So we agree the NRA stinks?

[LiquidTension]

They don't get my money...

...but I'm glad they're there. I was forced to join one of the larger pro-liberty groups (NRA, GOA, JPFO) so I could become a member of the local rifle club. I do not like much of what the NRA does, but without them we'd have been SOL a looooooong time ago. I agree with GOA much more than NRA, so GOA gets my money. The NRA will not get any of my money if I can help it, but I do not mind other people contributing to them. As much as I disagree with lots of their policies and such, they do fill a necessary role - kinda like some other 3 letter organizations (FBI, etc. - but NOT DEA, who only exist to justify their existence). So I guess the answer to the question that started the thread is...yes and no

- LT

 

[444]

"For days after 9/11, gun sales were off the scale.
They should have put flyers in every gun store, and retail outlets that sell firearms, and offered free firearms training. "

So days after 9/11 where were YOU ?
As the bumper sticker says, I am the NRA. The NRA isn't just some building in a suberb of DC, it is people at the local level. You think when a local firearms training class takes place, that some guy from NRA headquarters jumps on a plane at Dulles and comes to Arizona ? Not usually. No, the people teaching a class like that would be the guys you see at the range when you are shooting. They are the guys you see at the gun store when you are shopping. It is the guys you see in the mountains when you are out hunting. I would like to say it is guys just like you, but as you already said, it certainly isn't you. The guys teaching those courses are guys that don't whine, but instead spend their own time and thier own money to become NRA certified instructors.

 

[PDshooter]

Life member since 1991
If 25% of all gun owner were members of the NRA!! There would never be a "New Gun law"

 

[Silver Bullet]

The NRA isn't just some building in a suberb of DC, it is people at the local level.

Exactly right, and this is the most important point in all of this discussion. I read recently that certain unAmerican multi-millionaires have donated millions and millions of dollars to various unAmerican anti-firearms groups, perhaps exceeding the NRA's funds (I don't know about the total amount), but the anti-firearms groups still are much less effective than the NRA because of the NRA's grassroots strength: thousands or hundreds of thousands of NRA members who give their own time to get the vote out, recruit new shooters, provide gun safety classes, etc., or otherwise helping our cause with their non-monetary contributions in addition to paying annual dues. The anti-gun groups, with all their money, don't have enough money to hire enough stooges to do their dirty work, and they don't have enough members to get the work done for free.

This makes me very proud, because it means the NRA is one of the very few lobby organizations (although they're much more than that) that actually represents the American people. They're not a group of ex-politicians taking money from the Chinese to gain concessions for foreign countries; they're not one of the greenie groups who, while having thousands of well-intentioned members, actually have a small group of twerps running the show who have an unAmerican agenda; they're not a major organization of our nation's teachers who, while having thousands of well-intentioned members, actually is controlled by a small group of socialists who hand-pick all the organization's candidates for office.

Just as "I am the NRA", the NRA is the USA.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"They get all the lawyers off the payroll, and I will join..."

So, just a blanket "lawyers are bad" statement?

Care to ELABORATE why you believe lawyers are bad when they work for NRA?

Here's a nasty fact for you.

The majority of the members of Congress are attorneys. They have attorneys on their staffs.

Why?

Because attorneys are trained in the legal process, which is largely the legislative process.

In order to fight that process effectively, you NEED attorneys. People who understand how to effectively lobby Congressmen and women using points of law.

NRA also has staff attorneys who work for the Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund.

In some cases NRA has provided legal representation to people who have unjustly been caught up in the system, or who are being railroaded.

NRA attorneys also file Curia Amica (sp?), or Friend of the Court briefs, in support of legal actions being taken on behalf of, or in defense of, gun owners.

In order to do that, and do that effectively, you need to be an attorney who understands the law, understands precedent, and who can craft an argument that uses both.

Another nasty fact about NRA attorneys...

If it wasn't for the support of NRA attorneys supporting state congressmen friendly to gun owners, states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania would not have "shall issue" CCW laws on the books. We'd still be at the mercy of anti-gun sheriffs, police chiefs, etc., who believe that no one should carry a concealed weapon, at least unless you're a crony or supporter of the sheriff.

