaly, he ask me why the NRA wasn't doing something about it. I just shook my head at his ignorance.
Okay, I'll try an be a little more clear on my views on defense. A gun, or any weapon, isn't necessary for defense. The greatest weapon any man can possess is his mind. Having a calm mind in a stressful, & threatening situation & the will to do what is needed is more powerful than any gun. This is the whole concept behind martial arts. The correct amount of force applied in the correct manner will achieve the desired result. Most martial arms teach how to successfully take an armed attacker when the defender is unarmed. Do you know what a finger jammed in the Adam's Apple will do?
A gun's real value is similar to nuclear weapons. Deterrence. It's a big stick you can shake at the threatening animal. If you use it, there will probably be unintended consequences. Like firing a .357 at an intruder, missing & the bullet going through a couple of walls to hit an innocent. This has happened several times around the D/FW area recently. Although the shooter was not always the defender.
Also, if you depend on a gun for self defense, it becomes a crutch. And other methods of defense are forgotten. So that one time that you don't have your gun and you find you could use it . . .
An attacker is also going to be less threatened by an unarmed defender. A trained defender can use this to his/her advantage. Use the appropriate force to stop the attack. Just because a man has a gun to your head does not mean you have to blow his brains out or even kill him.
As for my stance in the NRA, I refer to just about every Knox Report published from 1981 until Neal Knox was elected NRA President and a lot of the questions that were raised regarding certain peculiarities about his election. There has also been considerable scholarship done on his group's connections to other Neo-Con groups. He may be dead but his legacy lives on both within the NRA & without. Charleton Heston brought no political machinery with him when he was elected. So he was "guided" but members of Knox's clique. The whole NRA lobbying organization is so tied into to other political conservative groups and by Wall Street & other corporate heads who are the actual controllers of the U.S. Government & Knox's groups that the whole mess has become inseparable.
And I do not know where everyone gets this idea that Obama is a gun grabber. He's black & a Democrat. Are all Blacks or Democrats gun grabbers? He is a political realist & knows anything he could do would be a token effort. Like the assault gun ban, which actually banned a very limited number of weapons from being imported. It neither kept anyone from owning an assault gun nor from buying one. Though it did give a solid boost to the selling price.
And no, Larry, I do not consider the 2nd Amendment to be cast in stone. There's that little bit about "a well regulated militia...". It does not give an individual an absolute right to own any firearm he or she desires. By that logic, I have the right to buy, own & shoot a 155mm field gun. Or a fully armed Sherman tank. Or a B-52 with M-62 nukes. The amendment clearly states that regulation is necessary. The only question is where is the regulation applied. Total ban & total freedom to arm are both really bad ideas. So where do we draw the lines? Where I draw the line & where you do are obviously quite different. It is ultimately the duty & the responsibility of the Supreme Court to determine where the lines are. They have yet to pass definitive judgment. (you know lawyers.)
And the 2nd Amendment says "arms" not "Firearms"
I do not live in fear of my own government (although the Bush Administration did give me pause to re-examine) anymore than I live in fear of my fellow man. I like to think I am a reasonable man who tries to see all sides of an argument. I do believe that if our government turned to being a danger to it's citizens, it will come from the right, not the left. And the troopers will not be wearing red. Rather black or brown, with armbands. And while the NRA will not be a part of this. Their "fellow travelers" will. Many of whom are NRA members.
Most politicians know there are simply too many guns amongst the citizenry. It would be impossible to confiscate even a small percentage. Heck! For all their law & rules, they can't even keep guns out of the hands of real criminals.
No, I am not "pro-gun". Nor am I "anti-gun" Like marriage, they are here and they are dangerous. But neither requires a license. unless one feels such an overwhelming fear of his fellow man that he must CCW. I am not one of those. If, someday, I choose to surrender my guns, they are my property, to dispose of as I wish. But that does not mean that I will tell anyone that you have guns or where they are.