I'm not certain where this apparently pathological hatred of attorneys comes from, but hopefully you'll get some understanding for how wrong it is.

Whom would you rather have supporting and advocating for your firearms rights? An attorney, or a fat white redneck with no basis in legal knowledge such as myself?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I've been an N.R.A. member since 1976. I plan to remain one until I die. No, it's not perfect, but that's why I'm also a G.O.A. and C.S.S.A. member.

 

[andy]

Swingset, you make it sound like an "either or" type situation. If someone is not completely satisfied with the NRA what is to stop them from also being active in another organization? I'm sometimes dissapointed with the NRA but I don't plan on quitting. In spite of all of their faults they do have some clout and that is what we need. I am checking out some other gun rights orgs and will probably join one of them in addition to the NRA. Lets fight the antis not each other.

 

[swingset]

I don't mean it's an either or system.

No one got the point of my post (no surprise, no one ever gets me).

I'm tired of hearing about how annoyed people are with the NRA, yet still support them with their wallets. Then, when people point to a group like the GOA and ridicule it as ineffective, I'm just left to wonder what would happen if the people who were dissatisfied with the NRA would put their support in the group that better represents their interest. With financial muscle, maybe the GOA would be a better watchdog for our rights. Maybe not but we'll never know because we're afraid to support anyone but the 300lb gorilla. That's all I was getting at.

Personally, I think the NRA is misguided on many levels, but I do appreciate that they're out there at least making an effort. But, my personal politics collide with some of the NRA's concessions (I'm not a hunter or sportsman, thank you), I despise their money-grubbing solicitations and I also think they play into the anti's hands, becoming a bad characture of themselves.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I'm tired of hearing about how annoyed people are with the NRA, yet still support them with their wallets. Then, when people point to a group like the GOA and ridicule it as ineffective, I'm just left to wonder what would happen if the people who were dissatisfied with the NRA would put their support in the group that better represents their interest.

Well, most likely scenario - you would have two RKBA groups that were smaller and less effective and both would be more compromising than before since the hardcore of GOA would be diluted by the new NRA members who weren't quite as hardcore and the NRA would be abandoned to those who wanted to compromise.

To put this another way, to vote in NRA elections, you need to support the NRA with your wallet - fair enough right?

Now if you don't have the votes to change the policy of an organization with 4 million members (a lot of whom can't vote), then exactly how do you propose to protect the RKBA in a society of 280 million?

If you want to support GOA instead of NRA, good on ya - at least you are doing SOMETHING and are in the top 10% of gunowners just for that. But let's not have any illusions that GOA can only get stronger by seeing NRA diminish or vice versa.

 

[Bottom Gun]

I've been an NRA member since 1968.

Do I agree with everything they do? Heck no.

Am I going to turn my back on them because I don't totally agree with all their actions? Heck no!

There are, however, two things which irritate me:

One is the cheapskate gun owner who decides he doesn't like something the NRA is doing so he jumps on that excuse to save the cost of a membership and takes a frre ride at the expense of other gun owners.

The second is the NRA member who whines and snivels about NRA policies, actions, or inactions but doesn't bother to vote for a new board of directors in the NRA elections.

Where would we be without the NRA? Probably not in a very good situation.
Is the NRA effective? Ask Bill Klinton or AlGore.

 

[F4GIB]

Want change, go vote!

Only 7-10% of voting members actually vote (it's suspected that a hugh percentage of "life" members are, in fact, deceased).

70% of those who do vote, cast their ballots for the Board endorsed candidates, i.e. "the winning team".

Since the Seattle meeting at which Heston beat Neal Knox by 2 votes for the Presidency, no one can get nominated who doesn't pass a 100% loyalty to LaPierre test.

The members could change this by voting against every incumbent Director (even such "names" as Jeff Cooper, Steve Hornaday, the actors and musicians who never show up, the politicians who are in LaPierre's pocket, and the competative shooters who don't care about "dirty" politics) until things change. You could change it by finding members who don't vote and getting them to vote. Help them fill in their ballots.