A gun's real value is similar to nuclear weapons. Deterrence. It's a big stick you can shake at the threatening animal. If you use it, there will probably be unintended consequences. Like firing a .357 at an intruder, missing & the bullet going through a couple of walls to hit an innocent. This has happened several times around the D/FW area recently. Although the shooter was not always the defender.
Also, if you depend on a gun for self defense, it becomes a crutch. And other methods of defense are forgotten. So that one time that you don't have your gun and you find you could use it . . .
An attacker is also going to be less threatened by an unarmed defender. A trained defender can use this to his/her advantage. Use the appropriate force to stop the attack. Just because a man has a gun to your head does not mean you have to blow his brains out or even kill him.
As for my stance in the NRA, I refer to just about every Knox Report published from 1981 until Neal Knox was elected NRA President and a lot of the questions that were raised regarding certain peculiarities about his election. There has also been considerable scholarship done on his group's connections to other Neo-Con groups. He may be dead but his legacy lives on both within the NRA & without. Charleton Heston brought no political machinery with him when he was elected. So he was "guided" but members of Knox's clique. The whole NRA lobbying organization is so tied into to other political conservative groups and by Wall Street & other corporate heads who are the actual controllers of the U.S. Government & Knox's groups that the whole mess has become inseparable.
And I do not know where everyone gets this idea that Obama is a gun grabber. He's black & a Democrat. Are all Blacks or Democrats gun grabbers? He is a political realist & knows anything he could do would be a token effort. Like the assault gun ban, which actually banned a very limited number of weapons from being imported. It neither kept anyone from owning an assault gun nor from buying one. Though it did give a solid boost to the selling price.
And no, Larry, I do not consider the 2nd Amendment to be cast in stone. There's that little bit about "a well regulated militia...". It does not give an individual an absolute right to own any firearm he or she desires. By that logic, I have the right to buy, own & shoot a 155mm field gun. Or a fully armed Sherman tank. Or a B-52 with M-62 nukes. The amendment clearly states that regulation is necessary. The only question is where is the regulation applied. Total ban & total freedom to arm are both really bad ideas. So where do we draw the lines? Where I draw the line & where you do are obviously quite different. It is ultimately the duty & the responsibility of the Supreme Court to determine where the lines are. They have yet to pass definitive judgment. (you know lawyers.)
And the 2nd Amendment says "arms" not "Firearms"
I do not live in fear of my own government (although the Bush Administration did give me pause to re-examine) anymore than I live in fear of my fellow man. I like to think I am a reasonable man who tries to see all sides of an argument. I do believe that if our government turned to being a danger to it's citizens, it will come from the right, not the left. And the troopers will not be wearing red. Rather black or brown, with armbands. And while the NRA will not be a part of this. Their "fellow travelers" will. Many of whom are NRA members.
Most politicians know there are simply too many guns amongst the citizenry. It would be impossible to confiscate even a small percentage. Heck! For all their law & rules, they can't even keep guns out of the hands of real criminals.
No, I am not "pro-gun". Nor am I "anti-gun" Like marriage, they are here and they are dangerous. But neither requires a license. unless one feels such an overwhelming fear of his fellow man that he must CCW. I am not one of those. If, someday, I choose to surrender my guns, they are my property, to dispose of as I wish. But that does not mean that I will tell anyone that you have guns or where they are.
AKElroy
Member
Tell that to George Hennard. Tell that to Suzanna Hupp. Google it. This statement is ignorant in the extreme. As many have posted, your version of proper gun ownership relegates a 110 lb woman to a fistfight with a 230 lb rapist, or a restaurant full of blue hairs into a food fight with two Glocks & a crazy man.
Before you walk down the road of stating Hennard should not have been allowed to have those guns, HE WASN'T. He could not legally own or posses them. The law could not save these 23 innocents; an armed citizen could have. I was born in Killeen. I remember the panic of calling every reletaive and friend to ensure they were OK.
As for Obama not being a gun grabber, good lord. Are you obtuse? Have you taken any thought toward looking at his record in Chicago? Have you looked at the records and ideology of those he has surrounded himself with? His chief of staff holds gun contol as a core mission, as do many senior staffers.
As for the NRA being a wing of the republican party, last I checked nearly a third of those endorsed by the NRA in the last election are Democrats. It is frankly part of MY problem with them.
Lastly, this forum has a basic tennent; that it's members support the RKBA. If you do not, then you failed to read the rules, my friend. This might not be the most comfortable home for you.
Last edited:
AKElroy
Member
Google "Australia". Ridiculous. I would prefer to vote for those not interested in the attempt. Gun Control has little to do with guns. It has everything to do with exerting political will over an opponent. Many on the left have fervent discust for the politics and lifestyles of gunowners. Pursuing gun control legislation is simply about gaining political ground. So to your point, if that is the goal, then where exactly should a gun owner supporting organization like the NRA side? If you feel that they are against "your" ploitical ideology, then maybe YOU need to examine where you are standing.
Indeed, as my firearm instructors have taught me, the mind is the weapon; the gun is a tool. But it can also be the right tool for certain jobs. And just as all the will in the world will not fix that flat tier if you lack the proper tools, there are violent encounters you won't survive without a gun (and some skill in its use).tramp116 said:
And are you really that good? If so, how many of your friends and family are? The supposition that unarmed self defense can always be sufficient is ludicrous.tramp116 said:
Oh really? What about a woman who is about to be raped? Or an elderly person who is about to be assaulted? Or a person who is disabled? How about an ordinary person who simply wants to exercise his or her Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms? Oh, they don't "need" a gun for defense, correct? Just like ordinary citizens don't "need" semi-automatic guns for hunting, right? Beware of those who assert that the exercise of a Constitutional Right is unnecessary; they will do everything possible to prevent the exercise of that right by claiming that it it is always unnecessary.
Such an argument was expressly rejected by the Court in Heller. Heller holds that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that includes firearms, specifically handguns, which is protected by the Second Amendment. But don't bother to pay attention to the majority of the United States Supreme Court.
No, ya don't say?!? Drivel.
AStone
Member
Yosemite Sam
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2008
- Messages
- 311
Look at tramp116's join date: October 23, 2009. Probably here to get a rise out of us.
I read his big post on this page. I feel refreshed and encouraged that the truth is on our side. At least I can confidently say that I can debate the pro-2A side without resorting to deception.
I'm joining my state NRA affiliate right now. I'm also tempted to join GOA and SAF.
I read his big post on this page. I feel refreshed and encouraged that the truth is on our side. At least I can confidently say that I can debate the pro-2A side without resorting to deception.
I'm joining my state NRA affiliate right now. I'm also tempted to join GOA and SAF.
HardShell
Member
Another common criticism that has no basis in fact (and I'm not singling you out, I see this all the time).
In the history of the NRA's direct-mail fundraising efforts, there has been only one single mailing that failed to yield a signifcant profit over the cost of the mailing itself... and that one was held up at the PO due to the Antrax scares.
If it generates revenue every time they do it, how is it a "waste?" I'd sure like all of my investments to be a "waste" like that.
And I won't beat the dead horse that is the simple process of having yourself put on the do not solicit list -- already covered here multiple times...
TEDDY
Member
NRA
we have the NRA begging for dollars and george soros giving millions to the antis.who sued New Orleans,seattle ,chicago,and others only SAF and the NRA.no others.the op is a troll.nothing but.I have been in the NRA since 1939
all the trolls do is read the rants from people who hate every thing.as far as I am concerend if you are not with me your against me and mine. we dont need you,as you are a drag on the rest of us.you are like kerry giving aid to the enemy.
we have the NRA begging for dollars and george soros giving millions to the antis.who sued New Orleans,seattle ,chicago,and others only SAF and the NRA.no others.the op is a troll.nothing but.I have been in the NRA since 1939
all the trolls do is read the rants from people who hate every thing.as far as I am concerend if you are not with me your against me and mine. we dont need you,as you are a drag on the rest of us.you are like kerry giving aid to the enemy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