NRA needs members who pay attention to it's activities, vote intelligently, and stay the course. Deserting the ship, however satisfying, doesn't help.

 

[PATH]

I support the NRA and I will continue to support them. I will be working on the local dinner and I am involved heavily in the local politics.

Why does NRA keep sending me those requests for money? They work and that is how the NRA raises a great deal of its funds. The MMM and Brady camps send out fund raising material bad mouthing the NRA.

You need to understand the politics of our enemy. They want to chip away bit by bit at our rights. We need to protect them. We need lawyers and politically savvy people to do that.

Ladies and Gentlemen, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "We shall all hang together or we most assuredly will hang seperately."

Do I agree with everything the NRA does.? NO! But I sure as hell don't agree with the Brady crowd and the MMM mealy mouths! I will not bad mouth any 2nd Amendment supporters. The enemy of my enemy is my friend!

I'll be damned if I am going to side with Brady, the MMM mealy mouths, and the evil Schumerites, in bad mouthing the NRA.

You may hate them, but remember, so do the above mentioned gun grabbers.

Please don't give aid and comfort to our enemies!

 

[2nd Amendment]

Quit bad mouthing the militia by attaching MMM to it! ICK!

 

[PATH]

I apologize for besmirching the word "militia". Mea culpas all around!

I will edit the offending post!

 

[suvdrvr]

I wouldn't belong to an organization that would have me as a member! Actually , I've been a member for many years, the NRA makes the liberals go ballistic. What other organization is there that the hollywood left and the main stream media attack at every oportunity. They must be doing something right!

 

[swingset]

The members could change this by voting against every incumbent Director (even such "names" as Jeff Cooper, Steve Hornaday, the actors and musicians who never show up, the politicians who are in LaPierre's pocket, and the competative shooters who don't care about "dirty" politics) until things change. You could change it by finding members who don't vote and getting them to vote. Help them fill in their ballots. [/QUOTE

Jeesh, this perfectly illustrates how messed up the NRA's power structure is. It's, dare I say, a bit too political. (I think you're right, by the way and I did vote when I was a member).

I dunno guys, I'm just a simple guy. I just want to put my money into a cause and people who put their personal agendas aside for a greater good. I don't like lining LaPierre or any other "Name's" pocket.

Guess that's old fashioned.

 

[Jmurman]

I am not switching

I am however joining other groups, and keeping my membership in NRA.

I dont agree with all of their decisions, but they are whats out there.

 

[JerryN]

Don't speak for me

I don't agree with everything the United States of America does, but I sure as hell ain't giving up my membership!

When I want to change something in the US of A, I go vote. Or I write a letter or make a phone call. Thats how these things work.

I belong to the NRA and will continue to do so regardless of anti-NRA whining. I also belong to the GOA and the Second Amendment Foundation. All of us should belong to every pro-gun group we can afford to belong to.

 

[Crimper-D]

If Yer gonna Whine, at least make it an Informed Whine!

Turn Google Browser to: "Good Morning Gun Lobby!" = read article, form your own opinions - Whine or not. - Your Choice

I sure as hell ain't supporting Neil Knox anymore by subscribing to Shotgun News.

 

[JerryN]

Google?

Google... google.. Yeah, I've heard of them. They are that anti-gun internet company that I NEVER use because of their anti-second amdendment stance.

Huh. Funny seeing their name on a pro-gun site like this.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Google... google.. Yeah, I've heard of them. They are that anti-gun internet company that I NEVER use because of their anti-second amdendment stance.

Google doesn't accept paid advertisements for guns. Some might argue as to whether that makes them anti-second amendment. If you are going to boycott Google based on its ad policies, I hope you will be consistent and apply your policy towards local newspapers, magazines, radio and TV that have similar policies.

 

[JerryN]

If you are going to boycott Google based on its ad
policies, I hope you will be consistent and apply your policy towards local newspapers,
magazines, radio and TV that have similar policies.

As a matter of fact, I do indeed make a concerted effort to be very consistant in this approach. Its just smart business to support pro-gun organizations and punish anti-gun organizations from a financial standpoint.